Give me Truth.

[Unveiled Artist]

What then is aware of of the changes?

No thing/one. Change exists in and of itself without our need to be present for it to exist as literal truth. There isn't an origin. Everything is in total flux.

 

[blü 2]

The truth cannot be handed over since it is not an object. It can be realised by getting back -- by bringing back the mind to its source.

But how do you define it, old friend? What do you say is the test for whether a statement is true or not?

 

[atanu]

No thing/one. Change exists in and of itself without our need to be present for it to exist as literal truth. There isn't an origin. Everything is in total flux.

How do you know?

 

[atanu]

But how do you define it, old friend? What do you say is the test for whether a statement is true or not?

What is your criteria?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How do you know?

Well, at its simplest circles don't have starting points. Think of nature and it's process. Our birth, dying, to ash and recycled part of the earth. What's used for computers etc is part of the earth. We don't create, we recycle.

When someone asks me what the origin to life is or "god" I dont think origin but a process of changing both birth, living, and dying and so forth. Life in and of itself.

You can see and experience change everywhere. How does one see an origin when the goal post is never still.

 

[PureX]

In what sense 'absolutist'?
I don't think functionality equals truth (though perhaps I misunderstand the point you're making). I think a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects / conforms with, objective reality.

We humans have no access to "objective reality". Such access would be a logical impossibility, as WE are the 'subjects' that determine and define "subjectivity". And we cannot escape ourselves as we experience and cognate "reality".

Also, we humans are not omniscient because our cognitive capacities and perceptive abilities are limited, and our capacity for understanding existence is likewise then limited. Leaving us to 'understand' existence by relating limited experiences and ideas to each other. What we call "reality" is just a conceptual paradigm that we've created in our minds based on our limited, subjective, experience and understanding of existence, assembled relationally.

These limitations being the case, we humans are capable of imagining absolute ideals (like infinity, equality, and 'zero') that we are not capable of actually experiencing as an existential reality. And if we do not recognize this limitation within ourselves, we tend to fall victim to a false sense of knowledge and righteousness that we cannot and do not actually possess.

 

[atanu]

Well, at its simplest circles don't have starting points. Think of nature and it's process. Our birth, dying, to ash and recycled part of the earth. What's used for computers etc is part of the earth. We don't create, we recycle.

When someone asks me what the origin to life is or "god" I dont think origin but a process of changing both birth, living, and dying and so forth. Life in and of itself.

You can see and experience change everywhere. How does one see an origin when the goal post is never still.

I agree that circles do not have starting points. Therefore, in Vedanta 'without a beginning' phrase is used. But when you say "You can see and experience change everywhere", who is the subject seer?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I agree that circles do not have starting points. Therefore, in Vedanta 'without a beginning' phrase is used. But when you say "You can see and experience change everywhere", who is the subject seer?

We are a part of the change observing it as we experience it. It's like being on a farris wheel. We know it's going around and we can observe and experience it at the same time. When you meditate you see more of this change, karma really. The idea is to do things that bring good causes and be part of it.

 

[blü 2]

What is your criteria?

Truth is conformity with (objective) reality. If you want to know whether a statement is true or not, you check how accurately it corresponds with the world.

 

[blü 2]

We humans have no access to "objective reality". Such access would be a logical impossibility, as WE are the 'subjects' that determine and define "subjectivity". And we cannot escape ourselves as we experience and cognate "reality".

A world exists external to the self. We each perceive it through our senses, either directly or by our instruments. In what sense is that not 'access to objective reality'? Why is not each example of breathing in, drinking water, eating food, encountering other people, having conversations on the net, a demonstration of our access to objective reality?

And having that access, we keep exploring it, and describing and examining what we find in order to explain it. Since scientific method is empirical and inductive, its conclusions are never final, but they are correct enough to result in technologies by which we live better and longer eg metallurgy and materials science, electronics, pharmaceutics, animal and plant genetics and husbandry, on and on. And we keep enlarging our capacity to do this. That there's no such thing as absolute truth is no impediment: truth is our best opinion for the time being, and science is forever a work in progress, whose conclusions can be and are routinely tested and retested for accuracy.

