In one sense I thought maybe we shouldn't chant our usual chant for opening a scripture because in some kind of sectarian sense I'm not going to be talking about a scripture tonight. But, you know, it's kind of a non-sectarian sense, who knows where the Dharma is, so. The reason why I wanted to talk about this was partly because of Jim's question, I think he wasn't clear about the difference between some of these different theories of truth. And these theories of truth are, the way I'm going to talk about tonight, I'm going to talk about Western theories of truth and then later I'll talk about the Buddhist theories of truth.

[01:02]

So the Western theories of truth, the main ones, just the main ones, the three main ones are the coherence theory of truth, which is put forth in ancient classical form by Aristotle and Aquinas, and in modern times people like Bertrand Russell and G.E. Moore. And then the next theory is the pragmatic theory, and that's probably the most famous representative of that is William James and his modern philosopher who is an interesting guy named Richard Rorty, and the third theory, main theory, is coherence theory, and the first one is correspondence, the second one is pragmatic theory, the third one is coherence

[02:16]

theory. In coherence, the classical representatives are Hegel, Leibniz, Bradley. Modern ones are, in a sense, kind of a harbinger of it is Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Gadamer, Berger and Lachman, Quinn, these people, Derrida. So very simply, correspondence theory, of course, as you can tell by the age of the philosophers that represent it, is the oldest, and you can see it sounds like it was pretty much the basic kind of theory, the basic kind of theory of truth, the most predominant one from Greece up until 18th century or maybe 17th century, before people started to notice

[03:18]

or become more aware of some of the faults of correspondence theory, some of the weaknesses of it, which just coincides with the rise of what we call modern science and some ideas of what objectivity means and what verifying objective data is about. So coherence theory is that if you say something is true, it's true if there is an objective phenomenon to verify it. Correspondence is an assertion of truth is true and can be proved as so by using objective criteria, and this will be true universally and this will be true whether you make the statement or not.

[04:18]

Like if I say Liz is in the room, if it's according to correspondence theory, that is true if I can objectively demonstrate it and in a way that will be universal. So like if we have ways of verifying that she's over there in the room now, we also have ways to do that anytime by the same criterion, we can also say she's not in the room by the same criterion and so on. And also, she's in the room whether I say so or not. So the reality is independent of the statement and there's real objective correspondence. There's a correspondence and there's an objective thing that it corresponds to. That's correspondence theory very simply. Now, part of the reason its weakness is that actually as philosophy of science developed, people started to realize that actually these objective phenomena are hard to find.

[05:24]

But in the old days, they thought it was easier to find. And the other two theories also sort of point to how come it is that it's hard to find objective criteria. One is that I might make statements and then depending on what I want to get out of my life or what I want to get out of the statement or even what statements I make might have something to do with what's useful to me or what's useful to us. So because I'm concerned with human utility and human usefulness and fundamentally because I'm concerned with myself, my perceptions are distorted by my self-concern. And so although I'm looking for objective proof, it's distorted and compromised by my self-concern or my utility. Also, when you make a statement, you're already in a system of the language in which

[06:27]

the statement is made and that also compromises the verification of the material because it's made within a certain cultural linguistic system. So the objectivity of the proof of the correspondence is compromised and in the West, people weren't so aware of that until the last three or four hundred years, that kind of objectivity issue. The strength of correspondence theory is that it's firmly realistic and whether it can find independent data or not, at least that's the idea. And also, it corresponds more with the normal way of thinking and also corresponds with the way we actually do operate. But again, its weakness is that it really is difficult to find this independent universal

[07:35]

data to corroborate this truth claim. And we live in a time when there has been a strong retreat from this classical and most predominant theory of truth, again, for some of these reasons I've pointed out. Because we human beings really do distort things in various deceptive ways. So if we say something and we try to go find the objective proof for it, if we have any investment in this truth, we will reach out in the world and find the objective proof. But the way we find it may not be an objective search. For example, we may not notice the things that don't prove it and we may have the ability

