The truth of reality
Jeroen
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlands Veteran
Musings in the Happiness thread made me wonder about the nature of truth and reality. So I did a little searching, to see if I could find what other people thought of it.
This article implied that Buddhist truths about suffering were part of the ultimate truth about life and reality, which I’m inclined to believe in.
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/56.htm
The truth of inter-being, that Thich Nhat Hanh likes to talk about, is also an aspect of ultimate truth, that we are all inter-related. Perhaps that we are all one is also a related truth.
Further I found this article from a more Christian perspective,
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2573546
Which argues that god is the ultimate reality, and that it can be pursued from moral and philosophical standpoints, with certain consensus viewpoints as starting points. Not sure how I feel about that, it seems a somewhat muddled area of thinking.
What is your thinking on ultimate truth? Is truth more important than happiness?
Comments
I think that we can only conceptualize reality and the truth of reality. I think that ultimate reality is before mind and though attempts to "grasp" it are futile and Absurd, we experience reality every moment. My opinion is that it's beneficial to not think about it without not thinking about it on purpose. The basis of my beliefs regarding reality, however, comes from the Buddhist concepts of emptiness and non-dualism. That apparent paradox is something I try not to think about.
I'm not convinced there is such a thing, though IMO a search for personal truth is worthwhile. I find the word "ultimate" rather puzzling, for example when people talk about "ultimate reality", or even worse, "Ultimate Reality" with capitals. Is "ultimate reality" supposed to be more real than plain old "reality"? ( whatever that is supposed to be ). Is ultimate truth more true than truth?
My first thought is "doesn't this belong in the philosophy section?"
Kidding aside, anicca, dukkha, anatta. When one establishes the perception of impermanence, the perception of unsatisfactoriness and the perception of not-self, one establishes right view and sees ultimate truth. But in my opinion there’s more to it. I don't think these three characteristics are antithetical to nihilistic views. Hence, I believe the Buddha also taught a “just-world hypothesis” based on conditionality, a principle underlying both the mind and the cosmos, and that from his perspective it wasn’t a hypothesis but an empirical reality. (However, I'd say it’s only empirical to the extent that others can subjectively verify it.) That to me is ultimate truth as verifiable by humans. Again for me anything beyond that is the leaves in the forest and ever evolving theories about them.
I would modify that to say truth is more important than happiness supported by impermanent conditions. Dwelling in the truth and feeling happy are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In the context of feelings, the commentaries characterize neutral feelings as pleasant, due to the absence of pain. Nibbana would be similar, sukkha due to the absence of dukkha.
Edit: Added more qualifiers.
Thanks for that, of course things like impermanence and annatta are important aspects of reality, and therefore ultimate truth. I’d agree that trying to fully define ultimate truth is unlikely to be within human grasp, but through Buddhist teachings you can get a sense of some of it.
Perhaps a truer grasp is available from the cosmic mind that the enlightened are supposed to have. But it is interesting from a motivational standpoint what you search for, truth or an end to suffering or even just happiness. They are not necessarily mutually supporting... if you pursue one you might not get the others, or at least you’d have to see.
This seems likely to me except I'm hesitant to label it all as "one" because that implies a border and a "not-one". Oneness seems to imply interrelation while not positing any borders (all of which I think are convention).p
Entertaining that idea, I don't think ultimate reality would be self aware except through beings like us having ultimate realization. I also doubt there could be an absolute beginning or prime mover to causation.
Asking myself if I'd rather be enlightened or happy I think that being ever more aware would invite ever more happiness.
That and every new answer brings more questions.
The aim is to balance the terror of being alive with the wonder of being alive.
― Carlos Castaneda
LOL
Happy to say there is no thunk required.
Ultimates for a limited being are
limited
The most we can retain is enlightenment. That should keep you happy for as long as you or it exist ...
I agree with John Lennon.
When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.
The thing is where can happiness be found? Certainly not drugs and rock&roll.
The Truth can set you free.
Really? IMO the closest thing we have to "objective truth" is science. The religious and spiritual stuff all seems very subjective to me, it's about how we experience stuff and the meaning we attach to it.
Could you explain what you mean by "reality"? It's a can of worms really. Our human senses and intellect are quite limited, which means we can only ever experience a small subset of what is "out there". Perhaps we can talk in a general way about "human reality", but that would be different to "ant reality" or "space-alien reality" or whatever.
