If I am not mistaken, Tenzen Gyatzo HHDL is translated by Tupten Jinpa in quoting ‘another Amado Master’ as stating “Emptiness does not mean the absence of functionality”. Meaning, that although the phenomenon we experience in our ordinary human existence does not have inherent existence, but evolves in and out of existence, because of many causes and conditions (dependent origination), that does not imply that the reality that we experience is not real in the human sense. This insight is fundamentally important in the liberation from suffering, and in this context, the attainment of the direct experiential knowledge of emptiness is facilitated by syllogistic reasoning. This post was stated as a question because I wanted to earn reputation points in order to respond to another question on the nature of emptiness.

I heard the New York Times, wrote recently: "truth is bad, truth is inconvenient!" William Shakespeare once wrote "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so". - when we stop thinking it's bliss! and "all the worlds a stage and all the men and women merely players", that our time on earth is just a play a show, in order to learn. Rumi wrote "beyond ideas of good and ideas of bad there is a field, I will meet you there." Buddha is quoted in the Dhammapada as saying, "rely on nothing, until you want nothing!" Are we all enlightened already, we just haven't realised it yet? As Ramana Maharshi has appeared to indicate. I heard a person recently state "forgiveness is one of the highest forms of love". Could truth and silence be higher?

I read the following on the internet: > The Truth of Suffering (Dukkha): Life involves suffering, > dissatisfaction, and impermanence. This suffering is inherent in > birth, aging, illness, and death. > > The Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (Nirodha): It is possible to end suffering by eliminating attachment, craving, and ignorance. If suffering is inherent in life, how can suffering be ended while being alive? Must I commit suicide to end suffering? Is committing suicide eliminating attachment, craving and ignorance? What exactly did the Buddha teach in this First Noble Truth?

In Dhammapada, verse 129, Buddha states: > All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. Taking this at face value, obviously however, not everyone fears death. People who had their amygdala removed or atrophied due to a disease do not have fear of death. Likewise, psychopaths seem to have no such fear. Many people do not tremble at violence at all, like psychopaths and military personnel. Then Buddha says that to not kill or cause another to kill, one should put themselves into another's shoes. But many people are incapable of this, like people with autism spectrum disorder. Taking all this into account and given that what Buddha says here seems to be wrong, how are we to understand this? (I believe this question would only apply to the Theravada Buddhists since AFAIK Mahayana does not acknowledge the Pali Cannon and therefore the Dhammapada, though of course, everyone is free to answer).

A couple years back I was successfully working in my company (which at that point was the 12th successive year in my career), when I started to all of a sudden get symptoms of delusional and paranoid disorder, where I thought the police were out to get me and that there were people/ cameras monitoring me everywhere. I ended up quitting my job voluntarily and pretty much stayed locked up in my parents house for the next 2 years due to fear and the continuing delusions. (I ended up being hospitalized during this time in which the doctors diagnosed me with this disorder otherwise by myself I was refusing to go to the doctor and was denying my disease). I was lucky enough to recover from the disease and am back to a completely normal mental state, but now I need to get a job again in my same field to support myself and my family (after such an extensive gap of 2 years). I tried saying the truth on my resume that I had to take a break due to a severe illness - that didn’t work with any employer- reality is no one wants to hire anybody who was out of work whatever their personal reason must be. Theres probably too much competition, no one wants to risk this, and there’s just a negative viewpoint that employers in general carry about people who are out of work (especially due to mental illness), which I think is unfair. Since I didn’t want to lie on my actual resume/experience, I tried a bunch of other alternatives – 1) I took some time out to take care of a sick family member, 2) said I had to take over family business, 3) took a sabbatical, 4) took some time out for learning and development, 5) did some advisory/consulting work in between- all these didn’t work with employers either (I know, not good, these are still all lies). There is no possibility of me returning to my old company also. So now I’m left with a tough decision - I don’t see any other way except to lie on my actual resume and experience to save my career. If I don’t lie, I have to start a new career which would cost lots of money (for college/certifications/training) which I don’t have (or that my family doesn’t have). Or I’ll have to work an odd job, which would mean trouble for me and my family surviving financially and I couldn’t properly support everyone. I also thought of other options like starting a business with low or zero cost or even another career field where they would provide the training for free but, there is nothing that sticks out to me and nothing near the level of financial support/stability I need for my family. Asking for opinions and help here: Would lying in this situation be acceptable as per dharma because : 1) I internally regret it constantly , 2) because my intention is not to hurt anyone, 3) because I am in a desperate situation to survive financially, and 4) because of the stigma people have of people who have had mental illnesses? Elsewhere in life, I strictly follow the precept of never telling a lie and living a life based on truth. Due to this, I am being torn apart inside right now because I really don’t want to lie.

