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

[Peter_Plato]

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 am fairly certain that rossum actually does have the way “to get to it” correct. The problem is that he must, necessarily, stop there because he knows, if he is honest, that neither he, nor Buddhism, can offer an answer to what is or he must insist that the answer itself is “no answer.” That, however, is completely contingent upon whether there is, indeed, NO answer.

In other words, he takes us to the door, quite genuinely, but then denies it is a door that leads anywhere, but necessarily gets us nowhere.

I can understand that getting us to the door involves a great deal of reticence and perturbation that if he insists it is a door leading somewhere, all the left-behind desires and untoward emotions will wake up and try to flood through the door to what awaits on the other side, so that the final state of humanity is no better than what was left behind. I get that.

The key, perhaps, is that, we ought to wait with patience and allow what is on the other side of the door to lead – which won’t happen until we have fully given ourselves to following the lead. We can pretend to have left ourselves behind, but that will be known and proved. We must lose ourselves in order to truly find ourselves.

 

[Lucy107]

Well, no actually. It is a call to questioning AND humble epistemic obedience,

These two are mutually exclusive.

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.”

Not that I’ve seen.

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.

It’s not about the members/believers being “indoctrinated fools or unthinking idiots.”

It appears that the saints and doctors have had those personal divine revelations (typical for the mystics), but that ordinary people are deemed as being unworthy of them, or that those revelations are reserved to the select few, while the rest of us must jerk along behind, much like drooling idiots.

In fact, there is far more indoctrination occurring in one day spent in modern western culture

I do not for a moment doubt that modern Western culture is a slaughterhouse for the spirit.

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.

Where is this Church then??

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?

This is self-referential, since it is this same Church that says this about Jesus to begin with.

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

When all one ever hears about Christ is from the Church, then Christ is not the measure.

Christ would be a measure if we would have some neutral, objective account of Christ, an account that would not be given by the Church.

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.

I’m not a Buddhist. I have some background in traditional Theravada, but I am not a Buddhist, nor do I endorse Buddhism. I sometimes mention it because I think it has some interesting solutions to some problems, but that is all.

It just seems arbitrary to characterize one negatively and the other positively,

But I’m not doing that.

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.

If that’s what you think, then it doesn’t seem to me you understand Buddhism; or have a specific modernist understanding of Buddhism. What you’re saying is not in accord with Theravada.

In another thread, someone said:

So, you’re like St. Thomas…won’t believe until you put your finger in Jesus’ wounds?

Imagine if Jesus was to do the same for the millions of Tom, Dick & Harry’s in this dumb world. Once, wasn’t enough!

Who the ( bleep ) are you that He must give you a personal touch?

Believe the Bible like the rest of us!!!

This is what I’m talking about. The above posts may express the principle crudely, but they do express it: “You can’t have any personal knowledge of God, and you should not hope for it. In matters of God, just bend to whatever others tell you.”

 

[Lucy107]

And I am fairly certain that rossum actually does have the way “to get to it” correct. The problem is that he must, necessarily, stop there because he knows, if he is honest, that neither he, nor Buddhism, can offer an answer to what is or he must insist that the answer itself is “no answer.”

An actual personal, direct divine revelation would resolve this matter, though.

It’s not like one could actually have a personal, direct divine revelation and still say “Nope, that ain’t it.”

The whole point of actually having a personal, direct divine revelation is that one would know it as such, ie. as a personal, direct divine revelation; it would be impossible to deny it.

If something is deniable, then it’s not personal, direct divine revelation.

That, however, is completely contingent upon whether there is, indeed, NO answer.

In other words, he takes us to the door, quite genuinely, but then denies it is a door that leads anywhere, but necessarily gets us nowhere.

I can understand that getting us to the door involves a great deal of reticence and perturbation that if he insists it is a door leading somewhere, all the left-behind desires and untoward emotions will wake up and try to flood through the door to what awaits on the other side, so that the final state of humanity is no better than what was left behind. I get that.

The key, perhaps, is that, we ought to wait with patience and allow what is on the other side of the door to lead – which won’t happen until we have fully given ourselves to following the lead. We can pretend to have left ourselves behind, but that will be known and proved. We must lose ourselves in order to truly find ourselves.

I don’t think Rossum’s approach is opposed to that.

I think Rossums’ approach is basically a recipe for getting a direct revelation from God.
Purify the mind, do away with all the conceptual baggage, and wait for the divine stroke.

As far as I know various theisms, this approach is generally not endorsed, though.

 

[Lucy107]

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.

No. The notion of there being a “Holy Spirit” is a specific Christian notion that non-Christians do not have or operate with.
You’re not answering my question, other than in a circular, self-referential manner.

