Do you agree with this statement about The Real Truth?

Question

"There is three truths. My Truth, your Truth, and The Truth. If you are unwilling to let go of your Truth and I am unwilling to let go of my Truth, then we can never find out what The Truth is."

Do you agree or disagree?
Why?
What is your opinion regarding this statement?

"There are"*

Damn grammar pixies.

Answer 1

But what if my truth is "The truth"??

Answer 2

I disagree. I don't believe there is a "The Truth" in the sense implied by putting this in Religion & Spirituality. There are Truths, certainly, but who is to say what the ONE, central and singularly significant TRUTH really is? Even if there is such a signular Truth, by the time you try to put it into language, it has become limited by that language. If I say The Truth is the Clear Light, perhaps you say The Truth is The One God. Perhaps we are referring to the same thing and perhaps not, but it's impossible to tell if we don't use the same language. And that's just sticking to English: why should The Truth be expressible in English? Or in any other human language for that matter.

Perhaps The Truth is a number (presumably 1). Or a symbol. Or something beyond anything we can perceive at all.

Answer 3

Truth is two
1.Absolute Truth and
2. Relative Truth.

Therefore, we can say "If My Truth is relative Truth and your Truth is also relative Truth and if you are unwilling to let go of your relative Truth and I am unwilling to let go of my relative Truth, then we can never find out what The Absolute Truth is."

Seekers of Absolute Truth:
Seekers of the Absolute Truth are never allured by unnecessary engagements in sense gratification because the serious students seeking the Absolute Truth are always overwhelmed with the work of researching the Truth. In every sphere of life, therefore, the ultimate end must be seeking after the Absolute Truth, and that sort of engagement will make one happy because he will be less engaged in varieties of sense gratification. And what that Absolute Truth is is explained as follows.
Above is the purport to (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.10 by A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acharya of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness)

The next verse and the purport.
Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramätmä or Bhagavän.
Purport
The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there. Therefore, Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are qualitatively one and the same. The same substance is realized as impersonal Brahman by the students of the Upanisads, as localized Paramatma by the Hiranyagarbhas or the yogis, and as Bhagavan by the devotees. In other words, Bhagavan, or the Personality of Godhead, is the last word of the Absolute Truth. Paramatma is the partial representation of the Personality of Godhead, and impersonal Brahman is the glowing effulgence of the Personality of Godhead, as the sun rays are to the sun-god. Less intelligent students of either of the above schools sometimes argue in favor of their own respective realization, but those who are perfect seers of the Absolute Truth know well that the above three features of the one Absolute Truth are different perspective views seen from different angles of vision.

Answer 4

Being in the religious section, an understanding of the divine or universal truth believed attainable is through revelation and the other through the wisdom of man.

Another way of understanding something that is pan- or multi-dimensional, would be akin to looking at the continually shifting facets of a diamond. Imagine a rubics cube in perpetual motion.

As the diamond faces transforms, various sides of facts and truths are revealed. In that singularity of time, fact is made truth for the persons viewing that aspect, let alone all the other aspects of the diamond.

Our audience, say, are ants. Ants see only one or a few aspects of this diamond. Given their life span, they will never see the whole. Their comprehension can be only as good as afforded by the decay of memory over time. This is the scale with which man does not know a lot of things.

Being ants, they see the movement of the facets under various reflections of light as different yielding differing facts once more. The ability to reconcile the static facet of a diamond to the movement creates a further component.

The changing light are the multicultural and multiracial society the world has, each creating their own interpretation. New terms are created to describe this new phenomena, yet all the while this diamond is the same as always.

In time, this audience ceases to be ( dies ) and the truth remains unquestioned. With the emergence of a new audience, they look at the same object. Low and behold, they do not see the movement of the facets of the diamond. What they do see is different facets of the same diamond in the same way that no one person looks at a piece of art the same way.

Dutifully, our learned audience performs vigorous testing of all means available on the static facet. Finding fact beyond doubt, they promptly claim that to be truth. They swiftly denounce the past fact taken for truth so that no contradictions would go against the new theory. Everything fits.

As the diamond is multifaceted, it provides many facts from which a higher truth is revealed. So many truths, yet only one can be right. The reverse would be to say that all the truths are indeed correct. However, no one is able to link up all these truths.

The definition of The Truth as ultimate truth has evolved over centuries. Philosophers, after a fashion, were unable to reconcile ultimate truth, let alone settle on the definition of truth. One truth meant immediate demise of another truth. The all encompassing truth alone could not be contained, defined successfully, if ever.

To move on from the impasse in philosophical discourse, the definition of an ultimate universal truth was stretched to encompass a larger basket of truths.

There are various versions of what truth is defined as. A contemporary common acceptance is of a truth that is valid until another truth comes along, dispelling the old truth as being a lie.

A small problem lies here that several elements have been forgotten. The effect of time, being the easiest to illustrated, poses its own problems, let alone other forms of programming, such as cultural beliefs, contemporary beliefs of the day and so on.

One needs a very long and wide binoculars to encompass a larger meaning.

One moment there, has science not proven absolutes in values like zero and the seemingly definitive outcomes of medical treatment ?

All sciences involve a degree of inaccuracy within a larger subset of values with its own inaccuracy. Like the nesting Russian Matryoshka dolls, present systems are built upon and within each other. Accuracy, inaccuracy and fallacy is compounded exponentially, Logos extricably tied in a complex web of its own.

Generations born from around nineteen fifty, there was no such thing as television, internet, medical cures and vaccines. Infant death was common, not an exception. Everything was trial and error. A degree of inaccuracy was calculated to the action taken.

In the same way man is able to accept a lot of assumptions, make a lot of presumptions, before a decision is taken today, the more interesting question might be why and how much more should we demand of accuracy in things taken of faith and luck.

Where we often accord a generous room for error to mundane practicalities of life, much is taken for granted that a car with oil and driver will likely move, yet we do not question it everyday.

Just as the sun rises from the east, it is taken as is, until such time an eclipse occurs, from which we have hindsight, not foresight, of theories to tell us so. Only years later when the moon launch was ready, was man able to confirm that the earth is round and of orbital moons like the sun. Has man since Galileo, not taken it on faith ?

This only goes to show that human understanding has much to learn, evolve, transform, create schisms, disassociations, be fragmented, that one day all elements be recombined to establish what Truth is, let alone explain a God and other unexplained paranormal.

Answer 5

Made via Barca, sure. Destroyed via Barca, no. He destroyed himself. He didnt comprehend that if he became that coach madrid necessary, then he would desire to easily be named because of the fact the main suitable ever supervisor ever. He says he doesnt want any participant to be above the group, alongside with casillas, yet he didnt comprehend that he replaced into putting himself above the group. he's a huge supervisor yet his ego, his selfishness and in some positions, his childness, have all affected his profession. And if i've got been him, identity experience sorry regarding the possibility that i only lost at between the main suitable golf equipment in history.

Answer 6

my truth, your truth, their truth, our truth, the truth we can all agree on, the truth we can never agree on, the truths we still have to discover, and the most interesting one of all: is there truth outside of rational agents observing and discussing it?

So partly agree, and while a three-part system is better than what most religious people come up with (usually it is a dualistic system), reality is more complex than that.

Answer 7

to find the Truth you have to give up your own truth

Answer 8

when I read this I think of a big fight i had with my husband. He percieved events one way; i did another. We had to both let go and THE truth came forth; we needed to forgive each other and move on.....:-)

Answer 9

Gobbledygook

Answer 10

i agree....because to know the real truth..people must let go of their own truths...listen to what others has to say...

Answer 11

disagree, a little, other people may cling to their Truth all they want, it wont stop me from finding the truth.