FreeSangha - Buddhist Forum

A Mosaic of Traditions - One Virtual Sangha => The Dharma Express => Topic started by: spark on September 12, 2017, 02:44:58 pm

Title: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: spark on September 12, 2017, 02:44:58 pm
I've compiled a table that compares and contrasts the relative and the ultimate truth, which are said to be two sides of the same coin. I'm not sure if I'm understanding emptiness correctly. Any feedback or comments would be appreciated. See attached.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: IdleChater on September 12, 2017, 03:58:49 pm
You don't really need a table - there are two truths:  Relative and Absolute.  Abolute Truth is Emptiness and Relative Truth is everything else.

I would advise against placing  word docs on line for people to download.  They can contain all sorts of nasty chit that will wreck computers and networks.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Samana Johann on September 12, 2017, 06:04:15 pm
Phenomena have two natures.
..........................................................................................................................................
Conventional (Relative)
Absolute (Ultimate)
Assumption/hypothesis: self-existenceFoundation: Laws of Logic
a. Law of non-contradiction  ~(A & ~A)
Nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time.

b. Law of identity  A=A
Everything is identical to itself.

C. Law of excluded middle  A v ~A
For any particular property, everything either has it or lacks it.

(H.S. philosophy class notes based on the book, How to Think About Weird Things)

Assumption/hypothesis: inter-dependence

Foundation: karma, middle way, emptiness

a. Karma: cause, condition, and effect
“If something were inherent, it would mean it existed without depending on anything [i.e. no cause]” (13, Courtin). Karma is interdependence.

b. The Middle Way (MW):
Extreme--------------Truth-------------Extreme
(Faith)           (MD)      (Nihilism)
Truth is non-dual. Align the mind with non-dualism so that we don’t grasp and put too much on either extreme; this way, we could hear properly.

Emptiness: there’s nothing from the side of a thing that makes that thing.



Things exist by agreement on:
a. Characteristics and substance
b. Function

Example:  A cup

a. it’s a flat-bottomed clay container with a handle on it.
b. It holds tea.
If everybody agrees, then it’s a cup
(8, Courtin).

“The object, the superstition [of] giving it a name and the name itself – is all that’s needed for a relative phenomenon to exist” (17, Lama Yeshe).

“[Things] are mere [names] on a collection of parts” (18, Lama Yeshe).

Things exist in dependence upon:
a. causes and conditions
b. parts
c. the mind that labels them.

Example: Absence of inherent cup
a. “There is a cup that does exist – in dependence upon countless causes and conditions. But you will not find a cup among any one of those causes and conditions. […] Therefore there’s no cup from its own side. You see the absence of the inherent cup.” (9, Courtin)
Causes and conditions make up a cup. A cup doesn’t exist without causes and conditions (independently). P, Q; ~Q, ~P
It exists interdependently, i.e. empty of inherent existence.*


b-1. If the cup existed inherently, i.e. not dependent on anything, then there’d be a cup once we break down the parts. Where’s it?
Another Ex: “I have a foot. […] There’s my foot – cut it off! […] Now, where’s the I? Where is the I that is not the nose, not the hand, and not the foot...” (10, Courtin).

b-2. The inherent cup can’t be a combination of all the parts either because that would mean the cup is dependent on its parts, which are constantly undergoing change (impermanence). If the parts have changed, then is it still that original cup?

c. The concept of “cup” would not be possible without the mind defining and inputting it. The very word, “phenomenon, means the object of a person’s perception, what the mind notices.


...

...


...

...

Is a little bugy, the table code (http://www.freesangha.com/forums/Themes/default/images/bbc/table.gif)
Code: [Select]
[table]
[tr]
[td]colum1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]colum 2[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

You (who ever inspired and generous, sympatetic torward fearing people) can contionue to complete the table.

Offtopic u hover me.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: spark on September 12, 2017, 06:40:05 pm
You don't really need a table - there are two truths:  Relative and Absolute.  Abolute Truth is Emptiness and Relative Truth is everything else.

