I have been thinking about this topic for a couple days now. I was trying to discern a way to have this discussion that would avoid some of the obvious pitfalls involved. The best way I have been able to come up with so far is to impose a kind of entry fee (not money). Each participant should start their first post with their definition of what "the truth" is. That way everyone has a starting point to understand what each is trying to say.

So I will start.

To me, "the truth" is that one thing that connects everything together and gives it meaning.

Everything that is, has been, or will be, exist within the truth.

What this means is all the opposites we deal with everyday, good and evil, hot and cold, even up and down, all exist within "the truth". So nothing on it's own can possibly describe "the truth" because all of them exist within "the truth" (this goes for our definitions as well).

So if one only considers good things, then ones relationship to "the truth" would be good biased. This would limit ones understanding of "the truth" to that part associated to good. Given that evil has an equal part in "the truth", then ones understanding would only be half true. Considering both good and evil would yield a fuller understanding of "the truth".

This is why I think it important for us to give our own definition of "the truth" It is only when we include all understandings of "the truth" that we can (together) gain a fuller understanding of "the truth"

My apologies for the repetition of the words "the truth". It just doesn't feel right to refer to "the truth" any other way.

Views: 678

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I too liked the blind men and the elephant, my problem with it was that people failed to realize the importance of the concept that the blind men were all touching the same thing. The individuality of the different parts remained, leaving the idea of separation intact.

It would be more accurate (in my opinion of course) if the blind men all felt the same part, and gave different descriptions.

OK, but how do you propose that we all feel the "same part" of "the truth?" 

Does "the truth" have parts?

Maybe each differently distinquishable thing is a part of the truth.

Likewise, maybe each apparent individual is also a part of "the truth.

Parts feeling other parts.

The truth feeling itself.

Maybe, just like we might assume that there is one truth, there is really only one individual, and we all think we are it.

Maybe we get confused about that when we look at one another or identify ourselves separately from others, or are given different names and histories.

Just a thought.

Lets talk about pizza. Obviously there are many many different pizza's. Pizza can be made this way or that, can have these ingredients or those. Over time, and through different perspectives (individual likes or dislikes) a pizza made today may not look or taste much like that original first pizza, but, any pizza, every pizza still shares that original idea that manifested the first pizza.

so if you wanted to recognize the truth of pizza, you would look at all of them (despite there obvious differences) and find that "pattern" that they all share.

The same holds true for us. Despite our obvious differences, all of us (if possible) could trace our own individual evolution back through time. All the differences that we think make us individuals would fall away, Different skin color represents different environments. Darker skin color only says that somewhere in the past their ancestors were exposed to more sun, so the skin darkened. at some point we all had the same color skin.

Every difference between us is the same, at some point, all of our histories (or evolution) joins together to be the same.

Here is the interesting part.

If your looking for the truth of life, then you have to consider all life. At some point the tree in your front yard shares the same history as you or me.

If you consider the entire universe and everything in it. Any part of it shares the same history at some point. All of it has the same origin. All differences between myself and a pile of dog crap in the yard fall away, and at some point share the same linage.

It is hard to accept, but it is true (in my opinion).

So the truth of this universe has evolved into all the differences we see. That truth exist in everything. That truth binds us all together, making everything one thing. The differences are only differences in expression.

The implications of this concept are staggering. It says that before the "big bang" all was one. The energy of the big bang came from the potential of the original truth, and it's interaction of a perceived difference.

So our science can not find truth. our science only describes the original "lie" (if you will).

Please excuse all references to my, their, your (or anything of the like), it is impossible to describe without these references.

A big bang doesn't have to mean that unity went anywhere else.

I did not mean to suggest that. The unity is still there. It was/is the perception of that unity that changed to create the second potential that released the energy that resulted in our existence.Our universe, and us, are the manifestations of a lie (in essence).

in my view, I think the ignorance behind the perception that we are selves, living lives, among other living beings, living other lives is a causative factor for misperception, considered from a human vantage.

The universe as a manifestation of a lie sounds like something akin to the Hindu & Buddhist notions of maya.



Search Theosophy.Net!


What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


Theosophy References

Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2022   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service