Sure, but that is just according to Buddhist teaching. All religions make a claim on ultimate truth, we then make a personal ( and subjective ) judgement about what rings true with us ( or not! ).
Could you explain what you mean by "before mind"? And where else are we going to experience "reality", if not in the mind? Isn't "reality" always personal?
I would say that Buddhism, being unique in not having a Godhead/deity, relies on logical philosophy to determine 'Ultimate Truth' and the 4 NTs are testimony to that. All other religions seem to rely on an Ultimate Truth connecting to a Deity, which would be questionable, and certainly open to argument.
So while our judgement may be subjective, it's arguable that it is less flawed than that which relies on an outside Creator to underpin it.
@SpinyNorman said:
What I mean by before mind is that what we perceive as reality and reality itself are two different things. The process of knowing alters the nature of what is. Of course, we create reality in our minds but I wouldn't consider that reality to be true reality. I think there is a point in our practice when we just have to let go of our perceptions and concepts and understandings and relax into just this.
We are most sensitive to sounds that are similar to human voice in pitch. We are only sensitive to a small range of the spectrum of light (electromagnetic radiation). And our eyes have only 3 types of cones for color vision each sensitive to one wavelength of light mainly. And from just those three we can see hundreds of colors.
I would say that impermanence is the same seen from an ant’s perspective or from a human’s. These particular defining Buddhist truths don’t seem subjective at all to me once grasped fully. Only the object differs - for an ant the thing that is impermanent is the grain of wheat he is dragging towards the burrow, and of course himself. For a human it is the car, the petrol, the shopping and also of course himself.
I’m trying to get a handle on the properties that define our universe - to me that seems like truth. Impermanence and inter-being are a very good start I think, as universal principles that apply everywhere independent of perspective.
If we separate ultimate reality from plain ol' reality, then I have to ask whether we can actually know ultimate reality. Is that only for enlightened beings? To me, that is what the difference has been. That we work to try to see reality, and we can glimpse is, but as normal humans our version of reality no matter how much work we do to clear obscurations, is still colored by emotions, experience, education upbringing etc. To me, ultimate reality has been the difference between that, and the way a Buddha would see reality which is completely clear of all those muddling constructs.
Some things maybe we know enough about as humans to fully explain, like, a broken bone. Would Buddha see something else? But more abstract concepts are pretty hard for us to use our human senses and nature to pick apart and describe and a higher level of understanding seems necessary. A mastery, of sorts, that most of us don't possess even if we understand it on a logical level.
What is your thinking on ultimate truth?
-Nibbana
Is truth more important than happiness?
-Yes
I think you can't find it via thinking.
If the mind cannot apprehend it, then it is beyond understanding. And it would be better to not spend any time thinking about it. Yet the Buddha did not include it among the unmentionables.
Anyhow I’m surprised no one has yet mentioned the two truths doctrine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
Nagarjuna and Chandrakirthi ahoy!
-That's sort of what I was getting at:
Nibbana is an existing reality
...The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana"...
Another word used by the Buddha to refer to Nibbana is 'Sacca', which means 'truth', an existing reality. This refers to Nibbana as the truth, a reality that the Noble ones have known through direct experience...
http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/nibbanaReal.htm
Truth, or as the Ancient Greeks called it, "Aletheia," was an Unveiling. In that sense there is likely no place where the journey ever ends, where you can find the whole, entire, all-comprehensive definition or rendition or condition... of things... On the other hand, one can attain moments of complete joy —absolute joy. And those moments can compound themselves into a happy life. Nor is it necessary to hide from or be shielded from all the ugly sides of reality to be able to reach that joyous state. (Which is more true, the ugly or the beautiful? What Keats said?)
Which is more important I cannot say, nor am I qualified to say. But I do know that Truth cannot trump happiness.
last couplet of Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44477/ode-on-a-grecian-urn
Bodhidharma come to mind with that!
Good stuff.
This where my understanding of ultimate truth came from. I didn't read the links in the OP to see if they were talking about something else.
So I kind of agree with @SpinyNorman in the sense of ultimate reality not referring to some sort of hidden, greater reality that lies veiled behind the conventional world. My understanding is that emptiness is something that is experiential rather than some thing that has some sort of existence out in the world. So ultimate means perceiving the world without the veil of conventional, ignorant perspective.
