Can I say, fact is our understanding for the given situation? Or does fact says something more than this?
If we don’t eat, we die. Is this a fact or truth?
Can anyone elaborate on that?
Both - But the best thing is to ask each person what they mean. (if you happen to be discussing concepts)
Could we say that this is one aspect of facts? One way to look at what a fact is? Because as I wrote a few msgs upstream, another way to interpret fact is: a direct (no speculation involved) subjective experience of the content of the present moment. In that sense, it is a fact that I am typing this now, but what I typed in my previous message is not a fact, it is a memory of a fact, a fact once removed.
Anam Thubten, Tibetan Buddhist teacher, once said (paraphrasing): “Nothing is happening. Nothing has ever happened, nothing will ever happen.” Mixed with what you said and spun: There are no facts, there have never been any facts, there never will be any facts. (Oh nooooooooo! 
)
1 Like
Can I say that facts and truth are nothing but our conclusions (Written in words) to communicate with other fellow human beings, which holds laws of nature, psychological aspects of mind etc.?
1 Like
Yeah, it is subjective experience but if it has been validated by other individuals who draws the same conclusions, it could become objective also.
I thought that we discussed this before? Anything that actually happens leaves a trace of itself. If the type-writer wasn’t “happening” before you started typing on it, then you wouldn’t have been able to type anything.
Similarly, when one becomes aware of what is happening inwardly - thoughts, feelings, images, sensations, etc - these have a continuity with what has happened before: the image I have of you now, this second (if I have such an image) owes its existence to the moment I began to form an image about you through an incident that took place yesterday.
The important point is not to try to go back into the past, to try to trace these “happenings” all the way back to what first happened! - but to be aware of their continuing effects (that are happening now) which have their continuity with what took place before.
This guy?
The enlightened mind (Rigpa or Buddhamind) goes beyond both accepting and rejecting—there is nothing to accept or reject—because Buddhamind is in perfect relation with the nature of all things. In this realm there is no conflict. So the idea of accepting and rejecting is really transcended. It doesn’t exist there; it only exists in the ego’s mind
I’m not criticising, but are we ready to discuss the facts - or non-happenings - of the ‘enlightened mind’ already?
1 Like
It sounds scientific to me, can we say it as truth or a fact?
yup we are ready to know the difference between truth and fact. Why I am asking because, Jiddu talked about it and I did not understood well what he said.
If two people share a similar subjective experience, does the experience become objective?
Sivaram, we already discussed this several weeks ago on this thread. But if you don’t want to scroll up the page and read about what we said, rickScott summarised K’s attitude to these things (which we agreed to loosely go along with) as follows:
Is that ok with you?
I think, so but not confined to two or three but it has to be validated also. Validated, I mean doubting in all possible ways on the conclusion which we got (But it should hold).
Okay, I will go through the discussion.
Can I say this a fact?
I’m a level jumper. (For better or worse!) I generally try to identify the level I’m talking from and to stay with the level the discussion is at. But when I contemplate or analyze or research something, I often jump between levels. It’s the blessing and curse of an omniperspectiviste!
Then come down to my level and explain me 
It seems that actuality, truth, and fact can point to the same thing in a given moment.
In order for me to speak to you ‘where you are,’ I need to know where you are. Where are you?
Oh, man, I completely forgot about this! (It was so, like, last week. )
Rereading what I wrote so long ago, I see that I said: “I’ll keep my personal ‘definitions’ of fact, reality, truth, usw to myself and go with Krishnamurti’s (i.e. the ones in the list above).” Oi! I must have been in a very harmonious mood that day. (Must be Spring!)
But, okay, I said I’d go along with those four working definitions, so I’ll do it (in this thread at least). Please remind me again if I fall off the wagon.
I think it would be better to say that the word fact - in the way we are using it here (or at least when we were discussing it two weeks ago; a lot can happen in two weeks!) - is pretty inclusive.
There can be psychological facts, personal facts, facts about the natural world, scientific facts, historical facts, and so forth.
Where it gets interesting is that some facts involve the world of our thinking. So, for instance, it might be a fact that I feel nationalistic. But nationalism is the creation of my thinking (as well as other people’s thinking). So we are calling that a reality created by thought.
But nature is a reality that exists independent of my thinking. I have not created nature. So that we are calling actual, actuality.
This is where it can get a little complex, so bear with me. If I get angry with you because you called my county a bad name, what is taking place in my mind? Surely what is happening is that the image that I have of my nation - which is the creation of my thought - has been brought into question, right? And because my brain has identified itself with this thought created reality there is the feeling, in the body, as hurt, as pain. This hurt, this pain is actually taking place somewhere in my body, my heart (or wherever): so psychological hurt is an actuality taking place in the field of reality. Got it?
If I genuinely identify with the image of my country, this is both a fact and a reality, but the image is not valid, is not actual, so it is not an actuality. But the hurt I experience when that image is disrupted - or the pleasure, the dopamine or serotonin I derive from the image when it is flattered - is actual, an actuality. And this pain or pleasure is a fact also.
So it depends on what one is talking about, but this is how we agreed to use these terms (loosely, non-dogmatically).
Truth, on the other hand, we agreed to leave out of the discussion for the time being, because truth is something that only has relevance or meaning when thought and time (reality) has come to an end - and it is not generally a fact for us that reality has come to an end. We might believe that we have ended all thought, but this is probably an illusion created by our thinking, our desire (which is merely reality).
Clear? - or clear as mud? I think it is pretty clear.
Ha! yes, I have the same impulse too sometimes! You do it more than me, but it’s fine. It always adds something to the conversation. But just to remind you of what you said before:
That’s the question I’ve still got at the back of my mind.
We only need to hold to these definitions very loosely of course - we are not expecting everyone to use the word real or reality only in the way outlined previously! That would drive everyone mad.
But we did discuss at length some of these definitions, and people seemed more or less on board with it, so I think it is still quite an inclusive set of definitions that covers most of the ground in these matters (of fact).
It’s not a “useful idea” - it’s a fact.
Good. Me too, along with other questions, snippets of mono-dialogue, songs, images, noise. “It’s like a jungle in there!”
Not so loosely that they don’t serve their purpose: to unite. Not so tightly that they limit the value and freedom of the inquiry. Ja?
1 Like
Exactly. Ja, yes.
So if someone comes along and says, for instance, that nirvana is a fact, we will not permit this usage. If nirvana is truly actual (for that person), then it be would be truth; but we have agreed to be very cautious in using our word/definition of truth.
But if someone simply wishes to say that what they are saying is true - I really am typing on my laptop this second, I’m not lying - then we can permit this usage of truth, in this instance (aware that this is really just a fact, or an actuality, but not the truth).
!!