Is truth a constant through time?

Is truth constant?
First define what you mean by truth?
If you mean Truth with a capital T meaning the eternal Truths, I believe those, by definition, to be constants.
But if you mean truth with a small t, then yes that can be inconstant.
Such as mankind’s search for scientific truths which are being constantly revised, where one day mankind calls something true but the next day it’s false or something as simple as the statement; It’s daytime, which would be the truth at noon but at midnight it becomes a false statement.

 

asynchronicity: I don't Love things (objects), I Love people. When I say "I love this ..."

* Ahhh, semantics ... you love that ... People, places, things ... all objects ...

asynchronicity: I am describing the desire ... You cannot tell me that is greed. It is the exact opposite of greed.

* Desire is a feeling associated with greed, with pleasure.
* edit: Feelings are motivated by either greed, ill-will, or delusion (indifference). Motivated, propelled, urged on by, propogated by ...

asynchronicity: I disagree the love I am trying to describe averts all possible description in any aural language ...

* But you are doing just that ... using language (aural or written in this case) to describe it by giving it a label.

HTML:

 

Aren't you simply reclassifying the heart as mind, and love as being of the five natural senses. You have offered no evidence that love, true love, cannot exist outside of the five natural senses and the physical, perceivable limits of our world. It is not how it makes me feel. I know the love you speak of, and have watched it rise and fall. We can argue in circles all day. It is just semantics. In the end we disagree on the existence of truth. For me love is evidence of truth.

Energy would be a constant and synonymous with the love I refer to.

 

Yes, I am giving it the label of "love" and attempting to define it, for the sake of argument.

 

asynchronicity: Aren't you simply reclassifying the heart as mind ...

* or mind as heart? same thing.

asynchronicity: ... and love as being of the five natural senses. You have offered no evidence that love, true love, cannot exist outside of the five natural senses and the physical, perceivable limits of our world.

* what is there outside the perceivable limitations of our world? A Non-Conventional reality? If such a reality exists, how can one use conventional language, conventional communications, conventional ideas, perceptions, or views to describe something outside of its scope for describing?

Every WORD we use is a description for our feelings, be they physical (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching) or mental (thinking). Can you honestly offer proof that anything exists outside this? No proof whatsoever exists outside this that there is anything outside the conventional mode of thinking, as long as you are using conventional thinking as a means to relay this discreption.

The evidence that I do offer is What Can Be Proved ... our six base senses. You are offering me ideas and fabrications for the existance of something that has no basis for existence in any conventional sense, and asking me to believe in something outside of proof of what does exist.

asynchronicity: It is not how it makes me feel. I know the love you speak of, and have watched it rise and fall. We can argue in circles all day. It is just semantics. In the end we disagree on the existence of truth. For me love is evidence of truth.

* You're right about one thing ... it's all semantics. But no matter how much you want to not admit, the proof is all around you that you are driven by your feelings, motivated by your feelings, and exist based on your feelings, thinking is a product of feelings ... no feelings, no thinking ... nothing more ...

Without proof, it's all pointless ... right? You might as well ask me to believe in a being or a something called God, or tell me that I have to believe in a being or a something called God ... it will still remain pointless because why should I believe in something there is absolutely no proof for the existence of? Because I'm here? That's not proof!

asynchronicity: Energy would be a constant and synonymous with the love I refer to.

* (All caps are used for emphasis, not for giving the impression of yelling)

* Energy is not constant. It changes constantly. If it didn't change, you would never experience it as energy to classify it as energy. The senses are a product of physical and mental aggregates whose SOLE purpose is to SENSE. If it didn't change or exhibit change, it would NEVER be sensed. You would never see it, never hear it, never smell it, never taste it, never feel it, and never THINK it. Mind itself occurs in a continuous stream (not permanent single appearance of something). Put an end to this stream, and mind would never arise to give rise to thought, or other feelings. You would never have the idea that anything exists outside your conventional idea of things. You would literally enter a non-conventional state without the conventional words to describe it.

As long as you can describe anything, you are only describing your conventional perception of your conventional reality, using conventional means ... you are describing your feelings ... what you feel when you sense something ... beit mental or physical.

HTML:

 

It's a matter of whether you would allow someone to seem egotistical and be considered "enlightened"; xenon still finds pleasure in being correct, it fuels his posting. To consider oneself enlightened is to dismiss the need to learn from others. Darrell finds pleasure in attempting to teach his (perceived) enlightenment to one who he feels needs guidance, and would find his pleasure in the form of accomplishment if xenon yields to his ideas. He could also attempt (and succeed) to not feel accomplished, accomplishment being what fuels egotism. To continue teaching to one who has too much ego to not yield, though, leads to conflict or tension. Dk still battles in this world.

The idea (what i took from dk) is that true enlightenment is not to indulge in such things, to be rid of the need to engage in interactions for pleasure, which will ultimately become pain. The price of enlightenment is ego, a life of interactions; I'm not sure if both are equal. I find it rather pleasant to live among sensations, life forces them on you anyway. Even the face of the Buddha would feel the rain; to dismiss the sensation from the true self is to detach from the beauty the mind may create through interacting with it. I wonder, is the greatest enlightenment to become a great teacher?

 

Agreed.

...or a great student?

 

asynchronicity: Aren't you simply reclassifying the heart as mind ...

* Please, I would like to revisit this statement here ...

Because all action, whether they are mental or physical actions are a product of mind. Eyes, seeing, ears, hearing, nose, smelling, tongue, tasting, body, feeling (tactile), and thinking. All are products of mind. Mind occurs, arises due to conditions, these conditions being contact between eyes and forms, ears and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavors, body and feelings, and thinking.

Remove any one of those conditions, and mind will still occure based on the remaining conditions. Take away all the conditions and mind will never arise. It will not CEASE to exist, it just will never arise to give cause for posessing existence ... it will never occur.

Ideas of what a heart is or is not are also a product of mind. When mind ceases to arise because the conditions for its appearance are no longer present, then there is no idea, no opinion, no fabrication of what is and is not heart. Heart ceases, because the condition for the appearance of the idea of heart does not arise, or does not occur. With the cessation of mind, also is the cessation of the factors associated with mind, feelings, perceptions, ideas and fabrications, and consciousness. Because these factors would never produce the conditions necessary for mind to arise.

HTML:

 

I have no perceived enlightenment. I'm still here on this forum, talking (or communicating) with other people. If I truely were enlightened, I would not be here because I would see the folly in being here.

It's the same as what I was trying to relay to asynchronicity regarding mind. As long as I exhibit the conditions not conducive for enlightenment to arise, I will remain here. Once those conditions to arise, I will not remain here.

This perception is your own ill-will arising from not liking how I choose the words to describe my own perceptions. Nothing more.

You really need to go back and re-read the dialog. There is no one teaching anyone. It is one person claiming to states, and another disagreeing. What are you trying to pull here?

HTML:

 

You know. I get it...

You all got your feelings hurt because someone disagreed with the way you think ...

Okay. That being the case, I suppose I should appologize because anything else will only propogate your sense of hurt.

So, I appologize.

You have every right to think the way you do ... end of discussion.

HTML:

 

actually i am fascinated by the way you think, and like discussion/argument. it is part of my religious beliefs that talking and interacting is learning, and knowledge is sacred.

so, i love when people disagree with me, i like to be open to new points of view. i like to know what makes one believe one thing over another.

for instance, you say there is nothing outside of what we perceive with our five sense, but then discuss enlightenment of being outside our mind which is in the driver seat of our senses and together perceive the world. so, if we have to not give in to all of that in order to achieve enlightenment, enlightenment is something that is not perceptible with the five senses. so...what is your enlightenment to another persons god to another persons love to another persons truth to another persons life force energy?

you do not believe in anything outside what we can prove with our senses, but say that enlightenment is beyond what we can sense. that would make it no more provable than the idea of god, or a single universal energy.

i'm not angry, i like to know these things. we will probably never agree (i am a theist). doesnt mean i cant learn from you.

 

asynchronicity: ... for instance, you say there is nothing outside of what we perceive with our five sense, but then discuss enlightenment of being outside our mind ...

* ??? ... excuse me?

Are you sure it was me discussing enlightement as being outside our mind? Or was this someone else's description of how they perceived what was going on?

asynchronicity: ... you do not believe in anything outside what we can prove with our senses ...

* No, I don't. Why should I? Prove to me there is something outside this!

asynchronicity: ... but say that enlightenment is beyond what we can sense. ...

* Again, you are making claim that I said or even described what enlightenment is outside of claiming not to have attained to such.

asynchronicity: ... i'm not angry, i like to know these things. we will probably never agree (i am a theist). doesnt mean i cant learn from you.

* If you aren't angry, then why are you claiming that I had a discussion that didn't happen? Agreeing is not really all that important. Any discussion regarding Enlightenment was between you and LandSLIde, and/or xexon. My involvement with the word was to simply state that I never claimed to such states.

HTML:

 

Okay, I need to go to bed. It's past 3 in the AM here and I'm getting tired.

I've requested "end of discussion" as far as the matter of the previos dialog not associated with "Is truth a constant through time?"

Don't see how anyone can not want to stop... I've stopped.

Just would like to ask that you not give me cause to use my (delusional) Godly powers on this forum to close the thread because a simple request could not be understood.

HTML:

 

You are actually completely right, I was confusing you with someone earlier in the thread.

I still would be interested in your opinion on enlightenment: If you believe in it? Is it a truth that is constant through time? How is it achieved? etc.

Simple mistakes at 3am should never be confused with anger.

 

I'm sorry, I meant perceived "truth"; you are trying to correct xenon by telling him what you know as truths to the best of your ability. Without you "teaching" him something (my definition of teaching being to purvey truths), the argument so far would be along the lines of

I know you don't claim enlightenment, there is dignity in serving as a guide though

Do not take anything I've said personally, I don't mean them in that way; I mean to provoke discussion so I could learn more. I actually agreed with you over xenon, I just felt it necessary to remain neutral to avoid looking like I was taking sides (which I attempted through poking at you, too).

Is what you have posted so far quoted from a text, or of your own knowing? It wouldn't change my view of what it is, I was just curious of what role you served in providing it.

*Sorry, just read the post about stepping out of the discussion, you don't have to reply.