Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
1. We don’t know how the developers use the feedback they get from AI based on what AI learns.
2. We also don’t know how the developers select which material AI can access.
3. AI is designed to mimic the neural net in human brains to look for “logical patterns” in data.
- The neural net in a human brain is much more efficient than that in an AI. Our brain uses a few watts of power, whereas an AI uses billions of times more power. While AI systems will improve with time, they will not be able to match the design power of nature (kammic energy).
4. Our brains (and the neural system there) help us make decisions. But just like the AI, our neural systems (i.e., the brains) are as good as we train them. While the brain does not generate thoughts, it helps the mind (located in hadaya vatthu in the manomaya kaya or gandhabba) to make decisions.
- Let us take a mundane example. Consider two people: One spends the day watching useless movies, and the other spends time learning things and building new skills. It should be clear to anyone “which brain will win” at the end.
- In the same way, a given AI is as good as the information it gets.
- This is why AI will NEVER achieve human intelligence. It may pass standard tests like the SAT (college entrance exam) or even bar exams for lawyers; it has already done so). But that mainly involves “remembering” and making “logical decisions based on what is learned.”
- However, AI cannot generate paradigm-changing ideas like Newton or Einstein, let alone the Buddha. That is what “human intelligence” really is!
1 user thanked author for this post.
Thank you for posting that revealing conversation with Meta AI!
- It shows that AIs are at least getting information from websites like this and are not sticking with a narrow focus.
- For example, most English websites restrict the meaning of “anicca” to a single English word of “impermanence.” Even though impermanence is a part of anicca nature, anicca has a broader and deeper meaning. The AI seems to have grasped that.
- The output of an AI program is based on the information it is exposed to. One good outcome is that the AI can filter out the noise and get to deductions based on logic. But if it is not exposed to “correct information,” it cannot make such paradigm-changing deductions on its own. That is the difference between an AI and a human.
- For example, once a Sotapanna discovers the “previously unheard teachings of a Buddha,” he or she can make progress on their own. But an AI cannot do that. If someone explains how to make further progress, the AI can summarize that updated information again, and so on. It solely depends on the information it has access to.
- The danger is that those programming the AI can put guardrails or stop providing some information, restricting what AI can access.
1 user thanked author for this post.
“To be honest, we can’t really control what other people do. So we should stop worrying about them and focus on ourselves.”
- That is true. There are two aspects to it, though.
1. One cannot fully help others until one frees oneself first. For example, if a group of people are trapped in a deep hole, one must first get out. Then, he can help others.
2. However, those who are like-minded and have the same goal can help each other. In the above example, others can lift someone and make him advance to help him get out.
- Soon after attaining Buddhahood, the Buddha started seeking those who helped him in his efforts (in his past lives). See “Animisa Locana Bodhi Poojawa – A Prelude to Acts of Gratitude.”
2 users thanked author for this post.
Yes. For example, an Anagami likes to see bhikkhus and other disciples and discuss things with them, but does not want to watch adult movies or discuss tasty foods.
- Anariya yogis who still have kama raga anusaya/samyojana will still not generate sensual thoughts while trying to get into the jhana or while in the jhana.
2 users thanked author for this post.
“So a person, having attained the Rupa jhana, would he have cravings to see beautiful sights and to hear melodious sounds?”
- Can such a person have kama sankappa or “sensual thoughts” (while in the jhana or when trying to get into the jhana)?
If you don’t agree with the traditional view of kammapatha, why do you need to ask questions about it?
- I assume you agree with the interpretation of Waharaka Thero.
- So, why worry about the “traditional view”?
1 user thanked author for this post.
The following that you quoted from the post is incorrect:
“For example, feelings (vēdana) khandha can be any of the 11 categories. Here, near and far means recent or way back in the past. Internal is one’s own and external is feelings of the others.”
- I need to correct that. I will do that and post it here.
Sorry about the confusion. Even though I fixed another issue on that post recently, I probably missed this one. Thank you for pointing it out.
