What Is Truth?

[suegha]

I have a question that I have been pondering from a Christian perspective. I saw a posting about truths so I thought I'd look for the Buddist perspective.

So, what is Truth?

I don't mean statements of what we hold to be truth, or truths, but what 'truth' is. Is there just one truth? or is it a matter of interpretation?

Any thoughts?

[thaibebop]

That's really vague. Truth about what? Buddha stated his Four Noble Truths.

1. All life is suffering.

2. The cause of suffering is craving.

3. The end of suffering comes from the release of craving.

4. The release from suffering/craving comes from following the Noble Eight Fold Path.

Eight Fold Path

1. Right Action

2. Right Concentration

3. Right Liveilhood

4. Right Mindfulness

5. Right Speech

6. Right Thought

7. Right Understanding

8. Right View

This is the only truth a Buddhist would concern themselves with.

[camerata]

I don't mean statements of what we hold to be truth, or truths, but what 'truth' is. Is there just one truth? or is it a matter of interpretation?

Truth equates to reality. From the Buddhist perspective there are two aspects of reality: conventional reality and absolute reality (although some express it differently and say that conventional reality is in fact illusion). Conventional reality is when we consider everything to have a separate, individual existence from everything else. For humans, this means holding the false view that we have an unchanging, permanent self, or soul. But obviously we couldn't function from day to day without operating in conventional reality, using unique names for ourselves and other things.

Absolute reality is the knowledge that everything is a whole, and nothing has a separate existence, including ourselves. This is nirvana (although there is a lot more to it).

Operating in conventional reality has resulted in man feeling alone and separated from the cosmos, and it's this loneliness that causes him to look to religion for comfort, whether it be nirvana or an eternal union with God in Heaven.

Absolute reality results in compassion for all sentient beings since we realize we are no different from, and are not separate from, them.

To reach nirvana, all judgments have to be left behind and things viewed just as they are. Suppose your mum is in the kitchen, you are in the living room, and you hear a crash. Into your mind pops a picture of your mum surrounded by broken dishes. But this is just a fantasy that your mind created. Or perhaps you think, "Oh, no! Mum dropped the dishes!" But this is a judgment and a speculation based on past experience. It isn't the truth. The truth is that some sound waves bounced off your ear drums.

So for Buddhists, truth is recognizing things just as they are, without judgments. And after a few lifetimes of training, nirvana should be possible.

[Abandon]

Nice post Cam.

I wonder about the 'few lifetimes' part though ... I know it was meant tongue in cheek to some degree, but all the same there is a notion these days that the path takes many many lifetimes.

But anyway to get back on track, and seeing as the Christian angle has been raised I shall go out on a limb here to some degree.

Religion took form as a universal truth around the time of Socrates, the Buddha and Tao. Before that religion was a localised thing, with each culture having its own.

Then something changed all over the world - and religion for the first time became universal - your enemies could have the same religion as you. God transcended the cultural and ethical localities.

500 years after this period, there was another change - the shift towards Bhakti yoga - devotion.

This occured with Christ, but also with the birth of modern Hinduism, and Mahayana/tantric Buddhism. In this change, the shift was away from a universal truth, and towards a personal truth that came through surrender.

In Buddhism there is the concept of universal truth (paramattha sacca) -- a personally realised truth, the seeing of which takes one out of the cycle of birth and death, and out of suffering. The wording of the phrase suggests a truth that has no higher truth.

This is Equivalent to the Summon bonum of Philosophy - the Ultimate Good.

The Buddha described it as "the shore that has no shore beyond it"

The thing that I find interesting is that this is also a fair description of God.

Note too that this Ultimate Truth in Buddhism is "unconditioned" - it has no conditions that lead to its birth - it is beyond any kind of birth or death. This also equates directly to God being the "Uncreated" as opposed to all worldly things which are "created" - or Sankhara in Buddhism.

My point is that in Christianity, and other related religions. In Buddhism, in Hinduism, and in Philosophy the Ultimate Truth is always that which has no truth higher than it. It is always Unconditioned/non-duality/Uncreated.

Thus I venture that the 'highest' is ipso facto the same across the board - if any one religion/philosophy champions a lesser truth - it is ipso facto by definition not the Ultimte truth of that religion.