Good quote from Bodhidharma
Need the procedure again? Calm mind, remove attraction to impediments, allow underlying wisdom, reality, truth, unborn, unfolding etc. to BE PRESENT ... just as it always is ...
http://www.bodhi.sofiatopia.org/practices.htm#atiyoga
Sure, impermanence and conditionality look pretty universal, but of course that is just from our human perspective. You could say they appear to be characteristics of our "human reality", or perhaps more accurately, our human experience.
I still think that talking about "reality" in general, or even worse, "ultimate reality", is a can of worms philosophically speaking. More trouble than it's worth!
Teachings on emptiness in Buddhism ( eg in the Heart Sutra ) are generally framed in terms of the five aggregates, and the five aggregates are a model of personal experience. So emptiness seems to be a teaching about the nature of our experience, a personal realisation, not necessarily an ontological or "scientific" statement.
I was hinting at the Two Truths because that's what I naturally think of when someone says ultimate truth... subjectivity interbeing with objectivity (objective or absolute truth must by definition account for subjectivity) and the physical interbeing with the non-physical (Heart Sutra comes to mind).
Things are not quite what they seem....
For the so-called self no ...For non-self yes....
TNH says: “Of course all the methods in the search for the truth should be looked on as a means rather than as ends in themselves or as absolute truth.” The Miracle of Mindfulness, p55.
Thich Nhat Hanh also says Interbeing, No Self, and Impermanence are not ultimate reality, but keys to open the door to ultimate reality, which is signless awareness free from all concepts. I believe God is found there and Nirvana is found there.
It seems to me it can be either depending on how we come at it.
I sincerely don't wish to argue but Nagarjuna (Mr. Emptiness) would say it is ontological.
I'm not sure I agree, but then I'm not really sure what you mean either.
My understanding of Nagarjuna is that he categorically denied 4 possibilities of reality.
-That things truly exist
-That things do not truly exist
-That things both truly exist and truly do not exist
-And that things neither truly exist and truly do not exist
So I would deny that Nagarjuna would say emptiness has an ontological status.
On the other hand, while Theravada limits it's understanding of emptiness to the self, Mahayana schools extend that understanding to all phenomena. So one could say that the world "out there" is empty just as much as our world "in here". But even then the point isn't to effect some result in the world but to change our perception of it.
@person;
Nagarjuna presented emptiness as the ever changing nature of phenomena and the interconnectedness of all things.
He doesn't deny the existence of things, he says they are empty which is what allows things to exist. Existing solely in relation to each other is to exist. That is interconnectivity.
I will see about adding a couple of links later as I'm on a crappy BlackBerry but googling "Nagarjuna emptiness ontological" or Two Truths ontological" will give quick results.
Although the Madhyamaka is Mahayana, Nagarjuna does not contradict Theravada understanding but he does expand and expound on it and the Two Truths are indeed an ontological truth according to his emptiness teachings... Fact.
I can't help thinking. I might retain it as a hobby.
... meanwhile in the realm of ultimate opinion truth fairy land, we can throw away:
... in other news ... Was Buddha a previous incarnation of Jesus? The “evidence” ...
https://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/jesus/buddha.html
Emptiness and the ultimate truth are ontological in the sense that they address the status of existence. But I think what @DairyLama (aka @SpinyNorman) and I were saying is that ultimate reality isn't referring to some hidden substratum of the world that really exists, having a true ontological status. Rather ultimate and conventional refer to the way we see and understand the world.
Sunyata, however, is also shown to be "empty," and Nagarjuna's assertion of "the emptiness of emptiness" prevents sunyata from constituting a higher or ultimate reality.[25][26][note 4][note 5] Nagarjuna's view is that "the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth"
googling two truths ontological came up with an interesting paper which presented two ways of approaching sunyata, ontological and phenomological. The first talks about how the world IS, the second how we experience the world. Even in the ontological way though phenomena are understood in terms of appearance and emptiness (the way things seem and the way they really are), and nothing about oneness.
If you say things exist interdependently, what happens when you take that all the way down? A chariot exists depending on its parts, so if you stop there you can say that things truly exist only dependently. What about the wheels though? Or the carriage? A wheel only exists depending on its spokes and hub. Spokes and hub only exist depending on the material it is made of. The material is made up of different molecules and elements. Molecules and elements are made up of atoms, quarks, quantum fuzziness. Where are the truly existing things that actually exist depending upon one another?
