Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Some Thoughts about Truth

Summeroflove85Summeroflove85
edited October 2010 in Philosophy
Recently I've been reflecting upon the notion of Impertinence and come to some interesting conclusions. People are very welcome to chip in and elaborate on these reflections- even tell me I'm plain wrong :) Firstly, it seems to me that the notion 'impermanence' is of pragmatic importance to Buddhists because it programs practitioners to stop 'grasping', thus reducing human suffering. Yet, if we start treating 'impertinence' as some kind of metaphysical reality we'll run into serious trouble- since I think it can proved that not everything is 'impermanent'.

Imagine: The quality of Truth perishes from the world and all that is left is a lie. Yet, surely this world of lie would be 'the truth'? In that case should we not conclude that truth is imperishable? What is true will always be the case. If it were somehow possible to participate in this quality of truth would not anything which so participated become imperishable? If a Buddha is defined as being who sees things as they really are, does not a Buddha participate in 'truth' therefore is a Buddha not imperishable?

Comments

  • treederwrighttreederwright
    edited August 2010
    Yet, if we start treating 'impertinence' as some kind of metaphysical reality we'll run into serious trouble- since I think it can proved that not everything is 'impermanent'.

    If what your saying is true for you, then i hope that this statement gives you much peace and serenity.

    For me this statement isn't so much false because conventionally yes, your right a piece of stone is stone or that steel or metal is very permanent. its sturdy . But when buddhists refer to this kind of paradox they mention that its empty

    Empty is not a nothingness or an absolute , rather its a term used to convey the dependence of things upon other things and on and on .

    The statement that not everything is impermanent was something rigorously debated by buddhists for centuries.

    Also when buddhists refer to "truth" its not some absoluteness that can't be experienced. they say "noble" truth which is a modifier meaning from an arya beings point of view. Arya beings are those that are able to see deep into suffering. This is the truth that the buddha related.

    Also it is very well known that the buddha had a student that asked about lots of what he felt were relevant questions. The Buddha said that he would not take a stance on these topics because they were irrelevent to the actual problem of human suffering. So Buddha didn't want to propagate a new belief system for metaphysical superiority but was very practical in helping to relieve suffering and the cause of suffering. he was Omnecient but didn't boast this,he simply was like a doctor and as you know the doctor only tells you what is neccessary to your current condition. it makes no sense for a doctor to treat a broken arm when your really suffering from another issue like heart problems.

    Therefore i dont feel that what buddha said was true was infact the only truth but i do believe he spoke the most relevant.
    stunami
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    OP: "Truth" is an abstraction... a concept. Concepts are immaterial and impermanent; they are conditioned phenomena and are, in particular, one of our greatest problems to "get over" when training our minds to let go of abstract thought and embrace reality.
  • WhoknowsWhoknows Australia Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Hi SoL85,
    To me truth is only valid in relation to the initial fundamental assumptions made in the reasoning process. To me ultimate truth is that there is no absolute truth. The basic fundamentals of impermanence (assuming you are not talking about impertinence, in this case I can be rude if you like :p ) are change and time. Change is dependent on time and time is dependent on change, so our fundamental of impermanence is based on a circular reference. But that's not a problem as anything that can ever be defined is also subject to circular referees. But this all seems a bit intellectual unless it is combined with contemplation and meditation. This is pointing to emptiness rather than impermanence itself. From a pragmatic point of view impermanence is very important as it leads us to realise how short a time we have, that we need to practise now and consistently, that those around us are not there to stay, to treat them with the respect and love they deserve. From a momentary point of view impermanence helps us realise that if we are in pain or suffering, that this pain or suffering is itself transient and will end up as a memory in the future and sometimes this can reduce the intensity and/or duration of the pain.

    Cheers, WK
    stunami
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Cloud wrote: »
    OP: "Truth" is an abstraction... a concept. Concepts are immaterial and impermanent; they are conditioned phenomena and are, in particular, one of our greatest problems to "get over" when training our minds to let go of abstract thought and embrace reality.

    "Truth".......or......"Reality"?


    They say tomato , you say tomahto. :D
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Richard H wrote: »
    "Truth".......or......"Reality"?


    They say tomato , you say tomahto. :D
    Technically what I mean is what we call "suchness", which again is just a word but really points toward how things really are, regardless of our abstractions or our delusions.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Cloud wrote: »
    Technically what I mean is what we call "suchness", which again is just a word but really points toward how things really are, regardless of our abstractions or our delusions.
    "suchness" tomahhtoe?. I see where you are coming from, but being that this is a medium of conceptual constructs, pointing to a conceptual construct representing non-conceptual..."experiencing"? ..... "beingness"? .... ......"niether being nor non-being"? goes on and and on. It is like cleaning paint off your body with a paint covered cloth. Maybe the only skillful way of pointing is to say non-Dukkha, that way we are not making an ontological claim and losing our practice. Thats how it looks to me anyway. But basically sure, the most challenging aspect of practice is seeing the arising and passing of thought over and over again untill we cease to reify it.
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Summeroflove85 wrote: »
    Yet, if we start treating 'impertinence' as some kind of metaphysical reality we'll run into serious trouble- since I think it can proved that not everything is 'impermanent'.

    Hiya

    I think it is important to realise that Annica, Impermanence, isn't applied to things that could have been otherwise, but only to things that could have been otherwise. This is crucial, IMHO. It is why people often say that Annica means, "All contingent things are impermanent."

    Another way you might thing of this is with conditionals such as:
    • If a thing can change it will change.
    • If a thing was not and is then it will not be.
    • If a thing might not have been then it will not be.

    So when you ask us to imagine:

    Imagine: The quality of Truth perishes from the world and all that is left is a lie.

    You are treating truth as a thing that belongs "within" reality, when all truth can ever be is about reality.

    Another way you might see this is to think of truth as a property of possible statements and impermanence as a property of possible things.

    namaste
  • zendozendo
    edited October 2010
    Cloud wrote: »
    OP: "Truth" is an abstraction... a concept. Concepts are immaterial and impermanent; they are conditioned phenomena and are, in particular, one of our greatest problems to "get over" when training our minds to let go of abstract thought and embrace reality.
    The Buddha seemed to believe truth was more than just a "concept":
    "The truth is noble and sweet; the truth can free you from all ills. There is no savior in the world like the truth. Have confidence in the truth, even though you may not be able to understand it, even though its sweetness has a bitter edge, even though at first you may shrink from it. Trust in the truth. The truth is best as it is. No one can alter it, neither can anyone improve it. Have faith in the truth and live it. The self is in a fever; the self is forever changing, like a dream. But the truth is whole, sublime and everlasting. Nothing is immortal except the truth, for truth alone exists forever." (Majjhima Nikaya)
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    I didn't mean it that way.
Sign In or Register to comment.