"All truth is relative" = an absolute truth: Why?

[rossum]

The truth transcends time and space.

You are reifying truth. Truth does not exist independent of some statement or other: statement X is true; statement Y is false. You cannot show me a separate “truth” on its own. Reification is always an error.

Interaction doesn’t alter the fact that spiritual reality is more fundamental and more significant than material reality.

Neither is more significant. Each can affect the other. They are mutually conditioning.

Do you believe there are no absolute truths in Buddhism? Such as nirvana?

Nirvana is not absolute. Nirvana changes. It has to change for there to be any point to the religious life. It needs to change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum. Since it changes, it cannot be absolute. In Buddhism everything changes so nothing can be absolute.

rossum

 

[Lucy107]

Paraphrasing the Buddha, there is no point engaging merely in speculation about the soul and concepts such as permanence, if we what we seek is salvation.

In fact, there is a sutta that says as much.

But Rossum is from a Buddhist school that takes a different approach to things.

 

[tonyrey]

You are reifying truth. Truth does not exist independent of some statement or other: statement X is true; statement Y is false. You cannot show me a separate “truth” on its own. Reification is always an error.

 

[rossum]

In fact, there is a sutta that says as much.

There is more than one sutta, there is also the Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, which gives the parable of the Man Shot with an Arrow:

[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.

'In exactly the same way, Malunkyaputta, any one who says “I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One explains to me whether the universe is eternal, whether the universe is not eternal, whether the universe is finite, whether the universe is infinite etc.” [many questions omitted here] That person would die Malunkyaputta, before I had ever explained all this to that person.

‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

– Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

But Rossum is from a Buddhist school that takes a different approach to things.

I accept all the Theravada suttas, but I do not always interpret them the same way as the Theravada do. I also accept the Mahayana sutras, which the Theravada do not, so my interpretations differ.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Are thoughts reifications?

Not all thoughts. Where you elevate a property, such as ‘true’ or ‘false’ to the status of a separately existing entity, then you are reifying. A common sign of reification is capitalisation of the word: “Truth” instead of “truth”.

Do you believe matter and spirit have co-existed eternally?

No. The universe goes in phases. Some phases are spirit only, while other phases are joint matter and spirit.

Or did they both appear simultaneously? Did they create themselves? Is there a reason why matter and spirit exist?

See my previous post about the parable of the man shot with the poisoned arrow.

Does nirvana-without-rossum change to nirvana-with-rossum and revert to nirvana-without-rossum?

No. It does not revert.

Are there any exceptions to this rule?

No. Buddhism is a universalist religion. All living beings will eventually attain nirvana, though some will take longer than others.

An entire chain of relative facts cannot be relative because there is nothing to which it is relative! Something cannot be relative to itself unless the meaning of the term is distorted.

Each link in the chain is relative to other links in the chain. As long as each link has a previous link and a next link, then we have a chain.

In Buddhism our task is to climb a mountain. While the geology of the formation of the mountain may be interesting, plate tectonics is not a great deal of use in helping us find a usable path to the summit.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Re: “All truth is relative” = an absolute truth: Why? *

Are thoughts reifications?

Isn’t the truth the correspondence of beliefs to reality? Is correspondence a reification?

Do you believe matter and spirit have co-existed eternally?

No. The universe goes in phases. Some phases are spirit only, while other phases are joint matter and spirit.

What evidence is there for this hypothesis?

Or did they both appear simultaneously? Did they create themselves? Is there a reason why matter and spirit exist?

See my previous post about the parable of the man shot with the poisoned arrow.

Couldn’t that parable be applied to many Buddhist beliefs - such as the phases of the universe?

Does nirvana-without-rossum change to nirvana-with-rossum and revert to nirvana-without-rossum?

No. It does not revert.

Is that universally true?

Are there any exceptions to this rule?

No. Buddhism is a universalist religion. All living beings will eventually attain nirvana, though some will take longer than others.

Then surely it is an absolute rule?

An entire chain of relative facts cannot be relative because there is nothing to which it is relative! Something cannot be relative to itself unless the meaning of the term is distorted.

