What can you say about the following claims?

[grannymh]

Yes. An absolute truth cannot depend on time. At the moment it has no meaning because ‘forglebling’ has no meaning. In future it will have a meaning so its meaning is time dependent.

Forgleblings are very like Bandersnatchii but lack the 12th tentacle from the right and have a second fribulum in its place.

rossum

“An absolute truth cannot depend on time.” – If being time-dependent is a contingency, the objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect could still be an absolute. This is because contingency implies possibility, chance, uncertainty, or incidental. Pinching ourselves tells us that we certainly exist.

On the other hand, Forgleblings, either green or purple ones, are waiting to exist. This waiting at least 2.7 billion years and more does make the Forgleblings depended on time passing. The human person exists now regardless of how much time will pass in its future. Therefore, a truth involving the human person is absolute because past time has no current effect on it and neither does future time because the person already exists in the present.

Are you really sure that the 12th tentacle is missing? I think it developed into an opposable thumb. If you stand on your head you can see it. I do recognize that the British are known for doing things in a proper manner so from your point of view, you could be looking at a fribulum-type thumb.

Blessings,
granny

All of creation is a joy to behold.

 

[rossum]

If you stand on your head you can see it.

As a poor benighted former-colonial type from a country which left the Empire of its own free will – scarcely believable, I know – you cannot be expected to know that it is not us British who stand on our heads, but our antipodean Australian and New Zealand compatriots in the Commonwealth who do so. May I suggest that you move northwards into the Dominion of Canada where you may bask in the radiance of Her Majesty’s glorious presence across the pond and acquire a fuller knowledge of the Empire.

(Did I rather overdo it a bit there?)

rossum

 

[Abu]

To the fantasy that Christianity is no better than any other faith. All religions lead to God. See the answer of Jesus of Nazareth

**Only Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God –The Catholic Church was founded by Him **

1. Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Judge of all mankind (Mt 25:31-46). The “Son of Man” is a Messianic title (Dan 7:13-14).
2. Jesus claimed divine prerogatives: (Jn 8:57-58; Jn 5:22-23; Jn 3:18; 10:9; Jn 15:1; Jn 14:6; Jn 17:5,10,19).
3. The Jews recognised that Jesus claimed to be God: (Jn 10:30-33; Jn 5:17-21; Jn 19:7).
4. Jesus claimed to be God the Lawgiver (Mt 12:8), (Mt 5:21-22; vv. 28, 32,34,39,44).
5. Jesus claimed to be Omnipotent, a Divine Person, God the Son, equal in power to the Father: (Mt 28:18; Lk 10:22)
6. Jesus claimed to be God the Son, one in nature with the Father (Mt 16: 13-17; Lk 10:22; Mt 11:27; Mt 3:17; Lk 20:13-16; Mt 14:61-64; Mt 26:63-66)

 

[grannymh]

As a poor benighted former-colonial type from a country which left the Empire of its own free will – scarcely believable, I know – you cannot be expected to know that it is not us British who stand on our heads, but our antipodean Australian and New Zealand compatriots in the Commonwealth who do so. May I suggest that you move northwards into the Dominion of Canada where you may bask in the radiance of Her Majesty’s glorious presence across the pond and acquire a fuller knowledge of the Empire.

(Did I rather overdo it a bit there?)

rossum

Overdo it? Your proper suggestion is well taken but upon pondering the proposition of moving northwards, I would think that the perfect possible prospect would be to position my person posthaste in proximity of the more probable presence of Her Majesty in the pinnacle of the Empire which is predominantly prestigious due to the populace of popular London. And that is not poppycock.

 

[grannymh]

To the fantasy that Christianity is no better than any other faith. All religions lead to God. See the answer of Jesus of Nazareth

**Only Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God –The Catholic Church was founded by Him **

To that I would add that the Catholic Church provides the complete means – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments – for reaching eternal life with God or as we used to say – to be in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

This is not meant as a put down because I have great respect for other faiths. God calls all people to come to Him no matter where they are. Nonetheless, one can look at Catholicism as being the whole pie.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life with God.

 

[rossum]

Overdo it? Your proper suggestion is well taken but upon pondering the proposition of moving northwards, I would think that the perfect possible prospect would be to position my person posthaste in proximity of the more probable presence of Her Majesty in the pinnacle of the Empire which is predominantly prestigious due to the populace of popular London. And that is not poppycock.

Touché

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Touché

rossum

Thank you. Often it is more fun to tie than to win.

