My Personal Approach to Truth

Buddhist philosopher, Nagarjuna, made this distinction between “conventional truth” and “Ultimate Truth.” Let me start off by saying that I am really not happy with the term “Ultimate Truth.” But who are we, as mere mortals, to know the “Ultimate Truth”? I like Nagarjuna’s Two Truth Theory only to the extent that it points out that the conventional or majority view is typically not ultimate. In addition, most of the human world consists of “socially-constructed reality” or “useful fiction.” Among these fictional items are things like “God,” countries, money, corporations, and “self.” Of course, just as my friend, Kazi Adi Shaki, has pointed out, this “Ken” too is fiction, just like “Kazi” is. The notion of a “self,” although fictional in nature, is useful. How else are we going to have business contracts, marriage certificates, estates, inheritances, etc.?

Buddhist scripture is full of references to supernatural beings. The notion of a self, just like the notion of “Harvard” or “Apple,” serves a useful social purpose. But what about supernatural entities such as demons, devas, ghosts, and fairies? What useful purpose would they serve? I am sure that some people would find these ideas useful. But there is no consensus on their usefulness and social purpose. In fact, based on my cultural experience, I think these notions encourage superstition, which, in turn, encourages ruthless charlatans to…