Re:   Truth and Illusion

2007-8-6 05:21:00

My Friends,

If anyone lost a pair of sandals at the gathering and wants them returned please let me know within a week or we'll give them away.

Just a couple moments on the contest.

No one got the full answer with enough exactness to win the prize beyond dispute. If I had chosen a winner I think several would have thought within themselves that they had come just as close.

Therefore, I thought I would throw it out to the group itself. Dan won the vote and was a good choice. Yes, he did a lot of research in the archives and the full answer was not in the archives, but he also put some answers in his own words.

There are a number of you that gave a great effort and if the group had voted for one of these I would have also thought he or she was deserving. I don't want to name all those who also deserve the "gold star" for I'd probably leave someone out but the active members knows who they are.

John C commented that an endeavor like this should be a group effort and I agree. I think it was a group effort and I'd say that the more the group cooperates together to solve problems the better. Giving away a free book shouldn't hinder that.

John C also quotes from:

http://www.freeread.com/archives/6.php

And, then writes:

"I agree that 'perception' of truth only exists in duality. (Because without duality, there would be nobody to perceive it.) But, could not absolute truth still exist even if there was nobody to observe it?"

JJ:

Yes and no. If anything could exist without perception then its existence would still be absolute truth, BUT wherever there is existence of any kind there is life and all life has levels of perception and intelligence.

John:

"Beyond duality, would it not be an absolute truth that there is nothing but the power of Decision, nothing but pure Cause? Would that not be an absolute truth? Not a truth which we could perceive, but something which we could discuss (and have discussed) as a theoretical possibility?

"Another example: wouldn't 2+2=4 still be truth apart from duality?"

JJ:

Let us return to my main statement that causes the concern:

"If you were able to remove yourself from the world of duality, there would be no truth. Truth can only exist when there is more than one of something."

Notice that I did not say it is even possible to remove ourselves from the world of duality but "If you were able to remove yourself...."

Now if you could remove yourself from duality there would be nothing to number so there would be no two items to add to another two items. Math would be meaningless in such a world.

The closest we could get to a non dualistic world would be the great pralaya between creations. Many teach that this will be a rest where there are no dualities. But DK said this of this existence.

"It is not that which is not, but that which is esoteric."

In other words, it appears from our perspective to be a void without duality; instead it has esoteric, or hidden, duality and existence.

I'm sure that few of us can even imagine the hidden existence in the great pralaya between the universes, but even here the concept of duality must exist for from it springs a new universe governed by duality. To create a universe of duality a seed of such must first exist, at least as a concept, in the creative mind.

John:

"You say that all truth is absolute, and there is no such thing as relative truth, only relative perception. But, how could an observer of truth perceive that truth with anything other than relative perception? You and I could be looking at the same tree, and all each of us has is our limited, relative perception, based on the interplay of light and shadow which we observe from where we each stand. But, unless we stood in the exact same spot (or were completely linked through the oneness principle), our perceptions would differ, and both perceptions of the tree would be relative. And, it would be impossible (for one person) to observe the exact (absolute) truth of the tree at a given moment of time. So, if there is such a thing as absolute truth, it couldn't actually exist in duality, and would only be a theoretical ideal."

JJ:

There are many absolutes that can be perceived by the many about the tree. The fact that it is a tree, that it has leaves, fruit branches etc. can be agreed on. And yes many of the details will be perceived imperfectly but that does not affect absolute truth. If the tree has 10,334 leaves on it and no one perceives this exact number it is still an absolute truth that this is the number.

Many teachers want to rewrite history according to their agenda, but events are what they are no matter what a person perceives.

John:

"When you say that truth does not exist outside duality, unless I misunderstand, you are also saying that truth does not exist outside illusion."

JJ:

Let me clarify this. Truth as it is understood here could not exist outside duality. I do not believe there is an existence completely divorced from duality, therefore there would be no existence completely divorced from the truth.

John:

"But, we are always hearing about the conflict between truth and illusion. Then, it seems that if we eliminate all illusion, we eliminate all truth. If good must coexist with evil to have meaning," would it not also follow that truth must coexist with illusion to have meaning?"

JJ:

All form and matter is created by duality in vibration but even in this illusionary creation there is still truth. There is even truth in your dreams. Truth is what is or what is being experienced or happening.

John:

"Maybe illusion isn't the opposite of truth in this dualistic world. Maybe something else is?"

JJ:

Illusion is not the opposite of truth, but falsehood is. You can have an illusionary dream that a monster is chasing you and several things are happening that are absolutely true.

There are also many things that are not true.

As long as there is existence there is truth to be had but there are levels of existence where truth is viewed much differently than it is here.

  

Strive for excellence, not perfection.
   -- H. Jackson Brown Jr.,