Each link in the chain is relative to other links in the chain. As long as each link has a previous link and a next link, then we have a chain.

Is the chain relative to another chain?

In Buddhism our task is to climb a mountain. While the geology of the formation of the mountain may be interesting, plate tectonics is not a great deal of use in helping us find a usable path to the summit.

That seems like a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid, i.e. absolute.

 

[rossum]

Isn’t the truth the correspondence of beliefs to reality? Is correspondence a reification?

That is not what you said earlier:

The truth transcends time and space.

Your “transcends time and space” is a reification. Simple correspondence is not a reification; transcending time and space is.

What evidence is there for this hypothesis?

Buddhist scripture.

Couldn’t that parable be applied to many Buddhist beliefs - such as the phases of the universe?

Yes. Buddhism has accumulated a great deal of stuff since the time of the Buddha. One of the drives behind Ch’an/Zen Buddhism was to remove a lot of the extraneous accretions and get back to the original simplicity.

Is that universally true?

Of course not. I wrote it in a human language, so it is contingent on the language I used.

Is the chain relative to another chain?

Yes. Each of us is a chain, and we can interact with each other.

That seems like a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid, i.e. absolute.

Your use of “seems” is correct. A mirage “seems” to contain water. The mountain is a parable, not to be taken as more than that.

The nun Wu Jin-cang asked the Sixth Patriach Hui-neng, “I have studied the Mahaparinirvana sutra for many years, yet there are many areas I do not quite understand. Please enlighten me.”

The patriach responded, “I am illiterate. Please read out the characters to me and perhaps I will be able to explain the meaning.”

Said the nun, “You cannot even recognize the characters. How are you able then to understand the meaning?”

“Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?”

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Isn’t the truth the correspondence of beliefs to reality? Is correspondence a reification?

That is not what you said earlier:

The truth transcends time and space.

Your “transcends time and space” is a reification. Simple correspondence is not a reification; transcending time and space is.

So you believe spiritual reality is subject to time and space?

What evidence is there for this hypothesis?

Buddhist scripture.

Why is Buddhist scripture more credible than other scriptures? Is it infallible?

Couldn’t that parable be applied to many Buddhist beliefs - such as the phases of the universe?

Yes. Buddhism has accumulated a great deal of stuff since the time of the Buddha. One of the drives behind Ch’an/Zen Buddhism was to remove a lot of the extraneous accretions and get back to the original simplicity.

Who determines the original simplicity?

Is that universally true?

Of course not. I wrote it in a human language, so it is contingent on the language I used.

If language determines what is true nothing is true. Not even mathematics…

Is the chain relative to another chain?

Yes. Each of us is a chain, and we can interact with each other.

What are all the chains relative to?

That seems like a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid, i.e. absolute.

Your use of “seems” is correct. A mirage “seems” to contain water. The mountain is a parable, not to be taken as more than that.The nun Wu Jin-cang asked the Sixth Patriach Hui-neng, “I have studied the Mahaparinirvana sutra for many years, yet there are many areas I do not quite understand. Please enlighten me.”

The patriach responded, “I am illiterate. Please read out the characters to me and perhaps I will be able to explain the meaning.”

Said the nun, “You cannot even recognize the characters. How are you able then to understand the meaning?”

“Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?”

If everything is an illusion the belief that everything is an illusion is also an illusion. So it is self-destructive…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not all thoughts. Where you elevate a property, such as ‘true’ or ‘false’ to the status of a separately existing entity, then you are reifying. A common sign of reification is capitalisation of the word: “Truth” instead of “truth”.

So your point would be that the act of reifying – that is, a seeker “elevating a property” to absolute status – is the error. You contend that the way of knowing this “error” has occurred is by the fact that the seeker is using a capital letter on the word Truth.

So you don’t and can’t know that absolute Truth does or does not exist, but you would claim it to be an error on the part of any seeker to “reify” their truth because – you claim – no seeker would know, with any certainty, whether or not they are correct.