IMO you want to take Nagarjuna's non-affirming negation of phenomena and reify existence into some kind of Vedanta-esque grand oneness that doesn't exist in Buddhism.
Exactly, sunyata is an epistemological teaching. This is demonstrated by the fact that the core text on sunyata, the Heart Sutra, is framed in terms of the five aggregates, and the five aggregates describe personal experience and knowledge.
Exactly. Emptiness of emptiness. This means that sunyata itself lacks inherent existence, it doesn't exist from it's own side. This means it is just a characteristic of phenomena, the nature of our experience, not an ultimate "thingy" or ground of being, or whatever. It's nothing to do with the Tao, or Atman/Brahman, or God, or anything ultimate.
Unfortunately there is a tendency to reify such teachings, thereby completely missing the point of them. The point is clearly described in the opening lines of the Heart Sutra:
"The Bodhisattva of Compassion,
When he meditated deeply,
Saw the emptiness of all five skandhas
And sundered the bonds that caused him suffering."
Teachings on anatta and sunyata are framed in terms of phenomena, and phenomena are just what we experience. So again it is about personal experience, and not about metaphysical pronouncements. These teachings are about "my world", not "the world". They are about our personal reality, not some imagined "ultimate reality". Grasping at such beliefs is counterproductive.
I'm pretty sure you guys are trying to make Nagarjuna Theravada when he was Mahayana.
To really get it I think Theravada Buddhists need to empty their cups just a little and realise that sunyata applies to the external world just as much as the internal and that in fact, the only difference between the two is perception or convention.
Studying the Madhyamaka teachings themselves reveals that the "ultimate truth is absolutely objective". That line is in the introduction to the Mulamadhyamakakarika- Nagarjuna's Middle Way by Mark Siderits and Shoryu Katsura and meditating on it has shown it's merit.
That the absolute truth is not absolute only means it is liable to change or grow to account for future views, not that truth itself is not objectively verifiable. That only implies nonsense and takes away from the solidity of the dharma.
If the truth isn't absolute then it can only be subjective which throws objectivity out the window along with any logical discourse.
Nagarjuna said that not only the self but everything is empty. I do not think that means what you think it means but there are a couple of camps on this so I won't push it further at the moment.
Absolutely not. Actually I think you are trying to make Nargajuna into a Taoist, when he was in fact a Buddhist.
By the way, I practiced in Mahayana and Vajrayana schools for many years before getting involved in Theravada. And I don't think @person is a Theravadan.
You might find it helpful to spend some more time with the Heart Sutra.
Wow, how can you not see you just answered your own question? Honestly.
You guys are making it more complicated than it needs to be but there's a fundamental error in your evaluation and I'll tell you why in very simple yet Buddhist terms.
Emptiness. It does not imply a lack of existence but a lack of independent existence. A lack of inherent existence. If you can show me a sutta, sutra or discourse that says there is no existence period then I'll eat my hat.
Absolute truth being empty then does not imply a lack of absolute truth, it implies the absolute truth is not true in itself and depends on taking subjectivity into account.
Just as a proper and harmonious subjective view depends on seeing the absolute.
The Two Truths is one truth and we make a skewed teaching and spread falsehoods when we hold one above the other as more true.
This is why emptiness is a touchy subject. Too many get nihilism out of it through misinterpretation.
Nagarjuna is not just Mr. Emptiness, he is also Mr. Middle Way.
@David yes the Mahayana does apply emptiness to all phenomena. My teacher says that if you go deep in shravaka view which is like anatta that can take you to enlightenment as a practice. But the Mahayana did have more schools historically. And not only historically which is a bit dry but also as a tool to examine awareness/experience we can look at what they subsequent schools said. Like take an essence from each school and see what it has to say about our experience. I believe the cittamatra or mind only school made the point that there aren't any phenonomena in our experience that are not complicit with mind or awareness. And then there is the view that all views are constructed and empty. And I think the shravaka (anatta) practice can benefit if you later on look into the other schools ideas. And likewise Mahayanist who identifies with a different school can benefit from hearing the original shravaka perspective and practicing that. I would say however that the ideas can be interesting but when life's adversities come usually a view of letting go of self might be more practical at that time.
