The Nature of Truth

[Aaron]

There has been a recurring theme running through the forums lately, one that talks about our need to explain and understand things. The basic consensus seems to be that the only real truth is the truth that we come up with, but I'm wondering how this works? I am loath to tell others how to live their lives, really I am, but I also feel compelled to address this particular idea that truth, real truth can only come from within. The idea that the only real expression of reality is the reality that we experience has been debated by much more intelligent men then me, so I wont even go there, rather what I want to address is this notion of truth.

 

The first question that comes to mind is, what is truth? That's the sticky part here, because when we advocate things like, come up with your own truth or any truth but the truth that you experience is false, what we're failing to address is the fact that just because someone is telling you something is true, doesn't mean that it isn't. The notion that someone's own experience lacks merit because you didn't experience it seems to be like saying that water doesn't exist until you feel it and touch it. That may seem illogical, but keep in mind that for an infant the world works very much like that. If an infant cannot experience something through one of their senses, they seem to forget that it ever existed, and for them it doesn't seem to exist anymore.

 

Perhaps this is where this notion comes in, a sort or primordial memory of our original nature, our ability to let things go and accept reality for what it is in this instance. In that sense the idea of truth, of giving up others truths and defining it for yourself makes sense, but we must also remember that with age comes wisdom and knowledge, knowledge that things do exist, even if we do not experience them in this moment. To completely give up on others expression of wisdom, for me, is quite like saying, nothing good has ever come of this world, so look for the good within you. Well that's fine and good, but if nothing good has come of this world, then how do you define what is within you? If you cease to compare things, give up good and bad, right and wrong, then what do you use as a means of understanding how we should behave?

 

This idea, the idea of natural action, or perhaps a better description would be natural thought, seems to be based on the premise of an innate altruism that may not exist. Remember that mankind has been on this world for 400,000 years or more, and every record that we find of human existence seems to point towards the idea that these things we believe are recent occurrences in the human psyche are in fact something that's been there all along. This notion of our inner self being separate from others, is necessary for us to function as social creatures. In fact this idea of separateness is not only present in human beings, but also gorillas and other animals. It's a natural awareness that every living thing seems to become aware of.

 

This notion of separateness may seem to hinder us spiritually, but in fact it's the one binding force that has helped humanity to survive. It's our ability to learn, not only from our experiences, but also from each other that allows us to flourish, even to the point of destroying the very world we live in. It's that ability that is quite amazing and in fact quite natural.

 

When we begin to question everything that we've been taught, when we're told that the truth is subjective, so we should just give up everything that we've been told is true, then what we are left with, is not only a blank slate, but a slate that can never exist. A simple fact is that you cannot erase your experiences, trust me I've tried, they stick with you and come out when you least expect them to. What I believe is most important isn't the idea that religion and philosophy is false, but rather that we have the ability to examine those things and decide for ourselves. Understanding the true nature of existence doesn't arise from self imposed ignorance, but rather an innate understanding of one's self and in that understanding seeing the connection that most people miss. When you see this connection, not only the societal connection, the ego self connection, but also the intricate place we exist within the whole, then it is becomes much easier to understand exactly why truth is subjective, but also why truth is necessity.

 

If you raise your child without any stories, without any history, what you are doing is robbing them of an essential aspect of human existence. In the same way, if you tell someone to give up truths and come to their own conclusions, the fact is that can't be achieved, rather what will happen is that the person will begin to examine these truths and compare them to their own experience and come to their own conclusion. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but the idea that one "needs" to do this is absurd. The truth, the real truth, the un-subjective truth, doesn't exist. What we have instead is the experiential truth, which says that the truth is what we feel most comfortable with.

 

Now keep in mind, what I'm talking about isn't Te or Virtue, but rather philosophies and ideologies. The idea that these things somehow detract from our ability to truly (there's that word again) experience reality for what it is. Perhaps in a perfect world we'd all be able to act in accord with the Tao and Te and through this action understand the innate nature within us. The question of course is, if one does not know how to get back to that state, how will they be able to achieve it if they completely give up everything they've been taught and cease to trust anything that anyone has told them? Perhaps what we should be doing is meeting halfway, understanding the true nature of "truth" and in understanding that nature, testing these "truths" rather than blindly accepting them.

