Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Questioner: My question is: What is the proof of truth? Followers of every religion, metaphysical or political, philosophical or ethical, are convinced that theirs is the only truth, that all else is false and they take their own unshakable conviction for the proof of truth. 'I am convinced, so it must be true', they say. It seems to me, that no philosophy or religion, no doctrine or ideology, however complete, free from inner contradictions and emotionally appealing, can be the proof of its own truth. They are like clothes men put on, which vary with times and circumstances and follow the fashion trends.
Now, can there be a religion or philosophy which is true and which does not depend on somebody's conviction? Nor on scriptures, because they again depend on somebody's faith in them? Is there a truth which does not depend on trusting, which is not subjective?
M: What about science?
Q: Science is circular, it ends where it starts. with the senses. It deals with experience, and experience is subjective. No two persons can have the same experience, though they may express it in the same words.
M: You must look for truth beyond the mind.
Q: Sir, I have had enough of trances. Any drug can induce them cheaply and quickly. Even the classical samadhis, caused by breathing or mental exercises, are not much different. There are oxygen samadhis and carbon dioxide samadhis and self induced samadhis, caused by repetition of a formula or a chain of thoughts. Monotony is soporific. I cannot accept samadhi, however glorious, as a proof of truth.
M: Samadhi is beyond experience. It is a qualityless state.
Q: The absence of experience is due to inattention. It reappears with attention. Closing one's eyes does not disprove light. Attributing reality to negative states will not take us far. The very negation contains an affirmation.
M: In a way you are right. But you don't see, you are asking for the proof of truth, without explaining what is the truth you have in mind and what proof will satisfy you? You can prove anything, provided you trust the proof. But what will prove that your proof is true? I can easily drive you into an admission that you know only that you exist - that you are the only proof you can have of anything. But I do not identify mere existence with reality. Existence is momentary, always in time and space, while reality is changeless and all-pervading.
Q: Sir, I do not know what is truth and what can prove it. Do not throw me on my own resources. I have none. Here you are the truth-knower, not me.
M: You refuse testimony as the proof of truth: the experience of others is of no use to you, you reject all inference from the concurring statements of a vast number of independent witnesses; so it is for you to tell me what is the proof that will satisfy you, what is your test of a valid proof?
Q: Honestly, I do not know what makes a proof.
M: Not even your own experience?
Q: Neither my experience, nor even existence.
M: And your being conscious depends on what?
Q: I do not know. Formerly, I would have said: my body; now I can see that the body is secondary, not primary, and cannot be considered as an evidence of existence.
M: I am glad you have abandoned the I am the body idea., the main source of error and suffering.
Q: I have abandoned it intellectually, but the sense of being the particular, a person, is still with me. I can say: 'I am', but what I am I cannot say. I know I exist, but I do not know what exists. Whichever way I put it, I face the unknown.
M: Your very being is the real.
Questioner: My question is: What is the proof of truth? Followers of every religion, metaphysical or political, philosophical or ethical, are convinced that theirs is the only truth, that all else is false and they take their own unshakable conviction for the proof of truth. 'I am convinced, so it must be true', they say. It seems to me, that no philosophy or religion, no doctrine or ideology, however complete, free from inner contradictions and emotionally appealing, can be the proof of its own truth. They are like clothes men put on, which vary with times and circumstances and follow the fashion trends.
Now, can there be a religion or philosophy which is true and which does not depend on somebody's conviction? Nor on scriptures, because they again depend on somebody's faith in them? Is there a truth which does not depend on trusting, which is not subjective?
M: What about science?
Q: Science is circular, it ends where it starts. with the senses. It deals with experience, and experience is subjective. No two persons can have the same experience, though they may express it in the same words.
M: You must look for truth beyond the mind.
Q: Sir, I have had enough of trances. Any drug can induce them cheaply and quickly. Even the classical samadhis, caused by breathing or mental exercises, are not much different. There are oxygen samadhis and carbon dioxide samadhis and self induced samadhis, caused by repetition of a formula or a chain of thoughts. Monotony is soporific. I cannot accept samadhi, however glorious, as a proof of truth.
M: Samadhi is beyond experience. It is a qualityless state.
Q: The absence of experience is due to inattention. It reappears with attention. Closing one's eyes does not disprove light. Attributing reality to negative states will not take us far. The very negation contains an affirmation.
M: In a way you are right. But you don't see, you are asking for the proof of truth, without explaining what is the truth you have in mind and what proof will satisfy you? You can prove anything, provided you trust the proof. But what will prove that your proof is true? I can easily drive you into an admission that you know only that you exist - that you are the only proof you can have of anything. But I do not identify mere existence with reality. Existence is momentary, always in time and space, while reality is changeless and all-pervading.
Q: Sir, I do not know what is truth and what can prove it. Do not throw me on my own resources. I have none. Here you are the truth-knower, not me.
M: You refuse testimony as the proof of truth: the experience of others is of no use to you, you reject all inference from the concurring statements of a vast number of independent witnesses; so it is for you to tell me what is the proof that will satisfy you, what is your test of a valid proof?
Q: Honestly, I do not know what makes a proof.
M: Not even your own experience?
Q: Neither my experience, nor even existence.
M: And your being conscious depends on what?
Q: I do not know. Formerly, I would have said: my body; now I can see that the body is secondary, not primary, and cannot be considered as an evidence of existence.
M: I am glad you have abandoned the I am the body idea., the main source of error and suffering.
Q: I have abandoned it intellectually, but the sense of being the particular, a person, is still with me. I can say: 'I am', but what I am I cannot say. I know I exist, but I do not know what exists. Whichever way I put it, I face the unknown.
M: Your very being is the real.
No comments:
Post a Comment