[08:37]

to make other people turn away from and not notice the things which wouldn't prove it by powerful arguments can make people not able to see the contradictory information. But by highlighting certain kinds of information so strongly and so beautifully out of self-interest, you can hide other things from people which would contradict your theory. And since human beings are into that, they present things in these ways. So we've been catching ourselves with that for the last few hundred years and so people are backing off that. Nietzsche pointed out what he called, again, the perspectivism, you know, that depending on your perspective, morality, one moral thing can look really different. And a lot of other things, because of perspectivism, lose their substantial, objective, independent

[09:38]

reality. And then following him, Wittgenstein, very powerful in the sense of saying that, again, he's actually representing the other tradition, but I just show that all these truth statements that we make within the correspondence thing are actually, according to Nietzsche, statements about language. Everything you say is really about the system of saying. All the linguistic expressions of truth that you make are really not referring to something extrinsic, independent, and objective vis-a-vis your language system, but are really about following according to the rules of language. That's Wittgenstein. Which, you know, again, that's the coherence theory, too, to some extent. That's how the coherence theory will poke holes in the correspondence theory. In other words, language doesn't refer to anything. It doesn't refer to anything, except it does refer to something, it refers to itself. But it doesn't refer to anything extrinsic to the statement.

[10:41]

So you make statements which are supposed to be about something, but actually the statements are about not the statement necessarily, but about the rules of statement-making, the overall language game in which the statement appears. You've got this language game which naturally is operated by human beings and it keeps exuding more language. And some of the languages it exudes are assertions of truth. But really what they're talking about is the system which gave rise to it. That's Wittgenstein's point. Okay? But to complete the circle, if it wasn't for correspondence theory, the language wouldn't be making statements of truth. Because we wouldn't be interested in saying something about truth unless there was something except for correspondence theory, because the reason why we're really interested in truth is because of the correspondence between what we say and our lives. So we really do have kind of like a correspondence theory heart. But if we believe that we're really talking about something objective, actually, we have

[11:47]

to be very careful of that belief. Okay, so the next one, that was just a little bit about correspondence theory plus some little criticism of it. Next is the pragmatic one, and that is that basically what's true is what facilitates our human activities. So again, it's not proposing to be universal. It bears on human activities. And so truth assertions are taken very much as a function of our specific human activities and therefore are not universal and will be judged on the basis of their success or failure in furthering our activities and our overall well-being. That's what we will call true under the pragmatic theory.

[12:50]

Now, you may say, well, that's not self-serving, but someone might say, well, I think that a lot of the people have always ... when people have been making truth statements in the past and believing or understanding them in terms of correspondence theory, they were doing that as part of human activity too. So the pragmatic view is that, looking back over history, that's what human beings have been doing all along. They are always making these statements for the usefulness of the statement. Now, making correspondence statements, part of the usefulness of correspondence statements is it satisfies this human thing of judging between true and false, if not ... well, if it does satisfy it, then someone would say that serves a pragmatic purpose of satisfying that human impulse to say things and be certain of things and be certain that this is true and be certain that this is false. It satisfies some human need. It also satisfies a philosophical need.

[13:58]

So in looking back over the time when people were making truth statements and understanding them in terms of correspondence theory, you can still see they were actually serving their own purposes. Aristotle was making a living as a philosopher. Aquinas was becoming a famous church doctor. They all had a good deal. They were making a living and they were exerting power over millions of people, and they become famous, they become immortal by what they said. It was very useful to them. That's a satisfying human thing to do for a lot of humans, becoming immortal. And at the time too, their truth statements were such, and the way that they proved them, the way that they conjured up objective proof and showed that there was a correspondence between what they said and what's actually happening, that was useful to them. And that satisfied them and it satisfied, I guess, the people who were around them. Just like the Buddha, when the Buddha gave certain talks, the people there were happy to hear them. So it was useful to the whole group what Buddha said.

[15:05]

The coherence theory is different though, because it doesn't really talk about usefulness, it just talks about that there is a coherence within the context of speaking, and you judge it by that. The statement is true to the degree that it coheres with a particular set of assumptions about the world, and is true only relative to those assumptions, and does not say that it's true in any other system of assumptions. So that's the difference between the three. But I want to say also before I forget that all three of these, you really can't separate

[16:14]

these three. But historically, and I think structurally, the most basic one is correspondence theory. That's the one which is most kind of like what we do. Not everybody, well, everybody does all three, but the one that gives us the most sense of meaning is correspondence theory. In some ways, the pragmatic theory and the coherence theory, I think, would help us not misuse correspondence theory, but it's correspondence theory that relates to our basic anxiety about meaninglessness of our existence. Now, pragmatic theory gives you some meaning too.