The problem here, is that you – also as seeker – cannot know with any certainty that Truth does not exist. You merely claim it would be wrong for you as mere seeker to reify your conception of the truth to the status of absolute Truth because seekers cannot know the Truth – if such exists – with any degree of certainty.

I have no problem with that.

The issue, as far as Christianity is concerned, is that a specific individual, Jesus Christ, claimed, not merely to know the truth (or Truth,) nor to “reify” it, but, rather, to actually BE the Truth. In other words, that he wasn’t a mere seeker reifying his truth, but claiming to actually be the Absolute Source or Truth, itself.

The Truth, itself, wouldn’t be guilty of any untoward “reifying” of truth, if, indeed, the Truth were the Truth, now would it?

Christian believers, then, are not actually doing any “reifying” of the truth they believe to be Truth, but are merely claiming that Truth has revealed itself to human beings. That Truth can either be accepted or not, but you cannot claim the reason it should not be accepted is because believers are guilty of “reifying” their truth to be the Truth, since they are merely accepting that the Absolute Truth has made itself known to them.

Christians aren’t, in fact, guilty of doing any reifying, in any active sense; what they are doing is “accepting” in a passive sense that the Truth has, indeed, revealed itself.

You might claim that the Truth that has been revealed in Christianity is not or cannot be “THE TRUTH,” but your argument seems pretty thin because you, yourself, claim not to be able to know the Truth. In other words, you insist that you wouldn’t and couldn’t recognize the Truth even if it did reveal itself – but how would you know that a priori as a function of your presupposition that you cannot know the Truth?

This reminds me of those cartoons from the sixties where the character unthinkingly chops off the branch he just happens to be sitting on.

Even if we grant you that knowers or seekers can only “know” with uncertainty the truth they suppose is correct, what you haven’t shown is that the Truth is, itself, incapable of showing itself to knowers or seekers in such a way as to entail absolute epistemic certainty. To make that claim, you would have to, necessarily, know that NO absolute Truth does, indeed, exist – which you, yourself, admit YOU cannot know or show.

The most you can do, then, is remain silent about the claims to Christianity. You cannot know that Truth hasn’t revealed itself because, you admit, such a determination is beyond your capacity. You cannot fault others for their acceptance that the Truth has indeed shown itself as if they MUST be wrong about that. You simply don’t know, by your own admission.

I am quite delighted to have reached an understanding with regard to your position.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The nun Wu Jin-cang asked the Sixth Patriach Hui-neng, “I have studied the Mahaparinirvana sutra for many years, yet there are many areas I do not quite understand. Please enlighten me.”
The patriach responded, “I am illiterate. Please read out the characters to me and perhaps I will be able to explain the meaning.”
Said the nun, “You cannot even recognize the characters. How are you able then to understand the meaning?”
“Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?” . . .

If I may interpret:
The nun has been thinking and trying to figure things out in her struggle to reach Nirvana.
The patriarch states that meaning and truth are not to be found in the world of ideas, but rather in being.
Thinking does not awaken, it perpetuates the dream. Thought cannot contain the Truth.

Nothing about relative truth or any of that nonsense, here. The whole reason behind Buddhism is to wake up to Reality.

 

[oldcelt]

Truth is relative to the age and circumstances…therefore, there is no absolute truth. It can be removed from the equation.

 

[Magdalena59]

Truth is relative to the age and circumstances…therefore, there is no absolute truth. It can be removed from the equation.

Man wants to believe there is no absolute truth that way he can pick and choose his own moral ideas but there is a truth. God promised he would lead us into all truth and he does and that truth is found in the Catholic church.

 

[rossum]

So you believe spiritual reality is subject to time and space?

Spiritual and material reality interact and affect each other. If I, in this material reality, murder someone, then that material action will affect my spiritual future after my next death. It might also affect my material future before my next death. Actions have consequences, and those consequences may be material, spiritual or both.

Why is Buddhist scripture more credible than other scriptures?

It is to me because I am Buddhist. You presumably find Christian scripture more credible than Buddhist scripture.

