One of the most difficult areas to get past in human relations is the idea that "my" religion or ideal is Truth and yours isn't. When someone says to you that your beliefs are all wet compared to his or hers, how does that make you feel? Historically, it has made people feel so bad that they have killed each other. This is not good. If only there was a way where we could sincerely say to those who are not of our faith, "You're okay, even if you do not believe our way."
Unless we find a way to honestly and openly do that, unless we as a nation find a way to say to other countries that they are okay just as they are developing, (as if we didn't have our problems as a young nation), then we will be in constant conflict.
If, for a moment, we can leave aside threatening and incendiary remarks, such as, "If you don't become enlightened, you will be reborn into suffering forever," "Unless you accept Jesus as your savior, you will go to hell," and "Allah is the only God, accept him or else," along with all the other claims of various religions (and the numerous branches of the various religions that separate us further, i.e., Catholic and Baptist in the Christian faith), what is there left to talk about?
If we have nothing left to talk about, then of course religion can justifiably be termed a vehicle of separation; something that has caused violence in the past and continues to be a destructive force in the present.
Some might say that their beliefs and principles are more important than avoiding conflict and that they are ready and willing to die for them. Okay, passion is an important factor, and if their religion or ideal sanctifies conversion by force, then one would be justified in their mind. I posit, however, that in the deep tentacles of all religions lies a universal love for all mankind, regardless of beliefs, and that conversion by force comes from man‘s ego.
In reality, we usually tolerate beliefs other than our own and generally smile and make nice to people of other faiths. But down deep, if we think that they are misguided and that we should save them, or resent the fact that they can't see the light and consider them inferior to ourselves, then we are two-faced.
Perhaps better than becoming two-faced is having it out with them; arguing about our religions until we are blue in the face, totally exhausted, and ready to strangle each other. At least we would be honest.
In my articles, I try to promote principles that apply to all religions regardless of beliefs. I do this in order to advance past narrow opinions and toward more universal love and respect for each other. I'm not always successful.
I try to see the end product of what a particular religion produces regarding the type of people that result. Are they only nice in a playacting way, closet bigots, or are they genuinely interested in others well being, regardless of the others beliefs?
I can't say that one way or the other is right or Truth, but I can say, as I look back at history, that one way promotes peace and the other conflict. Again, if conflict is your cup of tea, then I can't say that you are wrong, but I can say that conflict will create suffering for yourself and others. Also, I can safely, I believe, say that peace promotes ease and joy for yourself and others. Just look at a family in conflict compared to a family in peace. To playact peace is to pretend to be peaceful around your peers but scream at your kids or partner in Wal-Mart! This is also being two-faced.
What it all boils down to is whether or not strong beliefs are worth conflict. If you say yes, then your life will be in conflict. You can't have conflict with those outside of your immediate group without eventually having conflict within your group. It's never an outside influence that brings up conflict, conflict is already planted in your mind just looking for a target, and when the outside targets aren't there, the sharks eat themselves.
The question is; do you want to change your mind from one of conflict to one of peace? Don't answer too quickly; many people prefer conflict. Conflict, win or lose, boosts the ego and makes one feel that they are alive. Peace, on the other hand does not increase ego or support the notion of a person separate from everyone else.
In my articles, I mention ego or self all the time, because ego, not religion or ideals per se, is the central reason for our internal and external conflicts. The idea of "me."
So how can you change your state of mind of conflict? Can you keep your strong beliefs and resolve the conflict in yourself? That would be the best of both worlds.
I believe that we can do that, it‘s just a matter of calming down an ego that we have created and now must constantly shore up. This creates the fundamental conflict within ourselves, and has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, but everything to do with how we get along with ourselves, our group, and fellow human beings.
If ever there would be a universal religion, it would work toward resolving this problem of conflict within ourselves. Regardless of what we believe or what books we follow, until we understand ourselves and how we interact with that little person inside our heads, all of our actions and ideas will be skewed.
But once we know ourselves and how we operate, we can then believe as we choose, while at the same time understanding and accepting the rest of humanity regardless of their beliefs, because we will know that we are all fundamentally the same.
anagarika eddie is a meditation teacher at the Dhammabucha Rocksprings Meditation Retreat Sanctuary (www.dhammarocksprings.org), and author of A Year to Enlightenment. His 30 years of meditation experience has taken him across four continents including two stopovers in Thailand where he practiced in the remote northeast forests as an ordained Thervada Buddhist monk.
The author of this article has chosen to make this article available with free reprint rights. Click here to copy this article.
This author's point of view shall quickly become the predominant paradigm, and not a moment too soon.
"My religion is better; my religion is the only true one" is chimpanzee mentality, and merely proves we are descended from apes. Religion is not truth, and truth does not need religion.
Hello again Anonymous, and thanks for watching my back. Religion is a very important part of most peoples' lives, but as you say, connecting religious belief to Truth is the wonky part. Truth moves much too quickly to be captured.
Is the conflict coming from religion itself, or is it our lack of an absolute truth and our new circular definition of tolerance? (the idea that we must accept all views as equally valid or we are considered "intolerant", yet we are intolerant of the claim of the existence of an absolute truth.)
Hi Jim, thanks again for commenting. You mean our “lack of evidence” regarding an absolute truth?
If we can admit that ultimate truth cannot be proven, then wouldn’t all views regarding ultimate truth be equal - equally invalid? So as I said, we are all in the same boat. Enjoy your conventional truths, and you can be sure that other religions have their valid conventional truths as well. We can all learn from them and each other if we keep an open mind.