[17:15]

You can say, well, it's true because it works for you. That's nice. But the problem about pragmatic is that that would mean that if you went to another system that it might not work, and therefore your truth is relative. Same with the coherence theory. The problem with them is that they're relative. The relativism is the main problem of both of them. The coherence theory, the correspondence theory is not relative, and relativism leads to meaninglessness. So, in each one of these, in the arena of correspondence, you have to use the other two, and in using the pragmatic, you have to use the coherence because any statement

[18:20]

you make about pragmatism has to be coherent in the language system you're using, in the cultural context you're using. It won't work if it's not coherent, and it really boils down to whether it corresponds. And similarly, the coherence, of course, it does make sense in some systems, but it has to be pragmatic. Otherwise, you wouldn't be interested to make statements if there wasn't some pragmatic value, and also it has to come down to correspondence too, otherwise it's meaningless. So, they all feed on each other and use each other, but anyway, we live in a time in history when all three are operating, and in some ways the basic one is the one that requires such attention and such carefulness that most people aren't willing to use it properly anymore, and therefore it's become kind of, what do you call it, what's the word, anyway, not quite obsolete, but more like, well, it's not exactly antiquated, it's more like it's

[19:26]

too hot or something, it's become carcinogenic or, you know, we don't know how to handle it anymore. We aren't, I don't know, we just don't seem to have the, given the world we live in, it's very difficult for us to use it now. Just like I was saying this morning, if you actually have a correspondence theory about the Four Noble Truths, and you take them literally, that you think they actually correspond to an objective reality, that you have a harder time living with people in certain ways than you would if you, I mean, you have a harder time living with people around that truth when you take a correspondence theory, take on it. Actually, it will lead to having a less hard time with people eventually, but in the short run, you might be afraid of what was happening, you might get in trouble with people, there might be arguments and so on. So I think we've retreated from that for whatever reasons, and the other two are not exactly more well-known, but there is a more kind of, we do live in a more relativistic, moral and philosophical world than we're used to, and that's part of what the strength of the conservative,

[20:32]

right-wing reaction is, that they're more correspondence theory type of people. They're making more harder statements with less awareness of what are they trying to get out of it, are they hiding certain kinds of information in order to win the argument, and are they keeping track of what they're doing. And so, maybe that's enough for now, any other questions? Did that clarify it at all? Well, I think that if I do that, I think we won't be able to, I won't have an experience as often, but I will bring it up. Basically, I would just say that, in a sense, the Theravada teachings of the Buddha were primarily this correspondence theory approach, the early teachings of the Buddha, that's

[21:39]

most of the way he taught in the Pali canon, in the Nikayas, in Pali and the Agamas in Sanskrit, most of the way he taught there was, what is it called, he said what he meant and he meant what he said, and he said that what he was saying was, what do you call it, tatata, you know, tatata, it was such, what he was saying was, his name was Tatagata, right? He's the one who came from the way things are and goes back to the way things are. He's telling us about the way things are, tatata, tatata, right? That, like that, or what's the other word, satya, another word, you know, truth, the way things are, and bhutam, bhutam, the way things are, like yabhutam means the way things have come to be. And so, yes, Rob? I was wondering whether it's possible that he was making those claims about our psychological

[22:46]

condition, that this is the way our psychological condition, our psychology operates, so that it's pragmatic, the pragmatic nature of it. He, the Buddha, said, you know, what I teach is true and also pragmatic and also pleasant. Those are the criterions that he usually used when he taught. But the fact that he was concerned for its utility doesn't mean he said that the truth of it is determined by its utility. So, according to pragmatic theory, if something was false but useful, it would be true. If it didn't correspond to objective reality but it was useful, it would be true. And so what the pragmatic philosopher is saying in some ways is that's what people really are about. They say things and what they really care about is whether it's useful. And if it corresponds to objective reality, well, great. That'll even make... If what is useful to you has objective support, you're in great shape.

