Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you for the clarification, Lal! That’s wonderful!
You mentioned another interesting point that I would like to explore in more detail. You wrote:
Another aspect is to engage in “puñña kamma” or “moral deeds,” like giving.
Most people are probably familiar with this situation: Paying taxes to the government. When I change my mindset from “I think it’s unfair to pay so much tax” to “May my tax money help the people in this country and improve their lives” does this count as “puñña kamma”? I mean of course paying taxes is something I’m obligated to do anyway so I don’t know if it qualifies as “giving”. But can my mental attitude make a difference?
1 user thanked author for this post.
Thank you all for your quick responses, I really appreciate it! I just found his explanation of Anicca a bit odd, but otherwise think the discourses are very insightful. Perhaps his approach in this case is simply too advanced for me or I have misunderstood something. In any case, I will continue to listen to his discourses in order to get a better overall impression.
@Jorg, I am looking forward to the sermons and will listen to them in full when I get the chance.
Hello everyone,
I would also like to add something to this discussion. First of all, I would like to thank you, Lal, for bringing this Dhamma Talks by Jethavanarama Buddhist Monastery to our attention. I have watched the first 6 talks of the playlist “Buddha’s Guide to Happiness” on YouTube.
This monk speaks excellent English and has an interesting style of lecturing. He encourages the audience not to follow the Dhamma blindly but to put it to the test based on their own experience. He is undoubtedly very intelligent and I am sure he has gained deeper insights.
Anyway, his Dhamma Talks made me curious, so I visited their website. Among the many Dhamma Sermons there, one in particular caught my attention, it is entitled: “Is anicca impermanence?”.
As you might have guessed from the title, they question the conventional translation of anicca as impermanence or transience. Instead, in this lecture he interprets anicca as “manifestations”. This means that absolute truths come together to form a conventional truth. He gives the example of the word “On”, which is made up of the letters O and N. The word “On” has a conventional meaning, but consists of the letters O and N, which are, so to speak, absolute truths and know nothing of each other.
I’m really unsure what to make of it. He clearly states that he rejects the conventional interpretation of anicca as transience, but he doesn’t interpret it as the inability to keep what you like. Here is the link to this lecture, he explains the concept of anicca at 1:05:24
I would be very interested in your assessment of this. Anicca is such a fundamental and important concept, there should be no ambiguity about it.
Thank you all!
1 user thanked author for this post.
Dear Lal,
I took the time to look a little deeper into the matter. Among other things, I installed PrivateGPT on my personal computer and tried it out. Unfortunately, the installation was not as straightforward as I had hoped. I had to resolve various conflicts, install additional software and put in more time and effort than expected. In the end, I managed to get the model running and to train it with some test data and play around with it.
I have to admit that I was not particularly impressed. I had to wait an eternity for the model to give me an answer to a question. This is probably also because my computer’s processor is not very powerful and I simply need more processing power for a faster response. On average, I waited between 5 and 20 minutes for a response, depending on the number of words in my original question. Sometimes I even cancelled the query because it took too long. The quality of the answers was disappointing, they were always choppy and incomplete. Apart from the incompleteness, the fragments were at least alright in terms of content.
I then researched other models and tried to understand their inner workings better. What I have learnt is that it is one thing to try out such a large language model on your private computer, but quite another to make it publicly available, as ChatGPT does. Key factors to consider include:
- resource requirements (memory, processing power)
- security
- cost management
- testing and quality assurance
- maintanance and updates
LLMs are gigantic data files with billions of parameters that need a lot of memory. To process a question in a short time, one needs very powerful computers that consume a corresponding amount of energy. To realize such a project is by no means trivial and requires careful planning in order not to be stuck with the costs in the end.
The good news, however, is that there is a lot happening in the field of LLMs. Improvements are constantly being made and new approaches to more efficient models are being introduced. I am confident that in the coming years the technology will have matured to the point where it will be easier to solve the problems I have mentioned. Then you could train a puredhammaGPT with all your posts and make it available to the world. I will of course keep you updated!
Yes, it’s part of my job to find out about current trends in IT and assess whether they might be interesting for my company. I see great potential in the GPTs, but unfortunately I haven’t had the chance to try them out yet. But from what I have seen, PrivateGPT seems to be a solid choice. The setup is streighforward and a conventional computer should fulfill all system and hardware requirements. So maybe I can try it out in the next few days.
Dear Lal,
there are now technologies based on LLMs that allow you to chat with your own documents. Essentially, these are, pre-trained large language models that can be fine tuned specifically on your own content. For example, you could train your own GPT model with your posts and forum discussions to get answers from the model that are in accordance with puredhamma.net.
Here are some links to relevant technologies:
I think that’s exactly what you’re looking for. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I watched the video and also took note of the references, thank you for adding it back! I am sceptical about the implications that other intellectuals derive from Gödel’s theorems.
Gödel himself was quite cautious about drawing specific philosophical or scientific implications from his incompleteness theorems, and he was reluctant to make any grand claims about their significance beyond the field of mathematical logic. He was primarily interested in the technical aspects of mathematical logic and the precise statements and proofs of his theorems.
I studied applied mathematics and physics and currently work as a software developer.
Thank you for your reply Tobias,
I am glad to hear that your post is still valid and that you have made considerable progress. Your caring for your family is honourable and deserves respect.
I have been doing 45 minutes of formal meditation on the tilakkhana almost every day since the beginning of February and have also done metta meditation a few times. Before I discovered puredhamma, I was essentially doing breath mediation, for which I now feel really foolish.
Hello Tobias,
by now your post is already 5 years old and I am curious whether you have kept up your practice. May I ask you what progress you have made in this time? Do you have a plan on which day you do which form of meditation? Or do you do several forms in the same session? What does a typical day look like for you?
Are we talking about scientific facts/evidence or mentions in the Suttas? For example, ōpapātika (instantaneous) births. Although I personally definitely do not rule it out, I am not aware of any scientific procedure that could ever test ōpapātika. But if the Buddha reports it, I trust him and can accept it.
