What is Truth, What is Reality? - The Logicians' Views
-
I thought I will start another thread to that of ‘I No Stupid’ ‘What is Truth, What is Reality?’ from the point of view of the Buddhist logicians.
What is Truth, What is Reality? - The Buddhist Logicians' Views.
The investigation into Buddhist epistemology starts with the statement that ‘All successful human action is necessarily preceded by right knowledge. Human aims are either positive or negative, either something desirable or something undesirable. Purposive action consists in attaining the desirable and avoiding the undesirable.
In the context of the Buddhist teaching, we may asked, is the Buddhist Dharma right knowledge? Do the actions we are taught to practice from these teachings such as the practice of purification of virtues, of concentration eventually lead us to attaining the desirable, i.e., the insight into the reality of the world and ultimate reality? If it does, than Wisdom, Bliss, Enlightenment, liberations taught by the Buddha are all Truths.
What is reality? The definition of Existence or Reality which are terms convertible and also means ultimate reality in Buddhist logic of Dignaga. To the Buddhist logician, Existence, real existence, ultimate existence is nothing but efficiency. Whatsoever is causally efficiency is real. What is non-efficient is unreal. Whatever that is of productive imagination or thought construction is fiction, it is not ultimate reality. A fire which burns and cooks is a real fire. Its presence is physically efficient. A fire which is absent, which is imagined, which neither burns or cooks is an unreal fire. Only the present, the here, now are real. Everything past, everything future is unreal. Ultimately real is only the present moment of physical efficiency. Beside the ultimate or direct reality there is also an indirect one, an inferred one. Such as when we see smoke, we can assume that there is a fire there as well. It is an imputed reality.
The above description is a description of Reality consisting of constructed images. It is a reality that is endowed with a position in time, space and with all the sensible and abstract quality. It is a conditioned, phenomenal or empirical reality. The empirical thing is a thing constructed by the synthesis of our productive imagination on the basis of a sensation.
There is also another reality termed Pure Reality in which there is not the slightest bit of imaginative construction. It is the reality of the bare point-instants which as yet no definite position in time, neither a position in space, nor have they any sensible qualities. It is Ultimate or Pure Reality. The ultimately real is that which strictly corresponds to pure sensation alone. We can only cognize the imagined superstructure of reality, but not reality itself. It has no extension in space and no duration in time, although it can be localized in time and space. However, this localization is already the work of the understanding which locates the object in a constructed space and in an imagined time.
Pure Reality is pure efficiency which stimulates the understanding and the reason to construct images and ideas. It is non-empirical, it is transcendental and unutterable. There is no other reality than this, as all other reality is borrowed from it. An object which is not connected with a sensation, with sensible reality, is either pure imagination, or a mere names or a metaphysical object. Reality is synonymous with sensible existence. It is opposed to Ideality, generality and thought construction.
-
Two truths doctrine: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Buddha's teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha's profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved.
- Nagarjuna, Mūlamadhyamakak�rika 24:8-10
-
would there be pragmatists' views?
-
The two truths doctrines of the Madhyamika and the Yogacara logicians’ views are both metaphysics and not views of pragmatists.
-
okie...for pure knowledge...
hmmm....i prefer practical applications...
thanks..
-
No, it is not just for pure knowledge alone. If you look at the postings on the thread started by ‘I No Stupid’ on the same subject, you would have realized that there is a lot of misunderstanding on the subject matter itself.
In the first place, if one is unable to distinguish the differences between the two truths or the different interpretation of Reality itself, it is going to be very difficult for one to come to the understanding first and then the eventual realization of the very important Buddhist doctrine of Emptiness.
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
Two truths doctrine: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Buddha's teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha's profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved.
- Nagarjuna, Mūlamadhyamakak�rika 24:8-10
Sorry can simplify....
for example, Mr A is tall, Mr B is short <---- conventional truth
then ---- ultimate truth ---> there is no tall or short
because:
"imagine Mr C comes by"
Mr C is now taller than Mr A. Mr A becomes shorter now. He is not the tallest.
something like this?
Conventional truth serves as a function to our worldly life... while ultimate truth has something to do with emptiness. (correct...?)
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
I thought I will start another thread to that of ‘I No Stupid’ ‘What is Truth, What is Reality?’ from the point of view of the Buddhist logicians.
What is Truth, What is Reality? - The Buddhist Logicians' Views.
The investigation into Buddhist epistemology starts with the statement that ‘All successful human action is necessarily preceded by right knowledge. Human aims are either positive or negative, either something desirable or something undesirable. Purposive action consists in attaining the desirable and avoiding the undesirable.
