Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Separate Truths
I wasn't exactly sure where this fits in, so, please feel free to move it, if it should be somewhere else 
.
I found this article recently, and found it really interesting.
From here:
I found this part quite interesting:
Do you agree with it?, like, do you agree that there are Separate Truths, and not just one ultimate Truth that everyone shares, or one destination that everyone is going too?.
Personally, I like the idea that a Christian who turns to Christ will find Salvation, a Buddhist, by following in the Buddha's footsteps, will achieve Nirvana, a Hindu by following certain Yogic disciplines will achieve liberation, etc.
I also found these 2 paragraphs quite interesting:
I like the sports analogy, like Basketball players aren't looking to head to the World Cup, Golfers aren't looking to shoot some hoops, swimmers aren't looking to sink putts, etc (that's about as far as my sports analogies can go!).
Do you think, from a Buddhist POV, it's accurate, like, are there different Truths for different people, and/or groups (e.g .Salvation for Christians, Liberation for Hindus, etc)?.
I think I will probably buy his book 'God Is Not One' as it sounds really interesting and quite cool.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the article?.
.I found this article recently, and found it really interesting.
From here:
At least since the first petals of the counterculture bloomed across Europe and the United States in the 1960s, it has been fashionable to affirm that all religions are beautiful and all are true. This claim, which reaches back to “All Religions Are One” (1795) by the English poet, printmaker, and prophet William Blake, is as odd as it is intriguing. No one argues that different economic systems or political regimes are one and the same. Capitalism and socialism are so self-evidently at odds that their differences hardly bear mentioning. The same goes for democracy and monarchy. Yet scholars continue to claim that religious rivals such as Hinduism and Islam, Judaism and Christianity are, by some miracle of the imagination, both essentially the same and basically good.
This view resounds in the echo chamber of popular culture, not least on the “Oprah Winfrey Show” and in Elizabeth Gilbert’s bestseller, “Eat Pray Love,” where the world’s religions are described as rivers emptying into the ocean of God. Karen Armstrong, author of “A History of God,” has made a career out of emphasizing the commonalities of religion while eliding their differences. Even the Dalai Lama, who should know better, has gotten into the act, claiming that “all major religious traditions carry basically the same message.”
Of course, those who claim that the world’s religions are different paths up the same mountain do not deny the undeniable fact that they differ in some particulars. Obviously, Christians do not go on pilgrimage to Mecca, and Muslims do not practice baptism. Religious paths do diverge in dogma, rites, and institutions. To claim that all religions are basically the same, therefore, is not to deny the differences between a Buddhist who believes in no god, a Jew who believes in one God, and a Hindu who believes in many gods. It is to deny that those differences matter, however. From this perspective, whether God has a body (yes, say Mormons; no, say Muslims) or whether human beings have souls (yes, say Hindus; no, say Buddhists) is of no account because, as Hindu teacher Swami Sivananda writes, “The fundamentals or essentials of all religions are the same. There is difference only in the nonessentials.”
I found this part quite interesting:
The gods of Hinduism are not the same as the orishas of Yoruba religion or the immortals of Daoism. To pretend that they are is to refuse to take seriously the beliefs and practices of ordinary religious folk who for centuries have had no problem distinguishing the Nicene Creed of Christianity from the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism from the Shahadah of Islam. It is also to lose sight of the unique beauty of each of the world’s religions.
Do you agree with it?, like, do you agree that there are Separate Truths, and not just one ultimate Truth that everyone shares, or one destination that everyone is going too?.
Personally, I like the idea that a Christian who turns to Christ will find Salvation, a Buddhist, by following in the Buddha's footsteps, will achieve Nirvana, a Hindu by following certain Yogic disciplines will achieve liberation, etc.
I also found these 2 paragraphs quite interesting:
It might seem to be an admirable act of empathy to assert that Confucians and Buddhists can be saved. But this statement is confused to the core, since salvation is not something that either Confucians or Buddhists seek. Salvation is a Christian goal, and when Christians speak of it, they are speaking of being saved from sin. But Confucians and Buddhists do not believe in sin, so it makes no sense for them to try to be saved from it. And while Muslims and Jews do speak of sin of a sort, neither Islam nor Judaism describes salvation from sin as its aim. When a jailer asks the apostle Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), he is asking not a generic human question but a specifically Christian one. So while it may seem to be an act of generosity to state that Confucians and Buddhists and Muslims and Jews can also be saved, this statement is actually an act of obfuscation.