- This issue became clear to me only in 2023. So, there could be other (old) posts with similar errors related to ajjhatta and bahidda rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, and vinnana.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Of course. There have been many incompatibilities (and some remain) between Buddha Dhamma and science.
- However, Buddha Dhamma has been proven correct with time: “Dhamma and Science – Introduction.“
- As science makes progress, more incompatibilities will be removed.
- One critical remaining incompatibility is scientists’ wrong view that thoughts arise in the brain. But that is gradually changing. See, for example, “Dr. Brian Weiss on the Patient Who Made Him Believe in Past Lives” and “NDE, Jesus and Hell” (especially the YouTube video there.)
2 users thanked author for this post.
I missed the following question from Jittananto yesterday:
“In the suttas, we see Lord Buddha and other venerable arahants talking about their abilities in various fields. Why would this not be considered pride in this case?”
- The Buddha (and Arahants) always tried to inspire others by pointing out the possibilities (what could be achieved if one puts in the effort).
- That is not pride; it was done with compassion.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Buddha Dhamma is based on a very different paradigm and cannot be assessed using “mundane theories.”
- That MUST be kept in mind all the time.
- If one tries to explain concepts in Buddha Dhamma using scientific or philosophical theories, one will NEVER be able to comprehend Buddha Dhamma.
- However, that does not mean one cannot use “common sense.”
1 user thanked author for this post.
Yes. Good essay!
- Also, see the comment I just posted in the thread “Jhāna Cultivation.”
2 users thanked author for this post.
1. To attain jhāna, one must transcend the kāma loka.
- We are trapped in kāma loka because we crave “close contact” (taste, smell, and body touch). However, we also use the other two sense faculties to fulfill such desires. For example, watching adult movies or talking about tasty food is done with kāma rāga.
- To attain a jhāna, one must overcome such desires.
2. That can be done in two ways:
(i) One must see (with wisdom) that the consequence of having such desires is to be trapped in kāma loka. Also, based on such temptations, we may do immoral deeds and be reborn in an apāya.
(ii) Kama rāga arises based on kāma saññā. To eliminate kāma rāga, one must overcome kāma saññā. If kāma saññā is inherent, we cannot overcome it. But kāma saññā is “mind-made” and can be overcome. See “Saṅgīti Sutta (DN 33.)“: “Paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa kāmasaññā niruddhā hoti.” OR “For someone who has attained the first absorption, sensual perceptions have ceased.”
- That is why I call it a “distorted saññā.”
2 users thanked author for this post.
Taryal asked: “Why didn’t they make it easier to understand though?”
- To explain things in one’s own words, one must understand the underlying concepts well.
- Instead, most current translators resort to translating Pali words to English (probably using dictionaries written by “scholars” who did not understand Buddha Dhamma.)
The Commentaries in the Tipitaka are helpful if one has such a good understanding.
- There are English translations of the Tipitaka Commentaries. However, they are still not useful because the translator does not know the true meaning of a Pali word, per the context.
- For example, in some instances, “phassa” does not mean simple “contact” but “samphassa,” which means “defiled contact.” Yet, the translator does not know that. See, for example, “6. Analysis of Dependent Origination,” an English translation of the Commentary on Paticca Samuppada in Vibhanga Pakarana, a Tipitaka Commentary.
Such verses are probably from several suttas delivered to bhikkhus, especially when cultivating Satipatthana after the Sotapanna stage.
See, for example, “Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta (DN 22)“:
“Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu araññagato vā rukkhamūlagato vā suññāgāragato vā nisīdati pallaṅkaṁ ābhujitvā ujuṁ kāyaṁ paṇidhāya parimukhaṁ satiṁ upaṭṭhapetvā.”
- The translation in the link is not very good. But it conveys the point you pointed out.
It is not necessary to go to the wilderness to meditate. However, if someone has the time (like bhikkhus do), that is better since there are fewer distractions.
1 user thanked author for this post.
All discourses mentioned above are from those who learned from Waharaka Thero.
- However, there can be some differences in understanding.
2 users thanked author for this post.
