u/SickoSeaBoy

"One should not try to prove what is not already almost obvious" - Grothendieck

Does anyone know where this quote originated? I tried finding a source for it but usually its just straight up attributed to Grothendieck with no source.

Wanted to see the context because I find it kind of funny how Grothedieck is known for proving theorems which are significant and very non-trivial, so I was wondering if there was something more nuanced to this quote.

My understanding of algebraic geometry is less than bare minimum, but as I understand it he made new tools like étale cohomology and sheafs to solve famous problems/conjectures of his time.

The fact that he had to come up with these tools means they were incredibly non-obvious, unless by this quote he means that one should not tackle a problem directly but instead develop a familiarity with aspects of the problem to see it in multiple different lights (even inventing new "tools" if necessary) before tackling the problem head on.

P.S. I tried to post this to r/math but apparent not enough community karma :/ Any tips to reach the needed amount? Most posts are questions so most comments will be answers. I'm not really in a position to answer an r/math question. Also I posted on r/math and I've never been downvoted, so I'm not really sure what to do?

I used that term because I'm not actually sure what the term is in English (in Thai it's "ทำบุญ"), but I can give a few examples just to clarify what I mean.

When a person dies some people will (out of tradition) ordain for some period of time (mostly two weeks) for the deceased person. Some people will also ordain as such at least once after they become an adult (i.e. will no longer be a samanera if they ordain) for sake of their parents.

Even Ajahn has mentioned once that (during pindapati?) when a layperson gives food to a person of right view, there is good merit for the giver and receiver.

Now we have the traditional interpretation of "good luck" and whatnot but obviously that's not what is meant by this. Here's my understanding of it, maybe someone, even Bhikkhu Anigha, could verify my understanding here.

There was a conversation between Venerable Thaniyo and Ajahn Nyanamoli where they mentioned that when one meets a person of right view it is like coming into contact with a divine messenger because you would not be able to ignore the difference in demeanor in someone who is an arahant, an anagami, or even a layperson of right view.

(Sidenote: someone might view this statement as conceited since it was mentioned in the context of Venerable Thaniyo meeting and consoling laypeople, but this fact is ultimately true regardless of whether that person of right view was himself or someone else, so it isn't necessary to be conceited to make such a statement.

Also, Venerable Thaniyo was the first to make mention of it, so it is more likely that he isn't speaking about others meeting himself, but actually of him meeting Ajahn, though I'm not sure how they met so this is just speculation.)

How come one is not able to ignore this? Suppose you were to meet someone who speaks your language but in a different dialect. You would notice the difference in their speech, even if they were saying the same thing as you. So too if you meet someone of the right view, even if they have the same physical faculties as you and are under the same circumstances as you, it would be hard not to notice the difference between your own attachment and their indifference, even if subtle.

Maybe it is the case that the noble one is met with minor or even major disrespect, but seeing that such a person is practically unmoved (even if they are able to recognise that it is offensive, not just in the social sense but personally), you'd find it hard not to notice.

Or maybe it's enduring physical effort and external conditions where the noble one is clearly also experiencing the same "hardship" (also sweating, also exhausted, i.e. speaking the same language) yet seems not to be personally affected (is able to take it without ill-will towards his physical situation, i.e. speaks a different dialect to one who cannot have non-ill-will towards such circumstances)

Thus, to "do good merit" for your parents isn't so much for the sake of their richness and health, although it is a possible side effect. Having dwelled in a (supposedly, assuming the monastry isn't riddled with corruption or anything) better environment than the dusty and crowed household life, his mind becomes elevated (basically he grows up) and his parents, upon meeting him, will perceive this (or rather, as a double negative, they are unable to ignore it). The drastic change then essentially forces them to reflect on their own shortcomings (parts of themselves which they have not grown out of) and thus also elevates the mind of his parents. If on account of that elevation of mind, the parents gain the clarity to earn more money, remain healthier, or gain for themselves a better circumstance, then that is "good merit" in some sense, but one will not succeed if it is made a primary goal. It is also completely tangential: the true merit comes in the development of the mind, however subtle.

In the same way, to "do good merit" for a deceased person isn't so much for the sake of their good rebirth, although it is a possible side effect. Having dwelled in a better environment than the crowded and dusty household life, his mind becomes elevated (above the grief and lamentation over his companion's death) and his friends who are still living, upon meeting him, will perceive this, or rather are unable to ignore it. This drastic change then essentially forces them to reflect on their own shortcomings (their own grief and lamentation over things which are impermanent, unownable, and cannot conceivably be otherwise) and thus also elevates the minds of his living peers. If, on account of that, the deceased person (or rather spirit) witnesses all this while between death and rebirth, has his mind elevated as he reflects on his grief and lamentation over his own death, and on account of this finds a better rebirth, then even that is "good merit" in some sense, but one cannot conceivably make this their primary goal (as opposed to the first case where you can sort of imagine it, this case relies on faith in the Buddha). It is also completely tangential: true merit comes from the development of the mind, however subtle.

Personally I've always liked how Techno's storytelling and sense of humor always had personality to it, as in it felt like he was an overall interesting guy to be aroun. Maybe I'm reaching here, but I was wondering if it could be related to the stuff he liked to read and watched...? I've seen a few comments mentioning Princess Bride, Percy Jackson, and Ready Player One, but I was wondering about other subjects.

For instance, which parts of history was Techno interested in (if at all)? As far as I understand it, although I might be wrong, he was also interested in Chinese history (it's not just him quoting Sun Tzu lol, I feel like him mentioning the emperor who circled around a pillar during a fight was quite niche). Not to mention how every video more or less has a joke about social inequality, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was well-read there lol.

And how much was he interested in the maths and sciences (iirc he took all APs, so I'm assuming that includes Calc BC and Physics C, though I'm guessing he found it boring since he'd been doing 12th grade math since 3rd grade lol)? I know you do software programming at Silicon Valley, so did your interests in computer science ever rub off on him?

(Forgot to mention, late happy birthday Techno, hope I grow up to become like you someday)