To Test, To Learn, To Be Open To The Truth

But people who put their trust in the world are not blessed. Rather they are in fact vain. For they have regard for vanities and lying follies. Their trust vanishes, according to what Jeremiah 2:5 states: Your fathers have gone far from me and have gone after vanity and have become vain. They have gone after vanity, that is, after the world. –For the world with its own is vain because it does not provide support for the person who leans on it.[7]

Nonetheless, because the world is a work of God, we must not assume this is a negative statement about God. It is rather an acknowledgement of what comes out of taking experience alone, without listening to reason as a way to explore such experience, and without taking into consideration revelation, spiritual authorities which can and do lead us beyond the state which experience and reason can go.

Reason is a great gift, and it is able to lead us to all kinds of truths. However, it has its limitations. The first is that it cannot form its own starting point: reason takes givens and then infers from them all kinds of conclusions. Without a given, reason can lead us nowhere, and this is why reason needs experience and revelation, for experience and revelation give reason that base it needs to make inferences. The second problem is that not everyone reasons the same, and many people make all kinds of leaps in logic, which is why we have to map out and explain logical fallacies as well as the basic rules of inference. The third problem is that human reason is limited by the nature of the human intellect, and since the human intellect is limited, human reason will be limited and there will be all kinds of truths which are beyond its ability to put together in any systematic fashion. Human reason will have to try to put things together, but it will come across all kinds of paradoxes, of things which the human person knows to be true, which nonetheless appear to contradict each other when examined via human reason, or are at least incapable of being explained by the use of reason.

When we are looking at some possible truth, human reason will take what is already accepted as a given, and use it to compare with what is being described, and will then lead to some given conclusion. Those things which are easily shown to be in concord with what was already understood are readily accepted; those which seem to contradict what is known requires one to examine both what one believed one knew and what is being disclosed, and to determine which of the two has the greatest support for it. Here, of course, is a place for error to creep in. We can make the wrong decision, even if it appears the right one.

When dealing with something transcendent to the human intellect, such as God, we find the human intellect is really feeble: “the infinite qua infinite, is unknown; for it escapes all comparative relation.”[8] We must not use this to say we cannot know anything about God, or what we know about God is not real; what it means it that what we know pales in comparison with the fullness of God, and so we must be careful when talking about God. What we know will still be used to compare with what we do not know. When we know God is love, we have a foundation by which we come to know and gather other truths about God. When we know God infinitely transcends the human intellect, we will come to appreciate this, so that the more we know, the more we will grasp that we do not know. Since God is the source of all truth, for God can be said to be truth, we learn that we will never comprehend the truth, and the more of it we have acquired, the more we realized there is for us to discover. “For a man – even one very well versed in learning – will attain unto nothing more perfect than to be found to be the most learned in the ignorance which is distinctively his. The more he knows that he is unknowing, the more learned he will be.”[9]

This, of course, leads us to revelation, where we come to know truths which transcend our experience and our ability to infer based upon our experience. Because of the vast difference between our intellect and the variety of such truths, revelation, faith, is the most important foundation for our coming to understand what is real. “And so, in the knowledge (cognition) or assertion of those truths we usually rely more on faith than on reasoning and on authority rather than argumentation, just as the Prophet said: Unless you believe, you will not understand.”[10]

The real transcends our ability to comprehend it, and thus, transcends those thoughts which we have of it.  We describe it with cognitive constructs, ideas which reflect it. But we must realize that these constructs will fail to meet and comprehend it. This does not mean there is no truth being proclaimed by them. On one level, we can proclaim the truth, though it is a relative truth, one which is true and yet should not be confused with the fullness of the absolute truth. It is for this reason we can declare things to be false; if someone says that rabbits have horns, we can look at rabbits, see they have no horns, and so discern, through experience and reason, that the claim was erroneous. It is because there is an absolute truth in which we participate, a transcendent reality which we experience and of which we can lean about through revelation, we can come to infer things about it which are true even if what we discern cannot be seen as univocal with the fullness of said truth.

Revelation is capable of transcending experience because revelation is able to come from a source which comprehends truth more than we do, and this is why faith is vital for coming to know the truth. We have faith in some authority because of the value we place in that authority; a doctor, for example, is granted authority in their limited domain of knowledge and we accept what they have to say as long as our own experience and reason do not give us a cause to deny their teachings. Faith in an authority, be it a natural or supernatural authority, is necessary if we want to live in the world, and not be trapped by pitfalls which could easily be avoided if we but listen to them. For this reason, Siddhartha is recorded as giving high praise to faith:

Faith is here a man’s best treasure:
Dhamma practised well brings happiness;
Truth is really the sweetest of tastes;
One living by wisdom they say lives the best.[11]

But such faith can easily be misplaced. So many would-be authorities do not deserve our faith and trust. For this reason, though we must find authorities which we can trust so as to be lead further into the real, and so to be brought closer to God, we must be careful and test what it is we are told. Faith doesn’t have to be blind; we test what we are told by some authority, either by testing the authority itself or testing what it is they claim by seeing if they can fit in with our experiences and what we can infer from our experiences. This is also what is said that Siddhartha expected from his followers – for them to test what he said, to find out the truth of it for themselves:

Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.[12]

If what some authority says challenges us and our experiences, suggesting our experiences are faulty, we must accept the possibility they are correct, though of course, we must test what they say, see if what they say is credible, if what they suggest can be a way to explain our experiences and show our understanding of them to be at fault. Reason, therefore, is to be used to judge an authority’s claim with what is already believed; if their claim proves superior, we accept it, if their claim proves impossible, we deny it; if it proves inconclusive, we should remember it, and keep it in mind as we explore the world and try to understand the truth, and when we see something which either confirms or denies it, then we can take it or reject it , but if we do not have either experience, we can at best conditionally accept or decline it, based again on our experiences and what our reason brings out of them.

If there is something transcendental explained by an authority, something which might indeed be vital for us to know, how will we be able to either accept or deny it? The best solution is to explore that supposed authority and see what they proclaim in general, what it is they say beyond the claim in question. Do they consistently reveal truths which we know to be true but are difficult to discern? Or have they said something which, again, is difficult to know, but because of their declarations, we have explored the matter and discovered what they have proclaimed to be true? This should give us reason to conditionally trust them. Do they, however, say all kinds of falsehood? This, of course, gives us reason to reject them. Now we must be careful and make sure we are properly understanding them – things which are transcendent to the human intellect can appear to be false, initially, but when further explored shown to be true (revelations can be obscure and misunderstood, though when studied and explained, their message becomes clearer and one is better able to judge them; what we said about trust applies here: if we can find some aspects of a revelation we come to understand and see as being true, those parts which are difficult to understand can still be seen as true with the recognition that the problem lies in finding the proper way of understanding them).[13] The point is when some authority, such as a text of scripture, reveals all kinds of truths, some which we can and do come to know, and some which transcend our current ability to know, we can have faith in them and trust them as long as their claims do not become contradicted by experience or reason conditioned by experience. If some authority claims a certain technique will necessarily make us rich, and we follow through and become poorer, we can easily reject them, because our experience has shown them to be false. If, on the other hand, it does indeed make us rich, we can conditionally look to them as someone trustworthy, and as long as they continue to reveal what is trustworthy in similar fashion, we have just cause so as to accept what they say on matters which transcend our ability to judge.

Thus, experience, reason, and faith in authority are all necessary, and need to work together, with each being used to test the rest, in order for us to slowly gain in knowledge and understanding. While they are inter-related, we can also find ourselves gaining in knowledge in a cyclical fashion, for example, the more experience we have, the more we can infer, and the more we can infer, the better way we can judge and interpret our experiences. The same is true with revelation, or, of course, with what is learned from inference (though we must be careful with taking an inference, and then going with it to come to a secondary inference; the more levels of inference we perform, the more human fallibility creeps in and interferes with one’s realization of the truth). We need to use them all together, and use two to test the third, to slowly purify ourselves – to purify the way we experience the world so we can begin to experience it in intellectual purity, to purify our use of reason so as not to be misled by faulty judgments, and to purify our authorities, to slowly develop a list of those we accept, those we find to be helpful but not entirely accurate, and those we have found so deficient we must reject. When it is a natural authority, of course, it is easier to learn from them without having to accept all they have to say, because they do not claim supernatural authority which dictates what they have to say is necessarily true; thus, we can follow along with St Augustine in his work on The Trinity, because he readily acknowledges this and asks for correction:

Accordingly, dear reader, whenever you are as certain about something as I am go forward with me; whenever you stick equally fast seek with me; whenever you notice that you have gone wrong come back to me; or that I have, call me back to you. In this way let us set out along Charity Street together, making for him of whom it is said, Seek his face always (Ps 105:4).[14]

We would, however, have greater difficulty in listening to someone who claims to be a prophet and shows no evidence by which we can accept what they have to teach, especially if they are unwilling to be questioned and demand total loyalty without demonstrating why we should do so. Those unwilling to be tested give reason for rejection, not acceptance, especially if they make great claims without great justification to back them up. Even apparent miracles, though they provide some reason to look into the situation and examine it further, are not always sufficient, because of how many people fake miracles and use trickery to try to lead people astray. This is why Siddhartha said that the only miracle he approved as sufficient is that of teaching, because any other miracle, though interesting, is unable to be properly tested and so the authority of one performing them is not absolutely verified by them.[15] But if they teach something and get people to learn from and understand some greater truth, they have done a far greater deed, even as St John Chrysostom said that David getting Saul to feel tears of sorrow for his mistreatment of him was a far greater miracle than Moses getting water out of a rock.[16] For through good teaching, someone is moved and made better from it while with many miracles, even authentic ones, there is often little to no change in the people involved (as can be seen by the way the people of Israel consistently complained in the desert even after Moses’ miracle).

