Monday, March 26, 2007
The Two Levels of Truth
Buddhism observes reality from two perspectives: the absolute and the relative. From the absolute, or ultimate perspective, the "self" is seen as illusory, as a construction that is empty of inherent, independent existence. But from the relative perspective (the ordinary, everyday, conventional perspective) we see a conventional "self" independent of other people and things. The absolute and the relative are called the two truths, or the two levels of truth.
Kim Boykin in "Zen for Christians" offers this analogy...
If we examine a strip of film, we see lots of small, separate, still pictures in a row. This is the "absolute" view of a movie. When we run that film through a projector at the right speed and aim the projector at a screen, we see one large moving picture. This is the "relative" view of the movie. From the relative perspective, calling it a "movie" or a "motion picture" makes sense, even though the motion is ultimately illusory. The movie is both many small still pictures and also one large moving picture...
When we get a glimpse of the world from the absolute perspective, we begin to realize the illusory quality of "self," and we begin to carry our "selfhood" more lightly. The more fully we realize no-self, the more we are freed from our subjugation to ego-centered attachments and aversions. The "self" may keep on making its possessive and aggressive little demands, but instead of groveling in submission, we can smile in amusement and decide how to act. We are freed to live more joyfully and compassionately."
Slvia Boorstein (who is also a practicing Jew) puts it like this: "Pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional." Suffering is the complication that our egoism constructs around simple pain.This example is a profound explanation of how our view of the world becomes relative to our "self". We have baggage that exists in the frames of our past memories and anxiety we imagine into the frames in our future. When played full speed in our minds all these frames create an illusion of reality that shapes our present experience. A great deal of Zen practice is slowing down or stopping the projector and dealing with life one frame at a time without the emotional baggage of past memories and future expectations.
This is not to be confused with a self indulgent focus on immediate pleasure. That was my initial impression of the term "present moment" and it is wrong. Instead, it is about generating an attitude of compassion and service that comes from redefining our view of ourselves in relation to other people, our past memories, and our future expectations. The introspective nature of Zen is about removing our attachment to the things that clutter our frames and cloud our view of the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Interesting. Reminds me of these verses:
“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29)
"Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known" (1 Corinthians 13:12).
Mike,
Since you're talking about truth, I can't help myself but to quote from Jack Nicholson's character in A Few God Men:
"You want truth, You can't handle the truth." Ah, isn't it so, truth is often something too hot to handle!!!
Thanks for indulging me as I contributed nothing of value to the discussion!!!
Hiya Nuts,
So if truth is relative in the moment but absolute from the bird's eye view, how do we know when we are at the bird's eye view? For instance, you said that your initial impression was wrong, but how do you know you are now "right"?
For an additional for instance, do you operate in this paradigm as you construct computer code? How would your customers feel if you thought you had an absolute view but in fact it was only absolute relative to yourself?
And if you caught my meaning, then to what is my statement relative?
You did read Ms. Boykin's book, right? You derived meaning from it? How do you know?
Who is able to give or obtain the glimpse of absolute? How will you know when you see it?
Compassion and service is relative to those who need it and those who give it, right? So what makes anyone's opinion wrong on compassion and service? It's just their bird's eye view.
Jason
Jason,
You confused this use of "absolute" and "relative" for a completely different discussion. This is not the typical postmodern relative v. absolute conversation. The discussion is not about right and wrong. It has nothing to do with finding the correct truth. It is about perspective and the imposition of our "selves" onto our the layers of truth. Also, if you will read the post again, you will find it to be in harmony with your preference for absolute truth. You, me, and Ms. Boykin are actually on the same side of the "absolute v. relative" argument.
One of the interesting points about buddhism is it's teachings (dharma) are often intentionally paradoxical and have no correct answer. The point is to get you to think, then get you to move past thinking as you realize you had been thinking within the context of our own selfishness (the wrong level). It helps you move past the lower level of solving the problem of "truth" and move toward the level of practice by throwing a monkey wrench in your minds natural problem solving mode.
If you want answers to these questions that you keep poking in all my posts then please read a few of the books I'm reveiwing and get the answers there. Better yet, try "sitting" and see if the answers become clear. You are more than welcome to post your own observations after you've given that effort. If you won't give that effort then I don't feel obligated to respond. I had to remove many of your comments because they didn't make any sense and often were not even related to the topic or intended to move the conversations toward your own agenda. Not to mention some were very nasty and hurtful.
If you have a point then please make it. I've noticed that you have become a bit of a "troll" by wandering onto this blog and now the blogs of my friends that you oppose with hopes of starting an argument. Is that really mature and helpful? I've made that mistake in the past and had to correct my behavior. All of us Christians really need to move past this type of thing. These arguments have been had for centuries and are well documented elsewhere. I feel we need to move past it.
I appreciate your passion, but I encourage you to try and locate common threads of agreement when browsing other's blogs and highlight those instead of looking for the difference. Another person's blog may not be the place to state your own views about unrelated topics. As I've said, I have made that mistake myself in the past.
Post a Comment