Also, we humans are not omniscient

So what? 'Omniscience' is an imaginary condition, a magic wish.

our capacity for understanding existence is likewise then limited. Leaving us to 'understand' existence by relating limited experiences and ideas to each other. What we call "reality" is just a conceptual paradigm that we've created in our minds based on our limited, subjective, experience and understanding of existence, assembled relationally.

Again, so what? We know (again not absolutely, but better than we used to) that what we have works in reality because we test it against reality.

These limitations being the case, we humans are capable of imagining absolute ideals (like infinity, equality, and 'zero') that we are not capable of actually experiencing as an existential reality.

There are no absolutes outside this sentence. Again, so what?

And if we do not recognize this limitation within ourselves, we tend to fall victim to a false sense of knowledge and righteousness that we cannot and do not actually possess.

Righteousness isn't a word I use much, and 'we tend' is situational, but I don't disagree with your basic point. However, I draw your attention to the way in which rational enquiry, not least scientific method, takes those very matters into account and deals with them through eg the requirements of honesty, transparent reasoning from evidence, repeatable experiment, peer review, publication, and so on.

 

[atanu]

We are a part of the change observing it as we experience it. It's like being on a farris wheel. We know it's going around and we can observe and experience it at the same time. When you meditate you see more of this change, karma really. The idea is to do things that bring good causes and be part of it.

Truth is conformity with (objective) reality. If you want to know whether a statement is true or not, you check how accurately it corresponds with the world.

I say fair enough to both the above.

But what or who is the seer/knower of the so called objective reality? Suppose I say that the tree that I planted 10 years ago when my body was strong is now grown to 30 feet, while my body has withered. Has the true subject that is witness of the objective changes (objective reality whose nature is change, change, and change) changed?

Let me dissect it a bit more. Everyone says "I am this ....". This statement has two parts. "I am", which is the subjective truth that is true in all our objective assertions. It is the consciousness-existence. The subject. OTOH, 'this' is the object. It is insentient and ever changeful.

Have we through our foolishness or carelessness forgotten that "I am" is the truly true aspect that is the conscious-existent subject in all statements regarding unconscious objects. In all measurements of objects "I am" is the subject. One can strip away all objects -- such as is done in Buddhism or through 'Not This Not This' discrimination of Vedantic practise. But the subject cannot be stripped away. The body is such an object. The mind is such an object. The world is conglomerate of objects. Any measurement of any of these has to have the subject as the inherent conscious-existent truth. But we have forgotten the "I am".

If we agree this much intellectually, we may proceed further.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I say fair enough to both the above.

But what or who is the seer/knower of the so called objective reality? Suppose I say that the tree that I planted 10 years ago when my body was strong is now grown to 30 feet, while my body has withered. Has the true subject that is witness of the objective changes (objective reality whose nature is change, change, and change) changed?

Let me dissect it a bit more. Everyone says "I am this ....". This statement has two parts. "I am", which is the subjective truth that is true in all our objective assertions. It is the consciousness-existence. The subject. OTOH, 'this' is the object. It is insentient and ever changeful.

Have we through our foolishness or carelessness forgotten that "I am" is the truly true aspect that is the conscious-existent subject in all statements regarding unconscious objects. In all measurements of objects "I am" is the subject. One can strip away all objects -- such as is done in Buddhism or through 'Not This Not This' discrimination of Vedantic practise. But the subject cannot be stripped away. The body is such an object. The mind is such an object. The world is conglomerate of objects. Any measurement of any of these has to have the subject as the inherent conscious-existent truth. But we have forgotten the "I am".

If we agree this much intellectually, we may proceed further.

Im not following but in Buddhism or in (The Buddha) Dharma its a bit simliar in the basics.