A sports analogy may be in order here. Which of the following — baseball, basketball, tennis, or golf — is best at scoring runs? The answer of course is baseball, because runs is a term foreign to basketball, tennis, and golf alike. Different sports have different goals: Basketball players shoot baskets; tennis players win points; golfers sink putts. To criticize a basketball team for failing to score runs is not to besmirch them. It is simply to misunderstand the game of basketball.
I like the sports analogy, like Basketball players aren't looking to head to the World Cup, Golfers aren't looking to shoot some hoops, swimmers aren't looking to sink putts, etc (that's about as far as my sports analogies can go!).
Do you think, from a Buddhist POV, it's accurate, like, are there different Truths for different people, and/or groups (e.g .Salvation for Christians, Liberation for Hindus, etc)?.
I think I will probably buy his book 'God Is Not One' as it sounds really interesting and quite cool.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the article?.
0
Comments
That certainly is an interesting thought. I like that idea as well.
However, one thing that needs to remain clear is that we must never forget that all religions don't have the same philosophy.
The Dalai Lama lays it out perfectly in this vid. He says that all religions practice peace and compassion, but in the philosophical field there are big differences and that these different contradictory philosophies are necessary to satisfy each individual's mental disposition.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9yQud-ckpJM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9yQud-ckpJM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
.
As far as I am aware, every religion preaches, teaches and holds its own 'truth', and that's what Faith is about.
But as has been pointed out countless times, the 'Faith' held by religions holding fast to a Theistic philosophy, practice a Truth founded on Hope.
The Buddhist practice entails a faith defined more as 'confidence'.
Buddhism is the only religion (AFAIK) that does not have an all-powerful, omniscient omnipotent eternal god. (just to really clarify that, as some schools do ascribe to gods....)
having broadly studied (and in no enormous depth, I will admit) religions outside Christianity, and having been a Roman catholic for the greater part of my life, I came to Buddhism because I finally discovered a Path whose Truths were irrefutable. Not something evident or present in other religions.
This is why they are called Noble.
I don't think any other religion offers something so steadfast, concrete and irrefutable.
It's an unshakeable premise, and as such, while every religion has a different truth, I personally feel drawn to this one, most of all.
Yes
Otherwise, discounting the many sects within each, they are nearly identical.
Or, with regard to the sports analagy, the point is to score. How we score depends on the game.
I once heard the expression.....the "beauty of difference", and so it is.
To pick on less likely coincidence, Beautiful Painted Arrow, (Joseph Rael), a shaman of the pueblo indians, tells us that in his tradition a human being may be conscious in two ways. In translation these are 'Believing we exist' and 'Awakened awareness.' This can hardly not be Samsara and Nirvana.
So, I'd like to backtrack to an earlier remark by Frederica.
"Buddhism is the only religion (AFAIK) that does not have an all-powerful, omniscient omnipotent eternal god. (just to really clarify that, as some schools do ascribe to gods....)"
I feel it is not difficult to establish that this is not the case. As it happens I have in front of me an an excellent article by a Sufi scholar titled 'Al-Lah is not a God.' The Sufis consider themselves the true followers of Mohammed. For mysticism as a global phenomenon there would be no God. Or, if there is one one, He would be an icon, something that points beyond itself, a comforting thought, an approximation to the truth, a placeholder for the Tao, a swing thought, or something like that. The classical God of Christianty lies 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories,' just as does Nagarjuna's Nibbana. Keith Ward, in his God: A Guide for the Perplexed, is excellent on the early Christian view of God, which is nothing like that of most modern Christians. Anybody who reads The Mystical Theology can have no doubt that Christian doctrine may be interpreted as being entirely consistent with Buddhism. Likewise, for the Kabbalist there would be a phenomenon prior to God. Thus mystics in these three traditions have no problem with the atheism of Buddhists. The differences are mostly terminological.