I would advise against placing  word docs on line for people to download.  They can contain all sorts of nasty chit that will wreck computers and networks.

Good point about the attachment. That was rather inconsiderate of me.
The part below is where I wasn't sure if I got it right. I tried to come up with rationale for arguing for and against. I wanted to know if my thinking in either argument was sound.

** “Is there any phenomenon that has inherent existence?
If something were inherent, it would mean it existed without depending on anything” (13, Courtin).
As an extension to this question, what about abstractions and concepts such as Plato’s Theory of Forms? We call something a cup based on its definition (abstraction of what a cup is). Argument: The Cup, as a Form/concept, would have existed without its physical substance; therefore, existing independently. Counter-argument: The concept of Cup exists in dependence on our perceptions and mental formations (?). If there weren’t perceptions, how could we describe it? If there weren’t physical substance, how could we perceive? Concept, The Cup, depends on perceptions, which depends on physical substance; therefore, it is dependent arising.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: IdleChater on September 12, 2017, 07:05:51 pm
Phenomena have two natures.
..........................................................................................................................................
Conventional (Relative)
Absolute (Ultimate)
Assumption/hypothesis: self-existenceFoundation: Laws of Logic
a. Law of non-contradiction  ~(A & ~A)
Nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time.

b. Law of identity  A=A
Everything is identical to itself.

C. Law of excluded middle  A v ~A
For any particular property, everything either has it or lacks it.

(H.S. philosophy class notes based on the book, How to Think About Weird Things)

Assumption/hypothesis: inter-dependence

Foundation: karma, middle way, emptiness

a. Karma: cause, condition, and effect
“If something were inherent, it would mean it existed without depending on anything [i.e. no cause]” (13, Courtin). Karma is interdependence.

b. The Middle Way (MW):
Extreme--------------Truth-------------Extreme
(Faith)           (MD)      (Nihilism)
Truth is non-dual. Align the mind with non-dualism so that we don’t grasp and put too much on either extreme; this way, we could hear properly.

Emptiness: there’s nothing from the side of a thing that makes that thing.



Things exist by agreement on:
a. Characteristics and substance
b. Function

Example:  A cup

a. it’s a flat-bottomed clay container with a handle on it.
b. It holds tea.
If everybody agrees, then it’s a cup
(8, Courtin).

“The object, the superstition [of] giving it a name and the name itself – is all that’s needed for a relative phenomenon to exist” (17, Lama Yeshe).

“[Things] are mere [names] on a collection of parts” (18, Lama Yeshe).

Things exist in dependence upon:
a. causes and conditions
b. parts
c. the mind that labels them.

Example: Absence of inherent cup
a. “There is a cup that does exist – in dependence upon countless causes and conditions. But you will not find a cup among any one of those causes and conditions. […] Therefore there’s no cup from its own side. You see the absence of the inherent cup.” (9, Courtin)
Causes and conditions make up a cup. A cup doesn’t exist without causes and conditions (independently). P, Q; ~Q, ~P
It exists interdependently, i.e. empty of inherent existence.*


b-1. If the cup existed inherently, i.e. not dependent on anything, then there’d be a cup once we break down the parts. Where’s it?
Another Ex: “I have a foot. […] There’s my foot – cut it off! […] Now, where’s the I? Where is the I that is not the nose, not the hand, and not the foot...” (10, Courtin).

b-2. The inherent cup can’t be a combination of all the parts either because that would mean the cup is dependent on its parts, which are constantly undergoing change (impermanence). If the parts have changed, then is it still that original cup?

c. The concept of “cup” would not be possible without the mind defining and inputting it. The very word, “phenomenon, means the object of a person’s perception, what the mind notices.


...

...


...

...

Is a little bugy, the table code ([url]http://www.freesangha.com/forums/Themes/default/images/bbc/table.gif[/url])
Code: [Select]
[table]
[tr]
[td]colum1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]colum 2[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

You (who ever inspired and generous, sympatetic torward fearing people) can contionue to complete the table.