What remains then is the question of how effective the religion/philosophy/practise is in taking us mortals to that realisation

[Lilyflower]

interesting idea for a thread...!

i think it's interesting because there can only, by definition, be one truth. what i mean is that there can only be one true explanation for how we (and the universe generally) got here, whether or not there's a purpose to us being here (and if there is, what that is), etc, etc.

there are different 'stories'/narratives, etc for what this one truth is. some of them are found in different religions and philosophies, and across different cultures around the world. BUT there is still only one real truth (by definition of the word!).

and camerata's point (if i've understood it properly) is also that there are falsely held views of what this one truth is and he uses a really good example to illustrate this (eg believing 'the truth' to be different to what actually happened in the kitchen!).

like suegha, i would also like to know what buddhist's consider to be this one truth...

thanks to camerata and abandon - i can see what you're saying is that nirvana is the 'end point', and i think you're describing that as a non-judgemental state where things are seen exactly as they are. what's the buddhist belief in relation to this state? is it an everlasting state? (ie once we reach nirvana we 'live forever').

that would answer the point about the 'purpose' to us being here... but i'd also like to go back to the other point - what's the buddhist's explanation of truth in relation to how we (ie the universe as a whole) got here. and also what happens to those who don't achieve the end purpose and reach nirvana?

i appreciate these are big questions - and i'm really looking forward to the answers!!!

[chownah]

interesting idea for a thread...!

i think it's interesting because there can only, by definition, be one truth. what i mean is that there can only be one true explanation for how we (and the universe generally) got here, whether or not there's a purpose to us being here (and if there is, what that is), etc, etc.

there are different 'stories'/narratives, etc for what this one truth is. some of them are found in different religions and philosophies, and across different cultures around the world. BUT there is still only one real truth (by definition of the word!).

and camerata's point (if i've understood it properly) is also that there are falsely held views of what this one truth is and he uses a really good example to illustrate this (eg believing 'the truth' to be different to what actually happened in the kitchen!).

like suegha, i would also like to know what buddhist's consider to be this one truth...

thanks to camerata and abandon - i can see what you're saying is that nirvana is the 'end point', and i think you're describing that as a non-judgemental state where things are seen exactly as they are. what's the buddhist belief in relation to this state? is it an everlasting state? (ie once we reach nirvana we 'live forever').

that would answer the point about the 'purpose' to us being here... but i'd also like to go back to the other point - what's the buddhist's explanation of truth in relation to how we (ie the universe as a whole) got here. and also what happens to those who don't achieve the end purpose and reach nirvana?

i appreciate these are big questions - and i'm really looking forward to the answers!!!

Perhaps it would be good to point out that the Buddha, by his own statements, is only teaching how to end dukkha. Dukkha is hard to translate but it means suffering, stress, frustration, pain, unacceptableness, etc. Nirvanna is one way to describe the "goal" of the Buddha's teachings but his teachings were not meant to teach about nirvanna, their purpose was to teach how to end dukkha completely and forever. Part of the teaching is that all things that you can think of or imagine and all words are "conditioned" things. This means that they are impermanent, they create dukkha, and they are not-self. It also means that they only arise due to the false sense of self that we are so attached to and when that false self is destroyed then the words will be inconsequential and we will experience what there is to experience in a way that transcends words.....this includes (I suppose) the word "truth". My view is that the concept of "truth" is only a mental object and as such can not really be used to make a valid description of nirvanna or anything else for that matter.....its just a conditioned mental object....nirvanna can not be described by any word or group of words.

I should say that what I have written above is more or less of the Theravadan Buddhist mindset and ony as accurate as my understanding of it....I could be wrong about the details but I'm pretty sure that what I have written is mostly correct from the Theravadan standpoint.

[sabaijai]

I once took a semester-long seminar on the I Ching with Dr William Beidler, a minor expert on this ancient Chinese text. We compared various (English) versions of the I Ching during the course, and concluded that the Wilhelm-Baynes version, the one with a foreword from Carl Jung, was probably the best (I forget why now).

Throughout the course Dr Beidler drove in the message that the I Ching shouldn't be used frivolously, and he urged all of us to wait till the end of the course before we used the text for its intended purpose. In the meantime we also studied the various ways of 'asking' the I Ching.

The course behind, I chose the meticulous yarrow-stalk method, decided on a burning question to ask the text, and alone at night I finally took the leap.

My question to the I Ching was "What is truth?" The hexagram indicated by the division of the yarrow stalks was "Youthful Folly."

