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

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, some are never happy, even when the teachings of their own church are presented and linked.

One-liner!

 

[oldcelt]

One-liner!

Already old…and not a response to anything.

 

[rossum]

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

No it is not. If I dismantle a Church brick by brick, just removing the bricks, but making sure never to remove the “Truth”, then what is left after all the bricks are removed is your “Truth”.

You cannot find your “Truth”.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Already old…and not a response to anything.

Responding to a one-liner with a one-liner, and that’s all you will get from me until you find out what a paragraph is and start writing one.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You cannot find your “Truth”.

rossum

If you say so!

 

[Peter_Plato]

No it is not. If I dismantle a Church brick by brick, just removing the bricks, but making sure never to remove the “Truth”, then what is left after all the bricks are removed is your “Truth”.

You cannot find your “Truth”.

rossum

Well, I suppose if you think the whole truth about the Church is to be found in the composition of the bricks, then you will not be disappointed when the bricks tell you nothing more than that they are bricks, but who would start with such a brick-headed assumption?

 

[Magdalena59]

No it is not. If I dismantle a Church brick by brick, just removing the bricks, but making sure never to remove the “Truth”, then what is left after all the bricks are removed is your “Truth”.

You cannot find your “Truth”.

rossum

Truth is not found in the material composition of a church building but is found in the wisdom given to it by its Creator.

 

[rossum]

Truth is not found in the material composition of a church building but is found in the wisdom given to it by its Creator.

And this truth is so obvious to everyone that there is only one Christian denomination and all Christians agree exactly on what that truth is?

There are a lot of claims that the truth is to be found in scripture. The problem is that each of those thousands of different claims all find different truths. All we can find in practice is a selection of different and incompatible “truths”.

rossum

 

[Lucy107]

Well, I suppose if you think the whole truth about the Church is to be found in the composition of the bricks, then you will not be disappointed when the bricks tell you nothing more than that they are bricks, but who would start with such a brick-headed assumption?

The proponents of Madhyamika Prasangika, of which Rossum here is a member, are using a kind of reductio ad absurdum method to make their point (sort of, as much as such a reductionist can make a point at all).

In one sense, the Prasangikas hold no position, they have no position; at most, they have a meta-position aimed to find the fault in the positions that others hold.
(So it’s always tricky to discuss anything with these people. )

In one sense, the approach of reductio ad absurdum is similar to a traditional Zen koan - the aim of which is to bring the contemplator’s mind to a halt, to make an end to the usual “mental chatter,” the projecting and interpreting that normally take place when a person “thinks” or “sees” or “hears”, etc.,
so that then he may see “how things really are.”

 

[Lucy107]

And this truth is so obvious to everyone that there is only one Christian denomination and all Christians agree exactly on what that truth is?

There are a lot of claims that the truth is to be found in scripture. The problem is that each of those thousands of different claims all find different truths. All we can find in practice is a selection of different and incompatible “truths”.

I had a friend who developed for himself “Zen Christianity.” He maintained that the things Jesus was saying are a kind of koans.

No it is not. If I dismantle a Church brick by brick, just removing the bricks, but making sure never to remove the “Truth”,

But have you ever actually done such a thing?
How can you be sure you have completed it?
How would you even know what the “Truth” is (so as to not remove it), if you maintain that “Truth” cannot be known or that there isn’t one?

 

[tonyrey]

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

Is spiritual reality fundamentally subject to time and space?

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.

The teaching of Christ is more positive than Buddhism. It is an absolute truth that we should love everyone instead of just having compassion.

Is it infallible?

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

The teaching that God is a loving Father and we are all brothers and sisters has never been surpassed.

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”:

They are directly related. If language determines what is true there are no truths, let alone absolute truths.

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.

Scientific symbols are a human language and they represent universal truths.

What are all the chains relative to?

Each other. Chains of causation interact.

What is the entire set of chains relative to?

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.

Then it is an absolute truth that an illusion is a mismatch. It is a truth that cannot be destroyed or changed by anyone anywhere or at any time. It is totally independent of human opinions.

The very fact that there are a multitude of objects in the universe implies that they are not identical. To say “everything is relative” conveys no information whatsoever. It simply means “things are not identical”. What else can it mean? That they are dependent?

 

[tonyrey]

I had a friend who developed for himself “Zen Christianity.” He maintained that the things Jesus was saying are a kind of koans.

But have you ever actually done such a thing?
How can you be sure you have completed it?
How would you even know what the “Truth” is (so as to not remove it), if you maintain that “Truth” cannot be known or that there isn’t one?

Right to the heart of the matter!

 

[Peter_Plato]

The proponents of Madhyamika Prasangika, of which Rossum here is a member, are using a kind of reductio ad absurdum method to make their point (sort of, as much as such a reductionist can make a point at all).