We have to remember that Buddhism arose in a tolerant environment. The Christian. Jewish, and Muslim mystic had until recently not to cross the official party line to avoid persecution if not a painful death.
Sorry to bang on, but it seems to me that there is every reason to believe that all well developed religions are founded on the same doctrine and little reason to suppose otherwise. If they are not then we'd have to suppose that most of them are false doctrines, so this is an absolutely crucial issue.
Anyway, to get back to the first extract quoted by the OP, I'd say it's poorly researched nonsense, and demonstrably so.
Florian
I can speak from inside Buddhism, of its truths as I understand and experience them, but I cannot speak from inside Christianity. This woman can speak from inside Christianity, and she says that apart from some shared moral values, Christian truth is not the same as Buddhist truths.
The new age version of Christianity that most Non-Christians prefer is not recognized by most Christians. They can speak for themselves.
But few Christians, or so it seems to me, examine the source of their religion. The view I'm suggesting is not 'new age' but the classical view. The fourth century Mystical Theology of the pseudo-Dionysius is one of the most important books in the Christian tradition, published with his other works by the Paulist Press as a classic of western spirituality, yet I doubt most modern Christians have read it or would even want to. It would seem heretical to many. The view I'm expressing would be far more amenable to Orthodox Christians than to those of the Roman variety, and this tells us something.
I'm definitely not suggesting that I have any right to define Christianity, just that it is quite easy to interpret the Christian scriptures as consistent with those of Buddhism. If we want to say that they are not consistent then we would have to show that this is an incorrect interpretation. Your schoolteacher would not be able to do this.
Most of what passes for contemplative Christianity for non-Christians is fuzzy and romantic. There is a poster on sale not far from here showing Jesus meditating in the full lotus posture, that kind of thing. Theosophy, the precursor to contemporary "new age" culture was full of a romantic unity. "Integralism", despite its drift into an almost cultish scene does better, but it still sees a plurality of truths.
It's just a matter of seeing things in a Buddhist way. It's the way this brain works, a kind of cognitive default. Not seeing things in a Christian way doesn't make Christians wrong . Different strokes.
Regarding Theosophy. The founding ideas of the Theosophical movement were the writings of Helena Blavatsky, primarily "The Secret Doctrine" and "Isis Unveiled". Blavatsky claimed The Secret Doctrine was passed to her by the ascendant master and member of the "White Brotherhood" Dwal Khul. These ideas were later elaborated on by Alice Bailey. It is a mix of Victorian cabinet spiritualism, Golden Age Romanticism, an orientalist version of Vedanta, and that weird European fetish for belonging to an elite club that is the sole keeper of very very important "occult" knowledge. That is what I mean by Romanticism.
But this is just opinion.
Yes, but either they share a doctrine or they don't. I thought you were saying that they do not.
I feel you've mistaken a first impression for what theosophy actually is. What it is should be quite clear from its literature for anyone coming from the Buddhist literature. The Universal Flame, a useful compilation of essays commemorating its centenary, would be enough to rectify most misunderstandings. If Theosophy is nonsense then so is Buddhism. Or, at least, that would be the view of a Theosophist. The view you express is popular, but bear in mind that many people would think it pretty much applied to Buddhism also. Theosophy is the view that Buddhist doctrine is true.
No first impression. I was a keener and slogged through ALL of Bailey and Blavatsky, etc. The sources vary from Hermetic philosophy to Brahmanism. The only one missing it seems is Buddhism. The reason I left Theosophy was because it just made sense to go from the Euro-romantic version of Vedanta, to actual Vedanta. Later, Vedanta gave way to Buddhism when it became clear that "Self" was just "self" in transcendental drag.
This is a very slippery thing to be saying, and sounds like impassioned mombo jombo, and is clearly not what RH said. It sounds like your mind is clinging to making an equal equation of everything. This is where the real disservice occurs. Things are not equal. Things are what they are. Buddhism is not Christianity, it is Buddhism. Christianity is not Buddhism, it is Christianity.