[23:47]

If not, if what you say goes along with what is good for you, well, that's where you're at. That's all. And if you can get people to cooperate with that, that's good for you. Then they cooperate with your truth. But if, in fact, it wasn't objectively proved, in other words, it wasn't objectively supported, in other words, it could be objectively shown to be false, it would still be true by your system, because what your system is, you want things that work for you. That's, you know, the pragmatic thing. The Buddha said that what he was teaching was practical, but it was practical. He wouldn't then say, okay, well, it's practical but false. It had to be truth was the first. Practical was second. Right. Right. So that would be...

[24:49]

It wouldn't be practical. He felt it wasn't worth his time. It wouldn't help him, and it wouldn't help the people. He could sort of tell what conversations were impractical. But the fact that he didn't talk about that didn't necessarily have that much to do with truth. He just showed, I'm willing to talk about what's practical. We have a rare question here from Linda. Well, I've been wondering where ultimate and universal truth is in all this. Is there a way of approaching it like a weighting system? Pardon? A weighting of like... Oh, giving weight? Yeah. I think that the ultimate is the interpenetration of these three. You know, to see the relativity, to see the strength and weaknesses of each one of them, and also out of that understanding of them to actually see that there is a kind of weighting in the sense of priority that I think... You know, I would propose that the weighting is... The primary one, the fundamental one, is coherence.

[25:52]

And these other... Correspondence. That's the primary one. That's what we usually mean, what humans mean by truth. That's a truth which we can't avoid dealing with. The other two, I think you shouldn't avoid dealing with them if you want to really understand what truth is about. But in fact, a lot of people do not deal with those other things. They do not know about it. They're not conscious of it. But actually, they're operating too. So actually, I think that the ultimate point of view in terms of truth is to realize that all three of these points of view are going on. That there are multiple points of view on truth, on what a truth means, and multiple approaches to it. And to take just one doesn't work. And to skip over the one that only takes one won't work either. What was that other way of looking at it? It's like, the four noble truths as the great truth versus, you know, Yamichevsky and different things. Pardon?

[26:55]

The four noble truths as a sort of ultimate great truth versus just that, you know, a normal everyday kind of thing. Yes. Like, the very thought of death, and all that. Once again, it's kind of a weighted thing. Oh, you're weighting the truths? Yeah, yeah. Oh, well, yeah, well, there are some truths, there are some kind of truths like checkbooks and tablecloths, there's those kinds of truths, right? And there's these major, like, world-turning truths. But the truth of them is dealt with in these three ways, in any case. I guess what I feel is that, yeah, that being aware of how the mind works in these different ways, whether you know about these theories, these different points of view or not, I think, in fact, you're operating according to all three.

[27:56]

In fact, you do operate in a language system, in a cultural system, you do. You cannot make a statement outside of that. You don't always adhere to what's pragmatic, sometimes that gets off, but usually you do. And also, this correspondence thing is, I think, the fundamental one, so I think you've got to work with all three, and you've got to apply it to all situations. I guess. That's what I would suggest. And anyway, in terms of Buddhism, certainly Madhyamaka, and Zen, would be more the coherence theory type of argument. Coherence theory, yeah. And I think Yogacara may be sort of more over towards the pragmatic. I'd like to talk about that more later. But still, in Zen in particular, the Heart Sutra and so on,

[28:59]

often use negative rhetoric. I've often said that one of the primary rhetorical devices of Zen is irony. Rhetoric is something you do to have an effect, to make a contribution to the situation. And the Zen teacher's contribution to the situation is to interact with it in a way that stimulates the realization of the teaching. So the teaching is, the basic teaching that the Buddha came from is, there's this world, you know, where there's a samsara and a nirvana. Samsara has causes and conditions and effects. The first truths are about that. Nirvana has causes and effects. Nirvana has... I mean, samsara has a nature, which is suffering. Samsara has a nature of suffering. Samsara is not life.