Everything is in constant change; the laws of cause and affect or kamma. In relationship with The Dharma, because there is change there is no solid -I-. Nothing stands still in life to refer to any aspect of it as a non-changing concept, thing, person, or thought. There is no identity to which is always the same under flesh (thats a christian concept). No unchanging soul or spirit.

I think Vendantic is in some part of Hinduism; dont quote me. But how you describe it is probably more complicated than it actually is.

Youre first question, who is the seer or knower: Ourselves. Going back to the farris wheel, who is observing the wheel turning? Who is experiencing it? We cant atttribute the nature of the experience and senses to something outside ourselves. We are in the carts no one else is. We can share experiences on an external level. In other words, talk about it but not have the same experiences as the other.

I wasnt raised with an idea and outside person or thing watches on the outside and intereacts. As Im sitting here now, I cant even imagine that as part of my subjective nor obsevation of the objective reality at all Its a foreign language.

But, the observer or seer is you. We live within change on a universal level. Its not specific to human beings; its everything.

I notice you refer to humans as fools in their foolishness. I dont see humans with having some sort of internal fault that keeps them from seeing a mystical truth. I dont know if thats a religious thing since many religions see ourselves as flawed in some way whether mind, spirit, or so have you.

We do have the ability to understand life if we accept that what we see is always subjective and true at the same time. We can share external experiences, but as long as we see ourselves having some sort of "original sin" by another name seuclar or religious, I dont think we will get it.

To answer your question, there is no outside knower. Many people feel that way and thats how they come to god or a mystical version of it.

The rest of your post has me at a lost.

 

[atanu]

Im not following but in Buddhism or in (The Buddha) Dharma its a bit simliar in the basics.

Everything is in constant change; the laws of cause and affect or kamma. In relationship with The Dharma, because there is change there is no solid -I-. Nothing stands still in life to refer to any aspect of it as a non-changing concept, thing, person, or thought. There is no identity to which is always the same under flesh (thats a christian concept). No unchanging soul or spirit.

I think Vendantic is in some part of Hinduism; dont quote me. But how you describe it is probably more complicated than it actually is.

Youre first question, who is the seer or knower: Ourselves. Going back to the farris wheel, who is observing the wheel turning? Who is experiencing it? We cant atttribute the nature of the experience and senses to something outside ourselves. We are in the carts no one else is. We can share experiences on an external level. In other words, talk about it but not have the same experiences as the other.

I wasnt raised with an idea and outside person or thing watches on the outside and intereacts. As Im sitting here now, I cant even imagine that as part of my subjective nor obsevation of the objective reality at all Its a foreign language.

But, the observer or seer is you. We live within change on a universal level. Its not specific to human beings; its everything.

I notice you refer to humans as fools in their foolishness. I dont see humans with having some sort of internal fault that keeps them from seeing a mystical truth. I dont know if thats a religious thing since many religions see ourselves as flawed in some way whether mind, spirit, or so have you.

We do have the ability to understand life if we accept that what we see is always subjective and true at the same time. We can share external experiences, but as long as we see ourselves having some sort of "original sin" by another name seuclar or religious, I dont think we will get it.

To answer your question, there is no outside knower. Many people feel that way and thats how they come to god or a mystical version of it.

The rest of your post has me at a lost.

You can simply identify the conscious subject and the observed object in a statement such as “I am this”.

If you can’t see that “I am” and “this” are different categories then let us forget it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You can simply identify the conscious subject and the observed object in a statement such as “I am this”.

If you can’t see that “I am” and “this” are different categories then let us forget it.

You are making this confusing. I am not Hindu; so, if you are referring to a Hindu perspective, I am not familar with it.

However, you must speak directly and explain your jargon.

Rephrase your post. Discussions come with clarifications. You cant expect people to understand you off the bat expecially on an world wide internet forum.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Truth is often not absolute. Example, "it is true that this blade of grass is precisely 4.359cm long". By tomorrow that blade of grass will have grown therefore the statement will be false.

