Hinduism.

In Hinduism is Ultimate Truth the same as Ultimate Reality?
Many thanks,
IainC.

The general belief is that there is no reality. Life is an illusion and we each play a role involving joy, pain, good and evil until we attain Nirvana and break the cycle of rebirth (birth and life itself being an undesirable thing, breaking the cycle if ultimate happiness). Any action is therefore interpreted as a person's "Karma" or destiny. ie; I am destined to be evil, you are destined to be greedy. Being good is probably rising above your limited karma and moving towards Nirvana.
Ultimate truth is reached when the cycle of life is broken and the person need not reincarnate any more. There is no ultimate reality...

The Ultimate Truth and the Ultimate Reality are the same. YOU are cognizing all this, YOUr senses are picking up info, YOU are the truth, YOU are God, YOU are there in all three states(waking, dreaming, deep sleep), YOU are the one saying "I am" or "I believe" or "I disbelieve".

The "I" is common everywhere. The "I" is the ULtimate Truth. This is what the "Sanaatana Dharma" conveys. (Hinduism is not a "Hindu" word, but a mispronunciation of a river-named-peoples word). Even in plain & simple English, if the Ultimate Reality is NOT EQUAL TO the Ultimate Truth, how can one use the term adjective "Ultimate" in its intrinsic sense?

enlighting facts.....

.............................. .........sounds like MATRIX

Indiantoo, I wish to comment on your statement "The general belief is that there is no reality."

In general in Indian philosophy, this holds true for the empirical world: what we experience through our perceptual apparatus is unreal. The self (atman) that gives meaning to all the things around us is but an illusion and can not grasp the true nature of existence (unless one reaches one-pointed consciousness).

This does not, however, imply that there is no reality. On the contrary, true reality is transcendent and absolute (Atman, Brahman), and the empirical self is a part of this reality. Various traditions strive at realizing the unity between the self and the truly real, resulting in liberation (moksha).

Likewise, when AvidTrekker says that "The "I" is the ULtimate Truth.", I think it is important to note that the "I" is the ultimate truth only in the sense that it is embedded in the absolute, not as an empirically experiencing entity.

Aham Bramhaasmi says the mahaavaakya of the Yajur-Veda. { "I am God" sez the "main-great-sentence-principle" of the Yajur-Veda}. Here, the "I" is the Great "I" , the Supreme Conciousness. However, it is not out of place to state that even ordinary humans may say this with the idea of ACTUALLY ACHIEVING it one day, for that is the summum-bonum of human achievement, the absolute acme of human transcendence.

For example, I can say, "I am God". Someone who hears me say this could ask me, "do you know what the red ant colony queen in Zaire is telling her subjects at this very moment?" (You see, God is Omniscient or all-knowing). If I dont know this answer, I should better have stated, "Aham Bramhaasmi" says the Yajur-Veda, meaning now... that I am quoting from someone else's experience..... & hoping to duplicate it someday!

The Ultimate truth is the one to experience ,once u know u won't have anything and everything to say about it !!!!

Hinduism is not a formal, western-type philosophical system, where such a distiction would be very precisely defined.

'IainC' - I truly hope you've already found the answers you're looking for since your original posting is nearly a year old!!

None the less, there are some points I would like to comment on, but I'm afraid that I can only do that from a Buddhist point of view and its interpretation of Ultimate Truth / Reality and not Hindu. I'd be interested to find out how the two differ (and where they meet) as I have very little knowledge of Hinduism.

In sort, once Ultimate Truth can be perceived, you have an understanding of Ultimate Truth instead of the Conventional Reality we perceive now. So, from a Buddhist point of view, they are the same thing. I would be sitting on the same bench as 'AvidTrekker' on that point.

'Indiantoo'. If I may – and with respect – I would like to question your remarks. Surely there is a reality from our point of view (even though we only perceive the Conventional one) or there would be nothing to perceive?! There would be nothing. It's just that the reality that we perceive is not the correct one; it's the conventional one.

Also - We perceive phenomenon as having an existence of their own (which is the Conventional Reality I mention) or an Inherent Nature. But in fact that is impossible, everything is interdependent with everything else. So, we cannot say – for example – that happiness comes from a particular object/person. The happiness/good/bad/annoying is dependant on causes and conditions and totally interdependent on those to exist. Therefore, things/ phenomena DO exist, it's just that one tends to have the wrong perception of how the TRULY exist. There IS Ultimate reality, I have no doubt about it. In Buddhism it is called the perception of 'Emptiness'. So, on that point I would be sitting on the same bench as 'Vasko' with regards to his comments.