[30:01]

Samsara is a kind of life. It's a type of life. Okay? One type of life is called samsara. Right? Its nature is suffering. Its condition is belief in self. Okay? The other situation, the other way of life is called nirvana. Its nature is bliss and liberation and its condition is selflessness. And selflessness manifests in action, in behavior, in thought, in speech, right? The path. Okay? That's a Buddhist teaching, right? So there's... Like that's the way it is, there's correspondence theory. That comes out of our mind, you know, out of our language. That was created for purposes and so on and so forth. And it was true because it worked. Or it's true because it worked with the system in such a way that it cohered

[31:03]

and became true for that system and realized itself. And the Zen comes along and says, No. But the reason for saying no is to cause a certain effect. And the effect which one causes is the actual realization of the Four Noble Truths rather than... You know, aside from believing it's correspondence theory, believe it's... Aside from all that stuff and aside from all the interaction to actually cause the realization of it. However, if you ask the Zen teacher who's interacting in this kind of negative, skeptical way with this teaching which people might be adhering to according to any of these theories, because, again, it's hard for a human being to have an approach to the Four Noble Truths aside from these things I just outlined. It's hard for you to think of another approach other than... I mean, it's hard to think of... Even if you say, I'd rather not talk about it, you've just adopted one of those approaches. So everybody adopts

[32:04]

one of those approaches and usually it's a little off-balance about how they approach them. They're a little bit too much this way or a little bit too that way. They're a little bit too much believing it or not believing it enough. You're coming out in the open and being unbalanced or you're coming out in the open and being balanced or you're hiding and being unbalanced. You know what I mean? So to come in there and say no to the teaching might be very helpful. But if you ask that guy or that gal who poked at the person who was clinging to the teaching whether if you do bad karma you go to hell, of course they would say yes. They wouldn't argue with that. But they would say no if you thought that was so. But if you ask them they would say, yeah, well, of course. What does Dogen Zenji say? Do bad things, get bad results. Do good things, get good results. That's it. That's it. And the retribution

[33:04]

for the good and the bad happens in three times. That's it. He didn't say anything other than that ever about this topic. He said really bad things about people who didn't believe in it. Right. But if you do believe in it then Dogen Zenji pokes you and takes you and spins you around. If you believe that this is true about this thing about karma and rebirth then he'll take you and take you for a little spin. Spin, spin, spin. But the mountain babies and the river babies and the fish jumping. He'll take you on a little tour of the dharma world which will then stimulate you to let go of your habitual approach to the teaching and realize this balanced attitude to the teaching and wake up. But the rhetoric and the activities of teachers particularly Zen or coming out of the Mahajanic or perfection of wisdom tradition

[34:05]

they may sound negative but that doesn't mean that they aren't... It's all founded on the Buddha's teaching that this is actually so. It's founded on these Four Noble Truths. That's always in the background. It's consistent through the whole thing. That's why they say in the Heart Sutra no suffering no origination no cessation no path. They're relating to the Four Noble Truths in the Heart Sutra to stimulate you. You're a Buddhist, right? You believe in these. You're back 1,600 years ago. You took this stuff literally. That's who's doing these chants. Somebody who took this literally and they're poking at you to say move with this dance with this let go of this groove with it don't just adhere to your position. And when you're intimate with it and you believe it and then you move with it then something breaks loose. Now everybody holds to their truth and everybody's truth that they hold to deep down inside is a correspondence truth because that's the way we are as animals. Down in our cells

[35:05]

it's like this is true because this corresponds to like my flesh survives or doesn't. That's our animal thing. That's correspondence theory. It's instinctive. It's genetic. So you've got to take Buddhism on some level you've got to take Buddhism kind of like viscerally. Then the teachings can come in and reorganize your viscera. Now you won't trust I mean maybe you will but I don't think most people won't trust somebody even if they're so-called Zen master to come in and like reach down inside and rearrange your viscera. You won't let them do that. But if you viscerally identify with the Buddhist teachings well they own that viscera. So they can manipulate them you can't stop them. All you've got to do is talk about it and your insides get turned around. So you can be so your adhesions which are throughout your body and mind

