Truth with a capital T

Zenda71

Well-Known Member
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Eastern United States
Hi all.

I posted this over at christianforums.com and thought it would be interesting to post here too.

Hubby and I had a great conversation last night about Truth. He wanted to know if I believe in an absolute Truth ... an absolute reality ... regardless of whether we humans can perceive it. (He's a theist; I'm not.)

After mucking around with Schrodinger's cat for a bit, I finally told him I didn't know; that it wasn't a helpful pondering point. And he said he knew God was the absolute Truth and is very comforted by that.

So now I'm curious about what other people have to say:
1. Do you have an absolute Truth?
2. What is your absolute Truth? (please define if you can)
3. What does this absolute Truth do for you (or others)?

With metta,

Zenda
 
Kindest Regards, Zenda71!
Zenda71 said:
Hi all.

I posted this over at christianforums.com and thought it would be interesting to post here too.

Hubby and I had a great conversation last night about Truth. He wanted to know if I believe in an absolute Truth ... an absolute reality ... regardless of whether we humans can perceive it. (He's a theist; I'm not.)

After mucking around with Schrodinger's cat for a bit, I finally told him I didn't know; that it wasn't a helpful pondering point. And he said he knew God was the absolute Truth and is very comforted by that.

So now I'm curious about what other people have to say:
1. Do you have an absolute Truth?
2. What is your absolute Truth? (please define if you can)
3. What does this absolute Truth do for you (or others)?

With metta,

Zenda
Whooee! You're not asking for much, are you?

OK, truth is subjective, from each individuals perspective. Ultimately there must be only one reality, competing or conflicting realities do not make sense. We each view that reality through the lenses of our eyes, minds and experiences. I view truth as reality, and attempt to understand reality as reality is. I do perceive a universal IS, a Creator God, and I am comfortable with that. I also understand that others not having similar views or perspectives may not see the same things I see, and likewise they see things that I haven't or don't. I also understand that others may view the term truth somewhat differently, that is, dogma or some other like. Elsewhere is a thread about Memes that is kind of interesting in this regard, it seems a lot of people grow to believe certain "truths" by a form of brainwashing by circular reasoning, so to speak. Even if those truths make no sense.

So I suppose a great deal of your question lies in what it is you "truly" mean by the term truth. If you mean reality as reality is, then I would say yes. If you mean coloring over the unpleasant aspects of reality to suit my personal fantasy and soothe my ego, no. If you mean blind dogmatic indoctrination, no.

What does it do for me? Well, I suppose I use it as a guideline or baseline in my search for wisdom. Does this help any?

By the way, who is Schrodinger's cat?
 
Thanks juantoo3. That's pretty similar to my answer to my hubby, who asked me how nonattachment and no-self fit into the idea of an "ultimate truth". I didn't know what to say to that. Part of me is intrigued and wants to find an answer. And the other part of me knows that there is no answer to be found, that it isn't useful. (I.E., hey lady! Paradox ... the way of the world ... get over it! :D )

BTW, is my question scaring everyone off? :p
 
Namaste all,


Schrodingers Cat is a famous thought experiment in Quatum Theory. The two major interpretations of quantum theory's implications for the nature of reality are the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds theory. Niels Bohr proposed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, which asserts that a particle is whatever it is measured to be (for example, a wave or a particle), but that it cannot be assumed to have specific properties, or even to exist, until it is measured. In short, Bohr was saying that objective reality does not exist. This translates to a principle called superposition that claims that while we do not know what the state of any object is, it is actually in all possible states simultaneously, as long as we don't look to check.

To illustrate this theory, we can use the famous and somewhat cruel analogy of Schrodinger's Cat. First, we have a living cat and place it in a thick lead box. At this stage, there is no question that the cat is alive. We then throw in a vial of cyanide and seal the box. We do not know if the cat is alive or if it has broken the cyanide capsule and died. Since we do not know, the cat is both dead and alive, according to quantum law - in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and see what condition the cat is that the superposition is lost, and the cat must be either alive or dead.

now.. as regards the question of Absolute Truth.

yes, i believe that there is one, as expressed in the Diamond Sutra and the PrajnaParamita Sutras, however, this is beyond or "outside" of human conception and doesn't really help to encourage one in their practice. in the Hinyana schools, this is one of the "unthinkable" questions which was generally ignored by the Buddha when he was asked about it. one thing that Buddha insisted upon was that philosophical speculation should not interfere with ones actual practice.