Offtopic u hover me.


That's fine, but the Buddha's teachings still state (and I paraphrase) , Absolute Truth is emptiness and Relative Truth is everything else.

Now, you can jump through all the philosophical hoops you like,  but that won't really change anything.

Good luck.

Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Samana Johann on September 12, 2017, 07:50:37 pm
Offtopic to hover
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: ground on September 12, 2017, 10:53:48 pm
there are two truths:  Relative and Absolute.  Abolute Truth is Emptiness and Relative Truth is everything else.
This statement however and its expression 'absolute truth' are again necessarily 'relative truths' due to being conventional linguistic expressions and since 'relative truth' actually means 'falsity' because 'relative truth' is only a truth for the concealer ordinary consciousness which does not directly perceive emptiness there is no truth at all for one directly perceiving emptiness.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Dharma Flower on September 12, 2017, 11:02:42 pm
I've compiled a table that compares and contrasts the relative and the ultimate truth, which are said to be two sides of the same coin. I'm not sure if I'm understanding emptiness correctly. Any feedback or comments would be appreciated. See attached.


This is a good article on the two truths doctrine in early Buddhism:

Quote
In studying and speaking the Dharma, we especially need to be aware of the conventional (or worldly or cultural) level and the ultimate (param’attha) or spiritual or Dharma) level of teaching. The conventional language is only useful and wholesome when they point, even remotely, to the true Dharma. And at the proper time, this reference should be clarified to the follower or practitioner. The point is that the spiritual should in due course transcend the worldly and cultural.

1.2 The Neyy’attha Nīt’attha Sutta (A 2.3.5-6) records an important reminder by the Buddha on how we should approach every sutta and text, that is, we must carefully consider whether the language is conventional (based on everyday language describing causes and conditions) or ultimate (that is, Dharma language, pointing to the fact that things have no intrinsic nature or abiding essence).

Those suttas or teachings that tell stories, describe ritual acts, or that talk of “beings,” “gods,” etc, need to have their meaning drawn out (neyy’attha), as they do not directly refer to true reality. They use language and words in the form of a story or images to talk about true reality. Their meaning is indirect.
They are provisional (pariyāya) teachings, unlike say some Abhidhamma doctrines, which are said to be explicit (nippariyāyena).1
[url]http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2.6b_Neyyattha_Nitattha_S_a2.3.5-6_piya.pdf[/url] ([url]http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2.6b_Neyyattha_Nitattha_S_a2.3.5-6_piya.pdf[/url])
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Dharma Flower on September 12, 2017, 11:03:44 pm
That's fine, but the Buddha's teachings still state (and I paraphrase) , Absolute Truth is emptiness and Relative Truth is everything else.

While some Mahayana philosophers taught that the ultimate truth is emptiness, others taught the ultimate truth is pure consciousness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: ground on September 12, 2017, 11:34:06 pm
That's fine, but the Buddha's teachings still state (and I paraphrase) , Absolute Truth is emptiness and Relative Truth is everything else.

While some Mahayana philosophers taught that the ultimate truth is emptiness, others taught the ultimate truth is pure consciousness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses

Which shows that the expression 'ultimate truth' is only a conventional linguistic expression since its definition is dependent on the community of believers that provides it.
There is no 'ultimate truth' that is ultimately or absolutely true since what is called 'truth' is only true for the concealer ordinary consciousness.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Dharma Flower on September 13, 2017, 12:06:16 am
That's fine, but the Buddha's teachings still state (and I paraphrase) , Absolute Truth is emptiness and Relative Truth is everything else.

While some Mahayana philosophers taught that the ultimate truth is emptiness, others taught the ultimate truth is pure consciousness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses

Which shows that the expression 'ultimate truth' is only a conventional linguistic expression since its definition is dependent on the community of believers that provides it.
There is no 'ultimate truth' that is ultimately or absolutely true since what is called 'truth' is only true for the concealer ordinary consciousness.