They might share some moral resonance, as both seem to contain a good bit of compassion, but to attempt to equate them is unnecessary. They might contain some philosophical resonance, but to attempt to equate them is unnecessary. It might even cloud the mind to what is actually being said in each of them, because you'll be busy projecting the meanings of the other while you're experiencing the lessons of one.
With warmth,
Matt
But it's exactly what he said. Viz. Christianity is inconsistent with Buddhism. Ergo Jesus was misled and Buddha was not. I don't agree, and I can't help that. What this has to do with 'clinging' I have no idea. I'm hardly the only person to find Christianty and Buddhism compatible. Of course, I'm talking about the teachings of Jesus, not the speculative dogma of the various later Churches, and certainly not the American fundamentalist variety.
It is equally unnecessary not to equate them.
Hmm. That's a little patronising. It might even be extremely patronising. I could reply that it might cloud the mind as to what is being said in each of them if you're determined to see differences rather than experiencing the lessons of both. This is just wordplay.
Buddha Dharma rings true to this mind and heart. The Christianity professed by my friend rings true for her. What rings true for me does not for her. That is ok, in fact it is beautiful because we can sit down together in friendship, in mutual respect, even though she regards Buddhism as ultimately in error. If she was a Buddhist I might think her view was in error in that context, but since she is a devout Christian I accept her views as true to her own faith.
Christians vary widely in the practice of their faith, it is not for you to say who of them is practicing the real one in accordance with your "one truth".
I am not feeling patronizing, I'm being direct with what I see. For instance, Richard said "I like apples" and you heard "I like apples, ergo Jesus was an asshole" which is not what Richard said at all. Your mind seems to be busy projecting meaning for you where it doesn't belong.
There is a reason not to equate things, in that it allows you to be more flexible in what you're seeing. Instead of making things fit, the mind has more room for speculation as to what is really being said, without the inner need of making things "balance" out. They're not the same, even as they share some teachings that sound similar, they are not the same. Why is that a problem? A chicken is not a duck, even though they both have wings and feathers, how wise is it to say they are the same thing?
With warmth,
Matt
A chicken and a duck are not the same thing, you say, yet the voidness of one is the voidness of the other.
I wonder why the Dalai Lama recommends that we should stay with the religions we grow up with if only one of them is a true doctrine.
What all the world's principle religions and wisdom traditions have in common is a neutral metaphysical position, as endorsed by Nagarjuna. Of course they differ in the details, but their shared metaphysic easily outweighs any differences in practice, language etc.
The only undeniable, completely rock-solid absolute Truth(s) I know are the Four Noble Truths.
That's why they're called 'Noble'. Because they're 'right up there' on the peak of the Mountain we call "I live by this"...
What's wrong with that?
If you think yellow is yellow, but I see orange, and I think blue is blue but you see green....is there a problem?
.....Yes.... but you can kill 'em, pluck 'em, gut' em joint them and roast them. They're both great with a plum sauce.
They also lay eggs....
What's your point?
Because he realises that cultural divides and cross-overs can cause upheaval, and that all religions - at their core - fundamentally should work to get on, and build upon their similarities, as opposed to splitting over differences.....
The extremes of absolutism and relativism are equally off. “Great space, Nothing holy” isn't referring to a postmodern aperspectival madness. It is pointing to a non-attachment to either notion. A living space if you will.
Emptiness of inherent existence affirms distinctions, and does not erase them. Emptiness is not a monistic entity.
They all have doctrines that are true unto themselves, and hopefully promote shared values of peace.
I didn't know Nagarjuna endorsed a Metaphysical position of any kind, neutral or otherwise
Its like going on a journey to find the ultimate treasure... some deep inner truth that gives rise to all other truth. Finally, through mindfulness, you enter the cave and find the chest, hidden back underneath all of the concepts and non-concepts you've transcended. Because you've perfected your right intention, you are able to form the key that opens the box. Slowly, you lift the lid, and find that the box is empty.
I was in boy scouts with a kid named Tony Orlando. No relation. He was an interesting kid. We used to slap him in the face and say "The face is red!!"
Okay. I'm not promoting monism, which I see as dualism in disguise.
I'm not speaking of relative truth. Budhist doctrine is true as far as I can make out, and not just true unto itself, whatever that means.
