Truth will never change

[barney]

Dharma is Changeless but its Practice Changes in each Age

 

Sometimes it has been said that righteousness has declined and that the dharma has diminished. But that is not correct. Dharma is based on truth. Truth is absolute; it can never undergo change or be diminished. However, in any particular age, the practice of dharma may undergo change. God incarnated as Krishna, not to re-establish dharma, but to re establish the practice of dharma. Dharma never left, nor did it ever change; but it was out of use.

 

The seven facets of dharma have been present in all the past ages;. However, each age has had practices most appropriate to that age. For instance, in ancient times when spiritual awareness was very high, the appropriate spiritual practice was meditation. In the age in which Rama incarnated, the most appropriate practice was penance and sacrifice. In the Krishna era, the practice was ritual and ceremonial worship. And in the past five thousand years of this present materialistic age, in which spiritual consciousness is at a low ebb around the world, the chanting of the holy name is the most appropriate practice. But, just as in the earlier ages there were also many believers who practiced the repetition of mantra, evoking the name of God, so also, in this age there are people who take to meditation, there are people who take to doing penance and there are people who take to ritual worship. But the principal practices depend upon the general character and mood of the times.

 

Different practices give different forms, so to speak, to dharma. But the inner flow of dharma is always the same. Truth will never change. Truth is always one, never two. In all the three times, past, present and future, in all the three worlds, earth, heaven and the nether world, in all the three states, waking, dream and deep sleep, and in all the three worldly qualities, passivity, activity and equilibrium, truth is always one. Since truth is one and the very basis of dharma, dharma cannot change. It never wavers or undergoes any modifications. But duty and practice will undergo intermittent change.

 

For example, take a person who is doing a job. How long will this job be his duty? Until he retires from that particular job. Until then, he goes to the office every day. Once he retires, his duty changes. After retirement, he might get involved in doing business. Then he says that pursuing his business is his duty. In doing business, he may be tempted to gain some extra profit by taking to under-handed methods; he may try to earn money through lying and cheating. Even though he may have now taken to lying and cheating in order to earn money, he will still consider the work he is doing as his occupation and his duty. When so many changes can come about in duty, how can it be described as dharma ? These changing activities that occupy your time in the interest of providing for your living needs, cannot automatically be described as dharma. Duty becomes dharma when it shines with the virtues that make up the facets of dharma.

 

 

 

 

[maadhav]

yes.

 

but the perception of the truth does change, and different people see the same truth differently due to their guna, karma, passions, etc.

 

as one advances sipritual he/she sees the truth more clearly as it is.

 

that is why we hindus pray:

 

asato maa sat gamaya

tamaso maa jyotir gamaya

 

[Guest guest]

"Truth will never change. Truth is always one, never two. In all the three times, past, present and future, in all the three worlds, earth, heaven and the nether world, in all the three states, waking, dream and deep sleep, and in all the three worldly qualities, passivity, activity and equilibrium, truth is always one"

 

Let us take the case of a rose.Now imagine the situation where people are asked to state the truth about the color of this rose.

 

"THis Rose is red"--comes the first statement.

 

"This rose is pinkish red"--comes the next statement from a second person"

 

"This rose is pinkish red with dark spots on the edges"--comes the next statement from the third person.

 

"THis rose is has a slight shade of green with a pinkish red domination in the center and dark black spots with a tilt of brown in the edges"- is the next statement.

 

Who lied here?Who said the truth here?

 

All gave their perceptions of the color of the rose here.The last statement was better than the first one,but we still can come with a better statement always.

 

It is difficult for man to describe what he sees with words.Not a single language in the world has words that can exactly describe the color of a rose.So when you cannot exactly describe what you see,do you tell the truth?

 

You dont.

 

Truth doesnt float in the air across time and space.Man by his words makes statements.He gives the title "truth" to statements which are similiar to his observation.

 

For example in the above statements about rose the last person to give the statement would have called the first statement as untruth,but actually the first person was sincere and honest and did not intend to lie.

 

Truth is always subjective and perceived.Shankara once famously quoted "If nobody sees sky,will it be blue?".If nobody sees sky the color of it is meaningless.If somebody doesnt come and name the color of sky as blue,it isnt blue.

 

 

 

 

[maadhav]

<< Truth is always subjective and perceived. >>

 

to that i call a relative truth.

and there is aboulute truth,and that is one.

 

for the peaceful functioning of a society,

there is need to be an agreement on what a word really means. without agreement, ther would be confusion and strifes.

 

for some subject, any one can have any opinion, and no one cares for it. for example, if i insist that sky is green, it wuold not hurt any one.

 

when there is no agreement, there is possibility of a strife or war. if all know the truth as it is, and then all agree as to what is the right conduct of each party in a perticular situation, then there would be no strife or war.

 

becaue all love peace, all try to tell others what is truth

(except for some crooks who try to delude you to cheat you.)

total agreement by all on some important subjects is not possible in this world. therefore strifes and wars cannot be avoided. so, krishna says when to fight and when not to fight.

 

knowing the truth helps one to avoid trouble for self, and for others as well. that is why parents guide children;

and gurus, sadhus, and shastras guide the individualas and society.

 

just knowing truth is not enough.

one should know well how to act based on the truth.

 

duryodhaa said: jaanati dharmah, na cha me pravritti.

 

so for him truth does not help.

and untruth never can help any one eventually.

