For many believers their world and their worldview are built upon the premise that there is one true faith; which is of course their own. They have a difficult time imagining a world that is not so constructed. They assume that everyone knows that there is one true faith and that theirs is that faith. They some time formulate this presentation as an equation: One God = One Truth.
I, for reasons I will explain shortly, offer a more accurate equation to symbolically illustrate the nature of the Divine and Truth. It is this: Infinite God = Infinite truths.
As Lewis Carroll wrote, ' "When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I chose it to mean – neither more nor less…The question is which is to be the master – that's all." '
Meaning the author of the words has used those to convey an idea that is present in her mind therefore the words are meant to point to the author's intent.
Thus with the statement: One God = One Truth. The idea of God being assumed is the one that has been ground into the author's sunglasses – it is the author's conception of the Divine based on her worldview and belief system. So too with the words 'One Truth', it also is a pointer to the system of beliefs of the author, who is asserting that her understanding of 'Truth' is the same as the Cosmic and Ultimate conception of Truth which comes directly from her 'One God'.
I can across the statement 'One God = One Truth' in varying Yahoo discussion groups. I have come across the statement from the postings of a Catholic Christian, a Protestant Christian, a Hindu, and a Gnostic.
The statement is a symbol which points at the beliefs of the author. As a symbol it is a vessel waiting to be filled. It is a container that will hold meaning when the user or the listener/reader puts their meaning into the
equation – to put their beliefs into the word 'God' and the words 'Truth'.
Each user means to convey by that statement that the set of beliefs that they believe in is the 'One Truth' being pointed at in the equation. Which becomes rather amusing, since what the statement purports to demonstrate is that there is only one truth and yet the statement is being used by so many different believers of so many different sets of beliefs and thus 'truths'.
It is the inherent bias of each author/reader 'Rose colored glasses', their sets of beliefs that are preventing them from seeing the 'joke'. It is because they have no familiarity with the concept of 'People shape, and are shaped by, ideas.', that they fail to imagine that there is a world beyond their viewpoint, beyond the bias inherent in their 'tinted glasses'. They assume that their ideas and beliefs can be and are inherent in the world beyond their mind. When in actuality they are projecting those beliefs into the world outside of their mind.
When the Hindu/Gnostic/Jewish/Christian author is using the equation she is unconsciously implying that the 'One God' and the "One Truth' in the equation matches up with her own beliefs.
It has been my experience that when I point this out by replying to their postings on the web groups, they are allows astonished and get upset that I could propose that their beliefs are not the one truth. Each and every time, they claim that it is I who am mistaken. They assert that there is only one god and thus there is only one truth, and by that they mean that the only valid and true conception of god is the one they believe in and thus the only one truth is the one that they believe in, all others are false.
I will, as I have on my Internet encounters, try to explain further why this 'One God = One Truth' is in actuality a finite human idea and thus not pointing towards the infinite.
Let's start with something simple. One is a finite number, and is by common definition pointing at a meaning of a singular finite idea. It is important to realize that it is a universal idea that is presented in the writings of mystics the world over that the Divine is an infinite which is by Its nature is fundamentally unknown and unknowable by finite humans.
The idea that the Divine is unknowable is often stated by the mystics and then ignored, since almost immediately after presenting this idea the mystic then goes on to map out a description of what is the nature of the Divine and what is the nature of the human beings relation and purpose in accordance with the understanding that mystic received from the Divine. In doing so, mystics often do not preface their remarks by saying 'This is my opinion." But instead fails to do so and allows the reader/listener to conclude that the mystic is presenting a statement of Divine Truth. When in actuality it is merely a statement of the mystic's own personal gleanings of the Divine truths.
For if the Divine is unknowable and beyond human comprehension then it follows that any further statement describing the Divine is an attempt to describe what was previously concluded as indescribable.