Now it is time to get back to contingencies regarding absolute truth and also objective truth. As I think further about it, perhaps contingencies are more significant than one’s looking at truth subjectively which would be relativism.

I agree with your answer “yes” to the question “Would time-dependent term be a contingency?” (post 139) I should also confess that when I wrote “Contingency or no contingency does not affect the fact that the basic, fundamental truth is absolute.” (post 131) I was guessing. This is an old habit learned in a work environment where everyone was free to put forth any idea/guess as a possible solution to questions being discussed. It continues to amaze me what these “guesses” accomplished.

Currently, one of my sons taught me the joy of “both / and” over the mutually exclusive “or”. Since contingency can imply possibility, chance, uncertainty, incidental and so on, in my view there can be contingencies connected to absolute truth but they would not be essential or indispensable.

Three examples:

1. The Forgleblings (post 134) will not exist until 2.7 billion years after the last human has died; therefore their existence depends on time passing. An absolute truth exists in present time. While the non-existent Forglebling is very important, especially the pink one, it is not an absolute because of the time contingency. Note: I did check Forglebling on Google.

2.The human person exists here and now, even the ones in the womb. In a sense the whole of human anatomy exists in its DNA. The changes in anatomy growth which will occur over time are predisposed in the current existing genes. Since it is only the changes which depend on time, the essence of the human person remains. Thus the truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect is an absolute truth.

1. From the Buddhist point of view, I would like to place in discussion the points made in post 106 regarding reincarnation. I have tried to walk a mile in your moccasins – based on a very old saying in my childhood neighborhood. Disagreement with one’s worldview does not preclude understanding.

From my own method of reasoning, I keep human nature as a constant and thus I would apply contingency to changes due to reincarnation. If I understand you, the changes due to reincarnation would be essential to the process of gaining enlightenment. Please correct me. Also, eventually I would like to know the relationship between a non-absolute truth and an objective truth mentioned in post 106.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is the answer to the question --Is there a future?

 

[DonM]

I would say that this statement is self defeating. If this statement is true, then it is “Absolutely True” in all cases which automatically proves that the premise of the statement is false.

There are a couple of reasons I disagree.

First, when someone says there is no absolute truth, or unchanging reality, they are not necessarily accepting the validity of syllogisms. A syllogism depends on the assumption that there is absolute truth. Consider the approach of new agers, who consider that theories about multiple parallel universes, in which the laws of physics and logic might be different, or those that would take the position that logic itself is a human invention, an illusion.

Second, the effectiveness of the syllogism depends on how it is phrased. If someone says “I have never encountered an absolute, unchanging, universal truth,” the argument would then shift to counter-factuals, and the relativist might hold his ground fairly well. In other words, the relativist can express his position without taking an absolute stand. Finally, there is the possibility that he could revise his statement as follows: “there is only one absolute truth, and that is that there are no other universal truths.”

 

[rossum]

2.The human person exists here and now, even the ones in the womb. In a sense the whole of human anatomy exists in its DNA. The changes in anatomy growth which will occur over time are predisposed in the current existing genes. Since it is only the changes which depend on time, the essence of the human person remains. Thus the truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect is an absolute truth.

Buddhism does not recognise any soul, which means that it does not recognise your “essence of the human person”. There is a human person, but just a human person. There is no “essence of human person” in addition. There is something which changes and runs through many lifetimes but that is not “human” since not all of those lifetimes have to be human lifetimes.

From my own method of reasoning, I keep human nature as a constant and thus I would apply contingency to changes due to reincarnation. If I understand you, the changes due to reincarnation would be essential to the process of gaining enlightenment.

Change, from whatever source, is needed for enlightenment. I am currently not enlightened. If I do not (or cannot) change then I will never be enlightened. I have to change from unenlightened rossum to enlightened rossum. No change – no enlightenment.

Also, eventually I would like to know the relationship between a non-absolute truth and an objective truth mentioned in post 106.

There are two separate axes: absolute/non-absolute and objective/subjective. That gives in theory four possibilities:* absolute objective truth.

• absolute subjective truth.
• non-absolute objective truth.
• non-absolute subjective truth.

The first two do not exist if there is no absolute truth. The last two differ on being objective - i.e. based on more than one’s own personal opinion and subjective - based on personal opinion.

rossum

 

[DonM]

There are two separate axes: absolute/non-absolute and objective/subjective. That gives in theory four possibilities:* absolute objective truth.

• absolute subjective truth.
• non-absolute objective truth.
• non-absolute subjective truth.