It's more like different ways of describing the same ultimate reality, like the Buddha's parable of the blind men and the elephant.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: ground on September 13, 2017, 05:09:56 am
That's fine, but the Buddha's teachings still state (and I paraphrase) , Absolute Truth is emptiness and Relative Truth is everything else.

While some Mahayana philosophers taught that the ultimate truth is emptiness, others taught the ultimate truth is pure consciousness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses

Which shows that the expression 'ultimate truth' is only a conventional linguistic expression since its definition is dependent on the community of believers that provides it.
There is no 'ultimate truth' that is ultimately or absolutely true since what is called 'truth' is only true for the concealer ordinary consciousness.

It's more like different ways of describing the same ultimate reality, like the Buddha's parable of the blind men and the elephant.

your statement is based on your belief that a so called 'ultimate reality' exists but that the different communities of believers just can't see it because of being blind which is why they insist on their definition, i.e. fabrication.

But why should your belief outweigh the beliefs of others? your statement is just a variant of the pretentiousness common to all believers.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: IdleChater on September 13, 2017, 05:22:15 pm
That's fine, but the Buddha's teachings still state (and I paraphrase) , Absolute Truth is emptiness and Relative Truth is everything else.

While some Mahayana philosophers taught that the ultimate truth is emptiness, others taught the ultimate truth is pure consciousness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses

Which shows that the expression 'ultimate truth' is only a conventional linguistic expression since its definition is dependent on the community of believers that provides it.
There is no 'ultimate truth' that is ultimately or absolutely true since what is called 'truth' is only true for the concealer ordinary consciousness.

It's more like different ways of describing the same ultimate reality, like the Buddha's parable of the blind men and the elephant.

your statement is based on your belief that a so called 'ultimate reality' exists but that the different communities of believers just can't see it because of being blind which is why they insist on their definition, i.e. fabrication.

But why should your belief outweigh the beliefs of others? your statement is just a variant of the pretentiousness common to all believers.

And your statement is based on beiefs of a similar nature - untested and not independantly verified.  You believe you are right and averyone else is wrong.  You believe you've attained somethin the rest of us are to clueless to see. 

Beliefs.  Just like everyone else's.

So why don't you quit ragging on people?
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Solodris on September 13, 2017, 09:37:56 pm
That's fine, but the Buddha's teachings still state (and I paraphrase) , Absolute Truth is emptiness and Relative Truth is everything else.

While some Mahayana philosophers taught that the ultimate truth is emptiness, others taught the ultimate truth is pure consciousness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses

Which shows that the expression 'ultimate truth' is only a conventional linguistic expression since its definition is dependent on the community of believers that provides it.
There is no 'ultimate truth' that is ultimately or absolutely true since what is called 'truth' is only true for the concealer ordinary consciousness.

It's more like different ways of describing the same ultimate reality, like the Buddha's parable of the blind men and the elephant.

your statement is based on your belief that a so called 'ultimate reality' exists but that the different communities of believers just can't see it because of being blind which is why they insist on their definition, i.e. fabrication.

But why should your belief outweigh the beliefs of others? your statement is just a variant of the pretentiousness common to all believers.

And your statement is based on beiefs of a similar nature - untested and not independantly verified.  You believe you are right and averyone else is wrong.  You believe you've attained somethin the rest of us are to clueless to see. 

Beliefs.  Just like everyone else's.

So why don't you quit ragging on people?

Even though it would seem I would have a right to hold a personal belief, I wouldn't believe in holding one if the cost is a nonsensical conscience. Most of the time I'm as clueless as you, even though I am the one doing the talking. Using controversy as spiritual improvement and call it buddhist practice would be like going to a christian confession booth to be forgiven for being an atheist, the math just doesn't add up.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Spiny Norman on September 14, 2017, 04:42:04 am
Beliefs.  Just like everyone else's.

