What Is Truth?

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
[b](1) What is real? What is truth?

They are the same. Reality is Truth.

(2) Can truth about reality be known?

Most certainly. To know the truth about Reality -- or Truth itself -- is to be enlightened. To be enlightened is to free of all delusion.

(3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against?

The best "ab ...[text shortened]... irst and foremost. And cultivate a single minded desire to know the Truth.

Good luck. 🙂[/b]

A classic example of trying to sound profound and not really saying anything at all.

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
[b](1) What is real? What is truth?

They are the same. Reality is Truth.

(2) Can truth about reality be known?

Most certainly. To know the truth about Reality -- or Truth itself -- is to be enlightened. To be enlightened is to free of all delusion.

(3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against?

The best "ab ...[text shortened]... irst and foremost. And cultivate a single minded desire to know the Truth.

Good luck. 🙂[/b]

Your answers are interesting, but I find 3 areas of fault with them.

(1) You say "to be enlightened" is "to [be] free of all delusion". But how do you know when you are? And how if you arent "enlightened," can you identify someone who is "enlightened," because in order for you to make an accurate assessment, you need to be able to analyze correctly ie not being constricted by delusions.

(2) You also give one example of a "fully awakened master" is Buddha. And you say the "absolute standard" of truth are the teaching of these "fully awakened masters". But these masters of morality and philosophical thought vary alot more than "slightly" as you say. Buddha does not agree with Jesus, and Mohammed does not match up with Joseph Smith either. So therefore in order to apply this absolute standard aproach, then only 1 is right in what they teach. If you then take a relativist aproach, then you are simply wrong because the core of the belief of "all truth is relative" is flawed. Because that statement must be an absolute statement of truth to be unfalsifyable, rendering itself defeated by its own standard.

(3) You first say Buddha is an enlightened one, then you say "belief itself is kind of useless". Then why do you bring Buddha up if in general it is useless to believe about anything, including his teachings? Then you say, "far better is to investigate the matter," and further down you say "trust you own experience first and foremost." Well then why even investigate anyone else's teaching at all such as Buddha or Jesus if ultimately your own experience will determine you belief? Your contradiction of your absolute standard with the enlightened ones and with relative standard of yourself (assuming most of us are unenlightened) is puzzling.

Heres what I think - there is only one absolute standard of truth, but before I present my views, I would like to hear you defend yours; likewise I am open to hear whom you the reader thinks is the bearer of this absolute standard. Buddha? Jesus? Mohammed? Josepth Smith? etc?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
A classic example of trying to sound profound and not really saying anything at all.

And heres another classic example of someone attempting his stance of refutation, without giving ample evidence of why or how...simply stating it as unprofound without reasoning yourself is really not saying anything at all either. In any formal or informal debate, you must present warrants for your claim for your voice to be recognized....And dont say I have not because all my previous posts have followed my own standard, and even in this post, I give evidence for giving evidence (which is so that your voice will be heard). Simply put, spare myself and the rest of the readers from wasting time looking at your meaningless posts. I would be much obliged... and at least the person that you have attempted to refute put thought and mind behind his truthful answer, of which I have yet to see you post anything of commendation.

Originally posted by ngeisler88
Your answers are interesting, but I find 3 areas of fault with them.

(1) You say "to be enlightened" is "to [be] free of all delusion". But how do you know when you are? And how if you arent "enlightened," can you identify someone who is "enlightened," because in order for you to make an accurate assessment, you need to be able to analyze correctly i ...[text shortened]... f this absolute standard. Buddha? Jesus? Mohammed? Josepth Smith? etc?

Only one standard of truth? But there are different types of truth. Don't they require different standards?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Only one standard of truth? But there are different types of truth. Don't they require different standards?

According to some beliefs, yes, there are different types and standards. But I find that the most logical belief is that there is only one standard of truth, one absolute standard that reigns over all. I think that is more logical thatn saying there are different types of truth (which doesnt even make sense, how can there be varying degrees of truth, making something more true than another), and having each type have its own relative standard that only applies to itelf. Because then you have no standard to adhere those standards too to even contemplate the validity of some varying degrees/types of truth. One absolute standard is the only logical way to me. I am willing to present more of my views, but I will not if no one is interested in negotiating their own. I am willing to negotiate my own view, but since I have found what I think is the basis and standard of truth, I have found none that come even close to dissuading it.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Only one standard of truth? But there are different types of truth. Don't they require different standards?

Yes, and “truth=reality” I take as an experiential claim. (Having heard ATY, I am trying to keep everything in non-caps, express or implied.)

In some languages, truth and reality are the same word, or have the same root (e.g., sat in Sanskrit, which can be translated as reality, being, truth—along with other concepts, depending on how it’s being used). Another word is tathata, normally translated as thusness, or suchness—i.e., just the way it is. The “truth=reality” way of talking comes out of that kind of linguistic understanding (e.g. Zen, Vedanta), and indicates that basic “metaphysical”* truth precedes thinking about it—describing, classifying, explaining, etc.—and that it is “experienceable.” One can only experience it by letting go of our habitual making-thinking. All subsequent talk about it is an attempt at “mapping” or pointing (including my own poor attempts, such as my Level 0); maps can be argued about, the “territory” can only be experienced.

“Delusion” occurs when we mistake our made-up (and acquired/conditioned) maps for the territory, or only see the territory through our particular conceptual lenses. I dislike the word “enlightenment,” though I understand how MM uses it, since it is in the literature—enlightenment is simply absence of such delusion. I prefer the word “clarity”—though that too is simply a “mapping” word. One should not simply believe the “masters”—one should test their claim. That, at bottom, is what all the “meditation” techniques (mindfulness, zazen, koans, etc.) are about.

These are different usages than when we talk about propositional truth. Or whether a map “truly” represents the territory (i.e., whether it is sufficiently accurate for its use). Or when we say that an arrow “flies true.”

EDIT: I am not sure I am using the word "metaphysical" correctly here, hence the "scare quotes."

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Only one standard of truth? But there are different types of truth. Don't they require different standards?

By implication, truth would be relative.

Originally posted by ngeisler88
And heres another classic example of someone attempting his stance of refutation, without giving ample evidence of why or how...simply stating it as unprofound without reasoning yourself is really not saying anything at all either. In any formal or informal debate, you must present warrants for your claim for your voice to be recognized....And dont say I ...[text shortened]... d mind behind his truthful answer, of which I have yet to see you post anything of commendation.

Did you read my post on page 4?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Did you read my post on page 4?

Ok, I apologize. I stand corrected. I admit I was a little bit in a fury when I wrote my last comment.

But nevertheless, I am sorry to say that I missed that comment on page 4. In the time of 1 day out of town, when I left, there was maybe 20 posts, and when I returned there was over a 100. So it was impossible for me just to jump into the arguments in place. Reading your post on page 4, and the refutations to them by others, I would be interested in hearing your defense. I would have defended myself to your objections, but it seems others accomplished that adequately to silence you....But do not be silent in vain, I beg. I am always open to hear critiques of my statements. Lets continue or better yet start over from there so it can be just you and me back and forth if you prefer.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If the universe exists, then based on the evidence within it we can extrapolate the age of the universe. Is that "real"? Is it "true"? Who could possibly ever know? Both reality and truthfulness are concepts. Is it possible to have a perfect concept is the question we should really be asking. However, to ask this question all the time, especially ...[text shortened]... would not be a fruitful endeavour, so it makes sense to treat the universe as a real thing.

Yes we could treat the universe as a real thing, but that wasn't what
I asked.
Kelly