 

Rather than continue what would be a lengthy discussion on this topic, I will stop here and see how others feel about this. I hope everyone is doing well.

 

Aaron

[Otis]

The first question that comes to mind is, what is truth? That's the sticky part here, because when we advocate things like, come up with your own truth or any truth but the truth that you experience is false, what we're failing to address is the fact that just because someone is telling you something is true, doesn't mean that it isn't.

I'm confused, Aaron, about what you're asking. Are there people on this board who are advocating "any truth but the truth that you experience is false"? I haven't yet read those arguments.

 

Also "just because someone is telling you something is true, doesn't mean that it isn't." Does someone say the opposite of that?

 

Do you think you could create a succinct version of your thesis, help me understand what you're trying to say?

[aridus]

I kind of get what you are saying. To me though, excessive avoidance of things isn't Te.

 

I think we have to balance all things. Everything has consequences, including excessive adherence to principles. There is separateness, but being separate at inopportune times causes unneeded friction. It can inflame situations. It can stir up resentment in others, and saying "That's their problem, not mine" does nothing to solve it.

 

Also, I don't think there is so much "giving up" right or wrong. It's more realizing that these are abstract notions. Excessive enforcement of these notions is another area of friction. It becomes idealistic, then ingrained, to the point where people don't even truly remember why it is right or wrong anymore. The matter won't even be discussed anymore, people simply begin to react with arbitrary value judgments, they may fight over it, and some times kill each other over it.

 

Separateness isn't always 'good' if we want to look at the conventional perception of 'good and bad'. Some times it comes down to "You are in my space. Leave it or die." Animals do this, as well as people.

[manitou]

I'm from the truth is within us school.

 

My thoughts are these: All is One, we are all One, we all share the same Truth. It is contained at the very basis of our human nature; it is up to us to do the internal housecleaning to get down to that truth.

 

Having said that, I think we all live in separate realities. Even if we are standing next to each other and looking at the same rock, that rock is going to look slightly different from where you stand to where I stand. We think we're looking at the same rock, but we're actually looking at a different version of the same rock. I see our separate lives as circles of individual 'reality' that somehow connect together to share the same truth.

 

The truth, as I see it, is best expressed in Love. Love, or positive attitude, or the power of attraction, or compassion....whatever you want to call it .... seems to be the yeast that makes the bread rise. Our choice is always our attitude. A chronically negative and critical attitude will produce a negative life worthy of criticism. A chronically positive live, with a choice of positive outlook and Love, will produce new opportunity daily and ensure a modicum of happiness.

[ejr1069]

What if the only truth is that we are all one? Then, possibly every other truth is simply a subset of that. Kind of like breaking up white light into all the colors of the rainbow. Each color is real and true, but also a part of the whole. So depending upon which filter you are looking through, the truth you see and experience might be different than the truth I see and experience.

 

A wiser man than me once said "one truth, many paths".

 

PS...I am speaking from the theoretical here, not experience.

Edited April 9, 2011 by ejr1069

[C T]

I am just wondering here if Truth can be assigned a 'nature'?

 

Its been said there are two kinds of truths - relative and absolute. Truths which belong in the realm of relativity can be like fingers which points at the moon, and then, there is just the awe-inspiring wonderment of being the moon, a process that can be experienced when one goes beyond the limits of the senses. Here, words are often grossly inadequate as a means of definition, simply because the moment the experience is verbalized, the past sets in, since there cannot be any verbalizations unless one engages some sort of reference point, and such points can only be located against the backdrop past experiences and over a canvas that has already been painted.

 

Truth can only be lived in. Moment to moment awareness gets one close to living in this, i think. Its about getting used to dropping all that we know, for all that is known is necessarily in the past.

 

To live in Truth, one needs to learn to habituate a regime that excludes a dependancy on words and intellectual intelligence. For many, this is the daunting challenge, but very much a vital one.