The first two do not exist if there is no absolute truth. The last two differ on being objective - i.e. based on more than one’s own personal opinion and subjective - based on personal opinion.

rossum

What is the classification of these statements -

All conditioned things are empty of inherent existence?

All beings have a Buddha-nature?

The way to overcoming human suffering is the eight-fold noble path?

If there are not absolutely true, are there circumstances you can point to in which they are not true? If they are objectively true, can you provide objective evidence? If they are subjectively true, can you tell me the persons for whom you know they are not true?

 

[rossum]

What is the classification of these statements -

All conditioned things are empty of inherent existence?

All beings have a Buddha-nature?

The way to overcoming human suffering is the eight-fold noble path?

If there are not absolutely true, are there circumstances you can point to in which they are not true? If they are objectively true, can you provide objective evidence? If they are subjectively true, can you tell me the persons for whom you know they are not true?

All three are non-absolute objective truths.

The first is contingent on the existence of “conditioned things”. All conditioned things are observed to change and hence cannot have inherent existence - anything with inherent existence cannot change.

The second is contingent on the existence of “beings”. From observation we know that human beings can attain Buddhahood. Reincarnation allows all other beings to be human. Instructions to verify reincarnation are in the Visuddhimagga, Chapter Thirteen.

The third is contingent on the existence of the human race. That path has been followed by many humans who have overcome suffering. Just go and ask them; does the Dalai Lama seem unhappy?

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Buddhism does not recognise any soul, which means that it does not recognise your “essence of the human person”. There is a human person, but just a human person.

Setting “soul” aside for the moment, I was trying to describe what it is that defines myself as a human person. I can lose a leg, lose my teeth, lose my memory, but I am still an existing person. I exist here and now. My human nature exists here and now. What is it that says that this or that living being is a human person?

There is no “essence of human person” in addition. There is something which changes and runs through many lifetimes but that is not “human” since not all of those lifetimes have to be human lifetimes.

Are there simple, basic metaphysical principles in Buddhism? Not that I am currently knowledgeable in metaphysics. Only that my memory of studying metaphysics is a good one. Walking out of class one night, there was total exhilaration because I could accept the Catholic Eucharist with my intellect in addition to my faith. I cannot explain this acceptance only that the nature of living beings was beginning to make sense to me.

To get back to “just a human person”, I am looking at human life as being singular or individualistic. There is something inherent and crucial which makes me a person distinct from other people; yet, at the same time, it connects me to all other people. It is that element which makes me me and makes me part of the unity of humanity. This concept is what I am referring to when I say that the human person, worthy of profound respect, remains despite changes that occur. Whatever that element is called, I consider it as being essential to me personally. It sticks to me.

Obviously, I do not believe in reincarnation. And I do not have the training to use the meditation exercise which focuses on any animal in post 106. It is not my intention to profane it in any way. Nonetheless, as I tried to experience it, there seemed to be a deep relationship content expressed in the word “my”. To me, “my” signified something which is indispensible to human nature. It was that something which bonds my father, my daughter to me.

My guess is that some of my metaphysical training is escaping from my subconscious in a disorderly fashion.

I would like to have your reaction to the above thoughts. You definitely present a challenge which is good. It seems to me that there could be a meeting ground regarding the human person just being a human person. If that happens as I think it would, the truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect could be considered universal if not absolute.

Besides needing a bit of a brain rest, I will be traveling to a First Communion celebration and then to visit a long time friend. I may not come straight home, but instead go the opposite direction to visit other family members. The point is that I may or may not find a granny friendly computer. Furthermore, the need to get packing organized prevents me from finishing a reply to your post. I do have the two separate axes highlighted in orange.

Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[DonM]

Setting “soul” aside for the moment, I was trying to describe what it is that defines myself as a human person. I can lose a leg, lose my teeth, lose my memory, but I am still an existing person. I exist here and now. My human nature exists here and now. What is it that says that this or that living being is a human person?

This is a question that no one has a satisfactory answer to, and Buddhism, in one sense, doesn’t even try. It is a question which leads not to edification:

“If the Blessed One knows that the world is finite,…”

“If the Blessed One knows that the soul and the body are identical,…”

“If the Blessed One knows that the saint exists after death,…”

“If the Blessed One knows that the saint both exists and does not exist after death, let the Blessed One elucidate to me that the saint both exists and does not exist after death, if the Blessed One knows that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death, let the Blessed One elucidate to me that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death. If the Blessed One does not know either that the saint both exists and does not exist after death, or that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death, the only upright thing for one who does not know, or who has not that insight, is to say, ‘I do not know, I have not that insight.”’