I think this may be a general problem here. His theory of emptiness is the philosophical foundation of Mahayana Buddhism yet it seems to be often ignored, perhaps because Buddhists are often uninterested in philosophy. His doctrine of two truths or two worlds states that the universe is a unity. Hence it's no use us saying that all truth is relative. Either the universe is a unity or it isn't. If it is, then this would be consistent with all religions which endorse the via negativa or that are apophatic, and inconsistent with all others.
How so? Because if the universe is a unity then all positive metaphysical positions are false. This would mean that we could never truthfully say that the universe is this as opposed to that. Nagarjuna proves that all such positive views are logically absurd. In this way the Tao cannot be spoken, God cannot be named, etc., and we have an explanation for the ubiquitous use of paradox and contradiction in the language of mysticism. Nagarujna's 'two truths' must be expressed in a language of contradictory complementarity. Lao Tsu sums up the entire situation with his remark, 'True words seem paradoxical.' This is what Nagarjuna proves.
So, in metaphysics, or at the level of first principles, Buddhist doctrine is consistent with any doctrine for which the universe is a unity. It's not difficult to verify that for mysticism in general the universe is a unity, and thus that the religions that emerge from this underlying mysticism share a common philosophical position. This is not to say that these religions are interchangable, each has its own methods etc., but it is what allows the Dalai Lama to endorse them all as paths to truth.
This is why I was so surprised to find people here suggesting that Buddhism and Christianity are incompatible. It was two very skilled Buddhist friends who led me to the idea that all religions veil a common truth, and many years of research has satisfied me that this is the case.
If I come over as a bit bullish then pardon me, but I will always strongly object to the idea that Buddhism or any other religion has a monopoly on truth. I believe it causes considerable damage and fosters misunderstanding. I know this is true because the variety of religious doctrines used to be my main objection to the idea that any of them is true. Now I see it's an objection that fails.
Written in haste so sorry if it's muddled.
Florian
I believe that clinging to views was what Nagarjuna considered to be the biggest obstacle on the path to awakening. In other words, he was using logic simply as a tool in order to help people realize emptiness, and consequentially, awakening; and I think that this idea is supported by the verse, "When there is clinging perception, the perceiver generates being. When there is no clinging perception, he will be freed and there will be no being." (MMK 26:7).
Essentially, my view is similar to that found in Derrida and Negative Theology, which sums it up by saying Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamikakarika, "offers a systematic analysis of all the important philosophical issues of its time, not to solve these problems but to demonstrate that any possible philosophical solution is self-contradictory or otherwise unjustifiable. This is not done to prepare the ground for Nagarjuna's own solution: 'If I were to advance any thesis whatsoever, that in itself would be a fault; but I advance no thesis and so cannot be faulted.' [Vigrahavyavartani, verse 29]" (232). Nevertheless, I'm not an expert on the subject, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.
Practice that.
First principle in Buddhist doctrine? Your beliefs are great, but you simply do not know Buddhist practice. "First principle" is a concept, no matter how you spin it. Call it "a concept that refers to truth beyond concepts" and you are still attached to the same concept. "Truth beyond concepts" is a second order conceptual delusion. If you are interested in understanding Buddhism find a teacher and Practice.
Your Buddhist friends are neophytes if they endorse your metaphysics as Buddhism. Your research is meaningless if you don't Practice. Practice and see. If you are not interested in that fine. You can expect practicing Buddhists to say what has been said on this thread when you claim to know Buddhism.
The idea that Buddhism claims a monopoly on TRUTH, comes from your misunderstanding of Buddhism. It comes from a lack of experience in Buddhist practice.
"Truth" gives way to experiential practice, and practice leaves room for everything to be as it is. People will find truth were they do and it will be its own measure. What counts is conduct. If someone is compassionate, open minded, and responsible through their truth , then that is truthful enough for most Buddhists.
Thanks for such a thoughtful post. This is getting interesting. I'd disagree with you only on one point but will add some comments. I feel duty bound to explain my position a bit more fully in view of the flack.