[Aaron]

I'm confused, Aaron, about what you're asking. Are there people on this board who are advocating "any truth but the truth that you experience is false"? I haven't yet read those arguments.

 

Also "just because someone is telling you something is true, doesn't mean that it isn't." Does someone say the opposite of that?

 

Do you think you could create a succinct version of your thesis, help me understand what you're trying to say?

 

Hello Otis,

 

I guess my point is that it's okay to learn about different philosophies and religions, that there really is no truth, not within us or without, rather there is just what is. With that said, if someone decides there is a truth they have every right to investigate that and hopefully they will find their answer. I've seen in the past few months several threads about giving up old ideas about religions and philosophies and developing your own philosophy, that really aren't about that at all, rather they're about giving up old philosophies in light of this new anti-philosophy, which is actually just another school of thought in itself. In the end what they're talking about is truth, that they have it and these other schools don't.

 

My point, the point I think is important here, is that we each need to decide for ourselves what is acceptable to us. Enlightenment is optional. To the best of my knowledge there is no immortality, there's no proof that immortals exist, we will all die, and I have no way of proving that we will return from an afterlife, so instead what I offer people is my opinion, and I wish these "gurus" did the same, rather than offering this stuff up as the end all meets all fact of reality.

 

The last thing we need to do is start over from scratch, thinking that starting over is going to change the basic nature of humanity. What we need to do is understand our original nature and ego nature, so that we can find the place where the two meet. Part of that has to do with investigating what we've learned (not dismissing) and part of it has to do with investigating what's within us, but excluding either will actually hinder our understanding of the nature of reality.

 

I think most of the people that advocate dismissing what we've learned in regards to religions and philosophies, are those people who have been burnt by them somehow. I think most human beings, wise or not, are more than willing to live and let live, it's just those rare few who decide they know what's best that screws it up for the rest of us.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

I'm from the truth is within us school.

 

My thoughts are these: All is One, we are all One, we all share the same Truth. It is contained at the very basis of our human nature; it is up to us to do the internal housecleaning to get down to that truth.

 

Having said that, I think we all live in separate realities. Even if we are standing next to each other and looking at the same rock, that rock is going to look slightly different from where you stand to where I stand. We think we're looking at the same rock, but we're actually looking at a different version of the same rock. I see our separate lives as circles of individual 'reality' that somehow connect together to share the same truth.

 

The truth, as I see it, is best expressed in Love. Love, or positive attitude, or the power of attraction, or compassion....whatever you want to call it .... seems to be the yeast that makes the bread rise. Our choice is always our attitude. A chronically negative and critical attitude will produce a negative life worthy of criticism. A chronically positive live, with a choice of positive outlook and Love, will produce new opportunity daily and ensure a modicum of happiness.

 

 

Hello Manitou,

 

I understand your point, I would just rather not call it truth. I prefer to call it awareness or wisdom. The knowledge of the actual nature of reality.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also the more I examine it, the more I understand that the true nature of mankind is not solely good. Greed and avarice, those dark qualities we suppress are just as much a part of it, and in fact needed for survival (at least they were at one time). I think relegating human nature to this puritanical ball of light does more harm than good, because it tells people that when they act contrary to this way, that it's not natural. For me the man who shoots the pedophile who's molested his child is acting in a very natural way, just like the man who steals bread from the store to feed his child is acting in a natural way. Defining actions as good and bad is part of the problem, but with that said, living without some form of moral guideline would not be possible. We are not capable of existing as a society without some kind of morality to ensure that we exist as harmoniously as possible.

 

Aaron

Edited April 9, 2011 by Twinner

[manitou]

edit- Also the more I examine it, the more I understand that the true nature of mankind is not solely good. Greed and avarice, those dark qualities we suppress are just as much a part of it, and in fact needed for survival (at least they were at one time). I think relegating human nature to this puritanical ball of light does more harm than good, because it tells people that when they act contrary to this way, that it's not natural. For me the man who shoots the pedophile who's molested his child is acting in a very natural way, just like the man who steals bread from the store to feed his child is acting in a natural way. Defining actions as good and bad is part of the problem, but with that said, living without some form of moral guideline would not be possible. We are not capable of existing as a society without some kind of morality to ensure that we exist as harmoniously as possible.