To be truth, it has to be absolute, like Segev Moran said. You have not formed the sentence correctly. It should have been "it is true that this blade of grass is precisely 4.359cm long at the moment". You have not given all the parameters - the time factor. I will post something on parameters.

We humans have no access to "objective reality".

We can go and actually have gone quite far. "At the time of Big Bang, there was a ball of energy", that is how far we have gone.

"I am", which is the subjective truth that is true in all our objective assertions. It is the consciousness-existence.

Any measurement of any of these has to have the subject as the inherent conscious-existent truth.

You have a fixation for consciousness-existence (result of reading too many scriptures and translations and not applying your mind to it). "I am" is a bag containing 65% water, 20% protein, 12% lipids (Composition of the human body - Wikipedia - that accounts for 97% of "I am"). Change is an inherent property of "what exists" - Hindus term it as 'Brahman".

You are making this confusing.

He cannot help it. He is himself confused.

 

[blü 2]

But what or who is the seer/knower of the so called objective reality?

Each observer, from his or her point of view / sense of self, and as informed by the senses.

Suppose I say that the tree that I planted 10 years ago when my body was strong is now grown to 30 feet, while my body has withered. Has the true subject that is witness of the objective changes (objective reality whose nature is change, change, and change) changed?

I take it you mean, Has the observer's sense of self changed? Well, in the last ten years mine certainly has; I can't see how anyone alive and well could avoid that to any significant degree.

Everyone says "I am this ....". This statement has two parts. "I am", which is the subjective truth that is true in all our objective assertions. It is the consciousness-existence. The subject. OTOH, 'this' is the object. It is insentient and ever changeful.

For example, "I am a member of species H. sap"? Here 'I am' means I make a statement about myself ─ indeed about my sense of self, though that mightn't be true for everyone. The 'membership' concept is a relator between me and the predicate. The species H. sap. is a concept, a taxonomic abstraction about the place of humans on the map of all the varieties of things that have lived. I wouldn't have said that an abstraction was 'insentient', since it's part of mentation, but although I also wouldn't call it 'ever changeful', it can change eg as when H. sap denisova was discovered.

Have we through our foolishness or carelessness forgotten that "I am" is the truly true aspect that is the conscious-existent subject in all statements regarding unconscious objects.

I'm hard-pressed to think of a non-metaphorical statement beginning 'I am' and equating myself with an unconscious predicate. 'I was asleep' perhaps, but not 'I am asleep'.

In all measurements of objects "I am" is the subject. One can strip away all objects -- such as is done in Buddhism or through 'Not This Not This' discrimination of Vedantic practise. But the subject cannot be stripped away.

I don't follow this. 'I am' means 'I exist', and implies I know I exist. It's nice that I exist, but if I didn't, it wouldn't bother me because it couldn't bother me.

The body is such an object.

No, the body is ambiguous. In some sentences "I" includes my body in my sense of self ─ I ran for the bus ─ and in others it doesn't ─ I find Martinů rather dull ─ and in some the ambiguity is maintained.

The mind is such an object.

The brain is an object but insofar as that rather blurry word 'mind' means the sense of self, 'mind' is much the same thing as the subject.

The world is conglomerate of objects. Any measurement of any of these has to have the subject as the inherent conscious-existent truth. But we have forgotten the "I am".

I sort of get the second sentence, though I wouldn't phrase it like that. As for the third, "I am" either refers to the sense of self, in which case it's sometimes not relevant but I can't think how one might 'forget' it; or you intend to denote something else, but I don't know what.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Parameters in a Hindu ritual:

Pūjā saṅkalpa vidhānaŚubha śōbhane muhūrte adya brahmaṇaḥ dvitīya parārdē (the second half of the time between the beginning of the universe and its end) śvēta varāha kalpē (half a day in the 100 years of Lord Brahma's life) vaivasvata manvantarē (one of the 14 divisions of each kalpa) kaliyugē (one fourth of the 71 cycles constituting a manvantara) prathama pādē (first of its four parts, the beginning) jambō dvīpē (name of the continent) bharata khaṇḍē (name of the country) gōdāvaryā dakṣiṇē tīrē (location of the place, in this case South of River Godavari) śālēvāhanaśakhē (name of the kingdom or state) bauddāvatārē (name of the latest avatara) rāmakṣētrē (name of the city or village) asmin vartamānē vyavahārikē candramānē prabhavādi (name of the locality) ṣaṣṭhi sanvatsarāṇāṁmadhyē (name of the calendar) khara nāma sanvatsarē (name of the particular year), uttarāyanē/dhakṣiṇāyanē (phase of the sun, ascending or descending) tau māsē (month of the year), śukla/krshnapakṣē (phase of the moon) tithiyāṁ (date) Vāra yuktāyāṁ, śubhanakṣatra (name of the asterism) śubhakaraṇa (which half of the day) ēvaṁ guṇa viśēṣaṇaviśiṣṭāyāṁ śubhatithau (aspects of the planets, relative positions, 36 in all), mama (name of the person who desires the ritual) gōtrōdbavasya (paternal genealogy) rāṣe (zodiac), nakṣatre (asterism), jātaḥ (born in), nāmadyēyasya (..), upārtha samasta durita kṣēma dvāra śrī paramēśvara prītyarthaṁ iṣṭa dēvatā (name of the chosen deity) __śrī abhayān̄janēya svāmi dēvatā anugrahēṇa (name of the guru) mama ________ gōtrōdbavasya ______rāṣe _____ nakṣatre pitā (name of the father) _______ nāmadyēyasya, ______rāṣe _____ Nakṣatre mātā (name of the mother) _______ nāmadyēyasya, ______rāṣe _____ nakṣatre jātaḥ _________ nāmadyēyasya ______rāṣe _____ nakṣatre jātaḥ mama dharmapatni (name of the person's wife) __________ rāṣe __________ nakṣatre ________ nāmadyēyasya mama kumāryāha/kumārtyāha (name of the children) ______rāṣe ______ nakṣatre _______ nāmadyēyasya, __________ rāṣe _________ nakṣatre __________nāmadyēyasya - asya

That is as far as I can go. Rest, the priests will know. What I wanted to indicate is that these rituals give precise parameters and coordinates. Even the priest before beginning the ritual will have to give his parameters. The Purpose of the ritual also is precisely mentioned.

 

[Deeje]

Right now, I want you to breakdown step-by-step, or crunched down to your best, the very best possible explanation you have at this moment, of the secrets of life and the universe, and what they resonate to you.

The truth answers the following questions....

1) Who are we?

2) Where did we come from?

3) Why are we here?

4) Where are we going?

In a nutshell, I believe that humans were created by a Supreme Being, to enjoy material life on a material planet forever.
I do not believe that we are programmed for death because it was never meant to happen. The Creator made provision for humans (though mortals) to enjoy life without death....all they needed to do was remain obedient....but they didn't. Their disobedience brought death. It feels foreign and always has....after thousands of years, death still feels as wrong as it ever did.

What is our purpose here? The Creator made us 'in his image' in order to become 'caretakers' of this planet and its inhabitants. Part of that 'image' was the gift of free will. But we needed to learn how to 'drive' it. When humans could not follow simple instructions, the Creator stepped back to allow us to experience the consequences of our own independent decisions. Some of us will learn the lessons...others will fail. We will all finally be caught in the act of being ourselves. By our life-course and choices, we show the Creator whether we are the sort of caretakers he is looking for....or not.

What does the future hold? The purpose of the Creator concerning planet Earth will go ahead, with us or without us. Those who can learn from the lessons of history will not be condemned to repeat them. Those who failed to benefit from those lessons will disqualify themselves from citizenship in the world to come under the rulership of God's Kingdom. Jesus taught us to pray for that Kingdom to "come" to us...not that we would go to it. Only then will "God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven".

