Ultimate truths

P

Postmaster

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,312
Reaction score
3
Points
0
With ideas floating around that pure truth is infinite and constantly defining does this mean there is no such thing as an ultimate truth?

Here's what could possibly be ultimates truths

God and Love

I get some Christian spam email which is the only spam I ever read. Here is a quote from it.

Jesus said to him, "'you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

I think that such teaching makes Christianity valid today as it was 2000 years ago.
 
of course, to me, as a buddhist, there should be no Ultimate truth, as all things are products, objects, created, will change form, decay, become other things, yet... I happen to think there is an Ultimate truth, and for me that Ultimate Truth is the same for us all...

that ultimate truth is- that which is beyond the question of whether or not it is true "paramarthasatya", (beyond the question of truth), you say God, and love, I too feel it is both like love and like God, but love is not a big enough word, and for me, nor is God... not in his conventional form, anyhow...

ultimate truth is contrasted against samvrttisatyam, or conventional truth, against truisms, those truisms we use which define our paths, our different creeds, and articles of faith, yet... these approximations of truth aside, we share a similiar perception of what the ultimate truth may be...

the buddha said- "without relying on designations, the Ultimate cannot be taught"... and without relying on designations, we cannot communicate this Ultimate truth... sometimes we forget our prophets and messiahs are but men...
 
May i indulge the position of the non-religious on this question? No.....well tough:p

The ultimate truth is that there is existence. This cosmos of indescribable beauty and limitless to the point of infinity. That is the ultimate truth. And we are able to observe and wonder at it.....that too is the truth. Everything beyond that is speculation. I grant that Buddhism takes this 'ball' and runs with it where as most monotheisms never bother to pick it up. But the Tao you can label is not the Tao. Its way way way way to big. Tao does not have an ultimate truth....but the concept of greater and lesser truth. the greater truth is, to my marble at least, unknowable. But hey aint it fun trying!!!

TE
 
Greetings to All,

Guess it depends on how you define ultimate truth? If the ultimate truth was the conclusion of all available knowlege from past, present, future and beyond, possibly only a Supreme being such as God would understand it? Or maybe we could also understand it, if that Person wanted us to?

I seem to remember that there are five or more 'classical' world approaches to answering this question (when all the alternatives are grouped together), but my memory has gone in terms of the different varieties? Can anyone else think of other major approaches that could be summarised in one sentence?

1) There is a ultimate truth or reality to existence, but our current form of existence is illusory and covers this transcendental truth.

2) Our existence itself is an illusion and there is no ultimate truth.

3) .... ?

Here's two quotations from a Vaishnava teacher that I thought might be of interest:

"The conception of God and the conception of Absolute Truth are not on the same level. The conception of God indicates the controller, whereas the conception of the Absolute Truth indicates the summum bonum or the ultimate source of all energies."

"That Supreme Person knows everything directly and indirectly. Individual infinitesimal persons, who are parts and parcels of the Supreme Personality, may know directly and indirectly everything about their bodies or external features, but the Supreme Personality knows everything about both His external and internal features. "

Regards,

.... Neemai :)
 
Neemai said:
Here's two quotations from a Vaishnava teacher that I thought might be of interest:

"The conception of God and the conception of Absolute Truth are not on the same level. The conception of God indicates the controller, whereas the conception of the Absolute Truth indicates the summum bonum or the ultimate source of all energies."

"That Supreme Person knows everything directly and indirectly. Individual infinitesimal persons, who are parts and parcels of the Supreme Personality, may know directly and indirectly everything about their bodies or external features, but the Supreme Personality knows everything about both His external and internal features. "

Regards,

.... Neemai :)
Click to expand...


Neemai,

You know it's like seperating the egg from the yolk. :)

love - c -
 
Hare Krishna, Neemai :)

I know this is going to sound like the same old boring philosophical approach that has been said a trillion, million times. The way I think of it, though, is that there is an Absolute (which I see as "G!d") and we all relate to this Absolute in whatever ways we are given, meaning in whatever way we can understand "Him" at any moment. I don't believe that "everything is relative", but that there is an Absolute, and everything else is relative to that Absolute. That is why I like to search for a Name I feel is closest to describing the Absolute. I like "Source of All Being", but alas, this is how I personally relate! I think this is why so many people (including myself) say that the Name of this Absolute is somewhat of a mystery. Because I would think that this Name would necessarily have to encompass everything there is, and so we do not really know how to express it. But we have perhaps some guidelines, and I think we do our best, for how can we not desire to express it?

Edited to add: Sorry, Postmaster--I realized after posting that this is your thread. I was thinking that Neemai started it. Anyway, those are my thoughts...

InPeace,
InLove
 
InLove said:
That is why I like to search for a Name I feel is closest to describing the Absolute. I like "Source of All Being", but alas, this is how I personally relate! I think this is why so many people (including myself) say that the Name of this Absolute is somewhat of a mystery. Because I would think that this Name would necessarily have to encompass everything there is, and so we do not really know how to express it. But we have perhaps some guidelines, and I think we do our best, for how can we not desire to express it?
Click to expand...

Greetings InLove, the search for a Name? If it is about having a relationship with God, then wouldn't any Name which God accepted be appropriate in order to communicate our feelings on a personal level? The following quote is by a devotee of Krishna, but I think it could equally apply elsewhere :

"In whatever form one knows the Lord, one speaks of Him in that way. In this there is no falsity, since everything is possible in Krishna."

... Neemai :)
 
Tao_Equus said:
The ultimate truth is that there is existence.
Click to expand...