I've also found that reading about psychology of sensation/perception and the brain process is interesting both in itself and also going back to the idea that anything in our awareness not only has to do with something outside but also our mind. So we don't hear about anything or experience anything without our mind being involved.
@Jeffrey
You are right there are a few different Buddhist ways to come at this stuff and so far all Mahayana schools I've come across teach that view of emptiness. Especially Tibetan Buddhism. I think the Mind Only school of Buddhism is interesting but it seems to cross over to an extreme view for my personal taste.
Nagarjuna said that the absolute truth (as in the ultimate of the two truths) is empty. Understanding that to mean there is no absolute truth is to misunderstand it because emptiness does not mean non-existence but it does hint at Dependent Origination and interconnectivity.
Nagarjuna was logical and it is simply not logical to claim the absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth. The statement is self defeating because it is a claim of absolute truth in itself.
The sentence below this one is true.
The sentence above this one is false.
@David I think I remember reading a few times in a book on Emptiness, my teacher uses, them mentioning absolute truth. However I cannot right now remember what the given definition of what 'absolute' means in that particular book. I know that it was defined but I cannot remember. I think that is part of the joke of Buddhism for me that at one time I thought that I would remember more things and sort of accumulate 'insights' but maybe I am more resigned just that I have confidence or faith or what have you that eventually whatever insight is relevant at whatever moment will 'appear'.
Which is not to say that there aren't amazing beings like Nagarjuna who set it in their minds and then are able to explain in writing.
Ok I found in the text what was set as absolute truth as the book begins to set up talking about Emptiness:
So above ^^ this author is defining absolute truth for use in their text which summarizes (for use in practice, analysis, and reflection) different schools of views (I guess) on emptiness. So what I couldn't remember is the definition as 'the end point of analysis' or 'the most fundamental element'.
This is where I think you miss it and start interpreting things for yourself the way you want to see it. Nagarjuna absolutely did teach the emptiness of emptiness. My understanding is so that we don't then give a sort of solidity and true existence to all of reality as a whole.
I don't think I really understand what you mean when you say objectivity and subjectivity, the way you use them seems to hold some sort of metaphysical idea with them.
This is what it seems to me like you are doing but on the opposite side in favor of true existence as a whole. I think you have the idea that ultimate reality is some sort of truer substratum of being separate from conventional reality rather than an explanation of the way conventional reality actually exists. Ultimate and conventional are interdependent and thus empty as well.
Again, but I think you get true existence as an entirety out of interdependence.
To say there is existence depends on the idea of non existence, so existence as a concept is empty too because it depends on the idea of non existence. Existence is a conventional truth it doesn't become ultimate when it is seen as an undifferentiated whole.
Sorry for the long list of passages, maybe just read the whole link.
...is that for us mere mortals we will continue to agree and disagree ( some will agree to disagree ) ...Such is life for us unenlightened mortals...
I try to keep that in mind @Shoshin, but I also do find the back and forth immensely helpful for my own understanding.
There I was not thinking of an elephant, or even thinking of nothing. Yep meditation is nothing if not an emptying ...
When this came up ...
https://emptinessteachings.com/2014/09/11/the-two-truths-of-buddhism-and-the-emptiness-of-emptiness/
“Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way.
Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a non-empty thing
Does not exist.”
Nagarjuna
Hope it is of some benefit ...
Exactly. So emptiness is a characteristic of phenomena ( dharmas ), not a ground of being or ultimate reality thingy. Phenomena ( dharmas ) are what we experience, equivalent to the five aggregates. As the Heart Sutra explains.
And as @Person noted, Nagarjuna absolutely did teach the emptiness of emptiness, a point it seems you don't want to entertain. I think this is probably because at heart you are more Taoist than Buddhist.
If you're still not convinced, then you might find it useful to join some of the discussions over at Dharma Wheel. Or do some study on the Heart Sutra.
“All philosophies are mental fabrications. There has never been a single doctrine by which one could enter the true essence of things.”
― Nāgārjuna
What you guys still aren't understanding is that emptiness does not mean a lack of being. I'm not sure how to be more clear on that point.
You are missing the middle way.
I am not arguing that the absolute truth is not empty I am arguing that emptiness does not imply a lack of existence but a lack of independent existence. How can the difference be missed?
I think we understand it just fine, and that the misunderstanding is really on your part, due to your Taoist leanings.
By the way, your reference to "nihilism" is a straw-man.