In one sense, the Prasangikas hold no position, they have no position; at most, they have a meta-position aimed to find the fault in the positions that others hold.
(So it’s always tricky to discuss anything with these people. )

In one sense, the approach of reductio ad absurdum is similar to a traditional Zen koan - the aim of which is to bring the contemplator’s mind to a halt, to make an end to the usual “mental chatter,” the projecting and interpreting that normally take place when a person “thinks” or “sees” or “hears”, etc.,
so that then he may see “how things really are.”

Oh, I see the value in overcoming the endless chatter AND I see the value of seeing "how things really are;” what the problem seems to be is in rossum’s account where the presumption that the way “things really are” is a non-starter, non-existent to begin with. He denies that the way “things really are” has any meaning at all.

Now this may be that he is fending off the temptation to “project” onto things any remnants of his desires or determination for them in order to see things “as they really are” with pristine, unaffected clarity, but I see too much “insistence” on his part that I question whether he truly is overcoming his own “determination” for things.

Perhaps John of the Cross’s “todo y nada” bears some similarity to what rossum is saying, but, I suspect the similarity is only a superficial one, since John knew God, even though he would, like rossum deny that our understanding of God was, indeed, God. Rossum, I suspect, would claim John didn’t truly know God because his own “concept” of “what is” does not jive with John’s, assuming, then that he is correct and John was not. That belies rossum’s own supposed “unaffected clarity” since he presumes to know something of what “truly is” and that can’t, for rossum, be God, as he is “in himself.”

 

[Lucy107]

Oh, I see the value in overcoming the endless chatter AND I see the value of seeing "how things really are;” what the problem seems to be is in rossum’s account where the presumption that the way “things really are” is a non-starter, non-existent to begin with. He denies that the way “things really are” has any meaning at all.

As a true Madhyamika Prasangika.

Now this may be that he is fending off the temptation to “project” onto things any remnants of his desires or determination for them in order to see things “as they really are” with pristine, unaffected clarity, but I see too much “insistence” on his part that I question whether he truly is overcoming his own “determination” for things.

As a true Madhyamika Prasangika …

Perhaps John of the Cross’s “todo y nada” bears some similarity to what rossum is saying, but, I suspect the similarity is only a superficial one, since John knew God, even though he would, like rossum deny that our understanding of God was, indeed, God. Rossum, I suspect, would claim John didn’t truly know God because his own “concept” of “what is” does not jive with John’s, assuming, then that he is correct and John was not. That belies rossum’s own supposed “unaffected clarity” since he presumes to know something of what “truly is” and that can’t, for rossum, be God, as he is “in himself.”

Like I said, discussing anything with Madhyamika Prasangikas is tricky. If one doesn’t have experience with them and doesn’t know their method, and doesn’t know how this method applies on the immediate level of this conversation right here and now, including the meta-level,
these people can seem really false and overbearing.

That belies rossum’s own supposed “unaffected clarity” since he presumes to know something of what “truly is” and that can’t, for rossum, be God, as he is “in himself.”

I don’t think Rossum believes himself to have “unaffected clarity” at this point, but I think he is sure of the way to get to it - by the Madhyamaka Prasangika way.
As far as I can discern, this is what he has been acting on here in these discussions.

(And I apologize if I didn’t get the distinction Madhyamaka - Madhyamika right.)

 

[Lucy107]

I can understand that some people are displeased with his approach. But I think Rossum here is a blessing.

A crucial point of a revelationist and personal theism is to have the sort of knowledge of God that transcends any notions of “having an idea of God” or “having beliefs about God”, but instead to “know God as He is.”

And whereby this “knowing God as He is” is not a matter of “accepting” a particular church doctrine,
but a matter of having direct knowledge of God,
a knowledge that transcends any and all notions of “accepting”, “agreeing,” “believing,” “thinking it’s reasonable,” “being used to believe it” and whatever other “reasons for belief in God” a person may have.

Arguably, all that many people who profess to “believe in God” actually have, is a relative, conditioned notion of God, not true or direct knowledge in the proper meaning of the term “true knowledge” or “direct knowledge.”

IOW, they don’t have divine revelation; they merely believe to have divine revelation.

And Rossum has actually been helping us to realize this; well, at least those who can see it that way.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I can understand that some people are displeased with his approach. But I think Rossum here is a blessing.

A crucial point of a revelationist and personal theism is to have the sort of knowledge of God that transcends any notions of “having an idea of God” or “having beliefs about God”, but instead to “know God as He is.”

And whereby this “knowing God as He is” is not a matter of “accepting” a particular church doctrine,
but a matter of having direct knowledge of God,
a knowledge that transcends any and all notions of “accepting”, “agreeing,” “believing,” “thinking it’s reasonable,” “being used to believe it” and whatever other “reasons for belief in God” a person may have.

Arguably, all that many people who profess to “believe in God” actually have, is a relative, conditioned notion of God, not true or direct knowledge in the proper meaning of the term “true knowledge” or “direct knowledge.”

IOW, they don’t have divine revelation; they merely believe to have divine revelation.

And Rossum has actually been helping us to realize this; well, at least those who can see it that way.

I don’t disagree with this at all.