As far as intolerance of absolute truths is concerned, it's more of a "show me the ultimate truth" rather than an intolerance of ultimate truth. Ultimate truth is an unproven theory, kind of like the earth is only 6,000 years old!!
I understand your point about "proof", that is another discussion, but that misses what I was asking. Assume for the moment there is no absolute truth. Wouldn't the source of conflict come from conflicting philosophies? Say one person believes killing is wrong and the other believes killing is necessary to maintain a family honor. There would be no standard by which to determine who is correct and who is wrong and reconcile the two philosophies so they can live together. How could we even make laws to govern a society if we didn't know the difference between right and wrong?
So, is it the religion or is it the lack of absolute truth that causes the conflict?
(a note about "tolerance". So are you saying that you can be "tolerant" of every religion except the one that doesn't agree with you that all beliefs are equally valid? Isn't that hypocritical? Why isn't that belief equally valid, and requires proof before it can be considered equally valid?- I'm just trying to understand.)
JIM: “Assume for the moment there is no absolute truth. Wouldn't the source of conflict come from conflicting philosophies?”
e: Yes. And that's all we have, philosophies, because ultimate truth is ineffable, and therefore converted to a conventional philosophy depending upon cause and effect of the culture. The philosophies confuse absolute truth with conventional truth, or create a pseudo absolute truth from a conventional truth creating a conflict because of this confusion, because we argue about how many angels dance on the head of a pin when we haven‘t yet established the existence of angels except in personal visions or legends, both of which I understand (not a lawyer) would be called here-say or circumstantial evidence in a court of law. All religions do it because that is the nature of religion, to believe in the ineffable, or an ultimate truth. It is never a winnable argument and only leads to frustration. As I said in my article, “ If, for a moment, we can leave aside threatening and incendiary remarks, such as, "If you don't become enlightened, you will be reborn into suffering forever," "Unless you accept Jesus as your savior, you will go to hell," and "Allah is the only God, accept him or else," along with all the other claims of various religions (and the numerous branches of the various religions that separate us further, i.e., Catholic and Baptist in the Christian faith), what is there left to talk about?
There is nothing wrong with believing in angels if we are Christian, or devas if we are Buddhist, but unless we recognize the difference between belief and provable facts, we will be lost in circular arguments endlessly. this highlights the difference between science and religion. They can both coexist with no problem if we admit that it is the ineffable that separates religion from science and philosophy, and the nature of the ineffable is that it‘s. . .ineffable!
JIM: “Say one person believes killing is wrong and the other believes killing is necessary to maintain a family honor. There would be no standard by which to determine who is correct and who is wrong and reconcile the two philosophies so they can live together. How could we even make laws to govern a society if we didn't know the difference between right and wrong?”
e: Here Jim you make what is called a Strawman argument. You set up right and wrong as absolute truths, when right and wrong are conventional truths. i.e. right and wrong changes depending on the collective mores of the immediate society. Laws are then debated and decided upon in a democracy, or dictated to in a dictatorship. It’s cause and effect, not an absolute truth. Your good might be another mans bad. A liberal might consider “helping others” as good, and a conservative as creating dependencies or wasting money when it can be used to create jobs, with many and various shades of black and white in between. This is what is going on in our country right now in congress and has gone on since the beginning of time. Not too many years ago in this country, slavery was considered good by the South and bad by the North, all good Christians. As Lincoln said, they each have the same God which they pray to, to destroy the other. So good and evil are always conventional truths because they change to fit the situation.
Jim: “So, is it the religion or is it the lack of absolute truth that causes the conflict?”
e: Neither, it is mind, conflict is in the mind, but that is another discussion! For now, I say that it is the idea that we know absolute truth that causes the conflict, rather than saying we really don’t know, that we only believe and therefore other religions must be as relevant as ours since no one really knows! Because of the nature of religion, as previously stated - that religion is separated from philosophy and science by the ineffable, it is the ineffable, that which cannot be proven, that can be the root causes for conflict. In other words, we are arguing opinions and views, trying to make conventional truths, things that rely on cause and effect and that are ever changing, into absolute truths. This is an understandable attempt to secure ourselves because if we had a set of incontrovertible truths to follow, we would be in our own minds secure, However, conventional truths don’t operate that way. We could argue that they do, but the evidence is that everything changes in our world of existence, a fact which is universal and can readily be observed and proven.
Jim: :(a note about "tolerance". So are you saying that you can be "tolerant" of every religion except the one that doesn't agree with you that all beliefs are equally valid? Isn't that hypocritical? Why isn't that belief equally valid, and requires proof before it can be considered equally valid?- I'm just trying to understand.)
e: Yes, we can be tolerant of all views, even far out views such as, “I know truth and you don‘t," or "All views are false except mine” or "Kill those that don't believe." The amount of tolerance depends upon one‘s understanding of views per se and how they originate in human minds. It’s evidentiary (is that a word?) that some views promote conflict and suffering among people, such as bombings, religious wars and constant bickering, and some promote peace and understanding among people where those of different faiths and philosophies can coexist in peace.
The way I see it, and this certainly isn't "Absolute Truth :) is that I certainly don’t have the answers but posit that the answers come from deep inside each of us. And in these kinds of discussions, I believe that it helps to lighten up and say to ourselves that we might be wrong. Otherwise, nobody learns from the discussion. We might have to even laugh at ourselves at times over our own self righteousness - and this is true of all religions. If we can’t laugh at ourselves, then it all becomes very serious, sometimes to the point of wanting to strangle each other. Pretty stupid.
