Some people reading traditionalist writers get finicky when they first see Truth with a capital T, because they doubt that any ultimate Truth can be attainable, or even worse, they fear a monopolization of opinion in the intention of establishing an “intolerant” version of Truth in society; both are typical misunderstandings of an individualistic modern era. We will explain what we refer to as Truth in Traditionalism.
From a metaphysical perspective, the whole of existence is present because of its participation in Reality, the Absolute. This is what Aristotle, Avicenna and St. Aquinas called in some way or other the First Cause, an uncaused cause, that which is by itself, but also causes the entire creation and its elements. Therefore, forms that emerge from that origin have specific characteristics that adjoin with the rest of the characteristics of other forms, under a series of natural laws. All forms partake of a single reality and irremediably act according to Nature.
The quest of natural sciences is to understand the physical laws that govern matter and to elaborate theories to explain their functioning. However, it is outside of its capacities to determine that what would be outside action and reaction , the Uncaused Cause, as well as a source of the laws of matter, even if laws themselves are made of matter. To understand Truth, it is essential to realize that “Truth” is not an empirical “truth” that may be contained within a scientifically experimental system.
Truth in the sense used by Traditionalists relates purely to the metaphysical nature of Reality, of God. The revelations which found religions are crystallisations of this Truth within the contingent sphere of forms. Once the metaphysical experience has occurred for the individual, to call it Truth is a logical consequence of a comprehension of a state preceding phenomena, from whence the multiplicity of forms is derived. “The Way produces one. One produces two. Two produces three. Three produces everything.” Tao Te Ching, 42.
In a strict sense, Truth is the saving manifestation of the Absolute, and according to Schuon, it differs from the concept of reality: “Truth and reality must not be confused: the latter relates to “being” and signifies the aseity of things, and the former relates to “knowing” – to the image of reality reflected in the mirror of the intellect “. Truth is the certainty of the Absolute. Also, as a term the word Truth provokes inquisitiveness, giving a variety of correlations in regards to specific aspects of spiritual pursuit.
An example is Truth serving as an opposition to what’s false or unreal in our perception: this is, in Sanskrit, maya. It is not that maya forms a reality apart from Truth, but only that it is an illusion that occurs within the Absolute, in which we see our ego and its material circumstances as the ultimate reality of consciousness. This ignorance of Truth, or avidya, makes us believe that the entire creation is separated and dispersed, through circumstantial dualities of attachment and aversion, and so the discovery of Truth requires man to pierce the veil of maya, surpassing ignorance. Again, this ignorance is not of an empirical nature, but it is a supposition that the thirst for our mundane ends (trsna) is the only possibility and therefore the highest motivation of man.
Truth has social implications as a social reality, even when both objects are different. Social reality is built around the pursuit of Truth, and finds its manifestation in the cultural sphere, bringing a mutually shared aim that pushes individuals towards a transcendent spirit. This, of course, does not escape from the organic life of societies. The rise of the greatest cultures in History has been conditioned by such sight, and their downfall has been marked by the pluralisation of smaller and individualistic convictions. The degeneration of civilizations shows a correspondent dysfunction in all strata of society, a neglect of Truth for the emergence of self-interests, causing class conflict. In this downfall, it is possible that an imposition of ideology may claim “Truth”, acting in an overly-coercive way foreign to aristocracy, and closer to tyranny. So, this “truth” is a social construction and an imposition very far from Truth.
Now, how can we know the constitution of this Truth, beyond its social functionality? Through Revelation.
We will cite Schuon again: “Revelation is none other than the objective and symbolic manifestation of the Light which man carries in himself, in the depths of his being”. Symbolic, Revelation carries a set of signs, and behaviour codes for the communities which essentially are connivance rules that even humanists can appreciate, and of which violation constitutes the disgrace of every culture. This aspect serves an exoteric purpose. The symbols are dependent on the history of cultures, but if they emerge from the Absolute, they have an objective end. Being Absolute and objective, God can’t be reduced as a social phenomena, even when there exists a social organization around the idea of a God. The key here is to understand the symbols in order to achieve the knowing of the Truth, attainable through the methods of prayer, which constitute a quest for the individual in his last stance.
Satya, a Sanskrit term for Truth, is understood in Hinduism as the everlasting reality independent to time and events. This means that Truth is immanent in the discoveries of a growing and positive science that occurs in human history, and also the rise and eventual death of human societies. Truth brings conditions for human reorganization across history, over a human and relative conception, and the man that ventures in the methods of Religion, not only through empirical science, finds himself in certainty of such Truth, transcending his human circumstances.
any divinity, any goodness!