Yes, we all have them.  In any case this is a discussion forum, and it's helpful when people can explain themselves clearly, rather than hiding behind cryptic jargon and deepity.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Spiny Norman on September 14, 2017, 04:46:39 am
Counter-argument: The concept of Cup exists in dependence on our perceptions and mental formations (?). If there weren’t perceptions, how could we describe it? If there weren’t physical substance, how could we perceive? Concept, The Cup, depends on perceptions, which depends on physical substance; therefore, it is dependent arising.

This is a doctrinal and philosophical can of worms, but I think basically the "cup" arises in dependence on conditions, including the perception of it. 

In my view this is really about developing insight into the conditionality of our experience.  What simplifies it for me is just observing sense-objects, like sensations, sights, sounds, and not getting too bogged down in all the metaphysical stuff. 
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Spiny Norman on September 14, 2017, 04:57:49 am
It's more like different ways of describing the same ultimate reality, like the Buddha's parable of the blind men and the elephant.

So is sunyata the "ultimate reality" here? 

By the way I'm not a fan of phrases like "ultimate reality".  Is "ultimate reality" more real than plain old "reality"?  And what on earth does "reality" mean here?  Whose "reality" are we talking about?  An ant's "reality" would be different from a human's "reality" and different again from that of a space alien, and different again from that of beings in another realm or dimension, if such things exist. 

If by "ultimate reality" you mean everything in the universe, then from a human perspective we will only ever be aware of a small fraction of it.  About the rest we can only speculate.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Ron-the-Elder on September 14, 2017, 05:56:35 am
Hi, Spiny.  Always good to read your stuff:

On "reality".  It has been my experience that all forms of reality are pretty much local and very personal.  It is subject to perspective derived of both education and experience.  That, I believe, was Buddha's point in his advice to The elders of The Kalamas.

Take space-time for example, which is subject to the distortions (effects) of mass, such as that exerted by planets, stars, and black holes.  It is also subject to distortions (effects) from acceleration and velocity of the being experiencing and/or measuring it as is discussed in Einstein's General and  Special theories of Relativity:

https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html (https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html)

From the perspective of education, experience and enlightenment there are those who are aware of reality from the mundane perspective of their daily environment.  Then there are those who are aware of reality based upon their education in the sciences of mathematics, chemistry, physics and biology.  Then there are those aware of reality on the basis of their personal experiences from having to deal with the world / environment from the perspective of being a child, an adult, a parent, a lender, a borrower, a beggar, and a giver.  Each of these life experiences ads a dimension of understanding not held by someone, who has never had the education, or experience, which each brings different lessons of the nature of reality.

Also, there is "motivation" to be considered.  The reality of the importance of sexuality experienced by an African elephant in musk is totally different than that of a thirty year old single mother, who has to work three jobs to support the results and demands of her four unwanted pregnancies.

Then there is "conditioning" and "training".  A highly conditioned athlete thinks highly of the cardio-vascular benefits of running five miles every morning before breakfast, whereas a two hundred and fifty pound couch potato would find the whole idea of even a quarter mile walk in the morning before work appalling.

As I said, all reality is local and personal.

Good to see you posting again, buddy.   :wink1:
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Solodris on September 14, 2017, 09:46:49 am
What is there to say about Relative Truth?

It's an ease to see the dawn?
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: ground on September 14, 2017, 03:07:09 pm
That's fine, but the Buddha's teachings still state (and I paraphrase) , Absolute Truth is emptiness and Relative Truth is everything else.

While some Mahayana philosophers taught that the ultimate truth is emptiness, others taught the ultimate truth is pure consciousness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses

Which shows that the expression 'ultimate truth' is only a conventional linguistic expression since its definition is dependent on the community of believers that provides it.
There is no 'ultimate truth' that is ultimately or absolutely true since what is called 'truth' is only true for the concealer ordinary consciousness.

It's more like different ways of describing the same ultimate reality, like the Buddha's parable of the blind men and the elephant.

your statement is based on your belief that a so called 'ultimate reality' exists but that the different communities of believers just can't see it because of being blind which is why they insist on their definition, i.e. fabrication.

