Does all spiritual traditions point towards the same truth?

[NaturaNaturans]

Self explanatory : ) Sure, the language and practices are different, but do they all, at their core, convey the same message? That message, I interpet, as oneness.

[forestofclarity]

No. 

[silent thunder]

Truth is a human word.  A mental conception. 

 

Words and thinking are more akin to a map of a place than the reality the map represents.

 

What is... is what is.

Thinking is a subjective, interpretive process and truth is but one concept.

[NaturaNaturans]

31 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

Truth is a human word.  A mental conception. 

 

Words and thinking are more akin to a map of a place than the reality the map represents.

 

What is... is what is.

Thinking is a subjective, interpretive process and truth is but one concept.

Alright, but does the maps describe the same terrain but with different symbolism?

[Mark Foote]

4 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Alright, but do the maps describe the same terrain with different symbolism?
 

I believe some of them do.  

The practice of prayer or meditation in different traditions is interesting.  Most seem to involve bending the knees.

 

 

Edited October 2 by Mark Foote

[Sherman Krebbs]

My view:  All virtuous practices result in progressive steps towards Buddhahood, even if they do not lead all the way there in of themselves.  

 

 https://84000.co/translation/toh128:

 

Quote

 

"Although the four rivers, each with many tributaries, descend in four directions, they are united in descending from the great lake, and thus the great lake is the foundation of all the rivers flowing in the four directions‍—it is what they have in common. 

...

"because of the greater or lesser level of people’s aptitude and discernment, and irrespective of whether or not they have understood the undistorted meaning, they will be sure about what is not the true meaning, and having established what is and is not the meaning espoused by others, they will argue. And when they present their arguments in front of others, those who listen to them, even without intending to be adherents of positions, will become adherents of positions based on their regional affiliations and kinship.

 

“Even those who know the undistorted meaning will argue, not for the sake of teaching those who do not know, but for the sake of disheartening and dissecting the views of others. They will demand, ‘Explain how you see the essence of your meaning!’ Although the answers may not be wrong, they will be disputed based on other discourses, [F.174.a] and with cries of, ‘You said this,’ they will proclaim the mistakes of others. They will think, ‘How pleasant it is when others do not know, and I alone know.’ They will proclaim such things not for the sake of enlightenment, but for the sake of material things.”

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4 by Sherman Krebbs
added quote

[silent thunder]

Maps describe terrain, but are not terrain. 

Thoughts and conceptual thinking, are aproximations that attempt to describe, but are not reality.

How close do they get?  How can one be certain when discerning the accuracy requires more thought and interpretation?

 

The picture, name, or concept of a salad is not functional nutrition.

Symbols are not reality.  What we speak of when we speak of self even... 'I' and 'you' are symbolic expressions.

 

neither 'i' nor 'you' are thoughts, emotions, nor body.

[NaturaNaturans]

10 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

Maps describe terrain, but are not terrain. 

Thoughts and conceptual thinking, are aproximations that attempt to describe, but are not reality.

How close do they get?  How can one be certain when discerning the accuracy requires more thought and interpretation?

 

The picture, name, or concept of a salad is not functional nutrition.

Symbols are not reality.  What we speak of when we speak of self even... 'I' and 'you' are symbolic expressions.

 

neither 'i' nor 'you' are thoughts, emotions, nor body.

So one I said oneness in my opening post.. that is kind of what you are talking about, no?

[silent thunder]

You asked "Does all spiritual traditions point towards the same truth?"

Then you answered with an assumption of same message.

11 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

but do they all, at their core, convey the same message?

Then you posited, based on this assumption.

11 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

That message, I interpet, as oneness.

 

I guess my response at this point is... words are words.

Reality is reality.

 

Be well.  Live and thrive!

 

 

 

[Chang dao ling]

17 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Self explanatory : ) Sure, the language and practices are different, but do they all, at their core, convey the same message? That message, I interpet, as oneness.

Yes, when you open crown chakra all your karma destroyed you achieve oneness with everything. 

[old3bob]

Btw. there are "words" or songs of power (Shakti) that are more than just pointers...for they are connected to and from Source and bring all beings and things into manifestation via the quintessential Silence which is Roaring;  From that Silence to the Many and then back again via Om which could be said to go both ways, thus pouring out as all Sound and Light which is also connected to  and returns to Unstruck Sound and Inside Light....  considering that I'd say that there is no 'illusion' which is often harped upon being that such is only incomplete perception.

Edited October 3 by old3bob

[NaturaNaturans]

12 hours ago, silent thunder said:

You asked "Does all spiritual traditions point towards the same truth?"

