Jump to content

CHANGE YOUR LIFE NOW! Can you answer this simple Q?


Recommended Posts

Q: Do you know how to think and find the truth?

Please tell us how you do it, tell us what you do to find the truth and how you think, describe some of the processes, how do you think about something, how do you know something is true or false, what things do you think about before making your mind up, please answer fully, this is a serious question which may change your life forever!

Kind Regards,

MI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think to find the truth you need to first understand yourself first, then i feel that you could understand others. Asking questions to yourself can help, questions like, "Who am I?", they may sound dum but try to give it a go. I also remember Bruse Lee saying, "My truth isnt your truth". Do you do Naam Simran?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An imagined conversation between my everyday self and my super-competent inner guide. A structured conversation beginning with the question: is the question valid (i.e. are the premises correct), identifying a range of solutions, and then applying deductive logic to each of the options. Whatever theory remains, however improbable, is the truth.

In reality, the above is very hard to do unless you also do an inner (intuitive) study into WHY you are interested in the solution to the problem. Because if you're not interested for the right reasons, you will be prejudiced, and the logical exercise may be compromised (if you're not sincerely looking for the truth).

This is my personal way of strategic planning. I don't know if it would help you find the Absolute Truth, whatever that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any explanation of how we think can only be marginal. The fields of philosophy and psychology have battled with this issue for a long time to little avail. For example, those who adhere to a reductionist, empricist and deterministic world-view are destined to deduce a reductionistic, empirical determistic truth in itself as those are the conceptual constructs they have imposed upon themselves. Post-structuralists and deconstructionists seem more in tune with this than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree with Shasterkovich... analyzing things philosophically and logically usually leads to the truth. but you need to do it in context of what you're trying to find the truth of. but at the same time, regardless of what you're looking at or trying to discover the truth about, you need to seriously analyze the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oops I've been a hypocrite...

Anyway (ahem) Discerning what truth is NOT is an essential aspect of this...a Rishi of old stated that the Ultimate Reality (Brahman) could only be understood by what it is not. Therefore, a process of negation, doing away with non-essential cognitive aspects, illusions, conditioned constructs is a very fundamental process, a softening up as such (this conceptual ineffability is outlined in Sri Japu Sahib of course)

....so what do you think? I'd like to hear your opinion as an avowed determinist. Tell us how you think. Are you a slave to your own adopted conceptual constructs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

argh! i've been a hypocrite too!

ok... i dun agree with introspection. i think it's stupid, especially descartes. i mean as smart as he is, he totally lost himself because he made too many assumptions. i think that Hume is the only one worth lookin into because he's the only one who really recognized that reality (or truth in this case) is objective, whereas we are subjective creatures and can only see the world through whatever perceptual constructs we already have in our minds.

so to answer the question of how to find Truth... it isn't possible. we can't do it, simply because we're bounded by our own thinking.

but! (and this is a biggie)

i do believe that we all know Sikhi's answer to how we can get to the Truth.

need i say more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is the truth and can never be anything else but the truth. The question is not what the truth is but how do we see it?

In the end only the truth will prevail and lies will perish.

Well done! Excellent answer! I could not have put it better myself, however, how do you find the truth, how do you (Jamuka) know when something is BS and when something it really true? What is your method? Please share this with us, your posts are very good on this site as well as FFI, so tell everyone here how you do it, you never seem to be confused at all, maybe you can help all the others here! I'll be back to give a full reply later, once we have some more posts, this is an important topic and many will learn from it. Thanks,

MI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued...Jamuka and M.I.,

Do you feel there is absolute truth and then non-truth alone? In other words, everything is either absolutely true or absolutely false. OR that there are differing levels of truth?

This may explain a few things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

argh! i've been a hypocrite too!

ok... i dun agree with introspection.

Why? Please elaborate...

i think it's stupid, especially descartes.

That's a rather arrogant statement, Descartes is one of the most amazing and influential people in all human history, Science has strong roots in Cartesian philosophy.

i mean as smart as he is, he totally lost himself because he made too many assumptions.

Yes but they were all based on some sort of logic, they were not just crazy ideas grabbed out of thin air, as is the case with most religions, except Sikhism.

i think that Hume is the only one worth lookin into because he's the only one who really recognized that reality (or truth in this case) is objective, whereas we are subjective creatures and can only see the world through whatever perceptual constructs we already have in our minds.