In the context of the Buddhist teaching, we may asked, is the Buddhist Dharma right knowledge? Do the actions we are taught to practice from these teachings such as the practice of purification of virtues, of concentration eventually lead us to attaining the desirable, i.e., the insight into the reality of the world and ultimate reality? If it does, than Wisdom, Bliss, Enlightenment, liberations taught by the Buddha are all Truths.
What is reality? The definition of Existence or Reality which are terms convertible and also means ultimate reality in Buddhist logic of Dignaga. To the Buddhist logician, Existence, real existence, ultimate existence is nothing but efficiency. Whatsoever is causally efficiency is real. What is non-efficient is unreal. Whatever that is of productive imagination or thought construction is fiction, it is not ultimate reality. A fire which burns and cooks is a real fire. Its presence is physically efficient. A fire which is absent, which is imagined, which neither burns or cooks is an unreal fire. Only the present, the here, now are real. Everything past, everything future is unreal. Ultimately real is only the present moment of physical efficiency. Beside the ultimate or direct reality there is also an indirect one, an inferred one. Such as when we see smoke, we can assume that there is a fire there as well. It is an imputed reality.
The above description is a description of Reality consisting of constructed images. It is a reality that is endowed with a position in time, space and with all the sensible and abstract quality. It is a conditioned, phenomenal or empirical reality. The empirical thing is a thing constructed by the synthesis of our productive imagination on the basis of a sensation.
There is also another reality termed Pure Reality in which there is not the slightest bit of imaginative construction. It is the reality of the bare point-instants which as yet no definite position in time, neither a position in space, nor have they any sensible qualities. It is Ultimate or Pure Reality. The ultimately real is that which strictly corresponds to pure sensation alone. We can only cognize the imagined superstructure of reality, but not reality itself. It has no extension in space and no duration in time, although it can be localized in time and space. However, this localization is already the work of the understanding which locates the object in a constructed space and in an imagined time.
Pure Reality is pure efficiency which stimulates the understanding and the reason to construct images and ideas. It is non-empirical, it is transcendental and unutterable. There is no other reality than this, as all other reality is borrowed from it. An object which is not connected with a sensation, with sensible reality, is either pure imagination, or a mere names or a metaphysical object. Reality is synonymous with sensible existence. It is opposed to Ideality, generality and thought construction.
I noticed the qualifying heading - The Buddhist Logicians' Views. In other words, truth and reality is what the Buddhist logicians perceived. In this respect, its view must be a confined one and therefore narrow. I am not going to say the views are right or wrong but I will say there are flaws.
First, I thank you for presenting the view. I could draw something out of ‘ultimate reality’ here than in the many posts of my thread. Real or reality is tied to existence. If I may simplify, what exist is real. This is easy enough for a lot of people to understand. The sun exists, it is real whether we can sense it or not (i.e. own experience). It existence is ‘efficient’ because there is a productive purpose. It is not imagination or fictional construct. These reasoning are perfectly sensible not just logical. In fact, they are not necessarily Buddhist logicians’ reasoning. Everyone who has a common sense will say this.
However, to say that the present is real and not the past is flawed. If the present is real and then the ‘present’ becomes the past, why is the same ‘present’ became unreal? I won’t even mention future.
There is no such thing as an ‘absent’ fire. I also won’t even mention imaginary fire. A real fire is one that is burning and its ‘efficiency’ depends on what the fire is used. I do not equate a spontaneous bushfire as ‘efficient’ though it is real. While it is raging (present), it is real. When the fire dies, that bushfire does not exist. The incidence is past. Does it mean the bushfire was not real? The proof is the destruction caused. The Buddhist logicians’ definition of reality i.e. only the present is real is too confined and distort the general meaning of reality.
Reality is also not images or imaginations or mental constructions. If I construct in my mind the concept of God, there will be images and attributes (quality) of God that I imagined. They cannot be real for the simple reason – I made it all up! I do no even have to mention the senses or sensation.
The Buddhist logicians’ use of images or mental construct to explain reality is unnecessary.
The second last paragraph on ‘Pure Reality’ which is also linked to ‘ultimate reality’ talks about pure sensation. Honestly, I can’t make a thing out of ‘pure sensation’. Is it because I cannot imagine?
The last paragraph is somewhat a throw-back to the real meaning of reality:
//An object which is not connected with a sensation, with sensible reality, is either pure imagination, or a mere names or a metaphysical object. Reality is synonymous with sensible existence.//
To a large extent we depend on our senses to establish reality. However, we have to recognize that our senses are limited. So, if we can’t sense something (not necessarily an object), does it mean it is not real even if it exists or existed? Because of our limited vision (sense), we cannot observe life-form in planet Mars. Does it mean there is no life existence in Mars? And this question is not about an imagination or mental construct or images of Martians!