Nowhere in the Tipitaka is there a notion of a single truth, as far as I've been able to tell. There is an ontology but it's pretty complex, and I don't think any of us here on thaivisa.com could explicate it one post. Not that we shouldn't try.

Reminds me of something Ajahn Cha once said about achieving peace. To paraphrase, substituting truth for peace: "Looking for truth is like searching for a turtle with a moustache. You won't find it, but one day when you least expect it, it will tap you on the shoulder." Or something like that.

[Kido]

What you see is truth or untruth?

Six wheels of recarnation!

Kindly enlarge to view.

Edited January 14, 2006 by Kido

[thaibebop]

All of you have brought up very good points and I am sorry that I didn't think the same vein as the rest of you. I didn't quite understand what he was looking for. But now that you guys have added your bits I think I have something more worth while to say.

I don't think there is a(meaning one) Truth. I think truth is perspective and releative. It is multi-dimensional. If a ball is throw against a foam wall there are many truths that will come into play to understand this event. None of them are more "important" than the others. To say that there is a truth to this event is a tool for us to simplify the information so we can understand it. So, we reduce it to a level which we can accept or to a level that suits our purpose for analyzing the event.

As Socrates said the wise man knows he knows nothing, the ultimate truth is that there isn't one.

[camerata]

i think it's interesting because there can only, by definition, be one truth. what i mean is that there can only be one true explanation for how we (and the universe generally) got here, whether or not there's a purpose to us being here (and if there is, what that is), etc, etc.

The Buddha never sought to explain the origin of the universe. He didn't think it had any bearing on ending suffering in this life. A Creation story is much more important to religions which have an all-powerful deity, since if we are to believe that deity has arranged a pleasant existence for us after death, s/he must also be powerful enough to have created the universe and his/her prophets should be able to explain how it happened.

and camerata's point (if i've understood it properly) is also that there are falsely held views of what this one truth is and he uses a really good example to illustrate this (eg believing 'the truth' to be different to what actually happened in the kitchen!).

The truth/reality I was talking about is the nature of phenomena in the present moment, not a story of how the universe began, and will end. In other words, for Buddhists the important thing is how the universe is experienced here and now.

thanks to camerata and abandon - i can see what you're saying is that nirvana is the 'end point', and i think you're describing that as a non-judgemental state where things are seen exactly as they are. what's the buddhist belief in relation to this state? is it an everlasting state? (ie once we reach nirvana we 'live forever').

Even the Buddha couldn't describe what nirvana is because it is outside conceptual thinking (and language is concept-based). But he did describe what it is not. He said it is uncreated, unconditioned and deathless. It's deathless because there is no longer a self to experience death. Without a self, the death of the body is pretty much irrelevant. And there wouldn't exactly be a "somebody" to live forever.

that would answer the point about the 'purpose' to us being here... but i'd also like to go back to the other point - what's the buddhist's explanation of truth in relation to how we (ie the universe as a whole) got here. and also what happens to those who don't achieve the end purpose and reach nirvana?

Some people say that the purpose of being here is to attain nirvana and stop the endless cycle of rebirths and suffering. To me, the idea of a general purpose for mankind suggests that someone or something created that purpose, which gets us back to the deity idea.

The way I think of it is that we have no pre-ordained purpose. We evolved, and here we are. Because we also evolved language and conceptual thinking, we got stuck with this concept of a self, an ego that makes us feel separate from everything else. The ego needs constant reassurance of its importance, which is why we cling to our views and defend them fanatically, and why we are constantly criticizing others. Our ego rules our lives. It is terrified of being snuffed out. We handle this in different ways. Some of us have lots of kids so we can feel that a part of us lives on forever through our descendants. Some of us perform heroic deeds so that our names will live on in history forever. Some of us get onto Ripley's Believe It Or Not with the world's longest moustache or beating the world record for smashing melons with our head, or some such nonesense, so that we'll achieve digital immortality. Some of us cling to the idea that a god will give us eternal life in some form after death.

For those of us who don't find this pseudo-immortality or unguaranteed immortality satisfying, there's a need to create our own purpose in life. This is where Buddhism fits the bill nicely. Instead of being ruled by the ego and its fears, get rid of it! Being rid of the ego and the suffering it brings is what one monk called "True Freedom" - a very appealing idea for those of us who grew up in the 60s.