May I also explore the way you have also used the words ‘karma’ and ‘destiny’ as the same thing. The word ‘destiny’ has always given me the impression of being unchangeable and fixed. Karma is not fixed or unchangeable. As with all phenomenon, it is dependant on causes and conditions and therefore can be changed, purified or modified through virtuous or non-virtuous actions and purification. Would this also be true in Hinduism? I would be very surprised if it wasn’t and I’d welcome an explanation.

I do totally agree that the perception of Ultimate Truth will break the cycle of life / death as it will cut the root of all suffering - ignorance of the way things truly are.

'Ivan'. I’m interested to read your comment that Hinduism cannot define the original question. Buddhism does, but could not qualify as a Western-type system.

I offer all the above with total respect for the views expressed and in the hope that they will stimulate more and deeper discussion to further everyone’s understanding. PEACE.

Hinduism is extremely heterogenous, there is no one unique dogma or conceptual unity.
Buddhism is more homogenous, but still, I'm sure that various schools of Buddhism could have different answers to that question.
Note that I didn't say that there would not be any answers if the question was asked to Hindus, I just think that there could be many.

In India if I am asking here it is 10AM and on same time in US some one is asking it is 10PM, what is true? what is real ?

It was a simple example of truth, like all rivers falls in sea, same is with the life and God, where all branches of Vedic philosophy end with Truth= God (The Brammha).One thing I want to say, that there is no other interpretation of Truth, it is always ultimate and real, as for as Vedic (Hindu) religion is concern it is very much panoptic to understand the “Truth”.

You probably have more knowledge of Hinduism than you have concluded.. either way it's all the same supraconsciousness - as Aurobindo defined.

And not to forget that these two did not grow up separated, very much entangled they were "A careful analysis would reveal that 'Hinduism (Brahmanism) and Buddhism belong to the same genus; they differ as species. In a sense they are complimentary to each other; one emphasises what the other lacks or slurs over. Without basic affinity they would have completely sundered from each other; without difference they could not have vitalized and enriched each other. - TRV Murti, Buddhism and Comtemporary Indian Thought.

Probably the best ever and most able to illustrate the entanglements 'tween Budd & Hind was TRV Murti, i.e. not only because he knew most of the texts by heart, he did not have as one can glean from the quote above, any philosophical axe to grind.

No life, no nirvana. Life, and living it in the right way is important. How do you know? Have you experienced it?

If 'doctor' is now a hindi word and so is 'station' and 'school' too, then what is wrong with having 'hindu' as a word though it was a 3,000 year old mispronunciation by a brother-branch (Iranian Aryans) of a river name (Sindhu/Hendu, Sapta-Sindhu/Hapta-Hendu). All languages have loan words. There is even a loanback.

French bœuf “ox” - English as beef - the root of the English word beefsteak - bifteck
Greek κίνημα (transliteration: kinima)- English as cinema “motion picture” - σινεμά (transliteration: sinema) “motion picture”
Hebrew keli-zemer “musical instrument” - Yiddish as klezmer (traditional Ashkenazic) musician - klezmer (traditional Ashkenazic) musician

Is Brahman The God? Do you know anything about it? Perhaps it is just the entity which constitutes the universe and all things contained in it, that is why "you are Brahman", "Tat twam asi", like the clay is what pot is made of. The Translation of 'Aham Brahmasmi' simply is that 'I am Brahman' (whatever that may be). It does not say that Brahman is God or consciousness. Don't add things to what Shastras say.

Of course, you can say that you are God. Perhaps you will start a new religion or perhaps people will suggest medical treatment.

Do you know about hindu philosophical systems and thousands of years of commentaries on them? Let us take an example and expand on it.

There is an atomic reality and that is truth.
There is an 'ultimate reality' and that is the 'ultimate truth'.

At the moment we do not know the 'ultimate reality' (whether energy which constitutes 'the universe and all things in it' is eternal or arises from 'nothing'). When we come to know it, that will be the 'ultimate truth'.

Yes, Adi Sankara termed the perceived reality as 'vyavaharika' (pragmatic) and said that it is an illusion. But that does not negate any true reality which might (or might not) be there. He termed that as 'paramarthika' (absolute).

How do you know that there would be nothing to perceive and it is 'Indra's net' ('But in fact that is impossible, everything is interdependent with everything else', to borrow the buddhist term, interdependent co-origination)? Let science tell us further.

A hindu can understand buddhism without reading the buddhist scriptures. What is wrong with being heterogenous? Even christianity and islam are heterogenous. I know it is difficult for people from Abrahamic backgrounds to accept different answers ('matas', opinions - as they are termed in hinduism). Either you know about one thing for sure, otherwise what you can offer is only an opinion. Do you know for sure that a christian God or muslim Allah exists?

Or... Oh wow, look what I've got! A body! Let's enjoy!

When did this negativity towards karma and incarnation begin? Who started looking at something to escaped from? Is it always there, even in the early Hindu writings?