Is it infallible?

No. As with Christian scripture, there are a number of different competing interpretations proposed.

If language determines what is true nothing is true.

Please keep track of your earlier questions. Your earlier question did not ask me about what is “true”, but about what is “universally true”:

Is that universally true? (emphasis added)

No human language is universal, so nothing expressed in a human language can be universally true. Human languages are local, not universal, so expressions in human languages can at most be locally true. Your omission of the “universally” qualifier changed the question.

What are all the chains relative to?

Each other. Chains of causation interact.

If everything is an illusion the belief that everything is an illusion is also an illusion. So it is self-destructive…

The moon is not an illusion. The illusion is mistaking the finger for the moon. Our brains overlay external reality (the moon) with our own internal models (the finger). It is the internal models that are the illusions. The finger is not the moon.

A mirage matches our internal model of “water seen at a distance”. Hence we have the illusion of water in a mirage. The illusion is the mismatch between external reality and our internal model.

rossum

 

[Dave_Noonan]

By “things” you of course mean speech acts (?). A rock is not judged to be either true or not true.

Yes.

 

[rossum]

So your point would be that the act of reifying – that is, a seeker “elevating a property” to absolute status – is the error.

Please read what I said. I said nothing about “absolute status”. Reifying is turning an adjective into a noun. “True” is an adjective describing something. “Truth” does not exist separately from the thing it is describing. You cannot bring me a bottle of truth.

You contend that the way of knowing this “error” has occurred is by the fact that the seeker is using a capital letter on the word Truth.

I contend no such thing. Again, you are not reading what I actually wrote:

A common sign of reification is capitalisation of the word: “Truth” instead of “truth”. (emphasis added)

By all means criticise what I wrote. It is pointless criticising what I didn’t write.

So you don’t and can’t know that absolute Truth does or does not exist

Read what I said above about the “common sign”. Truth does not exist separately from the object to which it is applied. What object does your “absolute [t]ruth” apply to? Once we know the object then we can discuss whether or not that object is true or not true.

The issue, as far as Christianity is concerned, is that a specific individual, Jesus Christ, claimed, not merely to know the truth (or Truth,) nor to “reify” it, but, rather, to actually BE the Truth. In other words, that he wasn’t a mere seeker reifying his truth, but claiming to actually be the Absolute Source or Truth, itself.

How can an individual BE the Truth? Did Jesus eat food? Of course He did. Is eating food the Absolute Truth? I doubt it, since then every animal is Absolute Truth, since every animal eats food. If Absolute Truth is that common, then there is nothing very special at all about Jesus BEING Absolute Truth.

Show me what part of Jesus was Absolute Truth. I assume it was some part of Jesus that is not shared by the rest of humanity, because then all of us would be Absolute Truth.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Truth is relative to the age and circumstances…therefore, there is no absolute truth. It can be removed from the equation.

And of course you are absolutely certain about that?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Man wants to believe there is no absolute truth that way he can pick and choose his own moral ideas but there is a truth. God promised he would lead us into all truth and he does and that truth is found in the Catholic church.

Well, since no one else claims to have it, that is the only place where it can be.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Truth is relative to the age and circumstances…therefore, there is no absolute truth. It can be removed from the equation.

Non sequitur.

That some truth – even ALL the truth discernible by human means – is relative to “age and circumstance” does not mean all truth necessarily is relative. Nor does it mean there is no absolute truth.

You would have to have a complete accounting of all truth to make such a claim. Admittedly you don’t, therefore, you have nada.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Truth" does not exist separately from the thing it is describing. You cannot bring me a bottle of truth.

rossum

Truth certainly is not in a bottle. But it is in a Church.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Non sequitur.

That some truth – even ALL the truth discernible by human means – is relative to “age and circumstance” does not mean all truth necessarily is relative. Nor does it mean there is no absolute truth.

You would have to have a complete accounting of all truth to make such a claim. Admittedly you don’t, therefore, you have nada.

By the time he gets through removing things from the equation, there will be no equation left.