If we don't achieve true freedom in this life, we should get another chance in a future life. But simply diminishing the ego and increasing freedom in this life seems like a worthwhile purpose to me.

[sabaijai]

i think it's interesting because there can only, by definition, be one truth. what i mean is that there can only be one true explanation for how we (and the universe generally) got here, whether or not there's a purpose to us being here (and if there is, what that is), etc, etc.

The Buddha never sought to explain the origin of the universe. He didn't think it had any bearing on ending suffering in this life. A Creation story is much more important to religions which have an all-powerful deity, since if we are to believe that deity has arranged a pleasant existence for us after death, s/he must also be powerful enough to have created the universe and his/her prophets should be able to explain how it happened.

and camerata's point (if i've understood it properly) is also that there are falsely held views of what this one truth is and he uses a really good example to illustrate this (eg believing 'the truth' to be different to what actually happened in the kitchen!).

The truth/reality I was talking about is the nature of phenomena in the present moment, not a story of how the universe began, and will end. In other words, for Buddhists the important thing is how the universe is experienced here and now.

thanks to camerata and abandon - i can see what you're saying is that nirvana is the 'end point', and i think you're describing that as a non-judgemental state where things are seen exactly as they are. what's the buddhist belief in relation to this state? is it an everlasting state? (ie once we reach nirvana we 'live forever').

Even the Buddha couldn't describe what nirvana is because it is outside conceptual thinking (and language is concept-based). But he did describe what it is not. He said it is uncreated, unconditioned and deathless. It's deathless because there is no longer a self to experience death. Without a self, the death of the body is pretty much irrelevant. And there wouldn't exactly be a "somebody" to live forever.

that would answer the point about the 'purpose' to us being here... but i'd also like to go back to the other point - what's the buddhist's explanation of truth in relation to how we (ie the universe as a whole) got here. and also what happens to those who don't achieve the end purpose and reach nirvana?

Some people say that the purpose of being here is to attain nirvana and stop the endless cycle of rebirths and suffering. To me, the idea of a general purpose for mankind suggests that someone or something created that purpose, which gets us back to the deity idea.

The way I think of it is that we have no pre-ordained purpose. We evolved, and here we are. Because we also evolved language and conceptual thinking, we got stuck with this concept of a self, an ego that makes us feel separate from everything else. The ego needs constant reassurance of its importance, which is why we cling to our views and defend them fanatically, and why we are constantly criticizing others. Our ego rules our lives. It is terrified of being snuffed out. We handle this in different ways. Some of us have lots of kids so we can feel that a part of us lives on forever through our descendants. Some of us perform heroic deeds so that our names will live on in history forever. Some of us get onto Ripley's Believe It Or Not with the world's longest moustache or beating the world record for smashing melons with our head, or some such nonesense, so that we'll achieve digital immortality. Some of us cling to the idea that a god will give us eternal life in some form after death.

For those of us who don't find this pseudo-immortality or unguaranteed immortality satisfying, there's a need to create our own purpose in life. This is where Buddhism fits the bill nicely. Instead of being ruled by the ego and its fears, get rid of it! Being rid of the ego and the suffering it brings is what one monk called "True Freedom" - a very appealing idea for those of us who grew up in the 60s.

If we don't achieve true freedom in this life, we should get another chance in a future life. But simply diminishing the ego and increasing freedom in this life seems like a worthwhile purpose to me.

Nice post. As has been pointed out, truth as we try and speak of it is really just a mental construct.

What you wrote reminds me of a dharma talk I once heard from Ajahn Sumedho (seniormost Western monk in the Ajahn Cha Thai forest tradition) give at the Empty Gate Zen Center in Berkeley, USA. The gist of the talk was that most of us go through life wanting something more, something better or something different than what we have. More money, better house, different wife/husband, for example. The aim of Buddhism is learn how to do without more, better and different.