Too many people are so hung up on going to heaven that they forget that the earth was designed to be man's permanent home.
The only ones going to heaven are specially chosen to assist Jesus in his role as king and High Priest, ruling over the earth, and bringing redeemed humanity back into an approved relationship with their Creator.
We can all be citizens of that Kingdom if we choose to obey the Creator and the one he sent to teach us how to serve him.


That is what I believe.

 

[ChristineM]

To be truth, it has to be absolute, like Segev Moran said. You have not formed the sentence correctly. It should have been "it is true that this blade of grass is precisely 4.359cm long at the moment". You have not given all the parameters - the time factor. I will post something on parameters.

Nope, truth can be relative, there is a lone of thought saying there are no absolutes

Please don't be so condescending as to impose your will on me, it rarely works and can make enemy's very easily? What i said was accurate, i.e. that piece of grass must have been measured at that time to obtain such an accurate figure and claim "it is true that this blade of grass is precisely 4.359cm long". Note the "is", there was no need to frilly it up with waste of time statements.

 

[ChristineM]

Parameters in a Hindu ritual:

Pūjā saṅkalpa vidhānaŚubha śōbhane muhūrte adya brahmaṇaḥ dvitīya parārdē (the second half of the time between the beginning of the universe and its end) śvēta varāha kalpē (half a day in the 100 years of Lord Brahma's life) vaivasvata manvantarē (one of the 14 divisions of each kalpa) kaliyugē (one fourth of the 71 cycles constituting a manvantara) prathama pādē (first of its four parts, the beginning) jambō dvīpē (name of the continent) bharata khaṇḍē (name of the country) gōdāvaryā dakṣiṇē tīrē (location of the place, in this case South of River Godavari) śālēvāhanaśakhē (name of the kingdom or state) bauddāvatārē (name of the latest avatara) rāmakṣētrē (name of the city or village) asmin vartamānē vyavahārikē candramānē prabhavādi (name of the locality) ṣaṣṭhi sanvatsarāṇāṁmadhyē (name of the calendar) khara nāma sanvatsarē (name of the particular year), uttarāyanē/dhakṣiṇāyanē (phase of the sun, ascending or descending) tau māsē (month of the year), śukla/krshnapakṣē (phase of the moon) tithiyāṁ (date) Vāra yuktāyāṁ, śubhanakṣatra (name of the asterism) śubhakaraṇa (which half of the day) ēvaṁ guṇa viśēṣaṇaviśiṣṭāyāṁ śubhatithau (aspects of the planets, relative positions, 36 in all), mama (name of the person who desires the ritual) gōtrōdbavasya (paternal genealogy) rāṣe (zodiac), nakṣatre (asterism), jātaḥ (born in), nāmadyēyasya (..), upārtha samasta durita kṣēma dvāra śrī paramēśvara prītyarthaṁ iṣṭa dēvatā (name of the chosen deity) __śrī abhayān̄janēya svāmi dēvatā anugrahēṇa (name of the guru) mama ________ gōtrōdbavasya ______rāṣe _____ nakṣatre pitā (name of the father) _______ nāmadyēyasya, ______rāṣe _____ Nakṣatre mātā (name of the mother) _______ nāmadyēyasya, ______rāṣe _____ nakṣatre jātaḥ _________ nāmadyēyasya ______rāṣe _____ nakṣatre jātaḥ mama dharmapatni (name of the person's wife) __________ rāṣe __________ nakṣatre ________ nāmadyēyasya mama kumāryāha/kumārtyāha (name of the children) ______rāṣe ______ nakṣatre _______ nāmadyēyasya, __________ rāṣe _________ nakṣatre __________nāmadyēyasya - asya

That is as far as I can go. Rest, the priests will know. What I wanted to indicate is that these rituals give precise parameters and coordinates. Even the priest before beginning the ritual will have to give his parameters. The Purpose of the ritual also is precisely mentioned.

This is your "something on parameters"?

I am not hindu, and i see not relevance to measuring a blade of grass and reporting its length.