Comments on “Visionary truth, objective truth”
Adding new comments is disabled for now.
Comments are for the page: Visionary truth, objective truth
Better to know what world you live in
I’m afraid you missed one main point of the page, so it probably needs some rewriting.
The two points are: (1) in my personal opinion, it’s sometimes really important to know whether you are talking about visionary or objective truth; and, (2) it is also possible to value both.
Point #1 is one that many Tantrikas either miss, or actively disagree with. They try to live in a visionary realm 24/7. I can’t say that is wrong; it is traditional, and it is probably highly effective in Tantra’s own terms. Personally I am unwilling to do that.
Point #2 is relevant to your first questions. Yes, I’ve briefly tried to regard the earth as flat, just to see what it was like. Not a very useful experiment, I concluded. Viewing the entire world as a charnel ground, heaped with rotting corpses, is an essential part of the practice of chöd. I sometimes do that practice, and I think it is valuable. Viewing the entire world, including rotting corpses if any are available, as a perfumed paradise: that is the practice of “pure vision”, which I also sometimes do, and think is valuable.
Regarding the last bit: O dear! How very embarrassing. No, it’s not a “NOT” that is missing, but what I wrote was hideously ambiguous. I’ve revised it slightly—does the point come across clearly now, or does it need further clarification?
Perhaps I need to be less polite: If you think AIDS is caused by demons, and you have unprotected sex with someone who has HIV as a result, you have a good chance of contracting AIDS. (And you are an idiot.)
Casting out Demons
I re-read this post now after your re-write, and keeping in mind your comments, it makes more sense to me. But I have a few more questions/issues:
(1) Concerning Varieties of “Truth”:
Here is my summary of my understanding of the various uses of the word “truth” that you lay out. Is this fairly accurate?
Absolute Truth: hard to speak of because of its for some it is non-Dualistic and for others it is neither Non-Dualistic nor Dualistic. Either way, We can see that it could be problematic.
Visionary Truth: a method of manipulating our minds
Objective Truth: a method of manipulating our physical word
Relative Truth: <– I am not sure how this fits into your schema. In some writings, it seems synonymous with “objective truth”. I use the term to mean truths in a system to provides the assumptions which are not questioned. Thus, relative to the assumptions, the principles stated (the “relative truths”) are true. Thus in various mathematical systems, theorems may be consistent and valid (“true”) in that system but contradict true theorems of other systems. So I could see how this could apply to the meaning of “objective truth” as you appear to use it. Is this accurate?
(2) Concerning “Western Consensus Reality”:
You wrote:
<blockquot>To miss out on Vajrayana, because of a fundamentalist belief in Western consensus reality, is a great pity.
The phrase “Western consensus reality” seems packed. First, I must confess that I am a bit allergic to “East vs. Wes”t dichotomies since I find all thinking styles existing and valued in all parts of the world. In the West, for example, huge subcultures value imagination– so there certain is not “consensus”. So if I try to generously translate what you said, I get the following:
Sabio's rewording: "To miss out on the benefits Vajraya visionary practices because of the felt need to stay consistently use only objective visions and thus not allow skillful use of imagination, is a great pity."
Is that fairly accurate, or am I missing some important element?
(3) Concernng “Demons”:
Finally, I still find your last two paragraphs odd. Since a “visionary reality” is merely a method, how can saying “AIDS is caused by demons” be ‘correct’? Perhaps it is “useful” in some sense like – “gee, those are demons, you bet avoid them” but it doesn’t take very much reading of history to show how thinking about diseases as demons has caused nothing but intensified suffering over thousands of years. Thus I see nothing useful with “Diseases are Demons” thinking. Looking at that thinking in the long-run and with a broad perspective shows it to be destructive. IMHO
Sure, I get how visionary thinking can work on the mind, but as you said, objective thinking is used to manipulate the physical realm. AIDS /is/ in the physical realm and we must be careful to correctly value the tools of objective Truth in dealing with this.
Thus, I feel that many Buddhists and the like, go overboard as they fight to allow recover visionary thinking when they allow superstitions to thrive which are harmful. This is the truth of the Buddhist movements which move away from traditionalism – for science has shown us the ugly side of human superstition. To allow the power of imagination does not mean we have to say, “OK, everything is cool. All your imaginary superstitions could be useful too. Who am I to question? Sure, AIDS is a demon, leprosy is caused by bad karma, blindness is the results of the sins of your fathers. Why fight it, it is all true in someone’s “Visionary Reality” so we should not question it.”
