conventional and ultimate truth

These terms are very important in Buddhism and in the practise of mindfulness. But they are not easy to understand.
First of all; both are really true.
You see a table. And you can use it as a table, have your plate and your cup of tea on it, and of course call it a table. That is the conventional truth, and everyone has to use this truth, even Buddha and you and me...

But you can look at the table in another way; it is made of different parts, legs, table top and so on. It is dependent on this parts and of the carpenter who made the table, and of his parents and of the tree who was cut down to make the table- and the tree needed sun, water and minerals to grow, and so on. So where are the essence of the table, are there even one...?
That is the ultimate truth, which also says that if nothing has an solid essence, you can not be sure of where one thing ends and another thing starts.... For instance, you are influenced by your parents in many ways, by the genes and by their upbringing, so it's not false to say that your parents are a part of you.

But to come closer to that truth you have to meditate and stop thinking.

Anyway it's important to see that you have to live in the conventional word, but in he same time be aware of the ultimate one. I suppose Buddhas half smile comes from this awareness.

Furthermore, if nothing has an essence, what is it that is born, and what is dying?

If the table has the sun and the water and even the skill of the carpenter in it, is the table really gone when it's broken and thrown away? The sun, the water, the minerals and the skill of the carpenter is
still around. And his son or daughter can make a new table.

That's really something to meditate or ponder about.

Because if the table, has no essence but is related to a lot of other things, so are you...

But remember, according to conventional truth you and I exist and we have an identity and an own will.

Two truths at the same time.  You better smile.....










Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more