[36:06]

when you when they get associated with the adhesions to Dharma then Dharma teachers can come and start wiggle the Dharma and start loosening your adhesions. But if you don't take this literally like you take your body literally and most people do literally take their body that way. Whether the fire is touching you or not is something that you take literally. Then to take Dharma that way then you make yourself vulnerable to the teaching and the teaching doesn't necessarily single you out and come looking for you. But in fact if you just keep studying the teaching will not behave itself and will start moving and doing things and won't stay in the box you put it in fortunately or unfortunately. It will behave in relationship to you and will not you know and will not allow you to be fixated for too long if you stay close to it. And so these these different theories are coherent ways to talk about

[37:08]

how to work with the truth these four truths and the different schools of Buddhism are in some sense oriented towards helping people realize the actual actuality of these truths and the actuality of these truths has to be realized through being intimate with them without adhering without adhesive without adhesive tape just being close without clinging. But again it's easy to not cling to things that are far away. Right? But when they get up close you know it's not so easy. Like I was I wanted to tell you the story of you know before I got ordained I had no feeling about you know like whether it mattered to be ordained or not especially long way before I got before I came to Zen Center I had no idea even about ordination or priests or anything.

[38:08]

I mean I just didn't I mean I kind of knew there was Zen monks but I didn't know anything about being ordained or not it just wasn't an issue. Then I came to Zen Center and there's this community and then there's some people who are ordained and some people aren't. And who's ordained? Well Suzuki Roshi and Kadokiri Sensei and Yoshimura Sensei they're ordained and they're cool anyway you know. So then I get ordained you know and I get ordained with one of my pals you know and the day of the ordination ceremony I felt like Suzuki Roshi was being nicer to him than he was to me. Somehow I never noticed that before that Suzuki Roshi was nicer to anybody than me. And it wasn't because he was so nice to me. I mean sometimes he was nice to me sometimes he wasn't nice to me sometimes he completely ignored me and sometimes he was really warm to me you know and which I really liked but you know I just sort of like that was between him and me. But then when this other guy was there and I got ordained with him

[39:09]

then somehow the way he was treating him and the way he was treating me became an issue. Well you know just it's only an issue because I was here he was there and Suzuki Roshi was there. The closeness made an issue. But it's easy not to be who cares about you know who when you're far enough away from being a Zen priest or not it doesn't mean anything to you you know and you're totally detached right? You're cool. You see the Zen priest going by hi, no problem you don't think what's it got to do with me? You know is that raising or lowering my status? It doesn't mean anything but you get close to it and it starts moving around in there. So you think well you know which am I? You know should I am I in a good position here or not? Do they like those priests better than me? And now that I'm a priest do they like that priest better than me? Where did that come from? It comes from you know being close to something. You get close to these truths and then like what they mean you know somebody would come and say the second truth means this you go whoa wait a minute that's not what it means there's a big problem here. You know what I mean?

[40:10]

Then you know you read books you kind of read books oh no this is I have to reorganize my whole understanding of this teaching what a troublesome thing you know? Close that book. So how to get close to this teaching and you wouldn't get close to this teaching in some sense getting close to this teaching means that maybe it's true. I mean why would you want to get close to a teaching that wasn't true? Why would you just want to spend a lot of your time learning about something that wasn't true? So even getting to know it already starts to implicate it to maybe but then if you get too close to it it's going to you're going to have problems you know a lot of problems. So these other theories will help you with these problems you'll have when you get intimate with it. And anyway these different schools of Buddhism will will take slightly different approaches but basically they're all taking slightly different approaches about samsara and nirvana. None of them skip over those two

[41:13]

and they're all taking basic approaches about what is the nature of samsara what are its conditions what is the nature of nirvana what are its conditions and they actually have different stories about particularly they have they don't seem to argue too much about samsara and nirvana I mean they don't argue about samsara and nirvana and they don't argue about suffering being the condition of samsara samsaric life and that the condition is self-cleaning they don't argue about that. They do argue a little bit about the nature of nirvana and they argue a lot about the nature of the practice they argue a lot about the sort of the mode of study that's argued. And as you can see in this very practice period the mode of study is evolving, isn't it? Have you noticed? Bert? Huh? I don't know. Have you noticed that the way you're studying is different now than it was in the beginning of the practice period? Have you noticed that? Well,

[42:16]

I noticed that I'm more involved in it. That's a change, isn't it? Well, let's go practice nirvana and see what we can do

[42:31]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