We’re talking here about how a non-Christian can test the veracity of Christianity (or Catholicism in specific).

 

[Peter_Plato]

t.
When all one ever hears about Christ is from the Church, then Christ is not the measure.

Christ would be a measure if we would have some neutral, objective account of Christ, an account that would not be given by the Church.

Are you forgetting where the Church came from?

Judaism is, precisely, this “neutral, objective account.” So neutral, in fact, that many of its proponents part ways – are positively hostile, even – with the Jewish Rabbi who started the Church. Yet, the Old Testament stands on its own merit as providing the “account” you say is required.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think Rossums’ approach is basically a recipe for getting a direct revelation from God.
Purify the mind, do away with all the conceptual baggage, and wait for the divine stroke.

This approach comes with its own issues, though. How does one know that in the active process of “purifying the mind,” one is not also purifying the mind of “divine strokes?” Aren’t you assuming that God’s revelation will be as blazingly loud, unmistakeable and undeniable as a lightning stroke?

Perhaps “purifying” is not so much ridding the mind of all baggage, as refining or tuning the mind to the very subtle “strokes” that already exist there – waiting humbly, respectfully and patiently to be heard.

Why assume God is necessarily the loud, in-your-face, neon lightning flashy type that competes for our attention everywhere in modern western culture?

The lightning stroke paradigm you propose assumes we can remain coarse and gross and still reliably hear God because he will make himself heard, no matter what. The “still small voice” paradigm assumes it is we who must become refined, available and subtle in our listening in order to hear.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s not like one could actually have a personal, direct divine revelation and still say “Nope, that ain’t it.”

And, I suppose, those same ones could insist that whatever they choose to do – rape, kill, steal – is fine because they have had no “personal, direct divine revelation” of the sort you insist must occur telling them otherwise.

 

[Lucy107]

Are you forgetting where the Church came from?

Judaism is, precisely, this “neutral, objective account.” So neutral, in fact, that many of its proponents part ways – are positively hostile, even – with the Jewish Rabbi who started the Church. Yet, the Old Testament stands on its own merit as providing the “account” you say is required.

As long as the translations of the OT (or the Bible as a whole) are provided by the Catholic Church or other schools of Christianity, they are simply part of the Christian tradition, and are not neutral.

It surely makes one seem more credible if in one’s own account one includes the story of one’s opposition; but this still doesn’t automatically make one true.

 

[Lucy107]

This approach comes with its own issues, though. How does one know that in the active process of “purifying the mind,” one is not also purifying the mind of “divine strokes?”

Because divine strokes are things that one cannot get rid of, by definition so. If it can be gotten rid of, it’s not a divine stroke.

Aren’t you assuming that God’s revelation will be as blazingly loud, unmistakeable and undeniable as a lightning stroke?

No.
I am assuming that a divine stroke is the one thing that will stay, no matter what.

Why assume God is necessarily the loud, in-your-face, neon lightning flashy type that competes for our attention everywhere in modern western culture?

You’re the one assuming that.

The lightning stroke paradigm you propose assumes we can remain coarse and gross and still reliably hear God because he will make himself heard, no matter what. The “still small voice” paradigm assumes it is we who must become refined, available and subtle in our listening in order to hear.

False dichotomy, doesn’t apply.
“Purifying the mind” is precisely about becoming able to hear that perhaps still, small voice.

 

[Lucy107]

And, I suppose, those same ones could insist that whatever they choose to do – rape, kill, steal – is fine because they have had no “personal, direct divine revelation” of the sort you insist must occur telling them otherwise.

People who engage in the proverbial killing, raping, and pillaging generally don’t seem to be big on philosophy, so, no, I don’t think your comparison applies.

The plain fact of the matter is that basing one’s faith in God on the faith of others is a precarious course to take.

One is sometimes actually requested to piggyback on other people’s faith (like here, expressed crudely) – as if this is as good as it gets.

And when it comes to mundane things, such piggybacking is tolerable to a considerable extent, because in mundane matters, provisional trust is enough.

But when it comes to matters of God - the one most important matter ever - such piggybacking, such provisional trust is simply not enough.

Because when it comes to God, one has to have the sort of faith, or personal religiosity, or however one might call it, that can withstand the test of time; the tests of aging, illness, death, and separation; the tests of one’s religious teachers’s failing to live up to the standards they preach; the tests of being persecuted for one’s religion.

Because when it comes to God, one has to have the sort of faith, or personal religiosity, or however one might call it, that is such that even if all the people with whom one has previously shared the same religiosity, fall away from it or leave it, or become one’s enemies, one can still remain true to it, knowing it to be true.

