What is the Point - Part 5

[Guest guest]

I like Frank's description of relative versus absolute truth and do not

disagree with any of this. I'm not sure that this is the answer to the

dilemma however. Since the real truth cannot be spoken, everything that is

spoken of by sage or scripture is ultimately untrue, whether it's referring

to relative or absolute. Fine, but then no one can claim any one to be the

true version, to which ultimate reference should be made. But this is

exactly what traditionalists do. I agree with you Frank, but do they? R.

Viswanathan makes exactly this point, wanting to regard the Upanishads and

Vedas as axioms that are unquestionable. Why should I do this when living

sages do not? (Incidentally, Greg, your last post asked who on this list was

claiming sruti as absolute truth - the answer occurred in the post prior to

yours in the digest!)

 

Robert, I still think you are trying to push the steel metaphor too far.

Steel is not mostly empty space in the absolute sense. This is still only a

relative sense, that of being looked at under high magnification. We do not

know what it looks like in an absolute sense; it is after all, like

everything else, ultimately only Consciousness. I didn't want to quibble

particularly with reincarnation; it is just one example that seemed a

straightforward one to use. I'm possibly more concerned with the question of

paths. Direct claims none is meaningful or can lead anywhere, whilst

traditional has all of these different yogas. (Mind you, as I - body-mind -

get increasingly older, the idea of abolishing birthdays sounds like quite a

good one!)

 

Greg, I agree I would get some much plainer replies on the Advaita list. I

wouldn't dare! (Anyway, I d several months ago - the dry academic

acceptance and discussion did not seem to me what advaita is really about at

all. Mind you, the Non Duality Salon seems to go to the opposite extreme.

Masses of chatty and friendly stuff but mostly inconsequential and I just

can't keep up with reading it; afraid I may have to to that

soon, too.) Also, I acknowledge that the teaching itself is part of maayaa.

 

I was interested in your arguments against the statements I made:

Remember, truth is absolute correspondence with reality. It is the

unshakeable knowledge of man's true nature. It is the total negation of

entity-ness.

 

I'm not quite sure how to respond. Rueful, embarrassed, honoured or smug?

You see those are not my statements at all; they are direct translations

from Nisargadatta by Ramesh Balsekar. Certainly I found what you said

interesting. I would not have thought that the first statement was anything

to do with representationalism but the you are the philosopher and I must

confess that I have lost patience with trying to read people like Daniel

Dennett in the past. Perhaps you could email your comments to Wayne who

could then ask Ramesh about what was meant?

 

Namaste,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

>From this part 5 post, it sounds like you might not really have any

questions! Maybe some answers however.... Are you at peace with the idea

that different people make different claims? And that not all agree?

Orthodox religionists in every tradition will tell you similar things about

their scriptures. Their "direct path" counterparts in every tradition, on

the other hand, will take the same utilitarian attitude towards the

scriptures that is being talked about in this thread. Because of the

multiplicity of rigid orthodox beliefs, if they were *all* true, then

everybody would be going to somebody's orthodox hell!! Why the concern

about one particular path?? Let them have their beliefs...

 

About the notion of truth as correspondence with reality - you said that

the correspondence is a translation. I didn't *think* you were the first

to say it :-) but I was interested in what *you* meant by it. Have you

thought about it? Lots of people say the same kind of thing, because it is

the most popular conception of truth. (There are other,

non-representational and non-popular theories of truth.) Not a big deal at

all. Sometimes it is said as upaya/expedient means to inspire people, and

sometimes it's said because that's how the speaker thinks of the mind and

the world.

 

Om!!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Dennis Waite wrote:

>

> I like Frank's description of relative versus absolute truth and do not

> disagree with any of this. I'm not sure that this is the answer to the

> dilemma however.

 

namaste Dennis,

 

I wonder if you can explain to me again what this dilemma is.

> Since the real truth cannot be spoken, everything that is

^^^^^^

I assume you mean, cannot be described

> everything that is

> spoken of by sage or scripture is ultimately untrue, whether it's referring

^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^

 

I beg to differ on this point. Firstly, Yes, the truth is unexplainable.

However, the sages and the scriptures made their best, and in my view

excellent attempt to explain That which cannot be explained.

Secondly, for us to be able to say that what the sages said is untrue,

we should be knowing the truth. The questions should be asked:

(i)do we know the truth? and if so, (ii) can we explain that truth

better than what the sages did? If the answer is 'no' to these two

questions, then we cannot logically say that what the sages said is

untrue.

> to relative or absolute. Fine, but then no one can claim any one to be the

> true version, to which ultimate reference should be made. But this is

> exactly what traditionalists do. I agree with you Frank, but do they? R.

> Viswanathan makes exactly this point, wanting to regard the Upanishads and

> Vedas as axioms that are unquestionable. Why should I do this when living

> sages do not?

 

Lot of mention was made in the last few posts in this thread that the

living sages do not agree with the upanishads and vedas. I wonder if

some specific examples can be given for this. Who are these living sages

that disagreed with the upanishads and where do they disagree?

>

> Namaste,

>

> Dennis

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------