Aren't you taking existence for granted then? :p

I thought the ultimate truth was that there is no ultimate truth. Or is that a contradiction in itself? ;)

If there IS an Ultimate Truth (caps, please, we're using BIG words!:D), it's probably out of our reach... for the time being?
 
Hi, InLove,

I feel this ties in with the- Cultural Ties and Religion thread. Originally whatever name would be correspondent to people and land, for the land it's self has voice, emulating through local dialect, often occuring through the use of vowels. Oh, it was oh so simple before every one did the human shuffle, but still possible if we take off the layers to see.......

How is it possible to name the nameless of all named?

Is the sound of silence as the colour white, incorporating all.

Is there a sound you resonate with as your own?

love - c -
 
Hi Neemai and Ciel :)

Yes, I do think that "G!d", however one can manage to express or relate or understand may be called upon in many ways. I am not being very eloquent this morning, I know. But I do believe there is the proverbial "golden thread". What I cannot understand, though, is why we as humans tend to think that the other guy's Name is something he or she can just give up? There is one Name I have no desire to throw away. I don't need for someone else to confirm it, and I will not beat anyone up about it, but it means something beautiful to me. I often feel like people want me to discount what has been revealed to me through this Name as I know it. I just don't understand why people think it is necessary for me to desert in order to embrace universal principles. It doesn't make sense to me.

InPeace,
InLove
 
InLove said:
Hi Neemai and Ciel :)

Yes, I do think that "G!d", however one can manage to express or relate or understand may be called upon in many ways. I am not being very eloquent this morning, I know. But I do believe there is the proverbial "golden thread". What I cannot understand, though, is why we as humans tend to think that the other guy's Name is something he or she can just give up? There is one Name I have no desire to throw away. I don't need for someone else to confirm it, and I will not beat anyone up about it, but it means something beautiful to me. I often feel like people want me to discount what has been revealed to me through this Name as I know it. I just don't understand why people think it is necessary for me to desert in order to embrace universal principles. It doesn't make sense to me.

InPeace,
InLove
Click to expand...

InLove,

What happened? I find myself confused by this post.......
No one is asking you to give up anything.

love - c -
 
Hi Ciel--I'll get back to you on this....I have a phone call that will take a while. I hope I didn't sound too negative. I'll explain ASAP. :)
 
Hi again, Ciel--sorry about that. Long phone call!

You asked me what happened. Nothing here, I think. I agree with you guys. I may have been reacting a little to what I sense in general around the boards sometimes. And I should have stayed focused on this discussion, and not let the other leak into my thoughts.

You see, what happens sometimes is that when I express my feelings about the Name of Christ (or Jesus), so often the reactions from others is to back away, or immediately assume that I am going to insist that they must understand about this Name exactly what I do, or how I do. This, I suppose, is understandable in light of the fact that this Name is often used in this way. But I am not doing that, and it is difficult for me when people don't understand maybe because of preconceived ideas about all Christians.

And many times, I sense that people would like me to say that this Name does not matter. But I can't say that, because to me, it does. I don't encourage anyone to say, for example, that the Name or Names they hold dear should be "let go of". I just want to celebrate together with anyone who will. I don't necessarily celebrate the tearing down of anything, but the building up. I think it all comes full circle anyway.

Like I said, my apologies, I think that I have recently perceived something that I identify as a bit of either/or philosophy aimed at my own beliefs, while being presented as fair to all. This is exactly what many people complain about Christians doing, so I find it ironic. And it is not anyone here on this thread doing it, so I do apologize. Usually I'm a pretty careful poster, but lately I have been a little more defensive or outspoken or something. I need to perhaps work on that a bit....

As Always--

InPeace,
InLove
 
Thank you, dear Ciel--you are always so understanding toward me. I appreciate it. Don't know what's up with me lately, unless it is what I just told you about. Hard to put one's finger on it all. So, I'll not look at the finger, but to that which it magnifies....;)

InPeace,
InLove
 
The Ultimate Truth is G-d, however for us humans there can be no understanding of that ultimate truth. We are all just guessing and trying to find our way through life.
 
InLove said:
You see, what happens sometimes is that when I express my feelings about the Name of Christ (or Jesus), so often the reactions from others is to back away, or immediately assume that I am going to insist that they must understand about this Name exactly what I do, or how I do. This, I suppose, is understandable in light of the fact that this Name is often used in this way. But I am not doing that, and it is difficult for me when people don't understand maybe because of preconceived ideas about all Christians.
Click to expand...

Hello InLove, when something is close to your heart, I think it's a natural reaction to also want to protect it in some way (that's how I'm reading the above?). Or maybe preconceived ideas are there to be broken?

... Neemai :)
 
Neemai said:
...when something is close to your heart, I think it's a natural reaction to also want to protect it in some way (that's how I'm reading the above?...
Click to expand...

I'm sure this is often the case, Neemai. But I don't feel like I need to protect Christ, of course. In my view, He protects me. But yes, I sometimes feel the urge to defend my right and my choice to believe in Him. I have to be honest with myself and admit that there are those who would prefer that I lose my love for Him, or at least re-work what I say and believe about Him. Surprisingly, many of these folks are Christians; some aren't.

Or maybe preconceived ideas are there to be broken?
Click to expand...

Well, I do my best to chip away at some of the negative perceptions others have about all Christians. But it seems I am in the minority--at least that is the way it looks to me when I see some of the things done in the Name of Christ. At least here in my country. I know the rest of the world sees this, too. It makes me very sad, sometimes.

But then maybe I have a preconceived notion that everyone else is going to see all Christians in this way. Hmmm....

InPeace,
InLove
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top