It could also be the reason why the Church exists as an objective reality – it takes the “personal” or “direct” and conditioned notion of God away from our control and demands a certain humility from each of us by making the “true knowledge” NOT contingent upon any personal belief system, but on an objective ground.

In other words, the Church plays precisely the function in real life that you claim rossum does on this forum.

 

[Lucy107]

It could also be the reason why the Church exists as an objective reality – it takes the “personal” or “direct” and conditioned notion of God away from our control and demands a certain humility from each of us by making the “true knowledge” NOT contingent upon any personal belief system, but on an objective ground.

In other words, the Church plays precisely the function in real life that you claim rossum does on this forum.

I’m not sure we are understanding eachother here.

by making the “true knowledge” NOT contingent upon any personal belief system, but on an objective ground.

And from someone who is outside of the Church, this is entirely a matter of belief. And arguably, for some insiders as well. IOW, it begins and ends as an appeal to authority.

That the Church has true/objective knowledge of God is something that has to be taken on faith.

The only truly, epistemically reliable knowledge of God would be personal direct revelation to an individual from God. It is only then that the person would really know they have the right knowledge of God.

How do you know that the Church has true/right/full/objective knowledge of God?

Do you have anything to which you can compare the Church’s claims regarding God, and through this comparison determine whether the Chruch’s claims are true?

demands a certain humility from each of us by making the “true knowledge” NOT contingent upon any personal belief system, but on an objective ground.

This isn’t a call to humility; it is a call to unquestioning epistemic obedience.

 

[Lucy107]

Edit above post (because the time to directly edit it has expired):
Instead of “And from someone who is outside of the Church …” should be “And for someone who is outside of the Church …”

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not sure we are understanding eachother here.

And from someone who is outside of the Church, this is entirely a matter of belief. And arguably, for some insiders as well. IOW, it begins and ends as an appeal to authority.

That the Church has true/objective knowledge of God is something that has to be taken on faith.

The only truly, epistemically reliable knowledge of God would be personal direct revelation to an individual from God. It is only then that the person would really know they have the right knowledge of God.

How do you know that the Church has true/right/full/objective knowledge of God?

Do you have anything to which you can compare the Church’s claims regarding God, and through this comparison determine whether the Chruch’s claims are true?

This isn’t a call to humility; it is a call to unquestioning epistemic obedience.

Well, no actually. It is a call to questioning AND humble epistemic obedience, which, as you say, should not be based upon personal preferences or “contaminated” by those preferences. It would be a completely “in itself” kind of dependency.

It is not as if the Church says, “Check your brain at the door!” The Church proposes and provides substantial answers to all existing questions and the means by which to address all possible questions. Questions are not only permitted, but positively welcomed – which certainly is not “unquestioning epistemic obedience.”

All that needs to be done is to read the rich history of thought and mysticism that has been part of the Church since Christ – none of the saints and doctors of the Church come across as mere indoctrinated fools or unthinking idiots. Their thinking was their own at the same time as being the Church’s.

In fact, there is far more indoctrination occurring in one day spent in modern western culture than has happened through the whole history of the Church. Indoctrination is the very antithesis of the “the glory of God is man fully alive” that forms the core of Church doctrine.

Sure, what the world “thinks” the Church is up to radically differs from what the Church is truly up to, but that is a function of the indoctrination regnant in the world, not in the Church.

The Church’s claims to authenticity depend upon the resurrection of Jesus confirming who Jesus said he is together with the witness of the Apostles to the authenticity of Jesus’ words that upon them he would “build HIS Church”; meaning his Church would continue on in time after them. Otherwise, what would “build my Church” possibly mean if it wasn’t to last?

Christ is the measure upon which we can weigh the Church’s message – is it in line with his teaching and mission?

It seems odd that you would characterize the Church as requiring “unquestioning epistemic obedience” in a negative sense, when the very same abandoning of one’s own ideas and perspective are portrayed as positive requirements in Buddhism. It just seems arbitrary to characterize one negatively and the other positively, when they essentially express the same phenomenon – leaving one’s own opinions behind and not standing in the way or “casting a shadow” on the truth. In fact, it would seem a more slash and burn kind of leaving behind in Buddhism than in Catholicism, since Buddhism views it all for nothing, necessarily.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . That the Church has true/objective knowledge of God is something that has to be taken on faith. The only truly, epistemically reliable knowledge of God would be personal direct revelation to an individual from God. It is only then that the person would really know they have the right knowledge of God. How do you know that the Church has true/right/full/objective knowledge of God? . . .

The answer to your question lies in the statement above. It is through the grace of the Holy Spirit that we become aware of at least the possibility of God. From there, surrendering our mind to Him, we grow ever more into Christ.

The problem with Rossum is that he takes his nonsense seriously. It is one thing to cause your mind to crash and awaken. It is another to put out contradictory statements that really do nothing to open oneself up to the Truth, which is simple, obvious and really funny when it does not make you cry or cringe in fear.

As to salvation, it is quite clear to me that far, far more people will find God through their participation in the Church. Very few pass through the very narrow door that is Buddhism to Nirvana.

That’s my rushed :twocents: