Nothing in the universe to everything in the universe III

Burmakin: Your majesty, Can you do Burmese a favor? Injustice is prevailing in Burma. The military is foisting on us this unfair constitution.

King of Angels: Why you say this constitution is unfair?

Burmakin: So obvious. They are trying to legitimize the military people as a class of the specially privileged.

King of Angels: I don’t think this is a problem. The whole world is replete with such kinds of people who have such kind of either official or non-official special privileges. Since lies have started to appear in the world, the moral order of the world is always retrogressive. In the very beginning, the universal laws could punish would-be-Devadatt because this was the first time violation against the moral authority. But that was long time ago. A great nostalgia for your human beings!

Burmakin: Yes. The earth snapped open and devoured the King who lied by substantiating the elder one as the younger brother and the younger one as the elder brother. Today, the evil military also pronounces a skyful of lies. Why the universal laws couldn’t punish the evils as before?

King of Angels: My son, when people frequently do the wrong things, this becomes a custom and then it gets to be entrenched in the culture and at last even transforms into the order of the universe. Initially lies are regarded as abnormal behavior. Discrimination is regarded as despicable. Getting special privileges is dishonorable. But remember this is the age of decline. As time ebbs, more and more immoral things are depleted from an abnormal domain (set). They come to be listed in the normal domain (set) of human. And we divine either.

Burmakin: Your majesty, if you don’t mind I like to object your statement. For me, there is not such a normal set for arraying good acts. There is also no abnormal set counterpart for hoarding the evil behaviors either.

King of Angels: Aha. Quite interesting! For me, Buddhism is thought to be a system of dialectics because it says there is an opposite thing for every phenomenon. Just before my death, Buddha saved me from my throne by preaching Sakha Sutta. I still remember this Sutta. Buddha told me to keep my mind in equilibrium not to be diverted to the magnetic poles of dialectics of happiness and sadness. Now you sound like presenting a new theory. In natural thinking, a person is alive, if not, he is dead. A thing is tall, if not, it is short. The military rulers in Burma are unfair, if not, they are good people. It should be one or another. Now you are saying that a person is NEITHER not dead NOR not alive. A thing is BOTH short AND tall. For me, my preference is a system to clearly differentiate the good and evil. There should be exclusive sets to record all normal people to be kept apart from all abnormal people. Some Buddhists believe that I have a book made of the dog-skin to record the evils and a book made of gold to record the good-hearted acts.Only when domains of separate attributes are clear cut from each other, I could be easier to manage for assigning whom to be punished and whom to be rewarded.

Burmakin: All religions of the world tend to say that there is a heaven to hold all the good people. They also tend to say there is also a hell to hold all the bad people.You also tend to get two separate domains of the evils and the saints for your justice management of the stick and carrot system.Probably not in reality, your majesty. After seeing my theorem, you come to fathom that a person is neither dead nor alive. A person will also be either dead or living as this theorem will verify.You can’t believe it? Neither your dog-skin book nor the golden book can hold the sets for recording the good (normal) and the bad (abnormal) people.Because there is no universal set qualifying for those names of mutually exclusive qualities.The fundamental thinking in believing the world system to be a nature of dialectics will be derided to the ground zero by atomic bombing of this theorem.

King of Angels: I know there are many mysterious things in this world. I could believe if you can convince me this statement with any good reasoning.

Burmakin: I will prove this statement with Mathematics. You know, in many ways, Mathematics is a virtually perfect presentation of the universe.

King of Angels: When science principles get more and more credit in your human world, the humanity principles of Buddhism probably need to be in synergy with principles of Mathematics of physical sciences.This could probably be the evolution of your human Buddhism in the future.OK! Let’s see your logic. I will appreciate it.

Burmakin: I argue that no set can be a normal set OR an abnormal set at the same time. After seeing my proof of this theorem, the answer will be first produced to affirm that a set is either a normal set or an abnormal set. Then it comes to the conclusion that a set is neither a normal set nor an abnormal set. And both positions will be self-contradictory conclusions. Then it comes to my historical continuation of “Nothing in the Universe to Everything in the Universe ” that is also a self-contradictory argument.

Alertness: People who read the following derivation of the theorem should use utmost of their brain to understand its logic. You could probably face depression and nausea even if you are an inborn mathematical genius. I recommend that you should read again and again if you don’t understand the theorem immediately.

Proving that there is no set qualifying for the set of all normal sets or all abnormal sets.

Let's set A be the set of all special privileged classes in Burma.
Military people are specially privileged people in Burma.
Therefore Set A contains military people of Burma.
However there can be other specially privileged people like the thug justice, Aung Toe.
Then Set A is not equal to the set of all military people.
Military people are just a subset of Set A.
The set of all specially privileged people in Burma is not equal to its member, the set of military people.	Let's define this kind of set that is not equal to its member as a normal set
Then Set A, the set of all special privileged people is a normal set.
Let R be the set of all sets that are not the members themselves.	By our above defined criteria , R is the set of all normal sets.	The reader can also assume R as the universal set that includes all injustice people in the world. Injustice prevailing in this world is a normal happening. Isn't it?
My question is if R is a normal set or not?
If R is a normal set, it should not be its member itself.	If R is not its member itself, then R is not a normal set.	Because R contains all the normal sets
Then R is an abnormal set	If R is an abnormal set, R should be its member itself	Then R is a normal set

The answer is R is either a normal set or an abnormal set (OR)

R is neither a normal set nor an abnormal set.

So the desire of the King of Angels to have the exclusive ALL INCLUSIVE lists of the evil people and the good-hearted people is impossible. Because the list that contains all evils is not a list of evils. It is also not the list of the saints either. At the same time, it is also a list of evils and a list of saints. This is impossible for our human reasoning, too.However the theorem that applies this great endowment of our human reasoning verifies it. Nothing is everything and nothing is nothing (OR) Nothing is not everything and nothing is not nothing!

To be cont....

The Choice of Burmese IV: Fundamentalism to Global Citizenship

One side of the Ocean is so far from the other side, so is the sky and soil, so is the good Dhamma of Saints and the wicked Dhamma of devils.

As for Myanmar, the international organizations such as World Bank, IMF, ADB (Asia Development Bank) had suspended assistance since 1988 and Official Development Assistance (ODA) is almost none. Nevertheless, Myanmar has been endeavoring to achieve the MDG (Millennium Development Goals) through our national plan frame using her own resources, and the MDG indicators have been looking good.

--A big mouthpiece of Burma junta

We hold the truth that the strength of our land relies exclusively on our domestic resources. We will not accept any imposition from the external world on our national cultural and identity values that we Burmese have established for thousands of years.

-- From cliques and dins of Burmese Government

***********************************

Fundamentalism ordinarily requires a text -- a scripture -- as the exclusive source and norm of its authority. In this, fundamentalism differs from religions that focus on a person or a cultic practice. Although not all Theravada Buddhists are fundamentalists, the role of the Pali Canon in that tradition makes the sect more prone to fundamentalism than, for example, Mahayana or Zen Buddhism.

...Islam is more given to fundamentalism than other religions with Semitic roots. The Islamic doctrine of scripture -- that the very words of the Koran are ‘‘Un-created," literal dictations of the eternal thoughts of God and not subject to modification by translation or interpretation -- presses this tradition toward literalism. One might also mention that Mao Tse-tung’s "Little Red Book" played a similar role in the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Many in these traditions hold that the scriptures do not point to the ultimate truth, but are themselves the ultimate truth.

….Theravada Buddhism today tends to support a leftist government in Burma, a militant conservatism in Sri Lanka, and a traditionalist regime in Thailand. In fact, the categories of "left" and "right" simply may not help much in identifying the probable directions of fundamentalism. Rather, fundamentalism tends to oppose pluralism, preferring authoritarian social structures, whether of the right or the left.

Max L. Stack House in Fundamentalism around the world, The Christian Century, August 28-September 4, 1985, pp. 769-771

***************************************

Humanity has reached the point of no return. Acceptance of the community of interest has become a human survival on this planet. It can no longer be dismissed as an idealistic concept, unrelated to realities. The traditional sovereign state is no longer a viable unit of a nation’s security or economic prosperity, nor a guarantee of national survival. More and more men of science and scholarship, as well as business leaders and public administrators, have come to grasp this underlying fact of interdependence today.

A new quality of planetary imagination is demanded from all of us as the price of human survival. I am not descrying that form of nationalism that prompts the individual citizen to appreciate and praise the achievements and values that his native land has contributed to the well-being and happiness of the whole human race. Nor am I calling for international homogenization, for I rejoice in cultural and national uniqueness. But I am making a plea- a plea based on these ten years of looking at the human condition from my unique vantage point-for a dual allegiance. This implies an open acceptance of belonging- as in fact we all do- to the human race as well as to our local community or nation. I even believe that the mark of a truly educated and imaginative person facing the twenty-first century is that he feels himself to be a planetary citizen.

Perhaps my own Buddhist upbringing has helped me more than anything else to realize and to express my speeches and writings of this concept of world citizenship.

--U Thant, Third Secretary General of United Nations in View from UN