 

[barney]

The Rose was called rose originally for it's color and I'm sure it also has a scientific name for it but most commonly people call it Rose[as in English]. So the truth is there and there is no change to it. Be it is whatever shade or color it may appear now but it is still a rose. May be if you want to lie you may call the rose "jasmine" and vice versa. Now that is not the truth. When we talk about TRUTH here we mean GOD. When we say God it means the TRUTH. Live by truth and no harm will come to you. That is what the Vedas says and all rishis and gurus say. Treat your mother as mother and not as your servant, is the truth. Call your father as father and not uncle is the truth. Treat your sisters as sisters and not as whores and that is the truth. Do service to the needy and not by selfish means is the truth.

 

So there are many things relate to truth in this world, infact eveything is related to truth but the selfish and greedy man does not want to see the truth but interprets it in his own way to satisfay his greed and that is the truth here. A liar may interpret the TRUTH in his own way to delude others. A cheat may interpret TRUTH in his own way to satisfy his own guilt. A rouge may interpret TRUTH in his own way too but a divine person would interpret TRUTH as TRUTH and none other way.

[Guest guest]

"""A liar may interpret the TRUTH in his own way to delude others. A cheat may interpret TRUTH in his own way to satisfy his own guilt. A rouge may interpret TRUTH in his own way too but a divine person would interpret TRUTH as TRUTH and none other way."""""

 

If you say rogues interpret truth in their own way, i say that everybody even saints interpret truth in their own way.For example vedas must have meant only one meaning.But shankara,madhva and ramanuja came out with three different interpretations.So does it mean that two of these holy men were liars?

 

Even divine persons cannot interpret truth as truth.If it is so why couldnt the divine persons ramanuja,madhva and shankara couldnt come out with a single interpretation of truth?Werent they divine?

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

as usual you are interpreting the vedic culture in an atheistic way

 

if great saints present an apparently different truth, it is simply your illusion who's cannot understand the invinite variety of the absolute

 

god is the more various personality.. his ontologic variety is from his personal features and not from maya

[Guest guest]

"as usual you are interpreting the vedic culture in an atheistic way if great saints present an apparently different truth, it is simply your illusion who's cannot understand the invinite variety of the absolute"

 

Let me be the ignorant twister as you say.Let me be the one who cannot understand the infinite variety of god.But since you dont have any such illusions all you have to do is answer one question.

 

Which of these 3 great mahans were right?If you say all 3 were correct then you have to explain the relationship between jeevathma and paramathma.These 3 personalities have given 3 different versions for this.But since I am living in illusion I cannot understand it.So you have to clarify to this illusion prone one about The TRUTH.

 

 

[barney]

p-v,

 

Please do not get too emotional. All three mahans had their own feelings and understand of the existence and God. But the truth is the same but interpreted in different ways. The subject they dwelled on was God and none other and so they perceive God and the scriptures in their own way. If you are a follower fo Shankara so be it and no one is going to hang you for that or if you follow Ramanuja that too is ok as no one is going to accuse you of being a deviasionist and finally if your are a follower of Madhva so be it for all three spoke of God as Brahman and saw the truth in different aspect as the see fit. Why are you having doubts when you have read all three and found three different ways. Ways are many but the ultimate path is one and that is the TRUTH.

[Guest guest]

No emotions Barney.I just give two different quotes from you in this thread.

 

quote 1 from barney:

So there are many things relate to truth in this world, infact eveything is related to truth but the selfish and greedy man does not want to see the truth but interprets it in his own way to satisfay his greed and that is the truth here. A liar may interpret the TRUTH in his own way to delude others. A cheat may interpret TRUTH in his own way to satisfy his own guilt. A rouge may interpret TRUTH in his own way too but a divine person would interpret TRUTH as TRUTH and none other way.

 

quote 2 from barney:

 

All three mahans had their own feelings and understand of the existence and God. But the truth is the same but interpreted in different ways.all three spoke of God as Brahman and saw the truth in different aspect as the see fit. Why are you having doubts when you have read all three and found three different ways. Ways are many but the ultimate path is one and that is the TRUTH.

 

I only pointed out this inconsistency in your views on truth.I am a devout follower of shankara.I also never get emotional in debate forums.I respect you as an intelligent debater in this forum with good values and morals.May god bless you in all ways.

[barney]

I wish the same for you too. It's good to debate as we will learn more about our own belief as well as others. Infact I studing comparative theology and I had talks with Muslims and Christians. I have learned one thing from them and that is, no matter what they would not compromise with Hinduism. The Christian believe that only through Jesus one can go to paradise and the Muslim believe there is only on God and he is Allah and Mohammed is his last mesanger. They do not believe in any other path except theirs alone. It is not easy to handle this kind of fanatical mind and I thought I had enough of them but here I find there Hindus trying to convience each other and debate over who is superior Krishna or Shiva or Vishnu.

 

Those with less knowledge in the path to God believe that God is somewhere in a place called Haven and that he is seperate from us. Well, if that is what they want to believe than so be it.

 

Here is what Sri Ramakrishna says to people of such quality.

 

"He is born in vain, who having attained the human birth, so difficult to get, does not attempt to realize God in this very life. Seekest thou God ? Then seek Him in man ! His Divinity is manifest more in man than in any other object. Man is the greatest manifestation of God".

 

 

"It is said that truthfulness alone constitutes the spiritual discipline of the Kaliyuga (i.e. modern age). If a man clings tenaciously to truth he ultimately realizes God".

 

"Women whether naturally good or not, whether chaste or unchaste, should always be regarded as images of the Blissful Divine Mother".

 

"Purify the spectacles of your mind and you will see that the world is God".

 

"God is everywhere but He is most manifest in man. So serve man as God. That is as good as worshipping God".