But why should your belief outweigh the beliefs of others? your statement is just a variant of the pretentiousness common to all believers.

And your statement is based on beiefs of a similar nature - untested and not independantly verified.  You believe you are right and averyone else is wrong.  You believe you've attained somethin the rest of us are to clueless to see. 

Beliefs.  Just like everyone else's.

So why don't you quit ragging on people?

There is no belief you could be referring to with the expressions "your statement is based on beliefs" and "You believe". your strawman.  :fu:
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: IdleChater on September 14, 2017, 03:23:23 pm

So why don't you quit ragging on people?

There is no belief you could be referring to with the expressions "your statement is based on beliefs" and "You believe". your strawman.  :fu:

Of course you have beliefs.  Everyone does, and every statement you make on this board is based on them.

No strawman.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Spiny Norman on September 15, 2017, 01:28:38 am
As I said, all reality is local and personal.
Good to see you posting again, buddy.   :wink1:


You too, Ron!

At the risk of going a bit off topic, it's worth noting that in the suttas the emphasis is very much on "our world", rather than on "the world", and the Buddha often advised against metaphysical speculation.

Here's one example:
"Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.045.than.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.045.than.html)
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Spiny Norman on September 15, 2017, 01:32:24 am
Ultimate Truth is the common knowledge of the non-being, some call it soul, some call it paramatma.

Isn't sunyata Ultimate Truth in this context? 

Paramatma is a Hindu belief, not a Buddhist one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: ground on September 15, 2017, 08:10:59 pm

So why don't you quit ragging on people?

There is no belief you could be referring to with the expressions "your statement is based on beliefs" and "You believe". your strawman.  :fu:

Of course you have beliefs.  Everyone does, and every statement you make on this board is based on them.

No strawman.

Perceiving emptiness directly it is impossible for belief to arise in mind. There is not even belief in emptiness.

'everyone does' necessarily refers  to ordinary consciousnesses. The world does because it is dominated by ordinary consciousnesses.  :fu:
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: ground on September 15, 2017, 08:13:36 pm
Ultimate Truth is the common knowledge of the non-being, some call it soul, some call it paramatma.

Isn't sunyata Ultimate Truth in this context? 

Paramatma is a Hindu belief, not a Buddhist one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman

Ultimate truth is what you want it to be. Ultimate truth has never existed as anything at all. 'Ultimate truth' is a conventional linguistic expression  empty of meaning from the outset.  :fu:
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Solodris on September 15, 2017, 09:08:17 pm
Ultimate Truth is the common knowledge of the non-being, some call it soul, some call it paramatma.

Isn't sunyata Ultimate Truth in this context? 

Paramatma is a Hindu belief, not a Buddhist one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman

Ultimate truth is what you want it to be. Ultimate truth has never existed as anything at all. 'Ultimate truth' is a conventional linguistic expression  empty of meaning from the outset.  :fu:

Forgive me for the confusion.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Spiny Norman on September 16, 2017, 01:11:02 am
Ultimate Truth is the common knowledge of the non-being, some call it soul, some call it paramatma.

Isn't sunyata Ultimate Truth in this context? 

Paramatma is a Hindu belief, not a Buddhist one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman

Ultimate truth is what you want it to be. Ultimate truth has never existed as anything at all. 'Ultimate truth' is a conventional linguistic expression  empty of meaning from the outset.  :fu:

Meh.   :flush:
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Solodris on September 16, 2017, 02:22:27 am
*deleted*
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Solodris on September 16, 2017, 03:23:16 am
Relative Truth seem to be in a state of flux.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Ron-the-Elder on September 16, 2017, 03:59:48 am
Quote
solodris: ......... "Mastery in practice of devotional promise is the succession of failure after failure until it is delivered in the correct form.

Dr. Irwin Corey puts it most clearly:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxtN0xxzfsw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxtN0xxzfsw)
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: IdleChater on September 16, 2017, 05:46:51 am
Ultimate Truth is the common knowledge of the non-being, some call it soul, some call it paramatma.

