[accelieda]

I've been pondering this question recently.

What is your opinion?

[SoorgoBardy]

I've been pondering this question recently.

What is your opinion?

Yes I think it probably is - for example impermanence and suffering are true for everyone... and so on.

Sorry, no time to continue right now

[Carfanate]

Left on its own, perhaps a yes.
Left in the hands of some, definitely a no.

[EmxATW5m]

Left on its own, perhaps a yes.
Left in the hands of some, definitely a no.

Cheers plwk,
For some reason, I would have arrived at the exact opposite conclusion.

Although I'm open to persuasion

[Wgnhqhlg]

It is. Impermanence and not-self are inherent qualities of phenomena. Suffering arises by clinging to the impermanent as permanent. This is reality whether one agrees with it or not.

[molaunterbizone]

However, right and wrong morality is not a universal truth imo. It depends on the situation.

[uniopaypamp]

However, right and wrong morality is not a universal truth imo. It depends on the situation. I tend to agree. The late Ven Dr K Sri Dhammananda opined...
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/D...y_and_Practice
Man-made moral laws and customs do not form Buddhist Ethics.

[objennasweene]

Absolutely... the Buddhadhama will be anytime it brings us into the awareness of impermanence and not self qualities as told by Deshy in # 5 and keeps us far from religiosity, delusional superstition, and religious systems.

[lopezsokero]

I dont know but it seems to be

[VipInoLo]

My opinion says yes. I have found through my own experiences that the Buddhadharma is there wherever I have looked, however it's been hidden or obscured by "the dressing" in other religions/paths.

Of course, I could be wrong

In metta,
Raven

[VanDerSmok]

What got me thinking about it was reading up on the defunct Vaibhashika Sect - one of the schools termed Hinayana by the Mahayana.

They asserted part-less particles to be the basis of reality, one school claiming that the particles do not touch each other but are held together by space. These aggregate into the objects we see and mistakenly take to be substantial. They don't exist as substantial objects but can be broken down into permanent phenomena - ie part-less particles.

These guys got a good kicking by just about every other Buddhist school but it got me thinking about what they were actually trying to do.

Nowadays we have scientists to tell us about the basis of phenomenal reality and they are uncovering all kinds of interesting stuff and good luck to them. Back in the days of the Vaibhashikas, religious theory was supposed to represent a true account of everything - a complete and unifying universal truth.

From our modern scientific perspective, this 'necessity' seems redundant and we see such "philosophising" as being an irrelevant addition to Buddha's core teachings.

The ancient Church insisted that a flat earth, as God's prime creation, was the pivotal point of the universe with all celestial bodies orbiting it. It made their doctrines solid and universal. Perfect universal order was proof of divine handiwork.

In a more sophisticated manner the Vaibhashikas were also doing a similar thing. Reality has to have a basis, otherwise it could not arise, therefore (quantum physics like) part-less particles are an obvious choice allowing for Buddha's teachings on mistaken imputation to be unified with an all-encompassing reality - a comprehensive, universal truth.

My thoughts were about to what extent, if at all, do we as Buddhists still look to make our practice a universal truth by reference to the external world.

[lipitrRrxX]

It's true for human beings, which is enough.

[bZEUWO4F]

Back in the days of the Vaibhashikas, religious theory was supposed to represent a true account of everything - a complete and unifying universal truth.

If that's what you mean by "universal truth" -- an explanation for everything in the universe -- then no the Buddhadhamma was never intended to do such a thing, and it might be helpful to clarify specialized definitions before asking such questions so that they do not become unnecessarily loaded. ;-)

[TheLucyLee]

Well, lets say it is not... there are other truths around there... the metaphysical entities that are here and there hearing mantras and helping people, the Buddhas that will come and go for the Kali era, the universal consciousness and the intelligent design are, by sure, truths at the face of faithful people... but as the Buddha once said...

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. [...]

Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves (SN56.31)
In terms of this... it is a universal truth.

[moopogyOvenny]

If that's what you mean by "universal truth" -- an explanation for everything in the universe -- then no the Buddhadhamma was never intended to do such a thing, and it might be helpful to clarify specialized definitions before asking such questions so that they do not become unnecessarily loaded. ;-)

Loaded? Von Wegen!

The impetus for posing the question didn't presuppose any correct answer (I'm too vague for that) and I've been very pleased with all the replies. I tend to witness the concept as a kind of sliding scale event with some people applying it in the way Deshy outlined and stuff I've encountered elsewhere which goes beyond in an effort to encompass more.

I think Dave's reply is very pragmatic and nails it. Like you say, it was never intended to do such a thing.

I recall the wanderer Vacchagotta tried to squeeze something akin to it out of Buddha but to no avail:
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now then, Master Gotama, is the cosmos eternal?"

"That has not been declared by me, Vaccha: 'The cosmos is eternal.'"

"Well then, Master Gotama, is the cosmos not eternal?"

"Vaccha, that too has not been declared by me: 'The cosmos is not eternal.'" and so on...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....008.than.html

[EvonsRorgon]

Loaded? Von Wegen!

Von der assumption that "universal truth" means "it has an answer for anything in the universe", which of course is impossible.

[SerycegeBunny]

Von der assumption that "universal truth" means "it has an answer for anything in the universe", which of course is impossible.

Sehr Gut!

[datingcrew]

Stupid question but how do we know that there's NOT an answer for everything in the Universe? I mean, it's not like any of us have enough time in our lives to actually prove it.

And more importantly, does knowing or not knowing make a big impact to one's practise? I'm sure this is why the Buddha focused on the present and not the future or past. Then again, I'm sure someone will refute me so *shrugs*

In metta,
Raven

[poispanna]

Stupid question

There are some things wrong with it, but I wouldn't go that far.

[sensation]

There are some things wrong with it, but I wouldn't go that far.

I'm happy for you to elaborate on that.