 

Aaron

 

I agree with you here, Aaron. The trick is to not judge it at all. It just Is. When the concept of good and evil arise, the Tao is lost.

[aridus]

Something just came into my mind.

 

There's 'knowing' truth, and being in harmony with it. Knowing without harmony can eat you alive inside.

[Otis]

I guess my point is that it's okay to learn about different philosophies and religions, that there really is no truth, not within us or without, rather there is just what is. With that said, if someone decides there is a truth they have every right to investigate that and hopefully they will find their answer.

Hi Aaron. I was in complete agreement with you up until your last word here, just because I would not wish an answer on anyone. The investigation is necessary, but I think the answer always comes at the cost of delusion.

 

I do not seek for my own truth, because I don't think I can find it. I honestly believe that it is outside of the scope of any individual organism (Buddha and Jesus probably included) to see the "absolute Truth". IMO, we are always limited beings, even if as awakened as possible, because we are still individuals, with never any more insight than our little bubble of reality allows. Even my experience of a belief system is still just an experience.

 

Even if one were to find a concept that approximated the Truth very closely, it would still fail by virtue of being a concept. Concepts, models and metaphors may come asymptotically close to the truths that they represent, but can never reach it, because the formless has been forced into form (words), the non-dualistic into the dualistic.

 

I think Buddha was pointing at this when he spoke of emptiness (a state of not-knowing) and the middle way (in which concepts should never be taken literally). I think Lao Tzu was pointing to this with "the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao". Indeed, nothing that is represented by language is the true anything.

 

These are not new revelations, nor a refutation of the old belief systems, because I think mysticism, the heart of each system, is about direct experience, as opposed to ideology and beliefs.

 

To me, it is not important that I cannot know Truth; it is only important that I recognize my limitation. For thousands of years, mankind would not recognize that the world was round, despite enormous amounts of evidence for it. Why? Because the "fact" of down was so obvious. I drop things and they fall down. Therefore, the world cannot be round, or else all the water would drain off, toward "down". It wasn't until relatively recently that Newton showed that "down" was an illusion, created by gravity. We don't fall "down"; we fall toward the center of the earth.

 

So who knows what else seems so completely obvious and true to me right now, but is really just an illusion of another cause that I do not yet recognize? And do I really want to be attaching to beliefs that may very well not be true?

 

I think, from your full response, that you are talking about some of the articles that Ulises has posted, which I have fully agreed with. Of course what the writers of those articles are saying is not "the Truth", but is just another finger pointing at the truth. They have to use words and concepts to point beyond words and concepts, but that does not necessarily mean that their message is self-defeating. What they are saying is pointing at something that I think is very wise: let us start by admitting our epistemological limitations, or else we're just playing in the realm of superstition. If I treat any concept as if it were the absolute Truth, then I am skipping my due diligence, my necessary skepticism.

 

Likewise, if I do not continually come back to "I don't know", do not continually doubt my own beliefs, then I am just setting myself up for delusion, and from there, to resenting the world for not seeing the truth the way that I do.

 

I do think we each need to "reinvent the wheel". Not to come up with "new philosophies", but to live with as little excess conceptual baggage as possible. The only way I can surrender the concept is by experiencing what it is pointing to. I cannot learn to ride a bike based upon mere concepts; I have to learn by doing it. How then, could I "find myself" or "touch God", based upon concepts? The only way I can even come close to the truth of "myself" or "God" is by paying lots of attention to the experience, and learning (non-concepts) from that.

 

Every system is fraught with baggage, as well as every practitioner. How can we go beyond our own points of view, if we are not willing to doubt everything that we hold dear, as part of our practice?

Edited April 10, 2011 by Otis

[Aaron]

Hi Aaron. I was in complete agreement with you up until your last word here, just because I would not wish an answer on anyone. The investigation is necessary, but I think the answer always comes at the cost of delusion.