i suppose that the question naturally arises "if it's outside of human conception, what is the point of asserting an "absolute"?" to which i'd reply, "that's a good question, how's your practice coming?" :)

the Buddhist teachings are contained in a book called the Tipitaka which literally means "Three Baskets". the three baskets are the Vinya (the rules of the monastics) the Sutras (teachings of the Buddha) and the Abidharma (metaphysics). the Abidharma is where the concepts such as "absolute" and so forth are dealt with.

in the Vajrayana schools, the Absolute Truth is beyond conceptional thinking as well, however, it's not beyond experience. this is a bit tricky and i'm a bit reluctant to say much more since partial information can easily lead someone astray... with that cavet... there is something fundamental about reality.. something "intrinsic" if you will. in our tradition this is called the Clear Light sometimes called Mahamudra. it is possible to have this experience whilst still living in this existence, though that is a bit rare. this experience is beyond the discursive intellect and if conception is imupted to it, that isn't it.

as always, my answers try to be as broad as possible when explaning Buddhist thought, though some of my own schools understanding is bound to come through. as such, there will be Buddhists that disagree :)
 
You know Vaj, I'm starting to think I picked the wrong school of Buddhism. :) I have yet to read the Abidharma. Guess I should get cracking on that one ...

Are you a monastic, Vaj?
 
Kindest Regards, Zenda71!

BTW, is my question scaring everyone off? :p
I'm actually glad Vajradhara stepped in, he's pretty good about such things. This question is right up his alley.

I have noticed that the really tough questions do tend to get overlooked. Too close to home, maybe? :D
 
As a sort of Theist I find the concept of "Absolute Truth" completely meaningless. Truth is a concept by humans for humans, to work different aspects of society and cultural into a larger framework of shared values and goals.

Somehow somebody insisting that there is "Absolute Truth" in the universe would make as much sense, as another person insisting that in English legal system there is the "High Energy Particle Physics Law".

We occupy relative positions from which our subjective experience of the universe unfolds. I personally see no room for absolutes to be observed in such a logically fragile position.
 
Zenda71 said:
You know Vaj, I'm starting to think I picked the wrong school of Buddhism. :) I have yet to read the Abidharma. Guess I should get cracking on that one ...

Are you a monastic, Vaj?
Namaste Zenda,

thank you for the post.

are you also Zen_Woof at CF?

in any event... i don't know that you picked the wrong one or not :) it really depends on ones aptitude on which school is most appropriate for them. it can be fairly said, however, that some sects encourage different aspects of the Dharma to be understood and practiced.

in my school of Buddhism, Vajrayana (as found in Tibet), there are four extant sects. my particular sect, Nyingma, is founded upon lay practiconers and was brought to Tibet by Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche) himself. Traditionally, Padmasambhava is held to be the Tantric master that brought Buddhism to Tibet. the monastic sects are the Kaygu, Geluk and Sakya sects... though... it should be noted that all four schools contain the teachings of each other... it's a matter of emphasis that distinguishes them from each other as they all hold the Prasangika-Madyamika philosophical position to be the correct view.

in fact, you'll find, that all four sects have a mix of monastics and lay people that practice and, according to the tradition, there is no difference in the realizations betwixt them... provided, of course, that they have them to begin with :)

so.. that long-winded explanation leads me to a simple answer of "no, i'm not a monastic" :)

to be honest with you... i am working to buy land and donate it to the Diaspora Tibetan community for them to build a monastary and i hope to enjoin them to allow me to live the life of a forest reuniciant upon said land when i retire.

in Classical Buddhism of India, there were two types of practiconers... monks and nuns and forest reuniciants. the main difference between them being the monks and nuns were in monastaries and so forth whilst the forest dwellers would live in small grass huts or lean-to's in the vastness of the eastern jungles of northern India.

are we really far afield now? LOL...
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, Zenda71!

I'm actually glad Vajradhara stepped in, he's pretty good about such things. This question is right up his alley.

