Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00197)

>
>>Dear Jerry HE
>>
>>What's your definition of "Truth"?
>>
>>Liesel
>
>JHE
> In context to my post concerning Mead CWL and being
>maligned? In this case the person only needs to speaking what
>they *believe* to be true about another person and it can no
>longer be called maligning. My authority for this is any
>dictionary but at the moment I'm looking at ~Random House
>Second Edition Unabridged.~ There is no reason to get into
>metaphysics here.
> If you want me to offer a definition of "truth" free of
>context then you will have to tell me what kind of "truth" you
>would like me to define e.g. "absolute truth" "personal truth"
>"relative truth" "universal truth" etc.
>
>Jerry HE
>
>------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins
> ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and
>CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org
>|------------------------------------------
>
Let us go beyond intellectualism which is quite prevalent in the world
today even amongst students of Theosophy and the like. When all is said and
done dear ones Truth is not subservient to human concepts.

It was wise indeed to differentiate between relative truth and Absolute
Truth for the former is distinct from the latter. In my many years of
membership of The Theosophical Society and numerous other genuine
organisations similar thereto I have found that there are few who have
really penetrated into the inner heart of Truth. One can argue and define
all one wants but is this really getting one closer to Truth. As far as I
am concerned my interest is in Absolute Truth. But even those who hold an
interest in these types of subjects often say that there is no such thing as
Absolute Truth. Poor deluded souls!

Let me say however that Universal Truth is equivalent to Absolute
Truth. There is no need to make a distinction between these two terms. Also
personal truth is equivalent to relative truth but can be different for
each individual.

MAGNA EST VERITAS ET PREVALEBIT

Dr Maurice de Montaine