[Lilyflower]

thanks guys. making more sense now...! just want to clarify a couple of things and ask a couple more questions.

chownah - thanks for the comments re dukka. that also makes sense when put together with camerata's comments that the buddha didn't seek to explain the origin of the universe, etc.

camerata - thanks for the clarity of your post and the way you laid it out. made it easy to make sense of what you're saying. i have more questions - see below!

thaibebop - i can't agree with your statement that there isn't a truth to how we got here, what (if anything) life is all about, etc etc (which is what i was asking about). i absolutely appreciate your comment that we only experience a perspective on that truth, and I would add that maybe none of us have the 'true' perspective... and therefore 'the truth'. but there absolutely is a truth about these things.

back to camerata's post...

i can understand what you're saying about buddhism creating a purpose in life (if you don't believe in a deity)... i can see exactly how what you and others have described as buddhism can provide this. i can see also that you might believe in evolution as a buddhist (because you may not believe there is a diety who put it all here). that to me would make sense also. where it stops making sense to me at the moment is where the notion of rebirth fits in (if this is about reincarnation which i've assumed it is). i'm not sure how reincarnation fits with what else i've read in your posts and others on this thread.

can anyone explain?

thanks

[Suthep_Steve]

i can understand what you're saying about buddhism creating a purpose in life (if you don't believe in a deity)... i can see exactly how what you and others have described as buddhism can provide this. i can see also that you might believe in evolution as a buddhist (because you may not believe there is a diety who put it all here). that to me would make sense also. where it stops making sense to me at the moment is where the notion of rebirth fits in (if this is about reincarnation which i've assumed it is). i'm not sure how reincarnation fits with what else i've read in your posts and others on this thread.

First you need to understand Ultimate truth. By this I mean removing everything from our perceived reality that is not a mental construct as explained by Camerata. This process has a tendency to lead you into the extreme of Nilhism. Although many modern teachers say that to begin with Nilhism is not a bad first step on the path.

Once you have done that you can start to understand Conventional Truths like rebirth. By the way if you are having problems with Rebirth you should take a look at Karma. In my tradition that is when you have fully understood, when you can understand how Ultimate Truth and Karma are mutually compatible.

By the way Camerata your explanation of Ultimate Truth seemed to have a strong Hindu flavour. Are you a Pantheist by any chance?

[camerata]

By the way Camerata your explanation of Ultimate Truth seemed to have a strong Hindu flavour. Are you a Pantheist by any chance?

No, not at all. If it seemed like I was equating God with natural laws/forces, it's probably because the OP is a Christian and I tried to write in a way that would be more understandable from a Western-Christian perspective.

Personally, I incline towards Walpola Rahula's view:

"Two ideas are psycologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically."

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

"Two ideas are psycologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically."

Interesting view. But I don't think self-protection and self-preservation are the origin. I think a much stronger reason, at a higher level when the latter two are achieved (at least temporarily), is the presence of the universe itself which implies a creator.

[camerata]

Interesting view. But I don't think self-protection and self-preservation are the origin. I think a much stronger reason, at a higher level when the latter two are achieved (at least temporarily), is the presence of the universe itself which implies a creator.

That works for some people, but not for me because it leads to an infinite regression starting with the question, "Who created the creator?"

[Ijustwannateach]

Pragmatically speaking, the truth is what works. This is the model of truth used in the scientific method: to be true as defined, something must pass a defined test. If I define "green" as being predominantly a certain wavelength of light, then something is green if I can detect that wavelength coming from it (with my eyes, for example).

This idea of truth is more or less the foundation of the success of science; however, there is something of a moral and spiritual emptiness in this definition which leaves plenty of room for philosophy, literature, and religion.

However, to ask this question [what is "truth"] successfully begs the question first of what "truth" should be, a tricky cul-de-sac. Relativists and pragmatists have become more comfortable answering this question, well, pragmatically: truth is the collection of expections you would have of it.

That doesn't help too much, but it at least admits of many different possible truths, which takes us in the postmodern direction.

What I know of the postmodern movements in various fields seem to back up statements made by Camerata and others on this thread regarding Buddhism.

Psychology and cognitive philosophy have had to face the disturbing notion that consciousness itself is a kind of illusion or emergent activity on top of a lot of stuff happening in the brain that we never get to see- or become "conscious" of. Support for the notion that there actually is a real self has been considerably weakened in the light of many experiments which tend to argue against it, as well as certain well-known conundrums- for example, when you change your mind, who exactly is changing it and who is being changed?

From this perspective, Camerata's pragmatic definition of the self is evident: we behave as though we have a self much of the time because it is useful for us to do so. In a sense, our self is defined by the environment around us expecting us to have a self. The more self-aware one is, the more one may notice that different situations, environments, people around us induce different "selves" for the occasion. No doubt all the parts which compose these various selves are present within us, but they certainly don't coalesce into the same composites all the time.