A little context to describe what I am looking for and why I am looking for it: It is my strong intuition that "suffering" is a label that we give to a phenomenon that, upon deeper inspection, we discover to be an "inner conflict" between (1) a part of us that craves a particular sensory experience (kāma) and (2) a part of us which desires to see things as they actually are (yathabhutañanadassana) and that the resolution of these inner conflicts by relinquishing sense-desires in favor of clear seeing is the means by which suffering is ended and that the āsava are the biases which keep us clinging to sense-desires until we are strong enough to relinquish them and that each resolution of an inner conflict of this nature results in a destruction of the āsava (asavakkhaye ñana) and that each such destruction brings us closer and closer to full awakening wherein all āsava have been removed inner conflicts no longer go unresolved because avijjā (the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths) has been destroyed i.e. we no longer respond to dukkha (the arrow in the heart who purpose is to alert us to that the map of the world we have constructed has made a misprediction that should be corrected) by ignoring evidence that our views are compelling us to make bad decisions in favor of clinging to sense-desires. and that this works because the sensory motor wherein all āsava have been removed inner conflicts no longer go unresolved because avijjā (the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths) has been destroyed i.e. we no longer respond to dukkha (this discomfort of misprediction) by ignoring evidence that our views are compelling us to make bad decisions. brain evolved because it enabled beings to respond to sensory experience with moves in the world that improved the probability of gene survival i.e. the trait of making accurate predictions (saṅkhāra) originally served the master of the zero-sum game of gene-survival (aka "Māra) but the zero-sum game intensified competition which created selection pressure for ever more accurate predictions leading to the point where clinging to the original gene-survival compulsions actually become an impediment to clear seeing and that the choice to relinquish this impediment in favor the welfare of all living beings was the choice the Buddha made when he renounced Māra and attained nibbana. Although everything is a hypothesis, and all hypotheses should be considered impermanent (sabbe saṅkhāra annicā), and all hypothesis are subject to the discomfort of misprediction (sabbe saṅkhāra dukkha), I have a very high degree of certainty that this hypothesis is correct. Nevertheless, the "fly in the ointment" is the uncomfortable truth that I am not familiar with a Pali term to represent the concept of an "inner conflict" between these 2 parts. My best guess is that (1) I am attributing an incorrect meaning to a term that I already know which represents this concept or (2) The term was removed from the canon by the same forces who removed the 4 resolves (adhiṭṭhāna: sacca, pañǹa, cāga, upasama; which described how to actually resolve the unresolved conflict). I'm hoping that (1) is true and that someone here can point me in the right direction.