I have noticed that the really tough questions do tend to get overlooked. Too close to home, maybe? :D
Namaste juan,

thank you for the kind words :)

i am devoid of learning and skill with words... what i post i post to sustain my own understanding. if someone derives benefit from my words, this is due to their own good karma ripening.

concerning the question posed...

i often think that internet forums aren't terribly condusive to complicated and detailed explanations... they are different than books. maybe this is due to how chat logs and so forth are read? it also seems, perhaps i'm biased about this, that if a person posts a link in their posting, most people do not read the link. this could be due to time constraints or other factors... i really don't know. if anyone has some thoughts along that line, i'd be quite happy to hear them.
 
Are Nyingma and Dzogchen related? I haven't had time to read more about it, but I seem to remember a connection ... ??? (I ask because I was particularly drawn to Tenzin Palmo's story ... an intriguing and "deep" experience to say the least ... )


are you also Zen_Woof at CF?
Yes. :)


to be honest with you... i am working to buy land and donate it to the Diaspora Tibetan community for them to build a monastary and i hope to enjoin them to allow me to live the life of a forest reuniciant upon said land when i retire.
I hope you can achieve your goal! I'm sure it would be appreciated by many. Although retirement is far off for me, it certainly sounds now like a fruitful way to spend it.

And yes, we're far afield now ...

Thanks everyone for responding so far! :cool:
 
Namaste Zenda,


yes, Nyingma and Dzogchen are related. in essence the Dzogchen teachings are found only amongst the Nyingma sect whilst the other three use what is called Mahamudra.

without getting too technical, they are analgous to each other in what they are teaching they just approach it in a different manner.
 
Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!
i often think that internet forums aren't terribly condusive to complicated and detailed explanations... they are different than books. maybe this is due to how chat logs and so forth are read? it also seems, perhaps i'm biased about this, that if a person posts a link in their posting, most people do not read the link. this could be due to time constraints or other factors... i really don't know. if anyone has some thoughts along that line, i'd be quite happy to hear them.
I suspect you are right, gauging by my own experience. I often do not pursue links, especially in topics that I know to be involved or are of peripheral interest. Time is a commodity in such short supply, especially when you are running a slow computer system to begin with.

I have been known to get long winded at times, and I must be careful. If the respondent is only peripherally interested, they may not even read a long post.

I don't want to sidetrack a discussion of value between you two, Vaj and Zenda. Vaj asked, so I am allowing this brief response. I suppose as with so much in life, we want what we want, and we want it now, and we haven't the time to invest in what we want to gain the full benefit of what that might offer (we in the collective whole sense, not specifically the two of you and I). Yet even though I am aware of this, I still find myself guilty from time to time. In matters in which there are clearly better learned people presenting, it is in my interest to keep my mouth shut and my ears open, and learn. And if nobody else is presenting, then I might add my two cents to get a ball rolling, or to ask a question to clarify something to my better understanding.

You are too modest, Vaj. :) That is a virtue, one I have to invest a great deal more in. ;) Regards!
 
My take is that online discussions are often about instant gratification ... monkey mind at 60 words per minute. :) And like you juantoo3, I often feel I should keep my fingers still and my ears open more ...

However, often it is the only way to have conversation with people who struggle with similar issues or who are interested in similar topics. So, regardless of how the mode of communication shapes that communication, it can be the best thing around. And also instructive about the nature of visual monkey mind ... :)

Does that make sense?
 
No need to retire to the forest

Dear Vaj:

You talk about earning money to buy and donate a piece of land for a monastery home to be occupied by monks of the school of Buddhism you opted to adhere to. And you will retire to be what we call a hermit in Christian terminology on the grounds of the monastery.

I really can't see why you can't now do everything you want to do upon retirement; for it is my view that what you are doing is essentially the spiritual life; and as such for being truly spiritual whatever routines you have to do in making a living and in doing the necessary acts of the biological life, you are thereby I think you will agree with me not or should not be impeded in any real manner.

Your aspiration to live the eremitic life reminds of the Christian monks known as the desert fathers. They had all kinds of lifestyles which you might want to emulate, and I think perfectly compatible or should be with your ambition to live as a hermit in the forest or in the desert.

Here is one kind: Seal yourself up inside your room and stay in it continuously when you are not out making a living; or you can take up some craft in your room, and market it through some people visiting you periodically to obtain your finished products for marketing, and earning for you the needs of your earthly life. This kind of lifestyle was tried by the desert fathers.

Another kind of lifestyle: Never take any washing whatever of your body in order to transcend completely the body. This lifestyle is good for fully mortifying your earthly existence. The desert fathers have tried this lifestyle also.