"Steven"

Edited January 18, 2006 by Ijustwannateach

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

Interesting view. But I don't think self-protection and self-preservation are the origin. I think a much stronger reason, at a higher level when the latter two are achieved (at least temporarily), is the presence of the universe itself which implies a creator.

That works for some people, but not for me because it leads to an infinite regression starting with the question, "Who created the creator?"

Agree. That's one of the most difficult questions. The laws of the universe, according to physics, are very simple. Among them is the homogeneity of time which leads to the principle of conservation of energy (and matter as it is a form of energy according to relativity), i.e. the amount of energy remains constant, is neither created nor destroyed, and can be converted from one form to another. Homogeneity of time is, for example, if you measure something today or another time in an isolated system the result will be always the same. But these laws are valid only "after" the creation of space and time (the universe) at the Big Bang, and cannot be extrapolated to before that because of singularities (or "infinities"). So even modern science suffers from the same problem, i.e. infinity. Furthermore by even asking the question "what was before the Big Bang?" is absurd because time itself doesn't exist! I think until the infinity problem is solved, we are still far from understanding reality by logical thinking only. Therefore if there is a creator it should be outside the domain of the "created" space and time, and the question above implies implicitly the notion of time.

[Suthep_Steve]

If I define "green" as being predominantly a certain wavelength of light, then something is green if I can detect that wavelength coming from it (with my eyes, for example).

What is green? The thing or the certain wavelength of light. If it is the thing and presumably the thing is not a certain wavelength of light then you can't say that green is a certain wavelength of light as you have just found something else that is green.

If the wavelength of light is green but say healthy grass is not a certain wavelength of light that defeats you orginal idea about truth being "Pragmatically speaking, the truth is what works."

So what is Green?

[Ijustwannateach]

If I have *defined* green as being a certain wavelength of light, then only things which emit that wavelength would be green- by definition. It's a tautology, but then definitions often are.

I am not saying that in common experience that definition is the or even a real definition of green (to improve this definition would probably involve a range of wavelengths, a certain set of tolerances for mixing with other wavelengths, allowances for the conditions of lighting/no lighting, and the medical/empirical nature of human sight). However, I was trying to keep things relatively simple and clear, as far as the power and the limitations of pragmatism.

To be clear, I noted in my message that truth defined by pragmatism *is* quite limited, and I am not proposing it is of universal application. However, in its limited way, it is very powerful.

Other kinds of truths apply more effectively to other types of situations- your mileage may vary. Acknowledging this is at the core of postmodern thinking. It seemed to me that in the case of the self, postmodern psychology shakes hands very well indeed with Buddhism.

"Steven"

[Suthep_Steve]

Therefore if there is a creator it should be outside the domain of the "created" space and time, and the question above implies implicitly the notion of time.

That breaks the law of cause and effect. Cause and effect are always related. The creator must ultimately be the same as the effect.

Struth I'm in an annoying mood today.

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

If I define "green" as being predominantly a certain wavelength of light, then something is green if I can detect that wavelength coming from it (with my eyes, for example).

What is green? The thing or the certain wavelength of light. If it is the thing and presumably the thing is not a certain wavelength of light then you can't say that green is a certain wavelength of light as you have just found something else that is green.

If the wavelength of light is green but say healthy grass is not a certain wavelength of light that defeats you orginal idea about truth being "Pragmatically speaking, the truth is what works."

So what is Green?

Just a quick note Physically, green or another "color" is a quality or state of an object when it emits a certain wavelength of light (about 0.5 microns for green). This emitted wavelength value (or color)can be changed, for example, by heating the object.

[Suthep_Steve]

If I have *defined* green as being a certain wavelength of light, then only things which emit that wavelength would be green- by definition. It's a tautology, but then definitions often are.

I am not saying that in common experience that definition is the or even a real definition of green (to improve this definition would probably involve a range of wavelengths, a certain set of tolerances for mixing with other wavelengths, allowances for the conditions of lighting/no lighting, and the medical/empirical nature of human sight). However, I was trying to keep things relatively simple and clear, as far as the power and the limitations of pragmatism.

To be clear, I noted in my message that truth defined by pragmatism *is* quite limited, and I am not proposing it is of universal application. However, in its limited way, it is very powerful.

Other kinds of truths apply more effectively to other types of situations- your mileage may vary. Acknowledging this is at the core of postmodern thinking. It seemed to me that in the case of the self, postmodern psychology shakes hands very well indeed with Buddhism.