Then you answered with an assumption of same message.

Then you posited, based on this assumption.

 

I guess my response at this point is... words are words.

Reality is reality.

 

Be well.  Live and thrive!

 

 

 

You know, ironically, what you say is «true.»

 

But curious, how do you propose we avoid human conceptions, when that is all we know? In my language the word for truth is not truth, but «sannhet.» Still, you can be confident that we are talking about the exact same thing.

 

And yes, I made an assumption in my introductionary post. That was meant as nothing but my interpertation, and maybe I should have avoided it all together.

 

Allow me to continue on topics I know nothing about. One paragraph from britannica on mystisism:

 

Quote

 

The complexity of the historical record is multiplied exponentially when one includes other religious traditions in the survey. Both Buddhism and Kabbala, the esotericJewish mysticism originating in the 12th century, emphasize nothingness rather than oneness, and the notion of oneness itself has many varieties in both Christianity and Hinduism. These facts are inconsistent with the postulation of a single unity or oneness that mystics everywhere experience or perceive.

Cant say I grasp «nothingness» tbh. Unity, however, I do.

[Master Logray]

On 10/2/2024 at 7:45 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

Self explanatory : ) Sure, the language and practices are different, but do they all, at their core, convey the same message? That message, I interpet, as oneness.

 

"towards the same truth" - how many truths are there?  

[NaturaNaturans]

1 minute ago, Master Logray said:

 

"towards the same truth" - how many truths are there?  

One, by definition.

[silent thunder]

37 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

You know, ironically, what you say is «true.»

 

But curious, how do you propose we avoid human conceptions, when that is all we know?

Did not propose humans avoid conceptual thinking.

 

But like a finger pointing to the Moon; the sharing was offered as a means to illustrate the distinction between beingness and thinking.

 

Knowing and thinking about The Path, is not The Path.  As a menu is not the meal.

[dwai]

What is Truth?

 

[Chang dao ling]

26 minutes ago, dwai said:

What is Truth?

 

Something ( formless God or Tao) beyond space and time is ultimate truth.

[Chang dao ling]

54 minutes ago, Master Logray said:

 

"towards the same truth" - how many truths are there?  

Many when you are not enlightened being one when you are enlightened 

Edited October 3 by Chang dao ling

[forestofclarity]

It appears that different traditions have manifested to connect with different sentient beings. In Buddhism, it is said that the Buddhas manifest numerous dharma gates, as many as there are sentient beings. Some go far as to note that dharma gates are ever present, in every moment. Including this one. 

 

One aspect of egoic mental habits is to drive out diversity and reduce everything to one thing--- the specific ego habit's thing, to be precise. 

 

[dwai]

23 minutes ago, Chang dao ling said:

Something ( formless God or Tao) beyond space and time is ultimate truth.

 

Does that really tell us anything? One phenomenological inference can be that there is nothing beyond space and time. So, is Truth (Ultimate or otherwise) nothing, then?

 

 

[old3bob]

one might ask where a disconnect from the "ultimate" begins  (or if there really is one?),  if the terms from Taoism are used does it begin when "Tao gave Birth to the One" (per chapter 42),  and from there on the Two, then the Three,  or somewhere going on to the Ten Thousand?  

[stirling]

6 hours ago, old3bob said:

one might ask where a disconnect from the "ultimate" begins  (or if there really is one?),  if the terms from Taoism are used does it begin when "Tao gave Birth to the One" (per chapter 42),  and from there on the Two, then the Three,  or somewhere going on to the Ten Thousand?  

 

The disconnect with the "ultimate" (I prefer "Absolute") always begins NOW, just as enlightenment always begins NOW.

 

We can witness the birthing of many from one also NOW. The moment our thoughts create a duality, for example: "Bob tells Stirling to eat a peach", a universe of things is created. Not only are Bob and Stirling created, but their families, ancestors, belongings, the elements, planets, stars, microbes, peaches... anything imaginable that creates the necessary context for the sentence to make sense, endlessly. Being that all things are interconnected, I would argue that ALL of them are necessary to make the situation in the sentence possible (see Dependent Origination).

 

In the moment there is stillness in the mind, all 10,000 drop away and there is the "absolute", or "emptiness", or "enlightened mind" aware of presence and still. 

 

The 10,000 number is common to both Daoism and Buddhism, and probably other traditions in that Gordian Knot interconnected in Norther China. The "10,000 things" is usually intended to be a representation of all of the possible categories of things in the universe. 

