"Truth is a pathless land and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. My only concern is to set humanity absolutely, unconditionally free. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. " This quote was said by Jiddu Krishnamurti, a famous spiritual author, teacher, and lecturer of the past century. His words often contain rather heavy, well thought and intriguing ideas, concepts, statements, etc. My question to all of you is: Is he onto something? Can Truth be found in religion? Or must we ascend from the cage and into flight? Does religion, in essence, 'clip' our wings and prevent us from the freedom of flight? That freedom which, of course, had always been with us. Must we break the cage to find Truth?
Nothing could be further from the truth. Truth is everything that is. Therefore, it is approachable and obtainable from any angle; path; and avenue. Truth exists for the individual on many levels, including the social level. Religion gathers what people do, say, think, feel, and perceive into a social context.
Truth is a quality of a statement. A statement is either true or false. A true statement is one that corresponds to objective reality. So, if a religion, thought, idea, etc. corresponds with objective reality, it is true. Subjective reality is entirely opinion and truth, by definition, cannot exist in any meaningful sense. If reality is subjective, then I cannot percieve your reality nor can I make statements about your reality so I cannot speak truth to you. I can only make statements about *my* reality. Here's an easy test. If a statement makes a claim that is conceivably verifiable, it *might* be true. If is corresponds with objective reality, then it IS true. A statement that is NOT conceivably verifiable is opinion. A non-statement cannot be true or false. Here's a few: Rocks exist. (conceivably and actually verifiable - yep, theres a rock right there... it's a true statement) Invisible Pink Unicorns exist. (conceivably verifiable - there might be one somewhere that we can find - might be true) Vanilla is the best ice-cream. (not verifiable - opinion, neither true nor false) Wow! (not a statement - neither true nor false)
Untrue ! Truth is merely a corelation of fact between the world and any observer. What stands as truth for me might not be the truth for you. If I state that the colour pink is much more vivid in my memory than the colour blue - that may be the truth but you cannot verify that fact so you would not be in a position to call it the truth. In fact there is a case for saying that the objective world does not exist and that the nearest thing we have are apriori truths such as "triangular objects are three sided" Still this relies upon an agreement of language an ideas - if I say "triangle" you will only understand that word because in the past you were taught triangle = three sided object. There is objectivity in mathematics but again that is not an object that resides in the world its a construct of human thinking that you either understand or do not - if you cannot understand mathematics you cannot validate its truths. If you see the colour blue - look at it again under a orange light and it will be a different colour. If you see a house and I see the same house - there is no way for me to see what you are seeing since I cannot see that from exactly the same perspective at exactly the same time as you do If we had an objective world there would be no need for the idea of truth or falsity since everyone would understand what the truth was from simply observing. - You will find Descartes had a lot of dificulty with the idea of objectivity and a great many others since then
Then "truth" is merely another word for opinion. And, since I can only express my opinion and I cannot experience "your" reality, then it is impossible to even discuss the nature of "truth" since we have absolutely no frame of reference. This is an unrealistic notion. You cannot even use logic to support this idea because logic rests on two Laws that are assumed to be universally and objectively true (the Laws of Non-Contradiction and the Excluded Middle). If truth is subjective, then we can toss those out and deductive (and by extention, inductive) logic becomes completely meaningless. It's just another way of stating your opinion. Not only that, I cannot even state your opinion back to you. It will always be true that your opinion is your opinion, but if I repeat it back to you, I can only repeat what MY opinion of what you stated (what I think you said). We can't even discuss our opinions! It's just ludicrous. The statement regarding the colors is *conceivably* verifiable. I, personally, cannot verify it. But *you* can. Is the color pink more vivid in your memory than blue? If it is, then it is true. If not, then your statement is untrue (and may be a lie). The same thing holds true if I say "Alsharad thinks vanilla is the best kind of ice-cream." You are not in my thoughts, but I am. I can verify the truth of that statement. It is conceivable that you might have some ability to read thoughts so you would be able to verify it as well. That case for saying the objective world does not exist better be pretty amazing since it undermines the core of logic, science, and common experience... good luck with that... Okay. Agreement on the definition of a word doesn't affect the objective existence of the subject of the word. Three-sided objects would still exist, even if we had no word for a three-sided object. *I* don't need to validate them. If they are true, then they can conceivably be validated and verified. Some things might be self-validating, and others might be validated by other people, still others cannot be validated *yet*. Whether I can validate a statement or idea has no bearing on whether said idea or statement is true or not. But if there is no objective reality, then we are not seeing the *same* house! The very arguments you are using depend on an objective reality that exists outside of our own perceptions. Right now, I cannot perceive or detect in any way, then sun. Are you willing to say that the sun does not exist? And to say that "the sun doesn't exist for you" begs the question. How did you arrive at this conclusion? There are many things in this world which are objective but cannot be "simply observed". Furthermore, no one can observe *everything*, so an idea of truth becomes necessary because it allows us to communicate our observances and experiences to each other. I can believe what you say because I have a concept of truth even though I have not directly observed what you are speaking of.
We are limited to human experience, how can we 'state' Truth, the whole, when 'to state' is a limited concept, attempting to grasp the limitless?
"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao. The Tao that can be played on the accordian is still not the Tao, But at least you can dance to it." ---some dead Chinese guy.
You have assumed that there is something called "The Truth" which is limitless and beyond everyday usage of the word. Why do you think this is the case? Sure, "we" (whoever that is) are limited to human experience. However, while our reaction and perception of the experience is subjective, *what* we experience is not. And notice I didn't say that we state truth. We make statements and those statements are either true or false (if a truth value can be applied at all). Those statements that correspond to objective reality are true. "That truck is red" is only a true statement if *that* truck really *is* red (or is somewhere in the red-spectrum).
How would we know that what we experience is not subjective, if we cannot see beyond our own perception? Though I'm sorry for the 'true statement', you are correct. One may make a statement that is true or false, depending on the collective experience of reality. I cannot assume anything that is beyond the limited framework of thought. What is, is, and 'that', which is not a that, cannot be spoken of through words. Only 'about', via symbols. In the East, it is the finger pointing to the moon, the void, the no-thing, the no-mind, emptiness from which all things pour fourth, but yet of which all things are. There are no presumptions, no assumptions, no objective or subjective but what we have created, but what our mind chooses to see. There are only 'things' because we make them so.
