Before I get into this topic,
I first have to say that there is no possible way
for me to do justice to the subject
of reality or truth,
in the amount of time I have in any of these episodes.
There are philosophers who have dedicated their entire life
to these topics.
But as long as we've said that,
let's dive into the subject of objective truth.
Objective Truth (Do We Create Our Own Reality?)
Absolute truth is something that is true
in all places at all times.
It is something that is fixed.
It is unchangeable and defined.
A good example is there are no round squares.
The first thing to understand about absolute truth
is there is no possible way to argue it actually.
Anytime you try to argue against absolute truth,
you have to argue with some kind of absolute truth.
When people try to argue against absolute truth,
with statements like:
"There is no such thing as truth."
or: "Truth is relative."
or: "No one knows what the truth is."
Those are absolute truth statements.
So my suggestion is,
you just don't even try
to argue against absolute truth, because you can't.
In fact it gets worse.
Anytime you try to argue against absolute truth,
it proves that exists.
Objective truth is where you get a little bit more complicated.
Because let's call it "the universe's definition"
what you may call A Source or God,
the definition that that aspect of the universe has about objective truth
is very different from the human definition of objective truth.
The human definition of objective truth
is something that is true,
independent from a person's subjective perspective.
Including the influence of their personal bias.
When one is identified, this is impossible.
Because one must be observing something
through their individual perspective.
It is in fact objective truth that every religion believes they're arguing.
The universe's definition of objective truth
is complete different than this.
It is every subjective perspective
added to one bigger objective perspective.
In other words,
objective truth is the amalgamation
of all perspectives.
Better said,
objective truth is the amalgamation
of every subjective perspective,
which added together forms the objective truth
of any given subject.
This means it is not possible to grasp objective truth,
unless you have:
1) Managed to dis identify
from your individual subjective perspective,
and 2):
Have been able to expand your mind wide enough
to comprehend and accommodate for all perspectives
(I should say all subjective perspectives)
involved in any subject matter that you are observing,
or that is being observed from any of those subjective perspectives.
This is what source mind ultimately is.
Assuming the definition of source is all energy
and therefore consciousness in existence.
Now let's take a look at subjective truth.
Subjective truth is something that is held to be true
based on a person's or thing's individual subjective perspective.
This includes individual experiences,
individual feelings, thoughts,
needs, desires, preferences and opinions.
If you are identified,
the only truth you can perceive is in fact subjective truth.
You have to transcend " I "
and accommodate for other perspectives
by recognizing the other as part of you not separate to you,
in order to perceive beyond subjective truth.
Before we take a look at objective truth,
one thing I need to bring up here
is that there is a very big difference between
saying that you have objective or absolute truth
and speaking in absolutes.
Almost everyone who puts their opinion out to the external world,
whether its teachers, professors,
politicians, spiritual teachers or experts in any field,
put their opinion out to the world
in an absolute manner of speaking.
They speak in absolutes.
They speak it as if,
their opinion or their stance or their perspective
IS objective truth.
Now we all know it's a really good idea to consider
that your perspective may not actually be
the objective truth of any situation.
That's important, right?
because when we close our mind down to the potential
that there may be a truth that exists
that is much more true
than our subjective perspective can comprehend at this moment,
we have the capacity to expand.
So to lock down on the fact that your
personal perspective is objective perspective
is quite dangerous.
But I don't need to tell you this, we already know this.
But to the opposite,
trying to make sure that everyone speaks in a way
that suggests that they recognize
that their perspective is subjective,
is just you trying to avoid your trauma.
Also, a person who has a mutable idea
of objective truth
and who can accommodate for the idea
that they may not have objective truth,
may still choose
(for very specific reasons)
to speak in absolutes.
If people talking in absolutes bothers you,
than you need to look at your specific trauma.
Here's what I mean;
People who are bothered by people talking in absolutes
are those who were wounded by authority figures
who did not have a grasp of objective truth,
but who instead imposed their subjective truth
on everyone in the household,
not accommodating for anyone else's perspective at all.
Any time someone talks in absolutes,
they fear a repeat of the same pain.
If these traumas were resolved,
a closed mind to my threatened you yes,
but a person speaking in absolutes would not.
You wouldn't fear not being taken into consideration
and you wouldn't fear your own subjective truth
being swallowed up and nullified.
Here's where I want you to stop your fear
of absolute truth as applies to the universe at large;
We're not talking about people who are tyrants
and therefore speak in absolutes
because they quite literally don't accommodate for your perspective.
The universe's definition of objective truth
is the amalgamation of every subjective perspective.
That means in order for the universe to have objective truth,
it has to accommodate and consider your perspective.
Doesn't it?