[old3bob]

34 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

The disconnect with the "ultimate" (I prefer "Absolute") always begins NOW, just as enlightenment always begins NOW.

 

We can witness the birthing of many from one also NOW. The moment our thoughts create a duality, for example: "Bob tells Stirling to eat a peach", a universe of things is created. Not only are Bob and Stirling created, but their families, ancestors, belongings, the elements, planets, stars, microbes, peaches... anything imaginable that creates the necessary context for the sentence to make sense, endlessly. Being that all things are interconnected, I would argue that ALL of them are necessary to make the situation in the sentence possible (see Dependent Origination).

 

In the moment there is stillness in the mind, all 10,000 drop away and there is the "absolute", or "emptiness", or "enlightened mind" aware of presence and still. 

 

The 10,000 number is common to both Daoism and Buddhism, and probably other traditions in that Gordian Knot interconnected in Norther China. The "10,000 things" is usually intended to be a representation of all of the possible categories of things in the universe. 

 

ah but there is no disconnect in "reality" for if perception is complete then there is no illusion around to harp on.  

[doc benway]

On 10/2/2024 at 7:45 AM, NaturaNaturans said:

Does all spiritual traditions point towards the same truth?

Self explanatory : ) Sure, the language and practices are different, but do they all, at their core, convey the same message? That message, I interpet, as oneness.

 

My answer would be yes and no. 

 

Yes because, if we assume the objective of spiritual traditions is to guide people to explore their own nature and the nature of reality, this seems to be a common objective. Presumably they are encouraging us to explore the same territory, ultimate reality.

 

But...

 

No because no tradition, no concept, no paradigm can capture the essence of what we are, the "truth."

So when spiritual traditions give answers and explanations about "truth" they are necessarily always missing the mark; perhaps some get closer than others but none can fully capture or explain reality, only offer descriptions and approximations of varying accuracy. 

Each tradition is different insofar as they re using different languages and practices because that is all they are, that is all they have to offer.

 

The "truth" you are looking for, that which traditions are attempting to indicate, is not the map, not the menu, and there is no tangible or formulable construct that is "it." Furthermore, when we have deeper experiences and understandings of "truth," what we are experiencing is unique to us as individuals insofar as our experience is that of loosening and releasing boundaries and obstacles to a fuller and deeper experience of "truth." As long as we are alive and inhabiting our particular set of sensory organs and human vehicle, we will always experience the "truth" through our particular individual lens, even when we get a glimpse of something far more pervasive and profound than this limited body, mind, and spirit. So it's not quite accurate to say it is the same among traditions or individuals. 

 

In the tradition I follow, "it" or "absolute truth" is un-imputable, unbounded, not subject to categorization or definition of any kind. The closest we can come to an "understanding" is the very personal and individual experience of the unfabricated nature of our own being but as soon as we think we get it, categorize, or name it, we've already deviated and fabricated something that is artificial. In the deepest, purest experience of the nature or essence of truth, we are still present to some degree, whether it is the sensation of the cushion, the breath, the visual field, there is always at least an atom of something personal and human present. If you think otherwise, that is just another thought, in my opinion. It is a really interesting area of discovery during meditation. 

 

Oneness would not be an acceptable answer for truth because, at least according to Advaita Vedanta, Bön and Buddhist praxis and theory, it can be relatively easily disproven as the absolute mode of being. If oneness was the true mode of existence, once one person became enlightened everyone else would be instantaneously enlightened as well. At least that's one of the arguments against oneness as the ultimate "truth." If we are "one" then having an experience of that would give me access to the thoughts and feelings of everyone else who had made similar contact. Clearly that is not the case. This is one reason why the word non-dual is often used in place of oneness. The other reason is that the concept of oneness has a degree of inherent limitation and that which is "truth" is generally considered to be without any limitation whatsoever.

 

The experiences that give rise to the sense of oneness or nonduality as the abiding mode of being feel the way they do because we, as limited beings, are experiencing a release of some aspect of that very limitation, a transcendence of that particular obstacle to a fuller and more pervasive sense of our selves. This can be very profound, ecstatic, even destabilizing or deeply disturbing for some. Different individuals experience such transcendence in different ways because what we are experiencing is not "it" but simply the release of our unique and personal obstacles, our boundaries, that prevent us from being closer and closer to "it."

 

Not sure if any of that makes sense but it's fun to chat about "it" once in a while.

 

 

[stirling]

27 minutes ago, old3bob said:

ah but there is no disconnect in "reality" for if perception is complete then there is no illusion around to harp on.  

 

"Reality" has always already been enlightened.  The illusion is OURS.