We find plenty of similar discussions in the Theravada tradition, cf. (for example) kv6.1 or kv5.5 kv5.5 https://suttacentral.net/kv5.5/en/aung-rhysdavids?lang=en In my answer to the following question https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/45940/ I mention in passing that (fantasy) hobbits are non-existents. Why? Because they are not subject to cause and effect, because they do not momentarily disintegrate, and because they leave no trace on the world. 'Unreal' and 'non-existent', to me, are synonyms. This leads onto a thread of comments discussing the putative existence of hobbits, hypotheticals, and whether or not one can distinguish the existence of hobbits from, for example, chairs. My grounding in this is presentation of the divisions of the selfless in as found in volume three of Jam-yang-shay-pa’s (1648-1721) "Great Exposition of Tenets" (there is a commentary on this in Chapter 1 of Hopkins "Meditation on Emptiness"). While the text itself is a Mahayana text rooted in Madhyamaka, volume three enumerates some important aspects of Buddhist reality, primarily following Abhidharma stemming from the Sarvāstivāda. What do we find? The first is the division into that which is (skt: sat), and that which is not (skt: asat). The word that describes this dichotomy is 'reality' or 'truth', or 'existence' (skt: satya, pali: sacca) - but 'existence' here is not to be confused with 'bhava' - because permanents (Pali: nicca) are sat, while nicca are not bhava (Bhava are things - compounded, while nicca are absences, and are uncompounded. Both nicca (as absences) and things can be found, therefore they are 'sat'). If we deny nicca, then we deny cessations - if we deny cessations, we have denied the third noble truth. Classical examples of non-existents are a hare's horn, turtle hair, clothing made from turtle hair. Things like a reflection's laugh. Also, inherently existing phenomena, or a self-created god, or an omnipotent being, or permanent products, or souls. So, the questions are: Are fictional hobbits 'sat' or 'asat'? Are hypotheticals 'sat' or 'asat'? How about a chair, or an elephant? What about the constant, π (pi)? I might be wrong - and am happy to be corrected, but I would consider hypotheticals, hobbits, constants, abstract objects (platonic abstracts) to be **asat**. Why? Because they are fabrications, narratives, stories - the stories they belong to are **sat**, and the stories themselves can instruct and inform us, but the objects in those stories are **asat** : they do not exist, they are not true, they are not real. If we allow for hobbits to exist, and if our rationale for such allowance similarly pervades all non-existents then we must also allow for omnipotent, self-created gods to exist, and souls. If we do that, then we cannot differentiate between what is a noble truth and what is not, and Dharma no longer holds truth, but is merely another story. Non-existent things, being unreal, they are both selfless, and are uncompounded. Being uncompounded they are neither able to create causes nor suffer them: They are not dependent arisings (as they are not subject to cause and effect) but they are dependent designations. Am I wrong? How so? **Addendum** - My question is concerned with conventional truths. I'm not attempting to establish or discuss objective/intrinisc truths. - If we allow for (fantasy) hobbits and if such rationale similarly pervades all non-existents, then we must allow for souls (because our reasons for how hobbits can exist do not exclude how souls can exist). - If we have allowed for souls, we do not have the three marks of existence. Because: anatta - If we do not have the three marks, we do not have insight into anattā / anātman - If we do not have insight then we do not have the three higher trainings (tisikkhā/triśikṣā). - Without the three higher trainings there is no noble truth of the path. - Without the truth of the path there is no Buddha dharma. - Without Buddha dharma there is no refuge, nor is there the awakening of enlightenment. *(amended in light of a good point made by Yeshe Tenley below)*

In MN 61 the Buddha teaches his young son the importance of being truthful.  This is an amazing sutta! So wise, and yet so elegant and straightforward, that even a seven-year-old can learn something from it. Are there other suttas in the canon that **explain** the importance of not lying to oneself, or to others?

It seems that there are different "versions" of Buddhism today, and many of the teachings from these different versions appear to be at odds with one another. I'd like a way to tell which teachings are incomplete, corrupted, or flat-out fakes. If Buddhism is really a "science" of the mind, like many teachers say, shouldn't there be ways to test things? Are there ways to test the authenticity of a teaching?

There are some teachings that go along the lines of: 'You are already enlightened. You just need to realize it. Actually there's no need for you to do anything. If you try to strive for enlightenment you just end up falling into the trap of dualism. Samsara, Nirvana, treat it all like a dream' On the other hand, there are teachings which are like this: 'Work hard to rid your mind from its negative qualities, ignorance, greed, delusion. Do this practice. Purify your mind. Abandon worldly attachment. Also please do this sadhana everyday if not you break your empowerment vows and fall into vajra hell' How to reconcile this dichotomy? Is asking this question even necessary? I am aware that asking this question is inherently dualistic, and that these views don't necessarily contradict because the first is an expression of the truth at the ultimate level, while the second is the conventional level. For someone whose mind isn't at the level to embody the first view, should I continue practicing? Or am I missing something entirely?

I read that atman is pure bliss I read that anatta is pure bliss >-Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day? > >-Is atman the same as anatta in anyway? If yes/no then why? > >-Is anatman the same as atta in anyway? If yes/no then why?

There are Two Truths in Mahayana Buddhism Conventional and Ultimate. I can't understand how it works. For example: Two Mahayana Buddhists have realized the absolute truth: and one Buddhist tells the other that he has a headache. But how does another Buddhist perceive it according to absolute truth?

Can a bodhisattva or lay Buddhist be too concerned with truth at the expense of compassion and altruism? **What is the relationship between truth and compassion?** e.g.. is the truth always compassionate, and if not, which is more important? Or, can we pursue the Buddha dharma out of a desire for the truth alone. etc.

Are the Buddha's words the source of the Pali Canon? What evidence is there of the Pali Canon's origin? What do scholars say?

Isn't everything in this world equal in value? Can we say that the value of a human being is greater than the dust?

There is a conventional self, so is anything conventionally permanent? Answer from any reputable tradition.

I think the conventional, mundane, truth in Tendai is the claim that karma is an illusion, for a number of reasons, such as the identity of the perfect mundane truth with the Madhyamaka ultimate truth. Zhiyi -- importantly -- quotes Nagarjuna's Middle Treatise: > All things that arise through causes and conditions, I explain as > emptiness, Again, this is a conventional designation. Again, this is > the meaning of the Middle Way. ---------- I believe that in Tendai the conventional truth is just a different means of asserting the ultimate truth, that each of the three truths are both one truth, and different > although three [phrases], they are one [in meaning]; although one, > this is three; [they are] not mutually exclusive. means of verbally falsifying reality > The three types are all empty because they are beyond verbalization > and conceptualization. The three types are all conventional because > they merely exist as [provisional] verbal [con- structs]. The three > types are all the Middle, because they are identical to the true > aspects [of reality] ---------- So I wondered if the Buddhist law of cause and effect all there is to Buddhism -- and Buddhahood and reality -- according to Tendai, yet also an illusion. > Things are neither merely nominal, nor merely real Ziporyn, 2012, 60 Inescapable, but unreal.

Was he trying to convince or persuade people? Did he go towards them or did he let them come to spread the Dhamma? How did he react when he was not understood or listened? I have noticed that I often tend to get carried away in debates where I try to convince my interlocutor of the truth of Buddhism and I get angry when he doesn't listen to me or disagree with me and then I blame myself for having debated in the first place. Then I often find myself with the feeling that I should have kept quiet, and I remember this quote: > He detested objective truths, the burden of argument, sustained > reasoning. He disliked demonstrating, he wanted to convince no one. > *Others* are a dialectician’s invention. > > - Cioran, The Trouble with Being Born Should we keep quiet in a "save yourself before saving others" logic?

**What is the nature of a true cognition in Buddhism, or what Buddhism considers as truth?** Is it the same as what people consider a logical conclusion made with an empirical process? I feel it cannot be exactly that as various truths exist in Buddhism that aren't easily verifiable with mere deduction. In addition, **how important is truthful cognition/perception in Buddhism?** How far can you get practicing things like mindfulness, compassion, etc. without being capable of ascertaining things as 'true' for oneself. Finally, and I guess I should've asked this before, **what effects/qualities does true information have in Buddhism?** Is it timeless? Universal? Beyond doubt? So to clarify, these three questions are respectively asking **the nature, the importance, and the consequences** of truth in Buddhism.

I stumbled upon a question about the danger in lying and Andrei's answer caught my attention. He claims that '...key qualities of good character are: Honesty, Integrity, Responsibility'. Then it made me wonder - is being politically correct an obstacle on the way to enlightenment? By the term political correctness I understand 'enforced language, ideas, or policies that address **perceived** discrimination against political, social or economical groups ("protected classes")'. >It seems that: > >Lots of public figures no longer say what they really think but they mince their words so as not to offend any of the groups. > >Media doesn't report certain facts/events/results of studies in fear of offending groups which won't feel comfortable with certain facts/events/results. > >Most of the time it is not based on honesty. > >Clearly this leads to violated integrity. > >In everyday life we also seem to be forced into political correctness. > >Challenging someone's views can be **perceived** as an attack and more and more jokes are **perceived** as offending (although it used to be a great virtue to be able to laugh at oneself). I would be mostly interested in what *contemporary Buddhist teachers and masters* think about this topic. Please refrain from sharing personal opinion if it's not based on specific teachings. I am looking for advice from Buddhist masters and texts mostly.