as.miami.edu/phi/bio/Buddha/questions.htm

To my mind, the Buddha’s answer (“we have more important concerns”), is a supreme cop out masquerading as wisdom. The issue in Buddhism is whether the self or soul of an enlightened person exists after death. Some continuity of karma, at the very least, passes from life to life among the unenlightened, and this could be see as somewhat analogous to the Christian concept of a soul or at least the common understanding of a self. Once karma is extinguished and the individual becomes enlightened, however, logically that continuity is ended. It has always seemed to me that the logical answer is that karma and rebirth are just thin myths painted over simple materialism, and there is no soul or self after the death of the enlightened, and that the Buddha’s response is one of the many places in which Buddhism skirts to the edge of nihilism, and avoids that abyss, for no apparent reason. But, I probably thought about it too much, and hence found myself unedified.

I think that most Buddhists will acknowledge that there seems to be something like a human nature, or a individualist self, but then will point to the fact that human nature and the self are all ever changing causes and conditions that have no locus or permanence, and asset they cannot exist. Then they will assert the truth of rebirth, and that something is there that provides some continuity, although it isn’t what it appears, and they will not say whether it is eternal (I think some will say it isn’t). Clinging to this false illusion of self is a cause of suffering.

So, the Christian believes that an eternal God creates and cherishes an individual distinct human soul, and the Buddhist believes that the very notion of the soul and the special place of humanity in the cosmos is a source of error and suffering.

 

[DonM]

All three are non-absolute objective truths.

I don’t get the “non-absolute.”

The first is contingent on the existence of “conditioned things”. All conditioned things are observed to change and hence cannot have inherent existence - anything with inherent existence cannot change.

Show me, then, a thing that is not conditioned. Better yet, teach me how to imagine a thing that is not conditioned.

If the word “conditioned” is a redundancy, then the truth becomes absolute, does it not?

The second is contingent on the existence of “beings”.

I don’t know if I accept the word “contigent.” If I assert that “cherries are red” is an absolute truth, it is not “conditioned” on the existence of cherries, but just a statement about cherries. We can say: dinosaurs had claws, for instance, although dinosaurs don’t exist. It remains a true statement; we just change the tense.

Does the contingency vanish if I edit my last two statements to “all beings that exist have a Buddha nature” and “all living humans can be freed from suffering though the noble eightfold path?”

As to the last (the assurance of the eightfold path), do we have objective proof? On that score, you ante one Dalai Lama, and I raise you one Chogyam Trungpa.

 

[antoniont1]

I had a quick brief look over a few pages on this thread… let me see if I can give clearer answers

1. There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.

Well some things may not be absolutely true (e.g. preferences, emotions, value judgements, perception and sensation), but there are bound to be some truth that are absolutely true. For example, “cogito ergo sum” would be hard to refute, so is “X is X” and “‘God does not exist’ and ‘God exists’ cannot be both true at the same time”

1. Christianity is no better than any other faith. All religions lead to God.
2. I don’t need to go to Church. As long as I’m a good person, that’s all that really matters.
3. You don’t need to confess your sins to a priest. You can go straight to God.

These three seems less philosophical but theological, and followers of other beliefs may not really get it.
2: CC teaches that other religions may have partial understanding of truth because God can show them… as how I see it, To play on an idiom: “Not all roads lead to Rome, and for those that do, some are more direct than others”. From the Bible we know that Christ entrusted us with Apostolic succession and Holy Tradition, so we should believe that ours is the most direct.
3, 4: How can you tell you are good enough for God’s standards? He may be merciful but He is also just.

1. Dissent is actually a positive thing, since we should all keep our minds open to new ideas.

We can be open to new ideas without being a dissent. Discussion or critical review of accepted beliefs could be helpful, but disagreeing for the sake of that is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[rossum]

Setting “soul” aside for the moment, I was trying to describe what it is that defines myself as a human person. I can lose a leg, lose my teeth, lose my memory, but I am still an existing person. I exist here and now. My human nature exists here and now. What is it that says that this or that living being is a human person?

The I that was born those few years ago was not able to type, was not able to speak English, was not a grandmother. There is a bundle of things that you can conveniently call “me”. That bundle changes over time. No single element of the bundle is “essence of me” since all the elements of the bundle can change. While “me” is a convenient and conventional designation it does not actually indicate anything more that the current temporary bundle. A car has a steering wheel but a steering wheel is not a car. No single part is the car, yet if we remove all the parts then there is no “car” left.

Are there simple, basic metaphysical principles in Buddhism?