 

I do not seek for my own truth, because I don't think I can find it. I honestly believe that it is outside of the scope of any individual organism (Buddha and Jesus probably included) to see the "absolute Truth". IMO, we are always limited beings, even if as awakened as possible, because we are still individuals, with never any more insight than our little bubble of reality allows. Even my experience of a belief system is still just an experience.

 

Even if one were to find a concept that approximated the Truth very closely, it would still fail by virtue of being a concept. Concepts, models and metaphors may come asymptotically close to the truths that they represent, but can never reach it, because the formless has been forced into form (words), the non-dualistic into the dualistic.

 

I think Buddha was pointing at this when he spoke of emptiness (a state of not-knowing) and the middle way (in which concepts should never be taken literally). I think Lao Tzu was pointing to this with "the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao". Indeed, nothing that is represented by language is the true anything.

 

These are not new revelations, nor a refutation of the old belief systems, because I think mysticism, the heart of each system, is about direct experience, as opposed to ideology and beliefs.

 

To me, it is not important that I cannot know Truth; it is only important that I recognize my limitation. For thousands of years, mankind would not recognize that the world was round, despite enormous amounts of evidence for it. Why? Because the "fact" of down was so obvious. I drop things and they fall down. Therefore, the world cannot be round, or else all the water would drain off, toward "down". It wasn't until relatively recently that Newton showed that "down" was an illusion, created by gravity. We don't fall "down"; we fall toward the center of the earth.

 

So who knows what else seems so completely obvious and true to me right now, but is really just an illusion of another cause that I do not yet recognize? And do I really want to be attaching to beliefs that may very well not be true?

 

I think, from your full response, that you are talking about some of the articles that Ulises has posted, which I have fully agreed with. Of course what the writers of those articles are saying is not "the Truth", but is just another finger pointing at the truth. They have to use words and concepts to point beyond words and concepts, but that does not necessarily mean that their message is self-defeating. What they are saying is pointing at something that I think is very wise: let us start by admitting our epistemological limitations, or else we're just playing in the realm of superstition. If I treat any concept as if it were the absolute Truth, then I am skipping my due diligence, my necessary skepticism.

 

Likewise, if I do not continually come back to "I don't know", do not continually doubt my own beliefs, then I am just setting myself up for delusion, and from there, to resenting the world for not seeing the truth the way that I do.

 

I do think we each need to "reinvent the wheel". Not to come up with "new philosophies", but to live with as little excess conceptual baggage as possible. The only way I can surrender the concept is by experiencing what it is pointing to. I cannot learn to ride a bike based upon mere concepts; I have to learn by doing it. How then, could I "find myself" or "touch God", based upon concepts? The only way I can even come close to the truth of "myself" or "God" is by paying lots of attention to the experience, and learning (non-concepts) from that.

 

Every system is fraught with baggage, as well as every practitioner. How can we go beyond our own points of view, if we are not willing to doubt everything that we hold dear, as part of our practice?

 

 

Hello Otis,

 

I understand what you're saying and I'm very happy it works for you. I guess what I am wondering is why is it important then? Why do we need to encourage people to give up everything they've known, to question everything they've learned? For me the simple answer is because we believe that not knowing the answer is the answer. That having no answer is the answer. To me saying this means there is an answer, even if that answer is, "there is no answer."

 

What I propose is that we should not endeavor to change people through our words, but rather through our actions. If we are truly "aware", "enlightened", or even "somewhat in the know", then our responsibility is not to change the world, but to be a part of the world. We don't need to discourage people from believing in religious systems or philosophical systems to do this, nor do we need to reinvent the wheel, rather we need to use our own limited experience to help others.

 

I used to give money to homeless people until my sponsor (in AA) told me to stop. He explained that they'll probably just use that money to get drunk. I thought this sounded reasonable and for years I stopped helping the homeless, then one day I realized that you don't need to give someone money to help them. I can help a homeless person, or any person for that matter, by simply listening to them, recognizing them as a person, showing them that they aren't simply another face lost in the mass of humanity. When I see someone that looks hungry I buy them food. When I see someone thirsty I buy them a bottle of water. I don't do this because an ultimate truth has convinced me to do this, but rather because there is a place deep inside me that feels a need to do this. Am I my brother's keeper? No I am not, but I am still his brother and if I love him, without reservation or limitations, then there is nothing that should stop me from reaching out to help him in his time of need.