I guess where our discussion ends up here will either support my argument that religions separate, or disprove it; that we can all get along and love each other even with different beliefs. I hope that I am disproved! That would lessen my ego and set me a little freer :)
We were all such nice people before we were saved. (Just a little joke).
"And in these kinds of discussions, I believe that it helps to lighten up and say to ourselves that we might be wrong. Otherwise, nobody learns from the discussion"
Thanks for the detailed answer, a lot to deal with, but I think this statement (quoted above) raises another question for me and gets back to the main point of my question. (I do think that it is a good thing to test our beliefs, BTW, in case I might be wrong.) How could you possibly ever be wrong if there is no right and wrong standard outside of yourself? Two people with conflicting views can't be both be right. One of them has to be wrong. But if there is no absolute right and wrong (truth) that we all can ultimately turn to, ultimately there is no way to be wrong or right.
How can we criticize anyone for things we think are wrong, like racism or murder, or justify trying to protect victims of these wrongs if there is no standard for a common right and wrong?
How can we decide what is just or unjust, and by what standard? Everything is a matter of opinion. I like milk, you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people, I like to save them. Who is to say which is better?
How can we place blame or accept praise? There is no standard by which to measure what should be applauded or condemned.
How can we make charges of being treated unfairly or being treated unjustly when there is no standard by which to measure justice?
How can we strive for moral improvement with no objective rule of conduct as the standard by which we should aspire? Especially if our own personal standards might possibly be "wrong" by the standard that is set by the ruling government party. What if the rules change, do we then throw away our beliefs? If so, how why should we have any confidence in them to begin with?
How can we possibly promote the obligation of "tolerance" (as defined by the idea that all beliefs are equally valid)? The moral obligation to be "tolerant" is self refuting. In essence you are saying we ought to "tolerate" the moral opinions and behavior of others who disagree with us. We should not try to interfere with their opinions or behavior. If there are no objective moral rules, however, there can be no rule that requires "tolerance" as a moral principle that applies equally to all. If there are no moral absolutes, why be "tolerant" at all? This definition of "tolerance" that all views are equally valid falls apart when tested against itself.
All these questions are to hone in on the original point of my first question and not get distracted by all these other points you are making. Without the arbitration of a common standard of what is true, there is no way to resolve conflict, we can only sweep it under the rug. This is why I don't understand your premise. (BTW, I totally respect your right to believe what you believe. Without the freedom to do so, we would be living under tyranny and oppression. I hold no malice against you for what you believe, nor do I think anyone should.)
It's still raining so I have some more time. (It's supposed to stop soon, though!)
Jim: How could you possibly ever be wrong if there is no right and wrong standard outside of yourself?
e: Yes, there is no ultimate right and wrong, only “what is,” what is happening in this very moment.
Jim: Two people with conflicting views can't be both be right. One of them has to be wrong.
e: Not really. “My kid’s the best!” “No, my kid’s the best.” One would be wrong only in the eyes of the judge, which is a changeable entity.
Jim: But if there is no absolute right and wrong (truth) that we all can ultimately turn to, ultimately there is no way to be wrong or right.
e. Yes, there is no right and wrong, just circumstances depending upon cause and effect. We really don’t have to be right or wrong, which is a judgment, we only have to be ourselves. If we become sensitive to the earth and those around us by cultivating a calm, insightful mind, right or wrong would have no validity, the only importance would be how we treat our neighbors - open and compassionately, instead of controlling and judgmental. If our neighbors threatened to kill us even if we treated them with respect and equality, then there is still no right and wrong or judgmentalism or idea of punishment based upon ego and ideals which all come as an afterthought of direct, clear action. There would only be the direct action of protecting ourselves, which when done without the interference and reinforcement of all the other psychological and philosophical judgments, would be precise and to the point.
Jim: How can we criticize anyone for things we think are wrong, like racism or murder, or justify trying to protect victims of these wrongs if there is no standard for a common right and wrong?
e: We don’t criticize them, we prosecute them! There is a standard for these kinds of actions in our conventional society called laws, which are made depending upon the circumstances and culture at the time. It has nothing to do with universal truth, only conventional truth. When the sun flairs out, will that be right or wrong to the cook-ies on earth! (Just trying to insert a little humor!)
Jim: How can we decide what is just or unjust, and by what standard? Everything is a matter of opinion. I like milk, you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people, I like to save them. Who is to say which is better?
e: Why must we decide? Why does there have to be a better” That’s a judgment. There is what is. Drink your milk and save people! Don’t worry about a dead German or meat eaters. Investigate yourself; your thoughts, speech, and subsequent actions first.
Jim: How can we place blame or accept praise? There is no standard by which to measure what should be applauded or condemned.
e: What is praise and blame? Nothing really, just two of the Eight Worldly Winds that blow us around and pull on our strings like a demonic puppeteer. Why applaud or condemn, just see “what is” with a clear unobstructed mind.
Jim: How can we make charges of being treated unfairly or being treated unjustly when there is no standard by which to measure justice?
e. Through a lawyer! If there are no laws, then there is the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. There is no truth or justice per se, only what is. The ideal of truth and justice comes from mind. Robin Hood’s truth and justice was different from the Kings’
Jim: How can we strive for moral improvement with no objective rule of conduct as the standard by which we should aspire?
e: We can’t. All we can do is see the immorality in ourselves. Then there is the possibility of real change.
Jim: Especially if our own personal standards might possibly be "wrong" by the standard that is set by the ruling government party. What if the rules change, do we then throw away our beliefs? If so, how why should we have any confidence in them to begin with?
e. If you want to enjoy the benefits of living in society, you follow the laws which hopefully are made by the majority. As a minority with rights, you don’t have to like them or agree with them, but if you want to change them, then in this society you go to work and create a political environment where the law will be eventually changed. In the mean time, you follow the laws, or go to jail.