Now what if I told you that there was as much benefit
to a person talking in absolutes as there was potential danger.
When we are confronted with a solid perspective,
it is much more difficult to brush it off.
We have to try it on for size.
We have to consider it,
because it leaves no doorway for the ego to escape
or to minimize,
or to invalidate that statement.
I want you to imagine Martin Luther King's Speech,
his famous, "I have a dream" speech,
if it is not spoken in absolutes.
So you can understand the benefit
of speaking in absolutes,
I have a little excerpt of his speech today.
I'm going to read it first to you the way it is.
And then I'm going to read it to you
the way that many of you would prefer
if he does not speak in absolutes
and definitely talks as if he understands
it's just his subjective perspective.
Five score years ago
a great American in whose symbolic shadow we stand today,
signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
This momentous decree is a great beacon light of hope
to millions of Negro slaves who have been seared in the flames
of withering injustice.
It came as a joyous daybreak
to the end of the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later the Negro lives
on a lonely land of poverty
in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.
100 years later,
the Negro is still languished in the corners of human society
and finds himself in exile in his own land.
And here it is revised,
so he's not talking in absolutes:
Five score years ago
someone I think was a great American
and in whose symbolic shadow we stand today,
signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
In my personal opinion, this was a momentous decree.
And in my opinion,
it has been a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves
who I and many other people believe
have been seared in the flames of withering injustice.
For those who felt it was an injustice,
even if the slave owners felt the exact opposite way,
it came as a joyous daybreak
to end the long night of their captivity.
But 100 years later,
we must consider one perspective,
and it is that Negro lives live
on a lonely land of poverty
in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.
I believe that 100 years later
the Negro is still languished in the corners of human society
and finds himself in exile in his own land.
I hope you were as grossed out by that as I was.
But here's the thing,
if he had given that speech back when he did it,
guess who it would have made really really comfortable?
the people who had owned slaves.
The danger of not speaking in an absolute way
when you're conveying an opinion,
Is that the ego takes whatever doorway
to escape discomfort that it can.
It doesn't have to try a truth on for size.
It isn't confronted.
If you weaken your frequency of your statement
by saying something like:
One potential is that you could not be interested
in anyone you're dating,
because you actually fear getting close to anyone,
the ego will capitalize on that door that was left open.
That the potential is just that, a potential.
Basically, your ego will be like:
"Well because it's one potential, it's probably not true."
Speaking in an absolute manner of speaking
is a tool,
in the same way that speaking as if your perspective
is just one perspective,
is also a tool.
If we define objective truth,
the way that the universe defines objective truth,
as opposed to the human definition,
so that is, that objective truth
of the amalgamation of every subjective truth
relative to a specific subject matter,
then this means that objective truth
absolutely does exist.
And if objective truth absolutely does exist,
that also means that objective reality absolutely exists.
This means there are things that are true,
regardless of whether or not an individual
perceives them to be true or not.
This also means that a reality exists,
regardless of whether or not
a person perceives that reality.
It is as dangerous to say that there is no objective truth,
as it is for an individual
to say that their subjective truth,
is the objective truth.
It is as dangerous to say that there is no objective reality,
because we create our reality,
as it is to say that we do not create reality at all.
These pendulum swings within thought are not in alignment
and they are not integrated philosophies.
They are a counter-reaction to the limitations and pain
experienced by the opposite and preceding polarity.
Instead of spoon-feeding it to you,
my challenge for you is to sit with the potential danger
of these polarized perspectives
relative to both truth and reality.
The problem or perhaps blessing of this situation
is there is no possible way to know
>From where you're sitting today,
whether somebody is in fact, speaking objective truth
or is just speaking from their subjective perspective.
It could be that someone is simply speaking subjective truth,
but is mistaking that for objective truth
and based on the fact that they mistake it for objective truth,
you listen to them
and also take it as objective truth
when it's just subjective.
Also, though,
from where you sit today,
somebody could be speaking objective truth
and you could be dismissing it as subjective truth
because it is coming through an individual person's mouth.
~ Chuckles ~
Here's the thing,
you're not going to know if it is objective truth, until you yourself
develop the capacity to expand yourself wide enough
to accommodate all subjective perspectives
so that out of the amalgamation of those subjective perspectives,
the truth rises out
of all of them combined.
The best way to be able to expand yourself
wide enough to actually access objective truth,
is to dis-identify.
Obviously not possible to see objective truth
if you're only seeing life through your perspective.
2) Integrate your own fragmented aspects.
And 3) Develop into what I call
"And Consciousness."