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Sorry can simplify....
for example, Mr A is tall, Mr B is short <---- conventional truth
then ---- ultimate truth ---> there is no tall or short
because:
"imagine Mr C comes by"
Mr C is now taller than Mr A. Mr A becomes shorter now. He is not the tallest.
something like this?
Conventional truth serves as a function to our worldly life... while ultimate truth has something to do with emptiness. (correct...?)
Your description of Mr A, B & C are all still conventional truth because the term tall and short are all concepts of our intellect. If one should take all three persons in isolation and not in dependence on each other, the term tall, short, beautiful, ugly, etc would not apply. Yes, it is necessary and serves as a function for worldly living. It is when our mind dichotomized what is ‘seen’ into subjects and objects that eventually lead to problems such as clinging, greed etc. Ultimate truth is the intuitive knowledge of the real without any comparison or distortion. It leads on to the understanding and realization that ultimately, self and all objects are empty of any essence. That they arise in dependence on causes and conditions only.
-
@ I No Stupid......
//I noticed the qualifying heading - The Buddhist Logicians' Views. In other words, truth and reality is what the Buddhist logicians perceived. In this respect, its view must be a confined one and therefore narrow. I am not going to say the views are right or wrong but I will say there are flaws.//
Of course, you are entitled to your point of views and opinions.
//First, I thank you for presenting the view. I could draw something out of ‘ultimate reality’ here than in the many posts of my thread. Real or reality is tied to existence. If I may simplify, what exist is real. This is easy enough for a lot of people to understand. The sun exists, it is real whether we can sense it or not (i.e. own experience). It existence is ‘efficient’ because there is a productive purpose. It is not imagination or fictional construct. These reasoning are perfectly sensible not just logical. In fact, they are not necessarily Buddhist logicians’ reasoning. Everyone who has a common sense will say this.//
You are welcome. True in Buddhist ‘conventional truth’ term.
//However, to say that the present is real and not the past is flawed. If the present is real and then the ‘present’ becomes the past, why is the same ‘present’ became unreal? I won’t even mention future.//
'Present’ is real as it is actually perceived in that moment by any of our five senses. What is past or to come in the future are just concepts, memories and thoughts only.
//There is no such thing as an ‘absent’ fire. I also won’t even mention imaginary fire. A real fire is one that is burning and its ‘efficiency’ depends on what the fire is used. I do not equate a spontaneous bushfire as ‘efficient’ though it is real. While it is raging (present), it is real. When the fire dies, that bushfire does not exist. The incidence is past. Does it mean the bushfire was not real? The proof is the destruction caused. The Buddhist logicians’ definition of reality i.e. only the present is real is too confined and distort the general meaning of reality.//
The bushfire was real for the duration it was burning. It is not real anymore when it has burnt out. One can of course infer that there was a fire previously from proof of its destruction. It is still not an actual fire, but an imagined one from our head.
//Reality is also not images or imaginations or mental constructions. If I construct in my mind the concept of God, there will be images and attributes (quality) of God that I imagined. They cannot be real for the simple reason – I made it all up! I do no even have to mention the senses or sensation. The Buddhist logicians’ use of images or mental construct to explain reality is unnecessary.//
There may not be many smart people like you, and some do need more detail explanation to understand the concept.
//The second last paragraph on ‘Pure Reality’ which is also linked to ‘ultimate reality’ talks about pure sensation. Honestly, I can’t make a thing out of ‘pure sensation’. Is it because I cannot imagine?//
You can imagine and put words and names to it, and it will becomes concepts, thoughts and imagination?
The last paragraph is somewhat a throw-back to the real meaning of reality:
//An object which is not connected with a sensation, with sensible reality, is either pure imagination, or a mere names or a metaphysical object. Reality is synonymous with sensible existence.//
To a large extent we depend on our senses to establish reality. However, we have to recognize that our senses are limited. So, if we can’t sense something (not necessarily an object), does it mean it is not real even if it exists or existed? Because of our limited vision (sense), we cannot observe life-form in planet Mars. Does it mean there is no life existence in Mars? And this question is not about an imagination or mental construct or images of Martians!
If we cannot sense something, then there is no point in speculating whether it exists or not. It would just be taken as non-existing until proven.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Sorry can simplify....
for example, Mr A is tall, Mr B is short <---- conventional truth
then ---- ultimate truth ---> there is no tall or short
because:
"imagine Mr C comes by"
Mr C is now taller than Mr A. Mr A becomes shorter now. He is not the tallest.
something like this?
Conventional truth serves as a function to our worldly life... while ultimate truth has something to do with emptiness. (correct...?)
Imagine when Mr D comes by.