 

Now I'm not saying all of this to try to give you the illusion that I'm a righteous person without flaws, anyone that knows me for any period of time understands I have flaws (edit- and I'm far from righteous). I'm not even saying this because I believe that religious organizations help the world more than they harm them, but rather that I understand that each individual has their own needs and my belief is that it doesn't matter in the end what they believe as long as they find peace and happiness in that belief. That's why when someone comes up to me and evangelizes, I don't turn them away, but rather I sit and listen. Even if I don't believe anything they have to say, knowing they believe is enough for me to respect that belief.

 

In the end there is no need for enlightenment, there's no need to save someone from their delusions, rather the need is to live our own lives to the best of our ability, understanding that if we do not know, then how can we honestly tell them that they don't know either?

 

Aaron

Edited April 10, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

I agree with you here, Aaron. The trick is to not judge it at all. It just Is. When the concept of good and evil arise, the Tao is lost.

 

Hello manitou,

 

I agree it just is. However when good and evil arise, the Tao is not lost, it's really just ignored. The Tao always is. You are right, the trick is not to judge. I do believe that people are loving by nature, honestly i do. One need only see a mother with their newborn child to know this. I remember watching a lecture, I think it was Joseph Campbell, and he said that the Polynesians used to raise their children communally. Every man and woman in a village was a child's caregiver. They loved each child equally, regardless of who the parent was. When the Europeans happened upon the Polynesians they called them naive, but I think in retrospect they were much wiser than we were.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Something just came into my mind.

 

There's 'knowing' truth, and being in harmony with it. Knowing without harmony can eat you alive inside.

 

 

Hello Aridus,

 

I think the problem is comes from knowing the truth in the first place. In the end truth is subjective, so no matter how much we believe we know what it is, the fact of the matter is that the only thing we can ever really "know" is what we've experienced. My point is that even knowing this doesn't matter, if someone believes that they know the truth, then there really is no need to try to change their opinion. In the end what eats us up inside isn't knowing, but doubting.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

I am just wondering here if Truth can be assigned a 'nature'?

 

Its been said there are two kinds of truths - relative and absolute. Truths which belong in the realm of relativity can be like fingers which points at the moon, and then, there is just the awe-inspiring wonderment of being the moon, a process that can be experienced when one goes beyond the limits of the senses. Here, words are often grossly inadequate as a means of definition, simply because the moment the experience is verbalized, the past sets in, since there cannot be any verbalizations unless one engages some sort of reference point, and such points can only be located against the backdrop past experiences and over a canvas that has already been painted.

 

Truth can only be lived in. Moment to moment awareness gets one close to living in this, i think. Its about getting used to dropping all that we know, for all that is known is necessarily in the past.

 

To live in Truth, one needs to learn to habituate a regime that excludes a dependancy on words and intellectual intelligence. For many, this is the daunting challenge, but very much a vital one.

 

Hello Cowtao,

 

I agree, but my point is that there's no need to tell anyone to give up their dependency on words, rather we just need to live our own lives. My argument was that because truth is subjective, even an absolute truth may never be agreed upon, so perhaps the best thing to do is just allow people to believe what they want to believe and worry more about what we believe (experience) ourselves.

 

Aaron

[aridus]

Hello Aridus,

 

I think the problem is comes from knowing the truth in the first place. In the end truth is subjective, so no matter how much we believe we know what it is, the fact of the matter is that the only thing we can ever really "know" is what we've experienced. My point is that even knowing this doesn't matter, if someone believes that they know the truth, then there really is no need to try to change their opinion. In the end what eats us up inside isn't knowing, but doubting.

 

Aaron

Yeah. I include doubt with lack of harmony.

I also keep 'truths' more simple than a lot of people do, I find. I see that people who are "seeking truth" have a tendency to set the scope to the super mystical "unknown universe that is out there" and then, almost always without a doubt, if it is raining they will turn around and say "It is raining today." That too is a truth. It is a small one, but the large begins with the small.