Isn't sunyata Ultimate Truth in this context? 

Paramatma is a Hindu belief, not a Buddhist one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman

Ultimate truth is what you want it to be. Ultimate truth has never existed as anything at all. 'Ultimate truth' is a conventional linguistic expression  empty of meaning from the outset.  :fu:

Meh.   :flush:
+1
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: IdleChater on September 16, 2017, 06:12:10 am

So why don't you quit ragging on people?

There is no belief you could be referring to with the expressions "your statement is based on beliefs" and "You believe". your strawman.  :fu:

Of course you have beliefs.  Everyone does, and every statement you make on this board is based on them.

No strawman.

Perceiving emptiness directly it is impossible for belief to arise in mind. There is not even belief in emptiness.

'everyone does' necessarily refers  to ordinary consciousnesses. The world does because it is dominated by ordinary consciousnesses.  :fu:

Be that as it may, or may not be, my point is that you are constantly ragging on people about their "beliefs" as if you had none, that you have been liberated from them - an assertion which, in your case, is patently false.

You believe that assertion and that's ok.  You can believe whatever you like.  However to berate and belittle others for what you seem to percieve as a failing, one you share with us all, is the purist hyprocricy and you should stop that.

You also believe that you understand direct perception.  Again, this is fine.  This is something you should feel free to discuss and even promote, beause even though you're wrong about what it is, you have a right to be wrong, just don't get your knickers in a twist when you are challenged.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Solodris on September 16, 2017, 08:03:29 am

So why don't you quit ragging on people?

There is no belief you could be referring to with the expressions "your statement is based on beliefs" and "You believe". your strawman.  :fu:

Of course you have beliefs.  Everyone does, and every statement you make on this board is based on them.

No strawman.

Perceiving emptiness directly it is impossible for belief to arise in mind. There is not even belief in emptiness.

'everyone does' necessarily refers  to ordinary consciousnesses. The world does because it is dominated by ordinary consciousnesses.  :fu:

Be that as it may, or may not be, my point is that you are constantly ragging on people about their "beliefs" as if you had none, that you have been liberated from them - an assertion which, in your case, is patently false.

You believe that assertion and that's ok.  You can believe whatever you like.  However to berate and belittle others for what you seem to percieve as a failing, one you share with us all, is the purist hyprocricy and you should stop that.

You also believe that you understand direct perception.  Again, this is fine.  This is something you should feel free to discuss and even promote, beause even though you're wrong about what it is, you have a right to be wrong, just don't get your knickers in a twist when you are challenged.

Forgive me, I was in recovery of the remnants of deep seated suffering.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: IdleChater on September 16, 2017, 03:23:47 pm

So why don't you quit ragging on people?

There is no belief you could be referring to with the expressions "your statement is based on beliefs" and "You believe". your strawman.  :fu:

Of course you have beliefs.  Everyone does, and every statement you make on this board is based on them.

No strawman.

Perceiving emptiness directly it is impossible for belief to arise in mind. There is not even belief in emptiness.

'everyone does' necessarily refers  to ordinary consciousnesses. The world does because it is dominated by ordinary consciousnesses.  :fu:

Be that as it may, or may not be, my point is that you are constantly ragging on people about their "beliefs" as if you had none, that you have been liberated from them - an assertion which, in your case, is patently false.

You believe that assertion and that's ok.  You can believe whatever you like.  However to berate and belittle others for what you seem to percieve as a failing, one you share with us all, is the purist hyprocricy and you should stop that.

You also believe that you understand direct perception.  Again, this is fine.  This is something you should feel free to discuss and even promote, beause even though you're wrong about what it is, you have a right to be wrong, just don't get your knickers in a twist when you are challenged.

Forgive me, I was in recovery of the remnants of deep seated suffering.

WTF are you talking about?
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Solodris on September 16, 2017, 04:50:12 pm

So why don't you quit ragging on people?

There is no belief you could be referring to with the expressions "your statement is based on beliefs" and "You believe". your strawman.  :fu:

Of course you have beliefs.  Everyone does, and every statement you make on this board is based on them.