Jim: How can we possibly promote the obligation of "tolerance" (as defined by the idea that all beliefs are equally valid)?
e. All beliefs of the ineffable ultimate truth are either valid or invalid, depending on how you look at it, because the ineffable cannot be argued or proven. That is where the tolerance comes in, the epiphany that your ultimate truth is unproven, and you may be wrong regardless of how you try to bend conventional truths around it in justification.
Jim: The moral obligation to be "tolerant" is self refuting. In essence you are saying we ought to "tolerate" the moral opinions and behavior of others who disagree with us.
e: You misunderstand me. We ought to tolerate other beliefs because we can’t be sure that our beliefs are ultimate truth, simply because of the nature of ultimate truth. We don’t have to tolerate conventional law breakers.
Jim: We should not try to interfere with their opinions or behavior.
e. Not unless it adversely affects the well being of society.
Jim: If there are no objective moral rules, however, there can be no rule that requires "tolerance" as a moral principle that applies equally to all.
e. You continue to confuse conventional morality which is dictated by law, and ultimate reality (unchanging moral principle) that is an unproven belief.
Jim: If there are no moral absolutes, why be "tolerant" at all? This definition of "tolerance" that all views are equally valid falls apart when tested against itself.
e. Again, moral absolutes are like ultimate truths, they are ineffable. There are moral guidelines which are tolerated or not tolerated depending upon the laws and customs of the culture. It is easy to be tolerant of all ultimate truth and ineffable beliefs because they all have the same attribute, one of ineffability. I can’t prove or disprove yours and you can’t prove or disprove mine, so how can we not tolerate each other’s views, views that are just views, and that are improvable anyway?
Jim: All these questions are to hone in on the original point of my first question and not get distracted by all these other points you are making.
e. I am just trying to answer your questions in a straightforward way. I am in no way trying to confuse you, we can do that by ourselves! (A little humor)
Jim: Without the arbitration of a common standard of what is true, there is no way to resolve conflict, we can only sweep it under the rug.
e. There is no common standard other than the ones that are encrypted into law and cultural morals.
Jim: This is why I don't understand your premise.
e. That‘s okay Jim, I tried to explain it. Please let me know exactly what you don’t understand and I’ll try again. If you understand it but don’t agree, that’s okay too. We are all different and have different ideas. And your point that we should all be free to express them I agree with. I also feel that we should learn to tolerate other values as well as a part of truly learning to love our neighbors. It’s not possible to love our neighbors through the veil of ego. When we see through the fabric of ego, however, when our self disappears through the insight of actually coming face to face with that ineffable, then there is only the neighbor standing before us, there is no longer duality, and then there can truly be love.
Okay. correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no rational basis for what you believe. It is all "ineffable", or the way I would interpret it... incapable of being expressed or described in words.
However, one thing I am picking up is that you will follow whatever the law is in the country you are living without question as to how it may conflict with your personal beliefs. The highest law for you is then the law of the government Additionally, either no law can be immoral, or it doesn't matter to you if it is immoral or not, you just submit to it.
To relate this to the original question... so... your solution to the problem of conflict is that other religions subscribe to your definition of tolerance (consider all belief systems equally valid despite the unreconcilable conflicts in their principles.)
Jim: - but I see no rational basis for what you believe. It is all "ineffable", or the way I would interpret it... incapable of being expressed or described in words.
e: Not it is ALL ineffable, only the belief in absolute truth part.
Jim: However, one thing I am picking up is that you will follow whatever the law is in the country you are living without question as to how it may conflict with your personal beliefs.
e: Not true, if I think a law is unfair, or a situation unfair, I will question and write about it, i.e. health care. But these are conventional truths, laws and social interactions, not beliefs, which are personal, unproven, and ineffable.
Jim: The highest law for you is then the law of the government
e: The government makes the laws and as a part of society I agree to follow those laws. If I believe that a law should be changed, I write about it and do what I can to change it. Governmental law is a necessary authority for social interaction.
Jim: Additionally, either no law can be immoral,
e: Immorality is a cultural thing that changes.
Jim: or it doesn't matter to you if it is immoral or not, you just submit to it.
e: Immorality is a judgmental factor and based on culture. I agree to abide by the rules of my elected officials as a citizen of the United States., and if I think that the law should be changed, I write about it and try to change it.
Jim: To relate this to the original question... so... your solution to the problem of conflict is that other religions subscribe to your definition of tolerance (consider all belief systems equally valid despite the irreconcilable conflicts in their principles.)
e: Well, . . . it's a better solution than killing ourselves over our ineffable ideals :) Yes, all systems equally valid regarding ineffable qualities and principles of the religion. The conventional differences are worked out in society at large. If we confuse the two, thinking that conventional differences are absolute truth differences, then as I stated in my article, what is there left to talk about. There is only ignorance of what ineffability means.
The solution to conflict is acceptance and tolerance if society as a whole rejects my opinion of what is good and proper. That is the price of a democracy. And understanding that our differences are cultural and conventional, and the conflicts that are spiritual are ineffable and unsolvable. Hatred is only solved by love, never hatred. Conflict in religion is caused by confusing conventional principles or truths, which can be proven, with absolute principles or truths which are ineffable. The irreconcilable ineffable differences of all the religions are cut from the same cloth, no one can prove anything. If you can’t see the humor in this, then you are in conflict. (just a joke)
Therefore, we are all in the same boat; and could easily decide to respect the other religions, because heck, we can’t prove ours either! We could all get together and have a good laugh and a beer about all of this instead of fighting about it, then go back and believe whatever trips our bippy! If some conventional differences arise, even though we think that since none of us can prove our truths, we can simply enjoy whatever we believe and treat the next religion with the same respect as ours because they are no different than us regarding belief. It’s a personal thing and each can do as they please.
After all, it’s how we treat each other that is important in the end, especially those we disagree with. So the answer is somehow to resolve the disagreeing tendency within ourselves, because there will always be someone whom we disagree with which will keep us in constant conflict for the rest of our lives.
And how we respect one another is an important factor as well. Not as important as love, however.
Okay. There is no doubt we have a difference on the existence of an objective truth. You have thoroughly confused me on the rest of it. As I go through the comments there are so many inconsistencies I can't make rational sense of it. I can't get my mind around the idea of your definition of tolerance accepting every view as equally valid except one, which violates your very definition of tolerance. Why is that one view not "equally valid" as well? I don't see "conventional truth" as the same as absolute or objective truth. I am thinking in terms of moral code, and the truth about it. It is a moral code based on unchanging, timeless principles, not opinions.
The way I see it, appealing to a higher authority is the best way to resolve a conflict, but both parties have to recognize the higher authority. To me God is the highest authority. However, if we could agree on the fundamental principles of a moral code, the rest is relatively unimportant. So that is how I see the source of the conflict being the denial of these timeless moral principles, not religion itself.
I fail to see how sweeping our differences under the rug for the sake of avoiding conflict is productive. So in my mind, the conflict comes from a refusal to be accountable to a common higher authority for moral standards. Morality, in my view, is not something that evolves because it is based on timeless principles based in the reality of our world. I fail to see how wrong can somehow become right over time, or vice versa. Cause and effect don't change over time, and that means consequences for wrong will always exist, regardless of what the current culture chooses to change in its moral code. Cultures may change, but reality doesn't.
The simplest analogy I have to illustrate this is the law of gravity, you can believe that it doesn't apply to you, but if you test it by jumping off a tall building you will still hit the sidewalk just as hard. If you choose to kill someone, you will still suffer whatever consequences result from it regardless of whether you think it is okay or not. I don't "hate" people for disagreeing with me about what is true, but I care enough to warn them that they might be wrong and the consequences may be irreversible and completely destructive. At the same time I respect their right to hold that belief. My love for my neighbors motivates me to say something. To illustrate, you wouldn't let a child in the street stay there without saying anything if you cared about them would you? You know they may be hit by a car if you don't encourage them to get out of the path of danger. (this isn't a straw-man argument, it is an illustration for my point, okay? Don't focus on the wrong thing.) If you were standing underneath a falling piano, I would at least warn you about it. Would you not do the same for me? This is why I try to reach out and share my beliefs. There are some who don't know how to do it with love and they fail, but they do care. That is why they do it. I don't have to take the time to write all these posts, but I make time because I believe it is a valuable activity for us both.
I appreciate your sharing. This has been educational.
Good morning Jim! Maybe we can publish a series of articles from this discourse - “A Buddhist and Christian discuss religion.“ Could be something that would get a few hits for Jean and Bruce! (I get top billing because it's my article :)
Jim: Okay. There is no doubt we have a difference on the existence of an objective truth.
e: Yes, an objective truth cannot exist, considering the definition of existence. Absolute truth is real but does not exist. Existence can never be real, or unchanging - only temporary experience in endless flux.
Jim: You have thoroughly confused me on the rest of it.
e: Some concepts cannot be understood without a shift in consciousness. For example, when our understanding deepens, sometimes through deep intellectual study but more easily by emptying our minds of thoughts opinions and internal dialogue during meditation or silent and wordless prayer, shifts in consciousness appear that inexplicably give us the capacity to understand deeper meanings of what ever we read or observe. If we are actively practicing mental calmness, these shifts in consciousness will create a situation where reading will take on a whole new venue. Each time we read the same book, it will seem as if it is an entirely new book with deeper meanings, simply because our shifts in consciousness allow us to instead of skipping over the parts we don’t understand, will highlight those parts and instill deeper wisdom. This is not something you can learn to do by stuffing the mind with facts, it’s quite the opposite, emptying the mind of all facts so that (in Christian terms) God has a chance to speak above all the previous chatter and clutter and instill His wisdom. Simply reading and studying distances one from God‘s real intercourse which always happens in complete silence. It had to be this way because “God“ is an absolute truth that can never be understood by mind, yet mind is capable of a glimmer of the Absolute in the way of deep insight and wisdom. I can’t expect you to understand or agree with this from your perspective now, but maybe in time you will see what I am getting at. When the mind has made substantial shifts in consciousness and has touched “God,” conflict then calms down because conventional wisdom is seen for what it is; ever changing, not substantial, and the cause of mental duress if not understood. Then, tolerance of all conventional views is possible, as is loving ones neighbor because this all falls into the realm of convention, and conventions, after experiencing some shifts in consciousness that touch the Absolute, become just playthings of the world with no importance at all. Conversely, without shifts in consciousness toward this absolute, convention remains of the utmost importance, and because of its nature brings up conflict in the minds of the still spiritually immature.
Jim: As I go through the comments there are so many inconsistencies I can't make rational sense of it. I can't get my mind around the idea of your definition of tolerance accepting every view as equally valid except one, which violates your very definition of tolerance.
e: (See above comments on tolerance becoming universal when convention becomes secondary to the Absolute experience). The world becomes nothing more than a dance of existence that catches conventional wisdom, and the people limited to conventional wisdom, in its web. How could you tell children that they are not playing correctly? It’s all play, nothing but a dance of the gods.
Jim: Why is that one view not "equally valid" as well? I don't see "conventional truth" as the same as absolute or objective truth. I am thinking in terms of moral code, and the truth about it. It is a moral code based on unchanging, timeless principles, not opinions.
e: Timeless principles is an oxymoron. Timelessness is an absolute truth, while principles are conventional changing circumstances caught within the web of time.
Jim: The way I see it, appealing to a higher authority is the best way to resolve a conflict, but both parties have to recognize the higher authority.
e: That depends on who your higher authority is. Maybe it will tell you to go bomb someone in His name? (BOOM!) You see, ego masquerades as the higher authority. Ego is a chameleon that takes on whatever guise it has to in order to maintain control. That is the beauty of meditation and silent prayer. Ego, which is fueled by thoughts and opinions resulting from discursive thinking cannot operate in an environment of emptiness of mind, but the Absolute can, and does, and this is what creates real wisdom and insight rather than thinking out a solution, which is nothing but old tired thoughts and conditioning that is all dead. Creativity, real creativity that instills those WOW! Moments of epiphany, can never result from thought, only silence of mind. So yes, if we can disregard concepts about the absolute for a moment, whether we call it God, Jehovah, Allah or silence, it is this emptiness of mind that creates the insightful, spiritually intelligent mind.
Jim: To me God is the highest authority.
e; Yes, I understand, God is a concept in your mind that represents the absolute.
Jim: However, if we could agree on the fundamental principles of a moral code, the rest is relatively unimportant.
e: A moral code is derived from conventional experience only and therefore is ever changing and cannot be considered an unchanging absolute truth. Virtue, however, true virtue is another story. It can’t be handed down per se from a God (absolute truth) Absolute truth cannot communicate that way with existential beings. Insight, however, indirect communication with the absolute, call it what you will, can occur spontaneously for everyone, regardless of their beliefs or non beliefs, and these insights will affect virtue. That is; virtue is never something that can be practiced or read about or recited, that is being two faced. True virtue arises in the void of self or ego, and that only happens in the silence of mind. Studying virtue and parroting it only increase ego and separates humanity into conventional camps depending upon opinions based wholly in ego, the conflict maker.
Jim: The source of the conflict being the denial of these timeless moral principles, not religion itself.
e: Timeless moral principles is an oxymoron. The source of conflict is ego, and the resulting myriad of conventional opinions which build the many religions. One religion’s timeless moral principles might include killing everyone who has different views. There is no absolute moral principles. They all fall under men’s minds disguised as the absolute.
Jim: I fail to see how sweeping our differences under the rug for the sake of avoiding conflict is productive.
e: Once the absolute is touched by mind, the conventional differences are simply temporary problems to resolve while living in a very temporary existence. They can’t take front seat in attention once the mind is truly attracted to the Absolute. We might mouth the words that we love God, but it is ego that is reveling in the attention. Conventional differences become just mundane situations, no different from what you will eat for dinner tonight. Ego creates mountains out of mole hills regarding these conventional differences because ego can only see the convention, and is not capable of seeing past that. Ego thinks that everything in conventional existence will never change, and that ego itself is the realty, and that it will never suffer because it can get out of suffering. While the absolute wisdom, once touched, sees that everything in conventional existence is constantly changing always in flux with no security, and that ego is merely a construct of mind and not real, and also that the idea of ego and the experience of conventional existence is a constant state of stress for the illusion of self. Therefore ego unknowingly and conveniently bastardizes the Absolute and takes it as a possession and merely an extension of ego’s limited and ignorant understanding if the absolute truth.
Jim: So in my mind, the conflict comes from a refusal to be accountable to a common higher authority for moral standards.
e: Conflict comes form mixing the Absolute with convention. Virtue, real virtue as explained before, does not come from a higher authority, it comes from mind. Virtue comes from seeing the lack of virtue in oneself, and that can only happen through insight without the veil of ego, because ego cleverly turns hatred into virtue within religions.
Jim: Morality, in my view, is not something that evolves because it is based on timeless principles based in the reality of our world. I fail to see how wrong can somehow become right over time, or vice versa. Cause and effect don't change over time, and that means consequences for wrong will always exist, regardless of what the current culture chooses to change in its moral code. Cultures may change, but reality doesn't.
e: Of course morality evolves. (Wikipedia) “Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.
“In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct or belief concerning matters of what is moral or immoral (these words are commonly misplaced with right or wrong which are words of logic not morality). In its descriptive use, morals are arbitrarily and subjectively created by society, philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience. An example of the descriptive usage could be "common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time." The arbitrariness of morality stems from the observation that actions that may be deemed moral in one culture in time may not be classified as such in others or in a different time. The subjectiveness of morality is shown by the observation that actions or beliefs which by themselves do not seem to cause overt harm may be considered immoral, e.g. marrying someone of the same or opposite gender, being an atheist or a theist, etc. Descriptive morality does not explain why anything should be considered immoral, only that it may be classified so. While for the most part immoral acts are classified as such because they cause clear harm, this is not by any means an all encompassing criterion; it's possible that many moral beliefs are due to prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.”
Jim: The simplest analogy I have to illustrate this is the law of gravity, you can believe that it doesn't apply to you, but if you test it by jumping off a tall building you will still hit the sidewalk just as hard. If you choose to kill someone, you will still suffer whatever consequences result from it regardless of whether you think it is okay or not.
e: Gravity is a law of physics that applies to this particular existence. It’s not absolute, it’s conventional. Murder, with exceptions, is against the conventional law, agreed upon by society.
Jim: I don't "hate" people for disagreeing with me about what is true,
e: You see yourself separate from others, This is a duality contrived by ego and self that can be seen through with a shift in consciousness. Then, subject and object becomes as one and all disagreements end, and true tolerance begins . Your opinion of truth is now only an opinion, truth means many different things to many different people.
Jim: But I care enough to warn them that they might be wrong and the consequences may be irreversible and completely destructive.
e: Only if they go against your particular truth which is conventional and arbitrary. I’m sure that if they are dualistic as well, they would warn you that you are way off track too!
Jim: At the same time I respect their right to hold that belief.
e: Of course, neither can prove that he or she is right. Each culture regardless of the religion has lack of virtue, even by following tenets of religion, just look around. I posit that virtue from a book is always two faced and insincere, unless there is a shift in consciousness toward the Absolute, and not a construct of ego!
Jim: My love for my neighbors motivates me to say something. To illustrate, you wouldn't let a child in the street stay there without saying anything if you cared about them would you? You know they may be hit by a car if you don't encourage them to get out of the path of danger. (this isn't a straw-man argument, it is an illustration for my point, okay? Don't focus on the wrong thing.) If you were standing underneath a falling piano, I would at least warn you about it. Would you not do the same for me? This is why I try to reach out and share my beliefs. There are some who don't know how to do it with love and they fail, but they do care. That is why they do it. I don't have to take the time to write all these posts, but I make time because I believe it is a valuable activity for us both.
e: Beliefs are just beliefs, not truth. There are 4,000 religions on our planet all with their particular sets of beliefs, which are all convention, not truth, so pick the one that you resonate with and enjoy! But keep in mind that we are all in the same boat - we can’t prove or beliefs, so why not relax and allow everyone to believe as they choose instead of trying to twist their arms and save them? We can be tolerant of all views if we remember that all views are arbitrary just like ours. It would reduce some of the conflict.
Jim: I appreciate your sharing. This has been educational.
e: Same here Jim, thanks for all of your time and effort. Best of luck to you………..e
I'm not sure how we got off on all this other stuff. I've tried to stay focused on the issue of "tolerance" and it has exploded into a discussion about a bunch of other issues. I suppose I let myself get distracted. I am tempted to address all the assertions you are making, but I won't. We'd be here forever in discussion.
Just as an observation about this, I think you have done a good job dodging the self refutation of your definition of tolerance. You twist reality very well. Unfortunately for you that doesn't change reality. Set the idea of objective truth aside, because without an agreement on what tolerance is, we cannot see the way to resolving conflict (the goal of your article) in general.
Random House Dictionary defines intolerance this way, "unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc."
Yet, your definition of intolerance is when someone will not consider all opinions equally valid.
So you are telling me I am intolerant by holding to my beliefs because I won't consider all opposing views equally valid.
According to the dictionary, I am being tolerant because I respect your right to beleve what you choose. That respect is for you as a person. That doesn't mean I have to consider your beliefs valid and without question. By not my not considering it valid, you would have to say I am intolerant by your definition of tolerance. By not accepting my belief as equally valid, you have violated your own definition of tolerance. Therefore, your idea of tolerance is self-refuting.
This is at the core of the point I am trying to make without getting into the differences between Buddhism and Christianity. This is why I posted my original comment.
Jim: I'm not sure how we got off on all this other stuff.
e: Please refer to my particular answer that is not clear. I gave a detailed (maybe too detailed :) answer to each one of your questions which we can revisit in detail. In earnest I carefully recorded each of your questions and specifically answered them word for word.
Jim: I've tried to stay focused on the issue of "tolerance" and it has exploded into a discussion about a bunch of other issues.
e: I just answered each question, as I am doing now.
Jim; I suppose I let myself get distracted.
e: Perhaps. :-)
Jim: I am tempted to address all the assertions you are making, but I won't. We'd be here forever in discussion.
e: Yes, but it might be a valuable discussion for you down the road. Not now.
Jim: Just as an observation about this, I think you have done a good job dodging the self refutation of your definition of tolerance. You twist reality very well.
e: With all due respect, “twisting reality” and “dodging” are hateful words that should be backed up by examples of where I have done that. Otherwise it is a sleezy debating tactic. Tsk, tsk :) The devil is in the details. Broad brushing and character assassination is a weak debating technique, you are better than that. It’s all here, just refer to the area that you are having problems with. I will take as much time as you need. I like you Jim Anderson.
Jim: Unfortunately for you that doesn't change reality. Set the idea of objective truth aside, because without an agreement on what tolerance is, we cannot see the way to resolving conflict (the goal of your article) in general. Random House Dictionary defines intolerance this way, "unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc."
E: I agree with RHD definition above.
Jim: Yet, your definition of intolerance is when someone will not consider all opinions equally valid.
e: Not all opinions, not conventional opinions such as are legislated, only opinions about the ultimate truth and beliefs regarding it that cannot be argued about since no one knows what it is and only guesses at it because it cannot be expressed, it‘s ineffable.
Jim: So you are telling me I am intolerant by holding to my beliefs because I won't consider all opposing views equally valid.
e: Not at all, you may hold to your beliefs, but when you think that your beliefs are truer than another's, and since beliefs regarding ultimate truths cannot be proven, you are creating a conflict in your mind that cannot be resolved because of a basic misunderstanding of ultimate truth and its nature. That conflict then can lead to anger and anger, as you know, always leads to depression.