If one’s faith in God is not able to withstand all those trials, then what is that faith worth?

Looking at how people usually fare in this world, with all the aging, illness, death, separation, and oppression they face, it is only prudent to build one’s faith from the beginning on so that it can withstand all these trials.

So the request for personal, direct knowledge of God is not some kind of idle pride, but a prudent preparation for the trials that one is likely to encounter in this world.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Because divine strokes are things that one cannot get rid of, by definition so. If it can be gotten rid of, it’s not a divine stroke.

“Purifying the mind” is precisely about becoming able to hear that perhaps still, small voice.

I would think it is.

How would one “know” that one is listening to the undeniable still, small voice, the “stroke” that will “stay, no matter what?”

This is why I suspect that it cannot rely merely on personal revelation – we are much too amenable to listening to a myriad of other voices.

I think something like triangulation is the means initiated by God – the Church, Scripture, Tradition, reason, personal spirituality all come together to help us properly identify and follow that “still, small voice,” especially when we are drawn to be led astray – which also occurs in the depths of our hearts, often when we are most susceptible.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If one’s faith in God is not able to withstand all those trials, then what is that faith worth?

Looking at how people usually fare in this world, with all the aging, illness, death, separation and oppression they face, it is only prudent to build one’s faith from the beginning on so that it can withstand all these trials.

So the request for personal, direct knowledge of God is not some kind of idle pride, but a prudent preparation for the trials that one is likely to encounter in this world.

Something like…

roman-catholic-saints.com/saint-zita.html

 

[Lucy107]

How would one “know” that one is listening to the undeniable still, small voice, the “stroke” that will “stay, no matter what?”

At first, one wouldn’t know that. A thorough approach like that of the Prasangikas seems to ensure though that one would become progressively able to discern it.

I think something like triangulation is the means initiated by God – the Church, Scripture, Tradition, reason, personal spirituality all come together to help us properly identify and follow that “still, small voice,” especially when we are drawn to be led astray – which also occurs in the depths of our hearts, often when we are most susceptible.

Indeed, such a triangulation seems to promise more success, sooner.

Like I said, no major theistic religious ever seemed to openly advocate the ascetic, austere practices that are necessary for the reductio ad absurdum approach. It seems most people would give up on such an approach soon - and I mean within a day -, because it is simply too austere and too foreign.

Most theistic religions advocate a kind of communal, social approach. Many also have an ascetic/mystic “line of practice”, but that ascetic/mystic are not mainstream in those religions.

But for this communal, social approach to work, a basic trust is necessary. And when this trust doesn’t exist or is damaged (such as when one is an outsider to the religion; or when one has been betrayed or abused by members of that religion), the person still interested in said religion needs to find some other way, circumventing the problem of trust, if they are to keep in some kind of proximity to said religion.

 

[rossum]

Is spiritual reality fundamentally subject to time and space?

The two are mutually conditioning. Each affects the other; the relationship between them is mutual and two-way. Your “fundamentally” is asking the wrong question.

Is a child fundamentally dependent on its mother or its father?

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

“Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakara vyakarana sutra, 91.

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

Language does not determine what is true. My point is that your “universal truths” cannot be expressed in any non-universal language. If the language in non-universal, then that expression is not universal. Is the following expression true or false?

iha śāriputra: rūpaṃ śūnyatā śūnyataiva rūpaṃ; rūpān na pṛthak śūnyatā śunyatāyā na pṛthag rūpaṃ; yad rūpaṃ sā śūnyatā; ya śūnyatā tad rūpaṃ. evam eva vedanā saṃjñā saṃskāra vijñānaṃ.

Unless you can read transliterated Sanskrit, you will not be able to determine the truth or falsity of that statement. It is dependent on the availability of a Sanskrit-English dictionary. Hence it is not a universal statement, but a contingent statement.

By asking for a universal truth, you are asking for the impossible. All I require is a local truth that works for me here and now; much more practical.

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

No. They can represent non-truths as well. Newton’s equations are useful, and expressed in scientific symbols, yet Newton’s equations are not correct. Einstein’s equations are less incorrect, but even they need further correction.

As always, there is a requirement for a dictionary to determine the meaning of the symbols. The Chinese for ‘2’ looks like ‘=’. The Chinese for ‘4’ looks like ‘+’. The Arabic for ‘0’ looks like ‘.’ The Arabic for ‘7’ looks like ‘V’. There is no universal meaning inherent in any character.

What is the entire set of chains relative to?

Itself. Chains within the set interact with the other chains, and with their own past elements.

Then it is an absolute truth that an illusion is a mismatch.

No. It is a very common local truth.