True to a point but it is pointless to talk about humans being inherently subjective when we do have the ability to discover reality outside of our own contructs, with the aid of an outside and independent observer, one CAN actually make OBJECTIVE and factual statements about the nature of reality, otherwise the creation of intruments such as Science would be impossible. Also, consider Mathematics, could it not be said that it is something which is an absolute truth and which is outside and free of our own subjective perspectives? 10+10=20, this is an easily observable fact which does not even need independent confirmation from a third party, it is the TRUTH! Thus it IS possible to find the truth. Sikhism is very much like Mathematics and Science, except Mathematics deals with numerical truth, Science deals with physical truth, and Sikhism deals with spiritual truth! (Other religions try but they are false and fail miserably)

so to answer the question of how to find Truth... it isn't possible. we can't do it, simply because we're bounded by our own thinking.

Again, 10+10=20 is an absolute TRUTH! Our own subjectivity is totally irrelevent when it comes to the truth (especially in Mathematics), no matter what our individual perspective, the truth always remains the same, the same is true for all other areas, as Guru Nanak so wisely said, "The Truth Is One". It doesn't matter what religion one is from, a Sikh, Muslim, "Hindu", Chrisitan, Jew, Buddhist etc. will ALL come up with the same answer to 10+10, which is 20, regardless of their subjective nature. This is an example of what Guru Nanak taught many times, that no matter what your faith, the truth is always the same and can be obtained by anyone who wants it, by meditating on it! God is the truth and the truth is God, so by meditating on the truth and obtaining it, one is automatically meditating on God and obtaining Him! All humans agree when it comes to Mathematics and Science but when it comes to finding the truth about spiritual life and God (Religion), humans become completely irrational and illgocial, full of ego and arrogance, because most think that their way is the best way or the only way, they think they have already found the truth (without even investigating it) about spiritual life and God, just because some guy claiming to be from God (often a narcassistic fraud/charlatan like Mohammed and Krishna) came and "told them so" and just because they were born in to that particular ideology, it is amazing to think that they abandon all logic and reason when it comes to this most important aspect of their life! Think about it...

but! (and this is a biggie)

i do believe that we all know Sikhi's answer to how we can get to the Truth.

And this is the right answer!

need i say more?

Nope!

Kind Regards,

MI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued...Jamuka and M.I.,

Do you feel there is absolute truth and then non-truth alone? In other words, everything is either absolutely true or absolutely false. OR that there are differing levels of truth?

This may explain a few things

Brother, the truth IS absolute, there is only ONE truth (God), there is no such thing as levels or versions of truth, anything that is not the truth is false or a lie, the truth is not subjective but totally objective. As Guru Nanak said, "The Truth Is One"... Think about it...

Kind Regards,

MI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think to find the truth you need to first understand yourself first, then i feel that you could understand others. Asking questions to yourself can help, questions like, "Who am I?", they may sound dum but try to give it a go. I also remember Bruse Lee saying, "My truth isnt your truth". Do you do Naam Simran?

Brother, thanks for your kind advice but I am not in need of help, this is strictly an intellectual excerise. Thanks anyway,

MI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I thought you might say M.I.

Now, since things are either absolutely true or absolutely false, I must also assume you also take a purely literalist interpretation of Gurbani (as there is no room for symbolism or paradox in absolute truth when coupled with a rational, empirical, deterministic world view). So please give me your katha on the following line from Sri Japu ji Sahib,

'suniae deep loaa paataal'

It speaks of a concept that you would have to view as 'absolutely false'...unless you interpret it symbolically that is?

What about the 'treh guna' frequently referred to...alluding to samkhya philsophy of treh guna, prakrti and purusa. Having applied the scientific paradigm to this theory will you state it is 'absolute truth' or 'absolute falsehood'?

And what about this from Raag Vadhans written by Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji;

'Tere banke loin dant risaala

Sohne nak jin lammre wala'

If you are to apply a scientific paradigm to God, how can Guru ji here describe God with features like beautiful teeth, a beautiful nose, long beautiful hair...and yet elsewhere God as 'nirankar', 'aneel' and as Guru ji states 'Chakr chihn ar varn jati...' in Jaap Sahib, impossible to describe.

So can this 'absolute truth' model you have stated, coupled with a rational, determinstic, empirical mindset explain seeming paradox and non-scientific concepts?

Over to you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Please elaborate...