What, then, are we to make of arguments of authority where the authority verifies itself by miracles? Richard of St Victor proclaims the norm which we have come to accept: “These truths have been revealed from heaven to the fathers and divinely confirmed with signs or wonders so numerous, so great, and so wonderful that it seems like great madness to have even a little doubt in these matters.”[17] But if this is how we Christians normally accept revelation, do we not have just cause to doubt these very truths because, as we just said, miracles can be, and often are, faked? The solution to this problem is two-fold. No one denies a miracle, of itself, does not justify reason for inquiry. Many fake miracles are proven fake by such inquiry – either because the deception by which the so-called miracle was wrought is discovered, or the claims of the one who performed the so-called miracle are examined and shown to be false. However, for those who perform miracles and teach what cannot be shown to be false, indeed, if they teach some things which are difficulty grasped but proven true, and other things which are not at least contradictory with what is known to be true, we can, again, find some trust in them and say that the greatest miracle is indeed the miracle of teaching, while their other miracles help give evidence to back their claim to authority. But the most important thing with such signs and wonders are that they give us reason to consider  the claims of those who perform them. The historical spread of the Christian faith in hostile territories, such as the Roman Empire, demonstrated the miracle of teaching, and it gives Christianity credibility and it is this kind of miracle which we can accept and approve. It is the kind of miracle which shows there is something special about the Christian faith which makes it credible and worthy of further examination and belief, because it led to moral the improvement of the people of Rome.

To find and discover the truth, therefore, requires an openness to the world, an openness to authorities we find credible, and a willingness to explore everything with the gift of reason given to us. Openness to the world, however, is not as simple as it sounds, because we often put all kinds of things in the way  – we often experience the world through a hermeneutical lens created by thought constructs which are themselves needing to be examined and purged; unless we are willing to examine ourselves and purge ourselves of all attachments and passions which place barriers in our lives and prevents us from experiencing the world as it is, the value of our experiences will be limited, and so, limited in its ability to provide the data necessary to compare with reason and revelation. Thus, as Dharmakīrti explains, right cognition, right understanding of the truth requires a direct perception of the world, one unhindered by the preconditions and mental constructs that we normally put in the way of our experience of the world:

Right cognition is twofold: Direction perception and inference. Among them, direct perception is free from constructive thought and is non-delusory. Constructive thought is the cognitive dawning of an image able to coalesce with verbalism. Cognition free from such (constructive thought), when not subject to disturbances such as the eye-caul, whirling motion, embarking in a boat, and agitation is direct perception.[18]

It is fourfold –
(1) Sense-organ cognition.
(2) Mental perception (which ) is engendered by the immediately preceding condition, to wit, the cooperating sense-organ cognition as an object that immediately follows its own (partite) sense object.
(3) Introspection (which) is of very thought and mental.
And (4) yogin’s cognition[19] (which is) born of the vivid fulfillment from contemplating the true end. [20]

Sin is said to darken the mind because it closes us off from the full experience of the real. It creates a mental habit which then acts as filter to the world, closing off much of the world at large as it leads us in to some small part of it as fit for our attention. It is for this reason why sin and all sinful habits must be fought and overcome, otherwise, we come to reason and revelation with a darkened mind and therefore, likely to come to a faulty conclusion. This is why fasting, ascetic discipline, and the like are necessary for the discovery of truth, and why those filled with wisdom tell us to follow some form of discipline in order for us to discover the barriers which exist in our consciousness; such discipline teaches us much about ourselves, and helps is discern what we have placed in our lives which hides us from the fullness of reality, and then allows us to deconstruct it until at last it is entirely removed. While this is true with the world at large, when trying to deal with the absolute truth, God, this is especially true, as Augustine makes clear:

So then it is difficult to contemplate and have full knowledge of God’s substance, which without any change in itself makes things change, and without any passage of time in itself creates things that exist in time. That is why it is necessary for our minds to be purified before that inexpressible reality can be inexpressibly seen by them; and in order to make us fit and capable of grasping it, we are led along more endurable routes, nurtured on faith as long as we have not yet been endowed with that necessary purification. [21]

Now, it must be remembered that the human intellect, and therefore, its ability to comprehend the truth is far less than the truth itself. The more it is opened up, the more it experiences the real, the more it comes to understand the real from revelation, the more awe it has of the real, the more in love it can be said to be with the real (shown by its greater desire to know and comprehend the real), but also, the more it realizes its own ignorance, allowing it to become ever more fascinated and drawn into the real by this fact. “Hence, the intellect, which is not truth, never comprehends truth so precisely that truth cannot be comprehended infinitely more precisely.”[22] Indeed, we can be so drawn in to the real, that at last, all that divides us from it, all that prevents a pure experience of it, can be and will be extinguished, and it is then we will find ourselves participating in it, united with it though without loss of our relative being. It is then we shall be said to be enlightened by the beatific vision, in perfect harmony and peace, in perfect joy and happiness, having become one with the real, the truth, that is God, and thus, participating in God’s divine life. “Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2 RSV). This is the goal we seek. Until we get to that state, we must slowly work out our salvation with much fear and trembling, struggling to remove all that closes us off from the truth. We must, in our pursuit of the truth, accept help we can get, all revelation we can see worthy of belief, because all authentic aid will point to us the path forward, the direction we need to go for such union with the truth.