[3bob]

even the "we are one" ends up being just one, without the "we".

[Otis]

...when someone comes up to me and evangelizes, I don't turn them away, but rather I sit and listen. Even if I don't believe anything they have to say, knowing they believe is enough for me to respect that belief.

 

In the end there is no need for enlightenment, there's no need to save someone from their delusions, rather the need is to live our own lives to the best of our ability, understanding that if we do not know, then how can we honestly tell them that they don't know either?

I hope that I have not come across as an evangelist, myself.

 

For me, the question of emptiness is important as regards to my life, period. I like to talk about my experiences and opinions here on TTB, but I don't push my beliefs on any of my friends, or try to talk them out of theirs. I have pushed you a little, but that's only because I respect you (and because this is a discussion group). I see you as a reflection of me, so I feel it is only kind to reflect to you, and accept what you reflect to me. I'm not here to be likable or to be agreed with, but to engage in incisive back-and-forth with sharp minds and wise souls.

 

The path of emptiness is not something I would ever declare to be The One Way, of course, but also I cannot imagine the mechanism by which any one organism gains omniscience, so I am prone to doubt claims of absolute knowledge. I hear those claims a lot, but no one, in several years of discussion groups, has ever made a real effort to justify why they make claims of capital-t Truth. IME, the people who claim access to true knowledge always duck questions of epistemology, which isn't very impressive. "What can I really know?" is a question which shines light on all kinds of delusions and assumptions. Honestly follow that question to its logical (uncomfortable) conclusion, and it proves its usefulness.

 

Now, obviously I can't speak for whoever wrote the original articles that Ulises quoted. Maybe it's just a blogger, stating his opinion, and maybe Ulises is using the quote to help illustrate some things that he thinks are worth sharing. We all share here, and I imagine that we all hope that we can help, and also hopefully be illuminated, ourselves.

 

None of that detracts from (what I think of as) the usefulness of the precaution to be skeptical of all one's own stories. If it is useful to hear, then what's the harm in someone sharing it?

Edited April 10, 2011 by Otis

[Aaron]

I hope that I have not come across as an evangelist, myself.

 

For me, the question of emptiness is important as regards to my life, period. I like to talk about my experiences and opinions here on TTB, but I don't push my beliefs on any of my friends, or try to talk them out of theirs. I have pushed you a little, but that's only because I respect you (and because this is a discussion group). I see you as a reflection of me, so I feel it is only kind to reflect to you, and accept what you reflect to me. I'm not here to be likable or to be agreed with, but to engage in incisive back-and-forth with sharp minds and wise souls.

 

The path of emptiness is not something I would ever declare to be The One Way, of course, but also I cannot imagine the mechanism by which any one organism gains omniscience, so I am prone to doubt claims of absolute knowledge. I hear those claims a lot, but no one, in several years of discussion groups, has ever made a real effort to justify why they make claims of capital-t Truth. IME, the people who claim access to true knowledge always duck questions of epistemology, which isn't very impressive. "What can I really know?" is a question which shines light on all kinds of delusions and assumptions. Honestly follow that question to its logical (uncomfortable) conclusion, and it proves its usefulness.

 

Now, obviously I can't speak for whoever wrote the original articles that Ulises quoted. Maybe it's just a blogger, stating his opinion, and maybe Ulises is using the quote to help illustrate some things that he thinks are worth sharing. We all share here, and I imagine that we all hope that we can help, and also hopefully be illuminated, ourselves.

 

None of that detracts from (what I think of as) the usefulness of the precaution to be skeptical of all one's own stories. If it is useful to hear, then what's the harm in someone sharing it?

 

 

Hello Otis,

 

I'm not disagreeing with what you have said, I'm just trying to point out that it's not necessary, that in the end it's no more valid than the woman who believes the image of Christ has appeared in her scrambled eggs. The fact that an image appeared doesn't detract from the fact that they are scrambled eggs. In the same way the idea that eggs without images are somehow not religious and thus more edible isn't quite true either. In the end the truth does not come from emptying one's self (imo) but rather from examining what is within. I forget who said it, but God really is within us. Truth doesn't exist outside of our head. Most people understand that there really are no absolutes, but rather measures by which we expect things to happen. In my own experience examining various religions actually did more good than harm. Trying to understand much of the esoteric ideas involved in understanding the nature of the world is incredibly difficult when you're being guided by someone who is already knowledgeable, the idea of trying to figure it out solely on your own is mind boggling.