That's a rather arrogant statement, Descartes is one of the most amazing and influential people in all human history, Science has strong roots in Cartesian philosophy.

Yes but they were all based on some sort of logic, they were not just crazy ideas grabbed out of thin air, as is the case with most religions, except Sikhism.

True to a point but it is pointless to talk about humans being inherently subjective when we do have the ability to discover reality outside of our own contructs, with the aid of an outside and independent observer, one CAN actually make OBJECTIVE and factual statements about the nature of reality, otherwise the creation of intruments such as Science would be impossible. Also, consider Mathematics, could it not be said that it is something which is an absolute truth and which is outside and free of our own subjective perspectives? 10+10=20, this is an easily observable fact which does not even need independent confirmation from a third party, it is the TRUTH! Thus it IS possible to find the truth. ...

...Our own subjectivity is totally irrelevent when it comes to the truth (especially in Mathematics), no matter what our individual perspective, the truth always remains the same, the same is true for all other areas, as Guru Nanak so wisely said, "The Truth Is One". ... the truth is always the same and can be obtained by anyone who wants it, by meditating on it! God is the truth and the truth is God, so by meditating on the truth and obtaining it, one is automatically meditating on God and obtaining Him! ... but when it comes to finding the truth about spiritual life and God (Religion), humans become completely irrational and illgocial, full of ego and arrogance, because most think that their way is the best way or the only way, they think they have already found the truth (without even investigating it) about spiritual life and God, just because some guy claiming to be from God (often a narcassistic fraud/charlatan like Mohammed and Krishna) came and "told them so" and just because they were born in to that particular ideology, it is amazing to think that they abandon all logic and reason when it comes to this most important aspect of their life! Think about it...

Nope! ...

haha! well, it's too bad u thought i had nothing left to say, cuz i do! :LOL:

ok... firstly, i don't agree with introspection because it relies much too heavily on our subjective perspectives. try as hard as we might, we'll never really be able to break free of subjectivity and truly empathize with another being. (and this of course, only applies to normal human beings... i'm not including the Gurus or enlightened souls here...)

yeah, i agree, that was a pretty arrogant statement. but i really dislike Descartes, from the bottom of my pitiless heart... ok tha's a lie. i don't have a pitiless heart, but i think you understand that i don't like him. why don't i like him regardless of the fact that he restarted philosophy after the medieval Christian church had basically killed it for about a thousand years? hmmm... possibly because he failed at escaping his solipsist (is that the word i'm lookin for?) position while he was writing his "meditations", he has horrible arguments for the existence of God, and the fact that whereas he believed that introspection is a method to sift through the entirety of a mind's contents, we know from many ppl that there is such a thing as the unconscious (Freud anyone?). so that basically covers why i don't agree with him. my dislike comes from the fact that i had to READ his meditations... *shudders*...

next... yes he made assumptions based on logic, but they were still wrong. it's the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument.

ok, now is where things get interesting. you're gonna tell me that science and math are objective truths. well, here's my question to you. aren't science and math based on perceptual categories? we seem to have this innate taste for grouping things together, to categorize and to see things in a certain way. an example is causation. (and yeah, this comes from Hume...) if you're playing pool and you hit the ball, you assume that the ball is going to cause another ball to move. well, this is perception and assumption for you. what if in the universe, it's just a coincidence that it really doesn't have to happen that way? what if there is no such thing as causation and it's all just up in the air but we just tend to see things in that way?

as for relying on a third party for verification of the "objective" truth. it's not possible because your third party (if human or animal) is also subject to these perceptual categories. we all have the same way of thinking... that things have a purpose, things have a cause... and of course your third party will agree with you. but just because you have agreement, it doesn't necessarily mean that you have the truth.

and it's absolutely possible that i'm wrong and so is Hume and these aren't just subjective categories that humans all over the world and through time use to view the world and events taking place in it. but this goes into the fact that we can never know for sure that we know is true... and that's possibly why science is forever having to prove itself as true time and time again.

ok, moving on...

what i'm trying to say is that our perceptual categories prevent us from being objective. but this doesn't mean that the truth is relative. i believe the truth is absolute. it's just that our subjective natures of thinking prevent us from really seeing reality for what it is.

but like i said in my previous msg... we all know what Sikhi's answer to that is. and because Sikhi provides a way to know Truth, it becomes possible. the hard part is stayin on the path.