That's exactly how I read him also. But I see no sleight of hand, just scrupulously honest and cold logic. No doubt you're right about his motivation. When I say that he proves that the universe is a unity, and, as such, is correctly described by a neutral metaphysical position, this is just another way of looking at it.
But perhaps you understate his proof. He proves that all positive metaphysical positions are logically absurd, and not just 'illogical from the standpoint of emptiness.' Even if they are, this would be of no interest to anyone who wasn't already interested in emptiness. It's a far more explosive proof than that. Positive positions are shown to be logically indefensible in the dialectic, the logic on which western scholasticism and metaphysics depends, the logic most of us would call 'common sense.' Thus his proof is Buddhism's explanation for why all metaphysical questions are undecidable. This is the reason why Buddhist doctrine cannot be falsified in logic, it makes no claims that give rise to metaphysical contradictions, and it is the only one that does not. Nagarjuna proves all these things and more. Basically, he proves that it would perverse to think that the Buddha's doctrine is false, since it's the only one that isn't demonstrably absurd. This may sound a casual remark but it is rigorous.
I believe the same. In order to achieve this goal it was necessary for him to logically prove that we must abandon all our positive metaphysical views for the truth.
I'm afraid I cannot agree with this reading. I am not an expert either, but I'm know what the experts say. This is not a Buddhist reading of the text or the intention behind it. Nagarjuna does not falsify all the solutions. Of course he doesn't. He have to be a fool. What he does is falsify them all them except his own. You don't saw through the branch you're sitting on. Derrida does not see that a neutral position must be spoen of apophatically, and that there is no way for Nagarjuna to make a positve claim for it without misrepresenting his position. Only someone opposed to Buddhism could interpret his silence as a refusal to adopt a view, as if he wasn't sure what was true.
The connection between western metaphysics and mysticism is simple in this sense, that when we abandon all positive metaphysical positions we are following the Middle Way. For every metaphysical dilemma, (mind/matter, freewill/determinism, samsara/nirvana and so forth) we would adopt a neutral stance. The truth would would lie beyond all partial metaphysical views.
The link with Christianity is made if we consider that the Holy Grail is said to lie beyond all phenomenal pairs of opposites and achievable only by those who can transcend them.
The discussion not about practice, and I'm aware of what non-duality points to, the meaning of advaita etc. The idea that the universe is a unity is exactly the idea of non-duality. but viewed in a different way. The universe would not be a numerical one, but it is possible to use 'unity' with a different meaning. Would you not agree that Nagarujna's two worlds are one in this sense? Do we not all share one identity?
I will not respond to this nonsense. It's best not to have fantasies about who you're talking to.
No, as I said earlier, it comes from what's been said on ths forum. I've never come across the idea before. That;s what took me by suprise.
What does 'truthful' mean here? Do you mean 'authentic'? That seems a more accurate word. I didn't realise philosophy was frowned on here, but I'm learning fast. I'm struggling to remain civil. Sorry about that.
It is a guess based on the your statment that they endorse your practiceless philosophical version of Buddhism, that is founded on TRUTH.
Sorry to upset you. We are at different places. I respect your view but honestly find that a philosophical Buddhism not grounded in meditation practice is a very different kettle of fish. Philosophy is fine but not an end in itself in Buddhism. I respect your sincere Truth and am not saying it is false. I hope you can accept that I am in a different place than you. If you want to call this place untrue, or blind to Truth, thats ok.
If someone sees what they honestly know to be their "one truth", who can step in and say its not the one truth? On what grounds? logical consistency? There can be many sincerely held "one truths".
Anyway its fine to disagree. With respect.
It's an odd business. I don't think the truth of the Buddha's teachings is a matter of opinion, and I'm trying to understand how you can believe otherwise.
How did you get that idea? Like I suggested earlier, you're arguing with a fantasy poster, not with me.
What? How could there be a practiceless Buddhism. The idea is ridiculous.
I think you've failed to read my posts, so sure were you, despite your protestations, that I am an idiot.
Have you come across the Principle of Charity? It's a useful principle in philososphy. Briefly, you assume the other person is not an idiot and look for the most charitable interpretation of their words. To do the opposite causes endless unnecessary arguments.