To understand these concepts in depth,
watch my videos titled:
Disidentification (The Practice of Non Attachment),
Fragmentation (The Worldwide Disease),
and,
AND Consciousness (The Modern Day Replacement for The Middle Way)
You can also begin
to practice going into the perspective of other beings
by practicing something I call The Octopus Technique.
To learn this technique,
watch my video that is quite literally titled:
The Octopus Technique
Reality is a co-creation.
There are great many people out there
who are teaching that reality is a co-creation,
but at the same time, teaching that you create your own reality.
Think about that for just a second.
It's a complete contradiction in terms.
The fact that reality is a co-creation,
means that you are contributing
to the creation of reality,
but you are not the only person creating reality.
It also means that for you
to be able to manipulate the law of attraction,
so as to create your own little individual reality built for one,
you actually have to step into a state of illusion.
You have to step so squarely into subjective perspective
that you lose objective perspective completely.
It implies that you have fallen into the limited 3D truth
that you are separate from everything else
and the illusion that just because in your Individual perceptive reality
you are happy, it does not matter
that in other perceptual realities other aspects of you
that you see as other people, are not.
To say: "I create my own reality "
is ignorance.
It is to use the spiritual truth of creation
and perception to deny objective reality
for the sake of individual preference.
Now people who love these types of philosophy
love them, because it makes you less powerless.
Most people on the planet are coming from a space of:
"I don't create any of this and life just happens to me."
So it's absolutely brilliant to get out of that powerlessness
by understanding that you can create reality.
But it's also super super dangerous.
most of the people who fall into this category
swing from a very codependent style of relating to the world,
to now a narcissistic style of relating to the world.
Basically, they want to justify doing whatever the hell they want to do,
regardless of the impact on anything else.
Reality also accommodates
for seemingly contradictory truths,
because reality has to accommodate
for different dimensions.
Because all things in existence are part of source,
and therefore are imbued with the innate capacity to create,
you can create reality.
And so can everyone else.
The question is will you create that reality in illusion?
Or in alignment with objective truth?
The law of attraction was a really brilliant design
for the universe to try to get to know itself.
It is a tool that was designed specifically for awareness.
But the people who have learned that based on the fact
that this whole universe functions like a mirror,
they can create whatever reality they want to perceive,
have in fact, found the dangerous loophole
inherent in the law of attraction.
Now here's the other thing, people love to look at objective truth
as if objective truth is a very static thing.
But objective truth is actually always evolving.
The reason for this,
and this makes people uncomfortable,
is because source itself,
the universe itself,
consciousness itself,
is always evolving.
In other words,
source has a subconscious mind.
Because source itself has a subconscious mind
and is always expanding,
because it's always in the process of becoming more conscious of itself,
this obviously means that objective truth
has to be changing.
This also means that source itself is in pursuit of what?
The answer is: Universal Truth.
The more conscious it becomes of itself,
the more the truth of itself emerges,
the more the truth ultimately changes.
If you step into source perspective,
from source perspective,
looking back at people who say things like:
"There is no truth because all truth is subjective."
"And there is no reality because you create it."
are people who have actually Stagnated the universe.
>From universe perspective,
these people are actually defying universal expansion.
They're taking themselves out of the game
of the pursuit
of universal truth.
Of objective truth.
Consequently it perceives this reasoning to be a cop-out.
It also perceives people who say there's no objective reality,
because you can create your own reality and should,
to be locked in a narcissistic bubble
and therefore defying the universal truth of oneness.
It perceives this line of thinking to be an overreaction
to the perceived powerlessness experienced
before this philosophy was created.
It is therefore no more in alignment,
than it is to consider yourself powerless to other people's creations.
The point where universal truth
or objective perspective is at the current moment
is that it would hope that all things in existence
could accept the more objective truth
that all is one, and therefore all subjective perspectives
could be accommodated in the co-creative process
of creating what is actually in alignment
for all beings in existence.
Meaning where right now,
is it wants all beings in existence
to find a state of alignment
and therefore to create together in the same direction.
Because from its perspective right now,
if everyone's creating what they want to create,
often, because they're not in alignment
and not taking each other as part of themselves,
they're creating in opposition to one another.
Essentially during the process of fragmentation
in a universe where each fragment is imbued with freewill
and is also a byproduct of unconscious determinism,
so many fragments in the universe are creating
in opposition to one another instead of alignment with one another,
that this is no longer serving source itself.
It is by knowing each fragment's subjective truth,
that we arrive at objective truth
and thus know what is truly in alignment to create.
This is what we could call conscious creation,
instead of creation that is fueled by unconscious determinism.
But having said all this about objective truth,
the truth is, you have no way of knowing
whether this is in fact objective truth,
or whether it is just my subjective perspective.
Have a good week.
Subtitles by: Tanya Duarte www.tanyaduarte.com