Using “visionary reality” to allow harmful superstitions is wrong. IMHO. We have fought hard long battle to rid ourselves of this destructive thinking. I get that many think we have gone too far in our objective striving and stripped imagination and vision of power, But to allow that AIDS can still be usefully thought of as demon is, to me, going way too far the other way. You can respect what Tibetan culture has given you with out accepting the horrendous stupidity that comes with it too.
[sorry, unlike you, I am not very skilled at polite expressions – please take me in stride. I love your writing and am learning a great deal and I admire your politeness!]
Truths and demons
(1) Yes, this is basically right, but it’s important to understand that these different classifications are yana-specific.
“Absolute truth” isn’t really meaningful in Dzogchen; it’s part of the technical vocabulary of Sutrayana. It is also a fairly specific thing, namely the truth of emptiness.
“Relative truth” is also a Sutric term, and means whatever sort of truth isn’t absolute. There’s various schools of Sutric philosophy that try to explain what relative truth is, but in practice it is taken to be the consensus, everyday, “ordinary” world view. (Which is not the same as the objective world view, because that wasn’t known in Buddhist cultures until the late 1800s. And even in the West, almost no one holds an objective world view.)
“Non-duality” in Sutrayana refers mainly to the non-duality of self and other, whereas in Tantra it is the non-duality of bliss, clarity, and emptiness, and in Dzogchen it is the non-duality of duality and non-duality.
“Visionary truth” is specific to Tantra; it’s meaningless in Sutrayana, and is not truth in Dzogchen. For Tantra, “visionary” truth is the ultimate, really really truth. Dzogchen relativizes that, and regards visionary “truth” as merely a method for manipulating perception. (A valuable one, though.)
“Objective truth” isn’t really a feature of Buddhist theory at all; I think it’s extraordinarily valuable (but also not absolutely or exclusively valuable). Tantra sees the “common sense” or “ordinary” world view as “materialism,” which it rejects; the Western “objective” world view grew out of the “ordinary” world view, and would probably also be seen as wrong-headed materialism from the Tantric perspective.
(2) Yes, I think that’s a pretty accurate translation. The one thing I would change is “imagination”. Visionary experience is not that; it is not make-believe as adults experience it (although it is maybe more similar to the way children experience it). Visionary experience arises out of the experience of emptiness, and that gives it a quite different flavor. This is a matter of qualia, so to speak, so there is nothing much that can be said about. When you taste it, you know.
(3) I think we agree about the substance of matter here. Although my world view is not quite that of scientific materialism, I am much closer to that than the average American is—never mind the average Buddhist.
I take your ethical point, and find it troubling. Perhaps I do have a responsibility to be less polite about this? The problem with ethics is that in difficult cases, different considerations point in different directions, and there is no method for reconciling or weighting them. I do think there are good reasons to be diplomatic about this in certain contexts, and here I’ve chosen to allow that to override the good reasons to insist on the germ theory of disease.
This is why the full power of
This is why the full power of truth is not going to be accepted easily and quickly. You don’t even accept it yourself, and look how long you’ve been “at it.” (then again, you’re just a follower, only a hollow husk of a real person, so it’s to be expected). The Western consensus reality objectifies appearances. Buddhism contradicts that 100%. There will be no happy and peaceful coexistence. Either Buddhism must die as a superstition, or the objective reality must die as a superstition. A mix of these two mutually contradicting views will not be a solution. Buddhist view is one of magic and the West hates magic and consider it a dirty word. Christians hate magic and so do atheists. None of this bothers me because I will put an end to Buddhism, objectivity and every possible religion besides. But it’s a problem for someone like you, because you’re a follower, and even worse, you’re a follower on two paths. Your right leg goes South. Your left leg goes North. Yes, treating systems of knowledge as paths instead of as tools is a huge block as you can see. Your friends cannot help you. I could, but I am not your friend. Hell, I don’t even want a dialogue with you. I’m just throwing you a bone out of pity. Good luck.
Does this mean sometimes you
Does this mean sometimes you run around telling yourself the world is flat and smell of rotting bodies in a war littered battlefield are perfumes? Is it saying a milder version like – it is OK to play make believe (like I wrote in this post)?
If you work in a lab or fly aircraft, you can’t play make-believe all the time.
Did you leave out the “NOT” in this sentence:
Please tell me you left out the “NOT”