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?

The latter. Things are all dependent. Nothing at all has its own inherent existence. Everything is contingent, changing and impermanent.

rossum

 

[rossum]

As a true Madhyamika Prasangika.

Thank you for the compliment.

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.

Certainly I am very far short of “unaffected clarity”. So far, the Madhyamaka Prasangika way is working for me; I am moving in the right direction. When/if it ceases to work, then I will look for another way to progress. Buddhism offers a great variety of paths to the goal. It is worth pointing out that the goal is often not what you think it is – those models inside your head again.

Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it. He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

Source: Zen is Boring, Brad Warner.

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

A scholar might be able to describe the distinction. I use both at different times.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

So far, the Madhyamaka Prasangika way is working for me; I am moving in the right direction. When/if it ceases to work, then I will look for another way to progress. Buddhism offers a great variety of paths to the goal. It is worth pointing out that the goal is often not what you think it is – those models inside your head again.

Here is where I get confused.

You say you are “moving in the right direction,” that the way is “working for” you and that you will “look for another way to progress” if it “ceases to work,” yet you claim the “goal” is not one of those models “inside your head.”

However, how would you know if it is or isn’t working or that you are or are not making progress without a predetermined “model” to weigh your progress or success against?

This just seems a case of self-deception or what is in your mind playing a game with your mind, proposing, that it isn’t showing you the way at the same time as it is doing so.

Perhaps “getting outside your head” is precisely what “the Church” or the Christ is - beyond any possibility of self-deception because it isn’t dependent upon you but on what is definitively “outside” of you - leaving no possibility of letting what is “inside your head” play you.

 

[rossum]

You say you are “moving in the right direction,” that the way is “working for” you and that you will “look for another way to progress” if it “ceases to work,” yet you claim the “goal” is not one of those models “inside your head.”

The way I check that what I am doing is correct is to test it against the real world, not against the model inside my head. The real world is what it is. The models in my head are just models. I work to keep those models as accurate as I can, but they are still models. One of the benefits of Buddhist meditation is to get practice at separating the raw external sensations from the internal models: “Unpleasant sensation from body contact. Beware hatred.” The raw sensation is from the sense of touch. The “unpleasant” is from the preliminary overall classification in our brain. The hatred is due to the more complex internal model.

However, how would you know if it is or isn’t working or that you are or are not making progress without a predetermined “model” to weigh your progress or success against?

Progress is measured in the real world.

[The Buddha said:] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

– Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65

I do use a temporary model, which I update with reference to the real world every so often. Does this practice still work? Should I do more of it? Should I do less of it? Should I introduce a new practice? In Buddhism, everything changes. Any practice needs to incorporate that.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I do use a temporary model, which I update with reference to the real world every so often. Does this practice still work? Should I do more of it? Should I do less of it? Should I introduce a new practice? **In Buddhism, everything changes. **
rossum

Except the dogma that everything changes?

 

[tonyrey]

**In Buddhism, everything changes. **

That must be the exception that proves the universal rule. Or perhaps it is an illusion that solves the problem…

But then… if everything is an illusion it is an illusion that everything is an illusion - which means that if it is an illusion that if everything is an illusion it is an illusion that everything is an illusion… :juggle:

 

[Lucy107]

You say you are “moving in the right direction,” that the way is “working for” you and that you will “look for another way to progress” if it “ceases to work,” yet you claim the “goal” is not one of those models “inside your head.”

However, how would you know if it is or isn’t working or that you are or are not making progress without a predetermined “model” to weigh your progress or success against?

This just seems a case of self-deception or what is in your mind playing a game with your mind, proposing, that it isn’t showing you the way at the same time as it is doing so.

It’s about what conscience does.
What Rossum is doing is in method no different than what Christians are doing:

According to common Christian teaching, one must follow one’s conscience even when it is mistaken. St. Thomas explains this as follows. Conscience is one’s last and best judgment as to the choice one ought to make. If this judgment is mistaken, one does not know it at the time. One will follow one’s conscience if one is choosing reasonably. To the best of one’s knowledge and belief, it is God’s plan and will. So if one acts against one’s conscience, one is certainly in the wrong (see S.t., 1–2, q. 19, aa. 5–6).11

twotlj.org/G-1-3-C.html

It is the nature of conscience as such that if one sticks to it, it allows for progressive changes, progressive improvement, in ways that one cannot foresee or predict.

Perhaps “getting outside your head” is precisely what “the Church” or the Christ is - beyond any possibility of self-deception because it isn’t dependent upon you but on what is definitively “outside” of you - leaving no possibility of letting what is “inside your head” play you.

Only provided that one believes that already, takes it for granted.