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.
The ultimate is the relative
Ok, here's something i've thought for a while, and I finally found an occasion to post about it on another forum so I figured i'd make a thread about it on here.
As many of you know/believe, there are two truths. Relative truth and ultimate truth. The relative truth is all conceptual truths. Anything that you can put into words or think about. The sky's blue, whatever. The ultimate truth is that which transcends concepts, which transcends separation. It is impossible to express in words, because by putting it into words you separate between what "is" and what "is not," and there is no separation ultimately, so by putting it into words you conceptualize and thus it enters the relative world.
Impermanence is permanent. That which does not change is change. The nature of the ultimate reality, in which there is no change, is change. Sounds paradoxical and nonsensical, but it's the only way of saying it reasonably accurately.
As many of you know/believe, there are two truths. Relative truth and ultimate truth. The relative truth is all conceptual truths. Anything that you can put into words or think about. The sky's blue, whatever. The ultimate truth is that which transcends concepts, which transcends separation. It is impossible to express in words, because by putting it into words you separate between what "is" and what "is not," and there is no separation ultimately, so by putting it into words you conceptualize and thus it enters the relative world.
Impermanence is permanent. That which does not change is change. The nature of the ultimate reality, in which there is no change, is change. Sounds paradoxical and nonsensical, but it's the only way of saying it reasonably accurately.
0
Comments
Whether its a truth about impermanence or about the quality of my experience, they are all ultimate truths, I think.
What would a relative dharmic truth be?
namaste
As you said: "You have been thinking for a while"...thinking too much, really.
Non-conceptuality is not ultimate truth.
Neither conceptuality or non-conceptuality are ultimate truth.
I quoted the Buddha. Both the Buddha and myself disagree with your viewpoint that non-conceptuality is ultimate truth.
You need to explain why non-conceptuality is ultimate truth.
Like if a child asked you, pointing to a dog: "What is that TJ?"
If you said nothing & kept silent, is that ultimate truth?
If so, why?
As I suggested earlier, how can being blind, dumb, deaf & mute be ultimate truth?
I understood what you are trying to say and, in my understanding, what you are trying to say is not ultimate truth.
You are neither pointing to the finger nor pointing to the moon.
If conceptualising ultimate truth had no benefit or spiritual efficacy, why would the Buddha have recommended the following reflection? Please note, separation is ultimate truth (rather than non-separation). The Buddha said we will grow different, separate from all that is dear and appealing to us.
Due to impermanence, there is separation. The experience of non-separation is 'white darkness' or 'bright delusion'.
The Buddha advised every state of consciousness, whether gross or subtle, is impermanent, arising & passing. The experience of unified non-separate consciousness is delusion.
Please share one experience of consciousness the mind has not separated from?
The answer is "none".
I am interested in experience.
Please describe to me an experience you have had that is not subject to separation, birth & death?
Thank you
Like now I am eating some cheese. The eye sees the cheese. This is birth. Eye & the cheese are not separate only for a few moments. Put the cheese in my mouth & its gone! Kaput! This is death & separation.
If I am confused, nothing you have said so far is reducing my confusion.
Your viewpoints appear stuck in conceptual separations & concretizations of "Mahayana" and "Theravada".
Please explain: What is this "no separation" you are referring to? Is it permanent?
For example, when the eye sees a form, like a tree, are they one? Are they are not separate? If so, how long does this non-separation last? Must not the eye separate itself from the tree at some time?
Could you explain that?
That's usually how true understanding works. To me, that is.
In my understanding, "non-duality" is Advaita or Hinduism.
In my understanding, the Buddha-To-Be rejected any state of "non-conceptuality" as Nibbana.
Why? Because non-conceptual states are impermanent or, otherwise, objects of attachment.
To want to remain in a non-conceptual state is certainly not freedom. Not being freedom, it cannot be the ultimate.
The Buddha ended all craving. It followed conceptual & non-conceptual were the same to him, namely, impermanent, unsatisfactory, selfless & conditioned undesirable phenomena.
As for your description of "no time & space", it sounds like a heaven of the Brahma world.
There is time. For example, the clock ticking is time. Each in-breath you take is a "tick" of time. Each out-breath that happens is the next "tick" of time. Time ticks on like this until the end of time or the end of consciousness experience, when the body breathes its last breath.
To me, it sounds like your mind is spaced out rather than seeing the relentless arising & passing of phenomena.
I've said all I need to say. You don't seem to understand what I mean by non-separation, and that's ok. I've said my piece. If you want i'll just say you're right. I've said multiple times my purpose here isn't to debate, nor to convince you of anything. There are people who will like what I have to say and agree with it, there are people who don't. I have no desire to change the opinions of those who don't.
When my mind hears the sound of a bird, that sound is an "object" although an impersonal object. That object is impermanent. That object is subject to separation.
What is this "I am" being referred to?
All sounds very "dualistic".
Like a tree, it is a 'tree' but it isn't really a tree. It is more than what you're just seeing. like down, down deeper. But who knows exactly. So you do know, and you don't.