Please know the true definition of a word before you think it it is true....

I think you should probably take your own advice because you speak of objective truth as if it's fundamental truth when the definition of objective truth is that which has been confirmed by science and science is a man-made method an understanding which is subjective but generally agreed upon collectively however that does not qualify as fundamental

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

....Otherwise you will remain ignorant of the universal truth.

As Greenslade said in the The nature of The Ego thread "People do become unwitting victims of their own definitions." Please do not become an unwitting victim of your own definitions.

True . But people come from various backgrounds . There are multiples sciences that govern life . So there may be case a term may mean differently in different sciences . e.g. a 'cell' means different in biology , it means mobile phone in our day to day life , it may mean spreadsheet 'cell' to a person from IT background , it may mean jail to person associated with jail .
So we also need to open to other backgrounds and try to discern the meaning conveyed . At the same time I too agree u in that there is need rationalize and refine the meanings of words according to context in which it is used .

Originally Posted by MikeS80

If the meaning of words reflect an agreement between speakers that is subjective because the same word can mean different things to one or more of the other speaker(s). A lot of times, people do not tell people how they use a word, in a discussion, they rely on people to make assumptions or presumptions about what and how they mean.

The current dictionary's definition for objective is NOT based on or influenced by personal feelings, beliefs, biases, tastes, or opinions
The current dictionary's definition for subjective IS based on or influenced by personal feelings, beliefs, biases, tastes, or opinions.
The current dictionary's definition for illusion is to deceive. In the spiritual context it is to decieve to create illusions and ignorance by spreading/promoting false beliefs and false mental and emotional conditioning.
To see how and why definitions of words are added to a dictionary see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/help...nto-dictionary

It is possible that the inversion of the meaning of objective to mean subjective was done on purpose for us to learn from, and for us to think ah-ha, when we do see the objective truth of the inversion of objective.

I came to the above realization after I read the objective truth in the article, I linked to in my signature.

I learned from the article that I linked to in my signature that the truth is: objective truth/reality is all there is. Objective truth can never be untrue at any time, place, or circumstance. Objective truth/reality transcends, time, space, and causation. Time and space create divisions. Since objective truth/reality transcends time and space, objective truth/reality has no limits or boundaries. Objective truth/reality is infinite, eternal, and indivisible, and all-pervading. Subjectivity is in time and space (mostly in the past), and has limits or boundaries.

Well, the objective truth certainly sounds heavenly, but I have never experienced it myself so I couldn't say for sure whether such a thing really exists or not.

In a sentence, there is the subject and the object. The object is something that is (or can be) understood to be, to exist, independent of the subject. Something the properties of which do not change depending on the interpretation, the personal feelings, beliefs, biases, tastes, or opinions of the subject. The object is said to be objective. The experience of the subject is said to be subjective, and does not influence the ultimate truth about the object.

1) Can the subject ever be free of their personal feelings, beliefs, biases, tastes, or opinions so that they could be objective about the object and see and know its true independent nature?

2) What if there is no true independence between the two and in fact the object and the subject are really one? What is objectivity if there are no objects which are independent of subjects?

,

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

True . But people come from various backgrounds . There are multiples sciences that govern life . So there may be case a term may mean differently in different sciences . e.g. a 'cell' means different in biology , it means mobile phone in our day to day life , it may mean spreadsheet 'cell' to a person from IT background , it may mean jail to person associated with jail .
So we also need to open to other backgrounds and try to discern the meaning conveyed . At the same time I too agree u in that there is need rationalize and refine the meanings of words according to context in which it is used .

People's various backgrounds aside, that sounds like more separation to me. Most words mean the same thing in all languages. Cell, is short for cellular phone and you are able to tell if a person is using cell to mean cellular phone or cell in a body by the context of what the person is saying.

The whole entire point is the meaning of objective has been flipped upside down to mean subjective and has became a false belief in spirituality to cause illusions (deciete), confusion, and ignorance of objective truth/reality. You may call objective truth/reality Brahman. Objective truth/reality is the base or foundation of all spirituality/reality. Without a base or foundation, how will you know what is true or false? Objective truth/reality is all there is, anything or anyone that says differently is being subjective, even if they are preaching the non-duality/duality mental concept/construct.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well, the objective truth certainly sounds heavenly, but I have never experienced it myself so I couldn't say for sure whether such a thing really exists or not.

In a sentence, there is the subject and the object. The object is something that is (or can be) understood to be, to exist, independent of the subject. Something the properties of which do not change depending on the interpretation, the personal feelings, beliefs, biases, tastes, or opinions of the subject. The object is said to be objective. The experience of the subject is said to be subjective, and does not influence the ultimate truth about the object.

1) Can the subject ever be free of their personal feelings, beliefs, biases, tastes, or opinions so that they could be objective about the object and see and know its true independent nature?

2) What if there is no true independence between the two and in fact the object and the subject are really one? What is objectivity if there are no objects which are independent of subjects?

,

Yes. Heaven is not a metaphore.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by MAYA EL

I think you should probably take your own advice because you speak of objective truth as if it's fundamental truth when the definition of objective truth is that which has been confirmed by science and science is a man-made method an understanding which is subjective but generally agreed upon collectively however that does not qualify as fundamental

Thanks for the false subjective projection!