No strawman.

Perceiving emptiness directly it is impossible for belief to arise in mind. There is not even belief in emptiness.

'everyone does' necessarily refers  to ordinary consciousnesses. The world does because it is dominated by ordinary consciousnesses.  :fu:

Be that as it may, or may not be, my point is that you are constantly ragging on people about their "beliefs" as if you had none, that you have been liberated from them - an assertion which, in your case, is patently false.

You believe that assertion and that's ok.  You can believe whatever you like.  However to berate and belittle others for what you seem to percieve as a failing, one you share with us all, is the purist hyprocricy and you should stop that.

You also believe that you understand direct perception.  Again, this is fine.  This is something you should feel free to discuss and even promote, beause even though you're wrong about what it is, you have a right to be wrong, just don't get your knickers in a twist when you are challenged.

Forgive me, I was in recovery of the remnants of deep seated suffering.

WTF are you talking about?

A misjudgement lead to an accident in becoming corrupted.

This is what all the commotion was about.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Solodris on September 16, 2017, 04:58:29 pm
Ultimate truth have been placed in faith storage.
Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: IdleChater on September 16, 2017, 10:16:18 pm

So why don't you quit ragging on people?

There is no belief you could be referring to with the expressions "your statement is based on beliefs" and "You believe". your strawman.  :fu:

Of course you have beliefs.  Everyone does, and every statement you make on this board is based on them.

No strawman.

Perceiving emptiness directly it is impossible for belief to arise in mind. There is not even belief in emptiness.

'everyone does' necessarily refers  to ordinary consciousnesses. The world does because it is dominated by ordinary consciousnesses.  :fu:

Be that as it may, or may not be, my point is that you are constantly ragging on people about their "beliefs" as if you had none, that you have been liberated from them - an assertion which, in your case, is patently false.

You believe that assertion and that's ok.  You can believe whatever you like.  However to berate and belittle others for what you seem to percieve as a failing, one you share with us all, is the purist hyprocricy and you should stop that.

You also believe that you understand direct perception.  Again, this is fine.  This is something you should feel free to discuss and even promote, beause even though you're wrong about what it is, you have a right to be wrong, just don't get your knickers in a twist when you are challenged.

Forgive me, I was in recovery of the remnants of deep seated suffering.

WTF are you talking about?

A misjudgement lead to an accident in becoming corrupted.

This is what all the commotion was about.

Why don't  you try that again, this time without the contrived pithiness.

Title: Re: Relative Truth vs. Ultimate Truth?
Post by: Solodris on September 16, 2017, 11:00:35 pm

So why don't you quit ragging on people?

There is no belief you could be referring to with the expressions "your statement is based on beliefs" and "You believe". your strawman.  :fu:

Of course you have beliefs.  Everyone does, and every statement you make on this board is based on them.

No strawman.

Perceiving emptiness directly it is impossible for belief to arise in mind. There is not even belief in emptiness.

'everyone does' necessarily refers  to ordinary consciousnesses. The world does because it is dominated by ordinary consciousnesses.  :fu:

Be that as it may, or may not be, my point is that you are constantly ragging on people about their "beliefs" as if you had none, that you have been liberated from them - an assertion which, in your case, is patently false.

You believe that assertion and that's ok.  You can believe whatever you like.  However to berate and belittle others for what you seem to percieve as a failing, one you share with us all, is the purist hyprocricy and you should stop that.

You also believe that you understand direct perception.  Again, this is fine.  This is something you should feel free to discuss and even promote, beause even though you're wrong about what it is, you have a right to be wrong, just don't get your knickers in a twist when you are challenged.

Forgive me, I was in recovery of the remnants of deep seated suffering.

WTF are you talking about?

A misjudgement lead to an accident in becoming corrupted.

This is what all the commotion was about.

Why don't  you try that again, this time without the contrived pithiness.

I thought I was practicing generosity, can I ask for forgiveness?
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal