Truth is simply an explanation that appears to be correct. Truths regarding things not fully understood are always suject to revision. Therefore, there are no "truths", except mathematical perhaps. However, some explanations fit the facts better than others. Buddha's explanation does not account for evolution. Evolution does not need a state of enlightenment. Therefore, it does not exist as evolution would not have created it.
Buddha didn't so much explain the truth, like a cosmological model (although that is a big part of Buddhist scholarship), as show you how to come to an understanding of the nature of immediate consciousness. No writing can capture this. Truth is not an explanation, it is simply what is.
Truth is an explanation. What is - is only observation. Oviously, the rock rolls down the hill. But, you can see more with the truth. The truth is gravity pulled it down the hill.
Spoken or written statements are made of symbols. Symbols are abstractions of things, not the things themselves.
Of course. That is why "truth" is relative to the degree to which it explains observable behavior. A symbol representing more than itself will seemingly always have problems fully explaining anything. Hence, our ever present difficulty to explain reality. Nevertheless, symbols are all we have to work with as our brains are designed that way. Indeed, I can't imagine it working any other way. This does not mean symbols can't come close to representing the "truth".
That's why Buddhism doesn't emphasize "symbolic truth". The focus is on percieving the truth of our consciousness. There is another way to percieve things other than with symbols. Our jaded and conditioned western minds are so used to the western style of philosophy that we don't recognize there is another way. You can think without symbols. When we see the self for what it is, another type of symbol, the illusion of self is broken. Then our perceptions are unclouded by the symbol generation process.
We can think no other way than through symbols. All our senses are derived vicariously through the use of electricity, chemicals and light. None of these things are the things they represent. Only through patterns generated by our brains using electricity, chemicals and light can we come to know the outside world. These patterns are necessarily symbols - shadows of the real objects. You can never think without these symbols. Consequently, all thought is symbolic. Buddha is simply choosing a simpler way to think using symbols, than a more complicated way of thinking through language. Simpler is not better when it comes to thinking.
Yes, information from the senses is not direct, but it's the most direct perception available. Translating this information into word-symbols is admittedly useful for many purposes, but it is also the fall, and one more step removed from reality. The Bible says the fall from paradise was knowledge of good and evil. This is a direct result of using words and concepts. Good and evil are concepts that have no existence in nature. Enlightenment involves tapping into the pre-verbal thought patterns of ancient people and animals. Simpler isn't better when it comes to figuring out how to make a tool or plant crops, but it is better when it comes to dealing with anxiety and mental suffering. Buddhism doesn't teach that one is ultimately better than the other, but modern life since civilization has been suffering as a result of living in a symbolic world created by concepts and language. Anxiety about the future isn't possible if your world is merely perception and reaction. This isn't thinking in the conventional sense.
Anxiety and suffering are not created solely by language. If I couldn't speak a lick, I'd still feel anxiety about falling down. Buddhism is not the path to dealing with all anxiety and mental suffering. Moreover, leaving the world of language is too high a price to pay just to feel better. Language is where advancement lies - albeit complex. Good and evil are concepts that exist in nature. Good can be evidenced by a positive feeling, and evil with a negative feeling. It feels bad to be shot, therefore, shooting people is evil.
I didn't say all good and evil is based in nature. Obviously, religion has influenced that debate quite a bit. By the way, it is good for a lion to kill. That's how the lion eats and stays alive. We kill cows for the same reason, and that's good especially between a bun with ketchup, mustard and pickles.
Right. And that's why the antelope feels pain. For the antelope, the killing by the lion was evil. For the lion, the killing was good. Good and evil in nature depends upon which species you're talking about.
