When a True Statement Is the Truth

This comedic captioned photograph from Indian Libertarians's Photos would be funny if it were not a true representation of the contrast between the views of these two men.

Both perspectives fall short of the truth, although the Dalai Lama’s does not fall nearly as short as the Obama’s.  Yet even the much fuller view of the Dalai Lama still falls short of the truth.  While the statements that he makes are true statements, they are not the truth.  The truth includes more.

Here is another example from the Dalai Lama:



Some other sources, such as Goodreads, attribute this similarly stated to Frank Zappa, “A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.”

But to the statement itself, while it is a true statement, does it tell the truth?  The quote attributed to the Dalai Lama is less restrictive, saying “The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open.” Yet if one examines even this statement it is found not to be the truth.  In fact, it is not really even a true statement, but because it states a portion of the truth it sounds like a true statement.

The Zappa quote is completely false, for if a closed mind did not work, he would have no one to criticize for thinking with a closed mind.

The less restrictive statement attributed to the Dalai Lama speaks a portion of the truth, but not the truth.

A mind that is open can receive information and outside stimulation.  However, an open mind is unable to focus and process the information that has been received.  Focus requires a narrowing of one’s thinking.  Processing of information requires closing one’s mind so as to begin analyzing what has been received.  Furthermore, a mind that is open to all views or opinions is unable to perceive the difference between opinion and fact.

The Truth is not proportional.  The truth is always whole.  No part of the truth can stand apart from the whole.  The truth is integral.  If it is divided into separate parts it ceases to be the truth.

Even the analogy is not the truth.  An open parachute does not work properly unless it is attached properly to the falling person or object.  An open parachute does not work properly in a vacuum.  An open parachute does not work for an object that is not falling.  An open parachute does not function if it is upside down.  An open parachute cannot be worn inside a cockpit or other close quarters, but must be carefully and meticulously folded so as to be worn and deployed at the appropriate time.

An open mind is not sufficiently focused to consider the facts but only applies vague or nebulous perceptions.  While a healthy and well functioning mind opens to receive information, facts, questions, and even opinions, it also must close to the narrow evaluation process of assessing and acknowledging the truth revealed by these received data.

This fallacy carries into the major tenet of the Dalai Lama in the promotion of Religious Harmony.  If one reads what he declares in this matter, actually hearing what he says, it becomes clear that harmony is not what he teaches.  What he really espouses is dissolution and ultimate neutralization.

He says: “We must distinguish between belief and respect. Belief refers to total faith, which you must have in your own religion. At the same time you should have respect for all other religions.”

What does this really mean?  It means choosing ignorance over knowledge.  It means reducing one’s religion to mere ritual and sentiment and tradition.

He says: “If a harmonious relationship is established amongst societies and religious beliefs in today's multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural world, then it will surely set a very good example for others.”

What does this mean?  He concludes: “Therefore, it is very important to live in harmony and analyse where the opinion of the other lies. The best way to do this is to engage in dialogue, dialogue and dialogue.”

The essence of this is to target and bomb the dissenting parties with ignorance. “Engage in dialogue, dialogue and dialogue” is a longhand version of saying “Agree to disagree.”  If a person steps back so as to close one’s mind to focus on what is really being said, this means to agree to believe nothing and to count nothing whatsoever as important.

So for the Dalai Lama peace means to drive discord out of existence by means of bombing the dissidents with nothingness and emptiness.  So where is the truth?  Where is common understanding ever actually pursued?  Is this anything but another deceptive tactic?

How does the Obama define obtaining peace?  He says peace is obtained by bombing with drones.  Of course control of the media, invading the privacy of citizens, and blatant deception and lies are also among his favorite tools.

Perhaps the two are closer in their views than one may first perceive.

Does it really matter?  It matters to those who believe that the truth really matters.

+ + +