as for people becoming completely irrational and illogical when it comes to religion... welcome to human nature... most of us are blind and unquestioning fools, wandering around the cosmos in search of something we're unable to see because of our own misfortune. but luckily, we have Sikhi and a way to rid ourselves of our ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth, blah blah whatever you say.Load of rubbish. :LOL:

I just want to comment on what MI said here:

just because some guy claiming to be from God (often a narcassistic fraud/charlatan like Mohammed and Krishna) came and "told them so"

MI, you sir are an absolute idiot, and that's the truth.Why?Because you insult Shri Krishan Ji Maharaj.You insult Satguru Bani too.Because the imagery and names of Krishan are in Gurbani.Many epithets of Krishan are in Gurbani, like: Hari, Gopal, Govind, Morari, Narayan, Mohan, Nar-Hari, Madhav/Madho, Krishan, Vithal (Beethal, Nam Dev Ji's Bani, he was a Krishan devotee), Damodar, Madhusudan (killer of the demon Madhu, that is Krishan), Gopi-nath (Master of the Gopi's, cowherd girls) and a few others.All these Great Names of Krishan Maharaj, refer to Vahiguru, Paramatma.

So according to MI, Vahiguru is a fraud and charlatan.Have you read Bhagvad Gita in original Sanskrit?Do you understand it's esoteric meaning?This may help you gain some Buddhi:

http://sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness/viewtopic.php?t=3114

Just one more thing to say: Don't you ever insult Krishan ever again, you insult Satguru Nanak Nirankar.Do you understand this?Or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

using the scientific & mathematical processes as both infallible and the absolute and unsubjective truth we can test Mission_Impossible's hypotheses of:

1. Sikhism = spiritual truth

Sikhism deals with spiritual truth!

2. Krishna = narcissistic fraud/charlatan

a narcassistic fraud/charlatan like Mohammed and Krishna

http://www.sikhitothemax.com/page.asp?ShabadID=5360

In the Golden Age of Sat Yuga, You were pleased to deceive Baal the king, in the form of a dwarf.

In the Silver Age of Traytaa Yuga, You were called Raam of the Raghu dynasty.

In the Brass Age of Dwaapur Yuga, You were Krishna; You killed Mur the demon and saved Kans.

You blessed Ugrasain with a kingdom, and You blessed Your humble devotees with fearlessness.

In the Iron Age, the Dark Age of Kali Yuga, You are known and accepted as Guru Nanak, Guru Angad and Guru Amar Das.

The sovereign rule of the Great Guru is unchanging and permanent, according the Command of the Primal Lord God. ||7||

This Shabad is by Bhatt Kal in Svaiyay Mehl 5 on Pannaa 1390.

According to the above shabad, You = Krishna. Also, You = Guru Nanak = Guru Angad = Guru Amar Das. Since the subject is not changed during the shabad (infact, it's never defined) it is logical to assume that 'You' refers to the same subject throughout. Therefore, Krishna = Guru Nanak.

According to hypothesis 2, Krishna = narcissistic fraud/charlatan.

Therefore, Guru Nanak = narcissistic fraud/charlatan.

The shabad was taken from the current Guru of Sikhism, Guru Granth Sahib. Therefore it is logical to infer that the teachings and writings of Guru Granth Sahib form the basis of Sikhism.

Many of the writings in Guru Granth Sahib Ji (and so of Sikhism) are written by Guru Nanak. And since Guru Nanak = narcissistic fraud/charlatan, it is logical to conclude that Sikhism = false.

The above conclusion is reached using the axiom that there is only absolute truth and absolute false with no in-between (ie. if Guru Nanak's writings are false all of Sikhism is false, no matter how true the rest of the writings in Guru Granth Sahib may be)

the truth IS absolute, there is only ONE truth (God), there is no such thing as levels or versions of truth, anything that is not the truth is false or a lie, the truth is not subjective but totally objective.

Therefore hypothesis 1 is incorrect,

else hypothesis 2 is incorrect! :wink:

if anyone thinks i'm being overly pedantic, i am just trying to assertain the validity of the hypotheses put forward by Mission_Impossible using the currently adopted scientific processes (ie first hypothesise, then test by falsifiability.)

in other words, i'm taking the piss!! :LOL:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

I think that's why he calls himslef "mission impossible": he finds it impossible to prove his point because it's doomed right from teh start!!!lolololololololol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...