Another lifestyle: Look for some high structure atop a long bridge where you can settle secretly without anyone knowing your presence there. I seem to remember that those desert fathers who took up that kind of life were called stylites, living atop pillars.

Still another lifestyle: Go live like a beggar, homeless, on the charity of strangers. I understand that at nights in big modern cities there are hordes of homeless folks roving the city, in search for a spot where they can get some sleep, before being found by the police and told to move on.

Best of all, with your knowledge of Buddhist monasticism, start something different though keeping to the essential inspiration of flight from the world which I think is also the whole gist of Buddhist monasticism be it cenobitic or eremitic.

I think you should be more inventive; but your tendency is to adhere faithfully to the Buddhist school you opted to belong to. Do something different, and you might just give Buddhism a modern and contemporary face.

Susma Rio Sep
 
Zenda71 said:
Hi all.

I posted this over at christianforums.com and thought it would be interesting to post here too.

Hubby and I had a great conversation last night about Truth. He wanted to know if I believe in an absolute Truth ... an absolute reality ... regardless of whether we humans can perceive it. (He's a theist; I'm not.)

After mucking around with Schrodinger's cat for a bit, I finally told him I didn't know; that it wasn't a helpful pondering point. And he said he knew God was the absolute Truth and is very comforted by that.

So now I'm curious about what other people have to say:
1. Do you have an absolute Truth?
2. What is your absolute Truth? (please define if you can)
3. What does this absolute Truth do for you (or others)?

With metta,

Zenda
Well, I'm not sure if i entirely understand the questions, but i'll try answering this to the best of my abbilities.
Answers:
1. To accept, love and serve
2. Pesonally my absolute truth is Islam. I don't know how else to describe my choice by other than describing my own experiences. Islam teaches me how to be open and honest with myself and others. Being totally honest with yourself, yet in control would probably, in the most logical terms, be my absolute truth.
3. "Being open and honest, yet in control", would help me grow posively (evolve spiritually and mentally). Now since I, and my peception are positive ,then basicly, everything i see is positive. Which for me, would be helping others.

I hope my efforts helped my brother . :)
 
Muhammad-Khalifa said:
Well, I'm not sure if i entirely understand the questions, but i'll try answering this to the best of my abbilities.
Answers:
1. To accept, love and serve
2. Pesonally my absolute truth is Islam. I don't know how else to describe my choice by other than describing my own experiences. Islam teaches me how to be open and honest with myself and others. Being totally honest with yourself, yet in control would probably, in the most logical terms, be my absolute truth.
3. "Being open and honest, yet in control", would help me grow posively (evolve spiritually and mentally). Now since I, and my peception are positive ,then basicly, everything i see is positive. Which for me, would be helping others.

I hope my efforts helped my brother . :)
Thank you for your reply Muhammad Khalifa.

With metta,
Zenda
 
truth is

Zenda71 said:
Hi all.

I posted this over at christianforums.com and thought it would be interesting to post here too.

Hubby and I had a great conversation last night about Truth. He wanted to know if I believe in an absolute Truth ... an absolute reality ... regardless of whether we humans can perceive it. (He's a theist; I'm not.)

After mucking around with Schrodinger's cat for a bit, I finally told him I didn't know; that it wasn't a helpful pondering point. And he said he knew God was the absolute Truth and is very comforted by that.

So now I'm curious about what other people have to say:
1. Do you have an absolute Truth?
2. What is your absolute Truth? (please define if you can)
3. What does this absolute Truth do for you (or others)?

With metta,

Zenda

What do you mean by "absolute" truth ?
If you mean "objective" truth, then yes, there certainly IS
such a thing. But nobody knows what it IS !
At first, truth would appear to be easy to define :
Truth is accurate description of reality.
Knowledge is accurate perception of reality.
Reality is ... now THAT'S the tough one !
How do we distinguish between reality and perception ?
Is "belief" the way ? I don't think so -
Because belief consists entirely of perception - some
of which may EVENTUALY turn out to be reality - but
not until supported by confirming evidence .

Louis
 
i tend to need to believe that there is something unchanging in the world, so my concept of Truth usually comes back to the idea of inherent meaningfulness. namely, that in every action, circumstance, or moment there is the opportunity to realize meaning. or as Buddhists tend to put it, to be mindful.
 
Back
Top