Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

At present this thread resembles bar room chat !

It could be that it doesn't but you believe that it does.

There is more to reality than conventional truth. Conventional truth is useful but at the end of the day it is just a shadow on the cave wall (a self referencing trap which always leads to suffering).

Freedom from suffering and unconditioned happiness comes from seeing both the conventional and ultimate truths (which is that which is not conventional).

A particular example would be, that it's like the difference between a classical computer and a quantum computer, in terms processing what should and shouldn't be done. One uses a serial process, the other references all possibilities at once.

The motivation for such a quest must always be compassion for all, one of the reasons for this, is it undermines the belief in an inherently existing self, a necessary prerequisite for discovering the ultimate truth, since it is non-dual and doesn't reference dualistic thoughts of self and other, the necessary tool of language. The path however uses language as a skillful means to transcend it.

1 Reply

@igm,

I understand your point, but this thread is ostensibly abut the 'meaning' of an individual 'word'. We don't need to wander into the realm of meditational ineffability in order to refute the concept of non contextual semantics. Its in the philosophical literature from Heidegger through to Derrida, irrespective of whether we evoke a transcendent self beyond parochial 'belief' or not. All that talk of 'ultimate truth' does is to ring alarm bells suggesting religiosity.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

All that talk of 'ultimate truth' does is to ring alarm bells suggesting religiosity.

I've already given a definition of what I mean by 'ultimate truth', that which is not 'conventional truth'. Do you still maintain that has religious connotations?

2 Replies

@igm,

A good definition of "ultimate truth" would be the final coherent argument that explains a phenomena to the point on which further inquiry makes no further sense or breakes the concept definition.

1 Reply

@igm,

Yes. All absolutes are 'religious' because they constitute a psychological desire for closure. It is the psychological antidote to fear of the void of meaningless and purposelessness which tends to accompany our suspicion of our cosmic insignificance. Submision to an omnipotent entity is one manifestation of attempted closure, suspension of the cycle of becoming (i.e. suspension of temporality) by dissolution of 'self' is another. Both lay claim to 'Truth' with a capital T because both are involved with possibly the only certainty, that of death (of self).

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

A good definition of "ultimate truth" would be the final coherent argument that explains a phenomena to the point on which further inquiry makes no further sense or breakes the concept definition.

There is a better definition but nice try!

0 Replies

@fresco,

The absence of conventional truth is not something, it's the absence of something, in fact it is the absence of everything conventional, that is the ultimate truth.

Like for instance, how the Universe developed before language, there was no need for conventional truth, no need for a language to describe its appearance and consequently no language will every describe it. This is why ultimately words are meaningless but conventionally they work in everyday life.

An 'individual' word has no meaning and it therefore follows that a collection of meaningless words have no meaning. They are conventionally true but ultimately meaningless.

Happiness and freedom from suffering comes from resting in the state in which there is an absence of conventional truth, whilst still using conventional truth in everyday life.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

The absence of conventional truth is not something, it's the absence of something, in fact it is the absence of everything conventional, that is the ultimate truth.

Like for instance, how the Universe developed before language, there was no need for conventional truth, no need for a language to describe its appearance and consequently no language will ever describe it. This is why ultimately words are meaningless but conventionally they work in everyday life.

An 'individual' word has no meaning and it therefore follows that a collection of meaningless words have no meaning. They are conventionally true but ultimately meaningless.

Happiness and freedom from suffering come from resting in the state in which there is an absence of conventional truth, whilst still using conventional truth in everyday life.

Couple of typos corrected.

0 Replies

@igm,

Sorry but you can't 'look how the universe developed before language' except by using language ! And if 'time' is a psychological construct, as some physicists argue, then considering a world before human conception of such a world is logically problematic. All that matters is that conceptions of 'history' are consistent with 'the present'.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Sorry but you can't 'look how the universe developed before language' except by using language ! And if 'time' is a psychological construct, as some physicists argue, then considering a world before human conception of such a world is logically problematic. All that matters is that conceptions of 'history' are consistent with 'the present'.

You have just made my point. Part of your statement shows that conventional truth can never describe the world, ultimately, and the other part describes how in everyday life we need conventional truth.

Ultimate truth is the absence of conventional truth. Happiness, for example, cannot be describe conventionally, it therefore must belong to the absence of the conventional. Happiness is a direct experience, it is non-dual.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Ultimate truth is the absence of conventional truth. Happiness, for example, cannot be describe conventionally, it therefore must belong to the absence of the conventional. Happiness is a direct experience, it is non-dual.

I disagree. Not to be confrontational or objectionable. But my take on happiness is that you are feeling "reality" is in line with what you want. To put it simply, "Things are going your way."

I think anger is just the opposite. When reality is conflicting with what you want, you become angry. Anger and happiness are both conditional. There are conditions that must be present before they arise. They don't just "magically" appear. You don't get angry for no reason. The same is true for happiness, you aren't happy for no reason.