Buddhism has a lot of metaphysics if you want to dig for it, but it generally ignores metaphysics as useless. Metaphysics is mostly used against oppponents wrong views. A few schools will put forward positive metaphysical views, but the mainstream Mahayana follows Nargajuna and Zen in refusing to propose a positive metaphysics. All descriptions of reality are false, so it is an error to get hung up on any particular desription. “Nada, nada, nada, y en el monte, nada.”

To get back to “just a human person”, I am looking at human life as being singular or individualistic. There is something inherent and crucial which makes me a person distinct from other people; yet, at the same time, it connects me to all other people. It is that element which makes me me and makes me part of the unity of humanity. This concept is what I am referring to when I say that the human person, worthy of profound respect, remains despite changes that occur. Whatever that element is called, I consider it as being essential to me personally. It sticks to me.

Being alive makes all living things worthy of respect. Confining it to just human life is too narrow.

And I do not have the training to use the meditation exercise which focuses on any animal in post 106.

Try saying the Jesus Prayer. That is both simple and Christian.

Enjoy your travels, and don’t get caught in any ash clouds! I had to cancel a trip to Biarritz.

rossum

 

[Abu]

Error 5: “that dissent is positive” is easily shown to be false with regard to Christ and His Church.

The errors that Christ did not command us to partake of His Body and His Blood with the institution of the Holy Mass at the Last Supper developed with rapidity following the dissent and revolt of Martin Luther – poor misguided soul.

St Irenaeus in his *Epistle to the Smyrnaeans *(circa 110) referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions”: wrote: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”

Dissent has always been with us and is destructive of truth.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Those “Submit” and “Preview” buttons are much too close together.

The two are mutually conditioning: we cannot have “imperfect” without having “perfect” and vice versa. Each requires the other.

No, it does not have to exist, it merely has to have an agreed meaning. “Unicorn” has an agreed meaning yet it has no real referent.
Unicorn has a meaning, “A mythical animal”, I believe it is a noun. This is different than “imperfect, perfect”, they are adjetives. They discribe or modify nouns. That something is “perfect”, is a comparison with all other possibilities. That something is imperfect, is a comparison with the “perfect”. In order for there tobe meaning to imperfect , there must be a perfect.
I do not see how you can do anything other than make an unprovable claim that perfectdoes not exist.
I have to go now, more later.

rossum

 

[rossum]

To my mind, the Buddha’s answer (“we have more important concerns”), is a supreme cop out masquerading as wisdom.

I am in a room with two doors. I light a match and after a little time the match goes out. Which door did the match go out of?

Some questions are wrongly put. Questions about souls are wrongly put.

What was the name of Seth’s wife?

Some questions are irrelevant to the main purpose of life. Such questions are time wasters.

I think that most Buddhists will acknowledge that there seems to be something like a human nature, or a individualist self, but then will point to the fact that human nature and the self are all ever changing causes and conditions that have no locus or permanence, and asset they cannot exist.

Correct. The emphasis is on the “seems to be”. I will also make the point that there is a difference between “seems to be” and “does not exist”. A mirage seems to be water, but it is not actually water despite appearances. However a mirage does exist. Something which does not exist cannot look like water or like anything else. A mirage is deceptive and appears to be something that it is not. Buddhism is not nihilism, it is just very careful about what is appearance, “seems to be”, and what is behind the appearance.

rossum

 

[DonM]

Some questions are wrongly put. Questions about souls are wrongly put.

Sorry, Siddhartha doesn’t get a pass on this one.

If the form of the question is the problem, then he might have addressed it.

Instead, he uses a dishonest analogy. We aren’t pierced by an arrow, with minutes to live. Instead, he was addressing a group of fellows who had probably been sitting in meditation ofr six hours a day. They were sleeping, cooking, and doing dozens of other things that wouldn’t appear to be essential to their spiritual development. Somehow, though, their spiritual progress was so urgent that they couldn’t spend an idle hour thinking about whether the soul/self is eternal - a question that is almost compelled by HIS teaching of rebirth? In fact, their spirtual agnony was so acute that the Buddha couldn’t even spare ten minutes to answer a question that was prompted by his teachings?

I don’t think the Buddha’s actual answer is remotely defensible. Thinking of nonself, apparently, is connected with allievating suffering, as is thinking about rebirth - but somehow thinking about the nature of the self of the enlightened is a horrible wrong turn? Knwing the soul is eternal could give one peace, and promote release from suffering. Knowing it isn’t could promote acceptance and understanding of nonself. So,how is it this simple question is singled out as unproductive - except that the Buddha didn’t have an answer?