Jim: According to the dictionary, I am being tolerant because I respect your right to believe what you choose.
e: Agreed, agreed, agreed!!
Jim: That respect is for you as a person.
e: Thank you, I respect you as well. And I respect your religion. I was a Catholic for too many years and understand all the detailed ins and outs of Christianity. Jesus was my bosum bud, and God; my father :)
Jim: That doesn't mean I have to consider your beliefs valid and without question.
e: Well, you can go one of two ways. You can consider my ultimate truth beliefs to be false, which means that you would in fact have to also believe that your ultimate truth beliefs are false because all ultimate truth beliefs are in the same boat regarding the improvability of the ineffable ultimate truth. OR, . . . you could believe that my beliefs are as valid yours since you cannot prove either. One way relieves conflict in your mind, the other creates it. One way moves toward brotherhood, the other away from it. Now regarding my religious practices, which are conventional truths, there are of course differences, otherwise you would be a Buddhist! But we can be tolerant of others practices as well, because none of them are THE ultimate truth either. We each practice our religions differently because we are attracted by different stimuli, and get better results for ourselves from different modalities. But for me to say that my practices are best for you would be intolerant and disrespectful of your practices. It's okay with me for you to practice as you wish! I don't feel as if I have to "save" you. You are a big boy and can save yourself, or save yourself through Jesus as you might prefer to believe. That's okay. That's your beliefs and I respect that - just not my cup of tea. And I truly believe that your practices can get you into heaven as easily as mine! No problem, I am at peace with you.
Jim; By not my not considering it valid, you would have to say I am intolerant by your definition of tolerance.
e: Yes. By saying that your unprovable beliefs are true, and my unprovable beliefs are false, that would be intolerant as defined above , and ignorant of the facts of ultimate truth, i.e. ultimate truth cannot be proven.
Jim: By not accepting my belief as equally valid, you have violated your own definition of tolerance. Therefore, your idea of tolerance is self-refuting.
e: I accept your beliefs as equally valid to mine, REGARDING ULTIMATE TRUTHS (I thought maybe caps would help me explain :). It‘s all concept and wording. My Nirvana is as inexplicable as your God. Since your God is inexplicable, and my Nirvana is inexplicable, who’s to say that both Nirvana and God are not one in the same, just expressed in different ways and interpreted differently conventionally?
Jim; This is at the core of the point I am trying to make without getting into the differences between Buddhism and Christianity. This is why I posted my original comment.
e: Sure Jim, I hope it is all clearer now. I prefer the practices of Buddhism and you Christianity. What’s wrong with that. It’s only when we say that our way is truth and the other isn’t that we become conflicted. Truth is not something that anyone has a handle on or owns, because it is ineffable.
Thanks again for the discourse. Have a great day…………e
Raymond, you are right when you say, "we are all fundamentally the same." We are all sinners worthy of eternal dealth, unable to change our condition on our own. We are in all in desperate need of Jesus Christ to save us. Even those of us who have Him as as our Saviour are still just sinners saved by grace.
Thanks Terry for the great rating. You prove the point of my article - that we are fundamentally the same because neither of us are in a position to prove or disprove our ineffable truths even though we sincerely believe in them. You believe in Jesus and that you cannot help yourself except through Him, and I believe in Nirvana and that only we, ourselves, can alter our own karma that we created ourselves. And hopefully we can respect each others views. It's okay for different people to have different beliefs.
» left by Jim Anderson(829) Jim Anderson (16 hours 39 minutes ago.) New Comment! "With all due respect, twisting reality and dodging are hateful words that should be backed up by examples of where I have done that. Otherwise it is a sleezy debating tactic. Tsk, tsk :) The devil is in the details. Broad brushing and character assassination is a weak debating technique, you are better than that."
It wasn't meant as hateful and it isn't a character assassination. It is a challenge to your responses. Your character and your actions are not the same thing. I think your answer here contributes to making my point. The way you are responding is breaking down my post into pieces and responding to each piece, sometimes out of context, misinterpreting what was said. I know because I said it. That is what I'm talking about. Most of this discussion has been that way. Also, this isn't a debate, it is a discussion, we aren't acting as adversaries, at least that isn't my intention. I'm simply trying to be honest and inquisitive, perhaps challenge a concept to explore it.
All I asked is that you take my question in context as a whole thought, and answer it without breaking it down into pieces. The result fails to answer the question. There is no inner conflict in me, I know what I put my faith in, I am just pressing a question you aren't directly answering.
This is the core of what I have been exploring. Your idea of tolerance is to consider all views equally valid and true. I believe tolerance is respect for the individual with whom I disagree, but that doesn't mean I have to consider their beliefs valid and without question. If I don't consider your belief valid, you have to say I am intolerant by your definition of tolerance, or you aren't being intellectually honest with yourself. By not accepting my belief as equally valid, you have violated your own definition of tolerance. You may say you consider objective truth an equally valid belief, but you say it isn't valid in another response by dismissing it as an "oxymoron" (because you have a relativistic view of truth.) How can your idea of tolerance not be self-refuting in that respect? (a concept cannot be both valid and not valid at the same time - you can't have it both ways.)
I suspect your answer would simply be this... what I believe is valid for me and what you believe is valid for you, that is how it can be both ways.
If that is the case, what is true for Buddha is true for Buddha, and what is true for you is true for you. That means the attempt to improve and achieve Nirvana is futile because there is no standard of conduct to aspire to that won't change before you achieve it.
Just my observation, I'm not trying to convert you. There is no need to respond.
Thanks for the enlightening discussion.
Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
You are a member of E. Raymond Rock's Fan Club!
