Objective truth - from a Buddhist perspective #01

"An old and wise Buddhist monk took his novice to the field and sat him down near a large tree. He asked the novice to tell him what he saw of the "tree".
The novice started to describe the tree, it's branches, it's leaves, it's color, and vibrancy. The monk said "nope, that is not what you see try again"
The novice confused again started to describe the tree wondering if he was describing it incorrectly. Again the Monk said "nope, that is not what you see try again"

Eventually after many attempts the student gave up and exclaimed to his mentor in frustration, " I see what I see !!" .
To which the monk replied, " ahhh! well done, tomorrow we shall look at some flowers....""

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting.

It has always been my understanding of Buddhistic thought that the goal was to be able to 'see' the objective through the subjective....

Hmmm.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

uhuo

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I may be mistaken, as I have specialized only in certain aspects of Buddhism.
I do realize that much of the Buddha's inspiration has been lost to politics and popular conceptions. It has also become a religion and a cultural identity.

Neither or any of which was intended I reckon.

So yes I may be mistaken in a subjective sense....
However the basic premise of Buddhism is the annihilation of the cycle of Samsara which is simply the cycles of desire/ relief of desire or suffering / relief of suffering.
Buddha's claim to fame is that he clearly identifies and associates suffering and desire as one and the same thing. This is his most remarkable achievement IMO. The rest of it is left to history to show....where that understanding has led.
By placing themselves in isolation [ monasteries caves, mountain tops, etc ]
by practicing intense meditations to remove distraction. By suffering deprivation of intellectual stimulation and other luxuries the Buddhist devotee is seeking to end the cycle of Samsara or at least learn not to be so reactionary to it.

So many millions of people in the world today are striving for objective truth by attempting to remove the obstacles to perceiving it... spending an entire lifetime devoted to the task...amazing yes?

 

Oh, I wasn't criticizing.
As with most Easter philosophical schools, interpretation varies.
We could very well both be right.
Myself, I've always paid more attention to the 4 Noble Truths as opposed to the ultimate goal.

Quite the tangent we've gone into here....

 

well for me at least it is time now to take a break and absorb developments...

And in a way it may appear to be tangental but this could be because of the entrenched conditioning that we allow our selves to fall into.... [ self denial ]
So far we have proved nothing but at least we may have opened the door to further lines of enquiry.

 

My question is is it possible to "live an objective life"- for some reason I feel this is possible and I fully understand most of the negitives to it.

 

I realise off topic...
But to answer IMO,
Only through self acceptance can one acheive the balance between subjective and objective life.

To live purely as objective is not to live but to become as a rock or a tree, and not have sentience or volition. No decisions to make and nothing to do.

in absolutuum:
We move our bodies and minds only to relieve our subjective state. Take away that motivation and you cease to live.

 

I'm pretty Good at both I think.

 

"And the Buddha sat beneath the Bodhi tree staving himself to death and learning how to do so with out seeking relief. He managed to control his desire for relief to the point where he was able to see the objective truth of what suffering and the desire to relieve suffering involves.
After his enlightenment of the truth he realised 1] he was close to death and 2] he had to tell the world about his enlightenment... so when a pretty maiden from the local village came to give him some milk he accepted rather than turn her away and thus he returned to the world of subjectively inspired sufference."
And the rest is history.....

 

and if you extend this logic to include the nature of death etc etc etc ...what do you get?

 

"ashes to ashes dust to dust"

 

Not very pretty Indeed.

 

Shouldn't have even mentioned that huh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Maybe but let us not underestmate the intellectual capacity of the reader hey?

natural extensions of logic and reasoning once pointed.....u know!

 

hmmm

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I disagree with the fact that you are proclaiming I am missing the point when there is no argument about logic being a tool. It doesn't change the fact:

You are claiming that because logic has no relation to real truth, it cannot be used to find truth? If I conclude that logic works, it is not because of any logical proof or scientific experiment that compelled me to the conclusion. Logic is the fundamental assumption. Upon concluding that logic works, one can move forward by using it as a tool to apprehend truth. It is incorrect to presume that logic is the only option. Use of logic must be acknowledged under the assumption that logic is the only option that works. With this assumption in mind, we can conclude it is a fact that logic works. Logic allows us to apprehend truth and make decisions on what is true and what is false.

Without logic, you cannot have prodctive discussion on finding out the truth of whether or not logic works. You cannot have productive discussion on objective truth. You cannot have productive discussion on anything. The human mind is limited to logical comprehension. Human mind cannot conprehend beyond logic.

 

Firstly, what's the difference between 'truth' and 'real truth'? What is the basis for either, and concerning which objects?

Logic has a relation to the truth of predicates and propositions, within its purview; there are different kinds of logic. There is no 'real truth" (that I've heard of) in any of the ones I've looked at. I've looked at more than one or two, incidentally.

 

thanks Lix you are proving my point beautifully....

 

Lix, do you agree that logic can only produce a simulation, a simulcrum, a virtual truth that may or may not approximate the actual truth but can never show the truth?
For example:
The logical development of the computer is merely a poor immitation of a pre-existing mental methodology?