Let me put it this way: conventional truth is the truth most people subscribed to (i.e. by convention). Ask members of City Harvest Church when they go to Suntec Convention Centre to listen to the truth!
Ultimate truth is what Buddhists subscribed to because of the doctrine of emptiness.
Both subscriptions don't make sense. Truth is not the same as reality. When one holds a proposition, conjecture, or thought as true, then it is the truth.
In a court of law, witnesses swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Counsels swear to tear the truth. Even if a witness lied thru his teeth, the court can do nothing. Why? Because the witness believed what he said, saw, done, etc. to be nothing (emptiness) but the truth!
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
@ I No Stupid......
//I noticed the qualifying heading - The Buddhist Logicians' Views. In other words, truth and reality is what the Buddhist logicians perceived. In this respect, its view must be a confined one and therefore narrow. I am not going to say the views are right or wrong but I will say there are flaws.//
Of course, you are entitled to your point of views and opinions.
//First, I thank you for presenting the view. I could draw something out of ‘ultimate reality’ here than in the many posts of my thread. Real or reality is tied to existence. If I may simplify, what exist is real. This is easy enough for a lot of people to understand. The sun exists, it is real whether we can sense it or not (i.e. own experience). It existence is ‘efficient’ because there is a productive purpose. It is not imagination or fictional construct. These reasoning are perfectly sensible not just logical. In fact, they are not necessarily Buddhist logicians’ reasoning. Everyone who has a common sense will say this.//
You are welcome. True in Buddhist ‘conventional truth’ term.
//However, to say that the present is real and not the past is flawed. If the present is real and then the ‘present’ becomes the past, why is the same ‘present’ became unreal? I won’t even mention future.//
'Present’ is real as it is actually perceived in that moment by any of our five senses. What is past or to come in the future are just concepts, memories and thoughts only.
//There is no such thing as an ‘absent’ fire. I also won’t even mention imaginary fire. A real fire is one that is burning and its ‘efficiency’ depends on what the fire is used. I do not equate a spontaneous bushfire as ‘efficient’ though it is real. While it is raging (present), it is real. When the fire dies, that bushfire does not exist. The incidence is past. Does it mean the bushfire was not real? The proof is the destruction caused. The Buddhist logicians’ definition of reality i.e. only the present is real is too confined and distort the general meaning of reality.//
The bushfire was real for the duration it was burning. It is not real anymore when it has burnt out. One can of course infer that there was a fire previously from proof of its destruction. It is still not an actual fire, but an imagined one from our head.
//Reality is also not images or imaginations or mental constructions. If I construct in my mind the concept of God, there will be images and attributes (quality) of God that I imagined. They cannot be real for the simple reason – I made it all up! I do no even have to mention the senses or sensation. The Buddhist logicians’ use of images or mental construct to explain reality is unnecessary.//
There may not be many smart people like you, and some do need more detail explanation to understand the concept.
//The second last paragraph on ‘Pure Reality’ which is also linked to ‘ultimate reality’ talks about pure sensation. Honestly, I can’t make a thing out of ‘pure sensation’. Is it because I cannot imagine?//
You can imagine and put words and names to it, and it will becomes concepts, thoughts and imagination?
The last paragraph is somewhat a throw-back to the real meaning of reality:
//An object which is not connected with a sensation, with sensible reality, is either pure imagination, or a mere names or a metaphysical object. Reality is synonymous with sensible existence.//
To a large extent we depend on our senses to establish reality. However, we have to recognize that our senses are limited. So, if we can’t sense something (not necessarily an object), does it mean it is not real even if it exists or existed? Because of our limited vision (sense), we cannot observe life-form in planet Mars. Does it mean there is no life existence in Mars? And this question is not about an imagination or mental construct or images of Martians!
If we cannot sense something, then there is no point in speculating whether it exists or not. It would just be taken as non-existing until proven.
To cut a long story short, Buddhist logicians's concept of reality is as much an imagination or mental construct as any other concept, whatever reality is called - conventional, ultimate or pure. To label a past event that has transpired as unreal distort the true meaning of reality. I can accept that a past event no longer exist. And basically the flaw I see in Buddhist logicians' view is that they see only the present as real. They are 'caught' up by the doctrinal dogma rather than reality. That's why I make the assertion that their views are narrow.
A concept or thought is a mental construct. We don't attribute 'reality' to them in everyday usage though a concept or thought exists in the mind. I am sure one can easily understand that an imagination is not to be treated as real regardless of how the person making the imagination would treat it. As an example: a person imagines or conceptualises that it would be nice if the earth's temperature is evenly spread such that there is no extreme cold or heat. Would you treat his imagination as real and just to add, the imagination is make right at this moment, now.