There are
infinite numbers of "truths," in terms of individual facts (valid from one point of view or another) ... that are known by
no person on Earth, or even by ANY being in this Galaxy, even all our friends the space aliens traveling from 10 or 12 parsecs. Yeah, yeah, I know, this has little to do with what prompted these questions, but perhaps my point is that we suffer from a
lack of perspective.
Truth isn't defined by
mob rules, or consensus. Nor is it a matter of what just
seems right (although this isn't a bad place to start, in terms of ethics, or morality).
Certainly it isn't that which results after the swift and efficient application of the principle of
Occam's Razor, although some people would have you believe otherwise.
But truth
does start where people can AGREE on terms, on the parameters of discussion, on the rules of logic (mathematical logic, philosophical logic, or even just common-sensical logic, these are
all related - AHA!). It has
everything to do with establishing "ground rules," or a framework, and building from there. (Yes, Truth proceeds from God, as all else,
including us,
with the capacity to KNOW,
and embody Truth ... and that's why what I just said
is true, and makes sense.
)
I am all for the emphasis on LOVE, both as a principle and a first practice. Yes, I would go so far as to agree that in the most general terms, that
is what life is all about -
ours, God's, and even that of everyone & everything in this Universe (Solar System). But unless you've the enlightenment of a Buddha (
or a Christ ... or at least an
Arhat), then your understanding could
always use a bit of expanding, or fine tuning,
whether you know it or not!
In simple, short answer to your first question, Devil's Adv, I'd say this:
first, the senses - these are provided that we may distinguish the not-self from the self, and this is where and how we begin to "know the truth." But that's just the start. Next, come our emotions, with another great duality,
pain and pleasure (gathered from sense experience at first, but this evolves). This develops into happiness/sadness, attraction/repulsion, like/dislike, and so forth. And our sense of
truth deepens.
The mind begins to develop, and this is the great
discriminative faculty, allowing us to analyze, process, systematize, harmonize and ultimately to
integrate our experience from the sensory realm (physical world), then also the emotional realm. As we develop into a personality, we make increasingly refined
decisions about what seems, and seems
not to be -
TRUE - but already, even before we have developed intellectually, there are additional factors that have begun to influence us.
And these are the
standards themselves, or the
`Forms,' as Plato called them, the IDEALS. They are the Divine Images (or
thoughts), the Prototypes of all that is, the lowest point of descent, or
direct contact, of the Divine (`God') with His/Its Creation (us, the world). Those who have begun to build the bridge, whether following in the footsteps of one of the great
`Bridge-Builders' or not, all know this to be true. And whether directly or indirectly, EVERYONE who has ever aspired,
even once, to find, know, embody or to demonstrate lovingly `
the Truth' ...
is such a follower.
So
`the Truth' has actually been acting on us all,
all along! It has shaped the world we live in, it has ensouled and evolved the various kingdoms of nature, and it has drawn Humanity up form the dust (materially), and out of the darkness of unknowing (consciousness-wise), to the point at which we find ourselves - individually, and collectively. Some will call this truth
`God,' but it matters not. Words do not change a thing, even if we fail to recognize a Presence.
"Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit"
If our motive, in what
otherwise might have been a nice, friendly religious discussion, is to prove another person
wrong, then I'm not sure we're going to get very far ... unless that person is ready, willing, and open for the challenge. But then, as you point out, Abogado, won't it come down to a question of
terms? Like science, the challeng
ee will need to admit of a condition, some pre-agreed
state of things, which - IF demonstrated, or
proven, will falsify his or her beliefs. If I say,
this is (my) truth, and it is
UNassailable, and I insist that I am unflenching and resolved about that (my
conviction is thus and such), then aha! NO amount of argument or debate is going to move me. If anything, it will just make me dig my heels in that much more firmly, and in short,
anyone who argues with me is wasting his or her time.
So that is the position in which we find numerous people, plenty of whom come to CR to post ... and I must admit, I suppose I have a handful of
special thoughts in my bag of tricks - that might just fit into this
unassailable category. But the wise person, if only for having stumbled across the Eastern Wisdom,
Taoism, Buddhism, and so on, will at least recognize that his or her beliefs -
are nothing more. Even if true,
they are still BELIEFS. Knowledge itself, is not a bridge. Nor Wisdom, if we reify it into something tangible. Plato's Forms, the
Ideals themselves, are not meant to be strapped to our back and
carried. "Even a donkey can carry a library on its back." Cling to the Buddha, but when you cross the Stream,
LET HIM GO! "If you meet the Buddha on the road, KILL HIM!"
There are Buddhists at CR who will argue with me that the (teaching of) the God of Chrstianity, or the (doctrine of the) Atma/Soul of Hinduism, is not compatible with
what the Buddha taught. And there are Christians who will insist that unless you have faith in Jesus of Nazareth as your Lord and Saviour, you cannot come to the Truth,
since Christ said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Yet neither of these
beliefs is reconcilable with what the respective Founders,
Lord Buddha, and
Lord Christ, actually taught.
AS presented and argued, by most believers, they become nonsense!
Sometimes, it's better to leave Pandora's Box sitting motionless on the bedside table, simply smile, and leave the headaches until another day - or ignore them altogether. But I might point out that there was a
`Parliament of World's Religions' in 1893. There was another one in
1993, and I believe that additional enclaves have occurred. Might be worthy of research, for the true ecumenists among us. I do so enjoy pointing out to the needlessly purist that there
as many paths to God ...
as there are people upon the planet. And if I wanted to be stamped with anyone in particular's personal little pet brand of religion, I'd go and beg them for it.
lol Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of ticky tacky ...
Sorry to ramble, Abogado, I'm seldom one for simplicity, even if that
is often the swifter way. It's the strangest thing, though. If all these people are really
so certain that their beloved and cherished WAY (religion, faith, path, etc.)
IS the ONLY way ... then why aren't they
practicing it??? I find myself returning, again and again, to my favorite onscreen portrayal of
the Christ, Jeremy Hunter, in
`King of Kings.' He is giving the famous Sermon on the Mount, and I feel that His acting is magificent,
powerful, yet softened or conditioned by that genuine LOVE for all beings which the Christ demonstrated. He says, "THOU hypocrite! [SIZE=-1]First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
So why would I dare to pick motes? Mmmm, I dunno, the plank must have turned edgewise for a second. No worse than confusing my beliefs for reality I suppose. Or a man for his message. Blind faith for personal responsibility. Sacred Scripture for
Truth itself. It just seems to be the way of things ...
Is that a hundred verses yet? ramble on rose!
taijasi
[/SIZE]