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well, the objective truth certainly sounds heavenly, but I have never experienced it myself so I couldn't say for sure whether such a thing really exists or not.

In a sentence, there is the subject and the object. The object is something that is (or can be) understood to be, to exist, independent of the subject. Something the properties of which do not change depending on the interpretation, the personal feelings, beliefs, biases, tastes, or opinions of the subject. The object is said to be objective. The experience of the subject is said to be subjective, and does not influence the ultimate truth about the object.

1) Can the subject ever be free of their personal feelings, beliefs, biases, tastes, or opinions so that they could be objective about the object and see and know its true independent nature?

2) What if there is no true independence between the two and in fact the object and the subject are really one? What is objectivity if there are no objects which are independent of subjects?

,

The definitions of subjective and objective has everything to do with the subject.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by MAYA EL

I think you should probably take your own advice because you speak of objective truth as if it's fundamental truth when the definition of objective truth is that which has been confirmed by science and science is a man-made method an understanding which is subjective but generally agreed upon collectively however that does not qualify as fundamental

Humans false subjective beliefs are man made illusion too. Objective truth/reality is not limited to just science. So everything that is agreed upon collectively, even if it is false, automatically makes it true? Is that what you are saying?

Originally Posted by MikeS80

If the meaning of words reflect an agreement between speakers that is subjective because the same word can mean different things to one or more of the other speaker(s). A lot of times, people do not tell people how they use a word, in a discussion, they rely on people to make assumptions or presumptions about what and how they mean.

The current dictionary's definition for objective is NOT based on or influenced by personal feelings, beliefs, biases, tastes, or opinions
The current dictionary's definition for subjective IS based on or influenced by personal feelings, beliefs, biases, tastes, or opinions.
The current dictionary's definition for illusion is to deceive. In the spiritual context it is to decieve to create illusions and ignorance by spreading/promoting false beliefs and false mental and emotional conditioning.
To see how and why definitions of words are added to a dictionary see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/help...nto-dictionary

It is possible that the inversion of the meaning of objective to mean subjective was done on purpose for us to learn from, and for us to think ah-ha, when we do see the objective truth of the inversion of objective.

I came to the above realization after I read the objective truth in the article, I linked to in my signature.

I learned from the article that I linked to in my signature that the truth is: objective truth/reality is all there is. Objective truth can never be untrue at any time, place, or circumstance. Objective truth/reality transcends, time, space, and causation. Time and space create divisions. Since objective truth/reality transcends time and space, objective truth/reality has no limits or boundaries. Objective truth/reality is infinite, eternal, and indivisible, and all-pervading. Subjectivity is in time and space (mostly in the past), and has limits or boundaries.

One has to consider this in the terms of philosophy and not Merriam-Webster.

http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture22.shtml

"The Primacy of Consciousness is the view, which Objectivism rejects, that reality is a product of consciousness. In this view, the world is a product of our minds, or the mind of some other being (god). It doesn't exist in itself. It exists as a "figment of your imagination". Like a concept or a memory, reality is said to exist as only a part of your mind. That means that you can change reality by changing your mind. Or another possibility is that you gain knowledge of reality by understanding yourself, or by introspecting. In either case, reality is said to not have it's own existence, but be just a product of your mind. If your mind ever stopped, like if you died, the world would die with you."

"The Primacy of Existence, which is the Objectivist view, states that reality exists independent of our minds. If we want something to happen, we can't just wish it to happen. We have to act. If we want to gain knowledge about the world, we have to look out at the world and reason with what we see. If your mind were to stop functioning as in death, reality would stay the same. This is where the adjective "objective" comes into play in "objective reality". It means that reality is not just a part of our minds, but exists as some outside fact that we can reference."



In short and from the viewpoint of objective reality consciousness is a product of the material world, specifically the brain. From the viewpoint of subjective reality the material world is a product of Consciousness. One posits space, time and matter are primary. The other posits there's only Consciousness.

Taking it one step deeper and from the Advaita viewpoint of subjective reality the material world is not a manifestation of what we perceive as individual consciousness, but of the one Consciousness.

You can call that objective reality if that makes you feel comfortable, however this isn't how it's used in the philosophical and spiritual context. Any agitation arising over the usage and meaning of words is a product of and within another manifestation of the one Consciousness, and that would be intellect which is then appropriated be ego. "I am right and he is wrong and why does he 'decieve to create illusions and ignorance by spreading/promoting false beliefs and false mental and emotional conditioning'".

And yes, the very same applies to this mind-body conceiving and typing this reply. It's what the mind-body does. The trick is to not turn it into a second arrow. To not take it personally. To realize this body and that body and all the baggage they carry are manifestations of the one Consciousness. While the subjective experiences of this body and that body are different the core subjective experience, the One subjective experience, isn't. That's the non-dual experience and yes, it is accessible.

This site is a little flaky just because in "The About" page it uses "scientism". That being said it's got a lot of great information and links on non-dualism.

https://thebiggestpicture.net/Nonduality

I had a lucid dream last night. First one since I ceased practices to induce them many years ago. They're really quite amazing and a great analogy for realization.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Humans false subjective beliefs are man made illusion too. Objective truth/reality is not limited to just science. So everything that is agreed upon collectively, even if it is false, automatically makes it true? Is that what you are saying?

If everything that is agreed upon collectively were all that there is, here and now, would it still be false, here and now?