We humans can not abide chaos and unknowns; we strive to make the unknown knowable. Thus we are driven to explain and comprehend everything we encounter. The Mystic is caught by this conflict, the knowledge that the Divine is beyond understanding and the need to understand.
What the mystics fail to do is put their remarks into the appropriate context; that context being the realization that what follows is the opinion of a single human being on the basis of that individual's encounter with the Infinite Divine.
What I am stating is that despite the fact that every human has the potential to connect directly with the Infinite Divine and despite the fact that every human has either a spark of the Divine, a Divine soul, or is made up of and made from the Divine – there is an inherent division between that human – Divine connection and the ability of the finite human to articulate the understandings that may come from that connection. I am stating that the Divine created the universe in such a manner that even the Divine is limited by the nature of this universe when the Divine choose to interact in this universe.
To illustrate: you could choose to construct a cabin that resembles the one in which Henry David Thoreau built in 1845 at Walden pond, Massachusetts. But having done this, you the creator should not be surprised that there is no electricity hooked up to the cabin. This is not an
act of 'stupidity' or error but a deliberate limitation imposed by choosing to build a cabin to the specifications of Thoreau's 1845 cabin. I am presuming the same thing, that the Infinite Divine acting as the creator of this Universe built it in accordance with certain specifications and thus built it with physical limitations, such as the limit of the speed at which an object with mass may travel. This limitation is called 'the speed of light'.
Another limitation, and for the purpose of this discussion, one of primary importance is the capacity and the workings of the human embodied mind. The human mind has limitations on its ability to recognize and accept
information. Specifically an individual will not recognize and not accept or acknowledge information that contradicts or conflicts with prior foundational sets of beliefs and values. Thus, any information in the vast collection of infinite information available to the mystic, or any human being, in its encounter with the Infinite Divine will have to go through the finite human minds filtering system.
Therefore not only will most of the infinite be filtered out, since the human is only a finite creature, but that what amount of finite information that does not get ignored will still be filtered through the individuals value system and sets of beliefs – what will get in will only be that which does not contradict in some manner what beliefs and values the individual already has accepted.
Now, given that an individual has a multitude of values and beliefs and that these are quite possibly contradictory and conflicted, there is a potential that this new information will type the scale and the individual will change and grow – new ideas and new values will emerge that had some basis in the previous collection of values. Whether or not the individual changes or not depends on how flexible and dynamic the value and belief system the individual has built up. In general the more static and rigid the values and beliefs are adhered to; the more unlikely that anything new will challenge or contradict the old ideas.
Now, I am not describing the nature of the Divine, but rather the nature of the limits of the human embodied mind and the limits of the universe, with the addition of one of the few universal human cultural concepts, that being the idea that the Infinite Divine is beyond the capacity of human understanding. I am elucidating those two negative premises and facts.
It is useful to state what Alfred Korzybski wrote about the usefulness of starting from a negative premise: 'The status of negative premise is much more important and secure to start with than that of the positive…' By starting with the negative you present those who would challenge you to deny the negative and to prove that the Divine is comprehensible and that there are no limitations to the workings of the universe and or the workings of the embodied human mind. A formidable task if not an impossible one.
Thus the statement 'One God = One Truth', is shown to be a finite unstated opinion about the nature of the Divine. It depends upon unstated and unspecified human definition of 'God' and 'God's Truth'. The assertion is a finite presentation of an opinion of a finite human mind or collection of finite human beliefs.
Where as the statement 'Infinite Divine = infinite truths', is an open ended statement which clearly points to the fact that no specific finite definitions or characteristics have been presented and thus it is an admission of the
negative, that the Divine being Infinite is beyond the finite. The second is therefore more accurate.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 4
We each perceive the Kosmos and we are shaped by Nature, Nurture and Culture.
The most radical realization of all is to acknowledge that what I am saying in my essays is true for all humans - including
Moses
Abraham
Jesus
Mohamed
siddartha
Lao Tzu
etc.