 

So for me truth is subjective and unnecessary, but inevitably can't be escaped, at least not for the majority of people on the face of this earth.

 

Aaron

 

edit- And I know you weren't evangelizing, I was just using that as an illustration. If you feel the need to, I'm always here. I'm sure your testimony will be much more interesting to hear.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Twinner

[manitou]

 

To live in Truth, one needs to learn to habituate a regime that excludes a dependancy on words and intellectual intelligence. For many, this is the daunting challenge, but very much a vital one.

 

The funny thing about this, is that this describes one with Alzheimer's or dementia. I talk to my mother daily and listen to her slip further into her dementia. Everything is one day at a time, one moment at a time. The foundation for yesterday is gone. The template for tomorrow is gone. The only problem she experiences is her frustration about not keeping up with conversations any more - more of a social frustration than anything else. Otherwise, she's in a rather pleasant little world and well taken care of.

 

But so many of us spend a lifetime meditating and seeking masters for the very same mindset that an old lady with dementia has, lol. Maybe this is the universe's final gift to us - instant enlightenment! - before we check out. She's enlightened of regrets. She's enlightened of worry for tomorrow. She's certainly enlightened of having to use her brain for much of anything.

 

It just strikes me as funny, that's all....

[C T]

The funny thing about this, is that this describes one with Alzheimer's or dementia.

Not actually. Those who make it a habit to be less dependent on the faculty of intellect can choose to be more dependent on spontaneous awareness, yet retain the sharpness and in fact, experience heightened intellectual prowess most of the time.

 

Mindfulness is different from mindlessness. Although both denotes some sort of surrender, the crux is that in one instance there is full awareness and the exercise of conscious choice, hence the right ones are made most of the time, whereas in the other instance, the surrender is often accompanied by anxiety, frustrations and small accidents resulting from a choiceless lack of attention.

[Otis]

In my own experience examining various religions actually did more good than harm. Trying to understand much of the esoteric ideas involved in understanding the nature of the world is incredibly difficult when you're being guided by someone who is already knowledgeable, the idea of trying to figure it out solely on your own is mind boggling.

When traditional religion defines "the nature of the world", I always see it as just a metaphor. My choice is to remain agnostic as to the absolute nature of the world. I don't think it serves me to believe how people are, or what forces ultimately guide the universe.

 

Why? Because I am my ego. And any such belief just reinforces me into thinking that "I" know. That "knowing" inevitably gets in my way of surrendering, which is the one action that I feel I (my ego) can do towards awakening. If I increase my determination, I increase my ego. If I gird my will, I strengthen my ego. I can't force "waking up" by any of the forceful methods of me, the ego; I can only make room for it, get out of its way.

 

I am not trying to be a master of the world. My aim is merely to surrender my beliefs and will, so my body can take over, and live its life, without "my" interference. I don't need to be my own master anymore, and am ready to resume my role as just part of the mechanism, which my experience suggests is a lot more fun and joyful than it sounds. My body knows how to live life fully; I am just overseeing the transition to let it do so.

[manitou]

Not actually. Those who make it a habit to be less dependent on the faculty of intellect can choose to be more dependent on spontaneous awareness, yet retain the sharpness and in fact, experience heightened intellectual prowess most of the time.

 

Mindfulness is different from mindlessness. Although both denotes some sort of surrender, the crux is that in one instance there is full awareness and the exercise of conscious choice, hence the right ones are made most of the time, whereas in the other instance, the surrender is often accompanied by anxiety, frustrations and small accidents resulting from a choiceless lack of attention.

 

 

You're right, of course. I guess I was saying it a little tongue in cheek. But the similarities do seem ironic to me.

 

 

Otis, really nice ego post. So much to be said for Letting It Happen.