"Steven"

As I said before I'm in an annoying mood today but I don't mean anything personally.

That aside what I'm saying is that you can't define green at all. You can't define the boundaries, is this brown or is it green well it depends on what we agree to call it but there is nothing green that you can define as existing from it's own side. It's all just convention. If you look at different languages and cultures not only they have different names for colours they have different ideas about colours. For example a lot of cultures have no concept of orange. They just lump it in with red.

I'm going to leave it at that and just say I disagree with your ideas about self. Right I'm off to kick the dog or I would if the dog existed.

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

Therefore if there is a creator it should be outside the domain of the "created" space and time, and the question above implies implicitly the notion of time.

That breaks the law of cause and effect. Cause and effect are always related. The creator must ultimately be the same as the effect.

The causality law exists only within space-time. Therefore the initial cause must be before space-time itself is created, and the effect appears at the Big Bang.

[camerata]

where it stops making sense to me at the moment is where the notion of rebirth fits in (if this is about reincarnation which i've assumed it is). i'm not sure how reincarnation fits with what else i've read in your posts and others on this thread.

It's a big subject. Briefly, one of the underlying principles of Buddhism is karma - good actions lead to good results and bad actions lead to bad results. But the results might take a long time to come about. To reach enlightenment requires the stopping of all bad actions and the experiencing of all the karmic results that are due. We are propelled from one life to another by the attachment and craving which causes dukkha, or one could say by unresolved karma. Until enlightenment is attained, we can't get out of this cycle of birth and death. Karma is considered to be a natural law, that is completely impartial. "Good" actions are those that lead to negation of the ego and to enlightenment.

Edited January 18, 2006 by camerata

[thaibebop]

thanks guys. making more sense now...! just want to clarify a couple of things and ask a couple more questions.

chownah - thanks for the comments re dukka. that also makes sense when put together with camerata's comments that the buddha didn't seek to explain the origin of the universe, etc.

camerata - thanks for the clarity of your post and the way you laid it out. made it easy to make sense of what you're saying. i have more questions - see below!

thaibebop - i can't agree with your statement that there isn't a truth to how we got here, what (if anything) life is all about, etc etc (which is what i was asking about). i absolutely appreciate your comment that we only experience a perspective on that truth, and I would add that maybe none of us have the 'true' perspective... and therefore 'the truth'. but there absolutely is a truth about these things.My statement meant ONE truth. There isn't ONE truth, there is many. I can't be that hard to understand, or am I?

back to camerata's post...

i can understand what you're saying about buddhism creating a purpose in life (if you don't believe in a deity)... i can see exactly how what you and others have described as buddhism can provide this. i can see also that you might believe in evolution as a buddhist (because you may not believe there is a diety who put it all here). that to me would make sense also. where it stops making sense to me at the moment is where the notion of rebirth fits in (if this is about reincarnation which i've assumed it is). i'm not sure how reincarnation fits with what else i've read in your posts and others on this thread.

can anyone explain?

thanks

[Suthep_Steve]

Therefore if there is a creator it should be outside the domain of the "created" space and time, and the question above implies implicitly the notion of time.

That breaks the law of cause and effect. Cause and effect are always related. The creator must ultimately be the same as the effect.

The causality law exists only within space-time. Therefore the initial cause must be before space-time itself is created, and the effect appears at the Big Bang.

Ok before the BB we have a state of nothing, no time, no space, nothing, void. What do we have after the big bang? Do time and space exist out there waiting to be discovered, separate from the mind? If so upon philosophical investigation we should be able to find such an existent universe.

In a dream we have dream space time and it follows physical laws that we can test and debate within the dream. A dream has reality has history and geography but it does not exist separate from the mind. Can we prove that our waking state is any different?

Therefore if there is no universe outside the mind then there is no creator outside the mind.

[Ijustwannateach]

Just a quick note Physically, green or another "color" is a quality or state of an object when it emits a certain wavelength of light (about 0.5 microns for green). This emitted wavelength value (or color)can be changed, for example, by heating the object.

Speaking of green, have you guys noticed the forest for the trees?

I don't care how green is defined, I wasn't trying to define green, and my definition for it was certainly inadequate. I was simply using that as an example of how scientific definitions work. You can argue away what green is, but I don't really care- it's not my point here.