I just used conventional logic to explain happiness. And yes, happiness is dual. I just showed how it is dual. Although anger isn't happiness's polar opposite. It is more like depression or sadness or frustration or a combination of those.

1 Reply

@igm,

But we are surely just conjuring up a nebulous cloud of ineffability. To label this 'Truth' could in my opinion be merely equivalent to applauding the Emperors New Clothes. Or putting it another way, its a sabbatical for 'thinking' which when we return from the meditational holiday, allows 'conventional ephemeral reality' to be reviewed with the therapeutic curiosity of detatched tourist .

Obviously, since you appear to have invested in such practices you will not be willing to accept my point of view.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

...considering a world before human conception of such a world is logically problematic.

Hahahaha. "Logically problematic," eh?

Only to an absolute solipsist, as you constantly prove yourself to be, eh, Fresky?

I'll tell you what is "logically problematic." Solipsism, that's what.

Well, not really. "Logically problematic" doesn't really catch the essence of solipsism.

How about "utterly ludicrous."

0 Replies

@Krumple,

What you are saying, is that when causes and conditions come together there will be a result. When whatever the causes and conditions necessary for happiness to arise, are in place, then the result will be happiness. This is conventionally logical, the premises lead to the conclusion and the effect of such actions appear to be born out empirically.

This is only the case however, if the result isn't already here but ignored. If happiness is already available but ignored then all the collecting of causes and conditions, were a waste of time because the result was always here, it has simply been ignored.

This is like a beggar who goes out everyday from his hovel, looking for food and water and finds only just enough to survive for that day. Unbeknownst to that beggar underneath the floorboards, someone else has buried a vast treasure (easy to find and left for him to find, if looked for). The beggar simply needed to examine where he was more closely, instead of always believing it was elsewhere, thus due to his ignorance, he continues to suffer from poverty for no reason.

So your argument works but only if happiness is not already here but ignored. I'm saying (of course) that happiness is here and ignored and suffering is merely happiness distorted by ignorance. That is how happiness can be non-dual. There aren't two things happiness and suffering but one thing arising naturally or distorted by ignorance.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

So your argument works but only if happiness is not already here but ignored. I'm saying (of course) that happiness is here and ignored and suffering is merely happiness distorted by ignorance. That is how happiness can be non-dual. There aren't two things happiness and suffering but one thing arising naturally or distorted by ignorance.

Wouldn't this "under the floor boards" happiness still be conditional? If the beggar were to stay home and pull up the floor boards he would discover the happiness right?

Well this is a condition. He must stay home and pull up the floor boards. If he doesn't do this then he won't discover the happiness hidden away there. It's conditional.

Also can his happiness be forgotten? Or lost? What if he discovers the happiness under the floor boards, can he misplace it? Can it be covered by something else? Can he lose it?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

The beggar is a metaphor, standing for the person who ignores 'unconditioned' non-dual happiness, which is available at all times but is ignored. Distorted non-dual happiness is what we call suffering. They are two sides of the same coin, so to speak. Thus the true nature of happiness is non-dual.

What does this have to do with whether a word or words have meaning? The belief that a word or words have 'ultimate' meaning (when they don't) is a trap that continually prevents us from experiencing happiness because we get caught up in a search for 'conditioned' happiness, which ultimately always fails to deliver lasting happiness because it ignores the way reality is, non-dual and unconditioned.

Words are useful conventional tools but they and the actions of body speech and mind that they drive, in the form of the internal dialogue's quest for conditioned happiness, seem to create some temporary happiness sometimes, followed by the inevitable suffering which must follow, since all the temporary causes and conditions that needed to be assembled, are just that, temporary, and when reality no longer resembles the reality identified as a happy set of circumstances, happiness vanishes, only to be replaced by more flawed thoughts, words and deeds.

Much better to understand the true nature and use conventional language to point like a finger of compassion at the true, non-dual, ineffable nature, beyond words.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

because it ignores the way reality is, non-dual and unconditioned.

Is reality non-dual? I don't understand that unless you're inferring some ultimate peace. Creation seems to have required duality.

2 Replies

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Is reality non-dual? I don't understand that unless you're inferring some ultimate peace. Creation seems to have required duality.

It's an illusion. At the core, when you brush away all the obscuring thoughts, reality is non-dual. It's not easy to experience because we are conditioned by behavior to think in ways which give rise to duality. It can be directly experienced but it requires retraining this behavior.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple eloquently wrote:

It's an illusion. At the core, when you brush away all the obscuring thoughts, reality is non-dual. It's not easy to experience because we are conditioned by behavior to think in ways which give rise to duality. It can be directly experienced but it requires retraining this behavior.

Duality, e.g., expansion/contraction, is a natural phenomena that is a basis for life. It's also a basis for learning in that we reach out then look in. I don't see reaching non-duality (separation of state) until the need no longer exists.

0 Replies

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Creation seems to have required duality.

You believe in creation. How do you believe the first thing to be created was created?

1 Reply

Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know