As additional arguments against my definition, I forgot to include the cultural angle: some cultures don't have green (i.e. they don't distinguish between blue and green). Elements of this still exist in Japan, for instance, where the traffic lights and apples are both blue. A quibble against the definition above is that it omits a receiver- "green" really should have something to do with the experience of an observer, as we don't go around giving names to such slightly different colours of infrared or ultraviolet, though bees and butterflies might.

The advantage of a clear scientific definition is that it is something that can be tested in a way most reasonable people can agree on- in other words, there is a standardised way for producing truth. The disadvantage is that if the definition is too narrow, as has been pointed out repeatedly by my colleagues here, the definition becomes inadequate and the proposed "truth" meaningless.

"Steven"

Edited January 19, 2006 by Ijustwannateach

[Ijustwannateach]

As I said before I'm in an annoying mood today but I don't mean anything personally.

That aside what I'm saying is that you can't define green at all. You can't define the boundaries, is this brown or is it green well it depends on what we agree to call it but there is nothing green that you can define as existing from it's own side. It's all just convention. If you look at different languages and cultures not only they have different names for colours they have different ideas about colours. For example a lot of cultures have no concept of orange. They just lump it in with red.

I'm going to leave it at that and just say I disagree with your ideas about self. Right I'm off to kick the dog or I would if the dog existed.

Once again my post was not meant to try to define green, but rather to demonstrate how scientific/pragmatic models of truth operate and comment on the self.

In the pragmatic model, there is no *absolute* truth- which more or less agrees with your first conclusion ("you can't define green")- and the definitions and truths are contingent on choices which are made primarily for reasons of expediency, which more or less agrees with your second conclusion ("It's all just convention").

As far as I am aware, the notions I posted about self agree with the Buddhist descriptions made above in the thread. Are you saying you disagree as well with those Buddhist descriptions, or you disagree that the postmodern psychological models agree with the Buddhist descriptions, or that the postmodern psychological models are accurate at all? It would be helpful to have more detail.

"Steven"

where it stops making sense to me at the moment is where the notion of rebirth fits in (if this is about reincarnation which i've assumed it is). i'm not sure how reincarnation fits with what else i've read in your posts and others on this thread.

It's a big subject. Briefly, one of the underlying principles of Buddhism is karma - good actions lead to good results and bad actions lead to bad results. But the results might take a long time to come about. To reach enlightenment requires the stopping of all bad actions and the experiencing of all the karmic results that are due. We are propelled from one life to another by the attachment and craving which causes dukkha, or one could say by unresolved karma. Until enlightenment is attained, we can't get out of this cycle of birth and death. Karma is considered to be a natural law, that is completely impartial. "Good" actions are those that lead to negation of the ego and to enlightenment.

I'm still undecided about the possibilities of reincarnation, but karma could make a lot of sense as a form of moral/emotional economics. If you "produce" good feeling by being selfless, the wealth in the moral/emotional economy grows and everyone (including yourself) benefits- if you "destroy" good feeling by acting selfishly, the opposite occurs.

"Steven"

[camerata]

I'm still undecided about the possibilities of reincarnation, but karma could make a lot of sense as a form of moral/emotional economics. If you "produce" good feeling by being selfless, the wealth in the moral/emotional economy grows and everyone (including yourself) benefits- if you "destroy" good feeling by acting selfishly, the opposite occurs.

Generally, "reincarnation" implies some kind of eternal self or soul that is reincarnated in its entirety. Buddhists mostly use the word rebirth, and exactly what is reborn is a matter of discussion. Karma/Rebirth can be understood on more than just the conventional level of a series of physical existences.

For instance, rebirth can be understood as occuring every time the ego is activated. We get angry and we are reborn as an angry person. We see a sexy new gadget that we must have and we are reborn as a greedy person. When we are absorbed in work, or maybe asleep, the ego is deactivated and we "die." We've probably all had episodes where we said or did something that we could hardly believe later because it was so untypical of our "normal" behaviour. That's our ego on the rampage, and the guilt or regret we feel later is the karmic result.

Similarly, karma can be understood as our actions (specifically the intention to act) having wholesome or unwholesome effects on our mental state. As we increase the wholesome actions and eliminate unwholesome actions, our mental state improves, we diminish the ego, and our rebirths as a greedy person or whatever will become less frequent and less intense. When there is no rebirth of the ego at all, that's nirvana.