Honour

Give thanks for the response. The questions made me look deeper and I appreciate that.

You said with regard to the opening paragraph : "This statement is true based on what I know. But how would people really know if that is a true statement? Would they be saying it is true based on some kind of blind belief or unreasoned feelings? Are they saying that no one can have perfect consciousness? How do people actually know if what they believe is true? How could they actually come to know that "Universal Truth: A thing that is true regardless of the observer's perspective"? "

Like you, what I say is strictly based on what I know, not just what I heard or what I imagined. What I know makes me accept my limitations at this time. Yes, if a person merely believes without the foundation of reasoned feelings, then what is believed is not true knowledge. I would not say that perfect consciousness is impossible, the things that I have personally witnessed (but cannot explain) would not allow me to say that, however, since I could not describe the things I witnessed as activities performed by 'people', I cannot say at this time that the highest form of an ACTIVE consciousness that I have witnessed was by a 'person'. There are probably people walking around today who are capable of acting beyond known limitations, but I have never met one of them. I have heard talk of such people, but I have never witnessed anything done by a person that could not be explained (i.e. where all the components of an activity can be described using everyday language).

You also asked how one can tell if a belief is true, there is a facility inside everyone of us that can tell truth from a lie. We are born with it and it is our task while living (and growing) to develop it. Some do regardless of the personal cost and others decide that it is not worth the trouble. To be able to believe a lie can be a useful attribute in many fields. In some cases, life, liberty and access to facilities are dependant on which level of belief (in the governing illusions) one exhibits in speech and action. One who is given over to this arrangement (where credibility is dictated by convenience) will never accept a statement like "Universal Truth : A thing that is true regardless of the observer's perspective."

Regarding the statement : "At this time, no person can claim to be in possession of Universal Truth because no person is capable of viewing ALL things from ALL perspectives"

You said : "A person can make any claim, and if they say they are capable of viewing all things from all perspectives that would be a useless claim to make because the only way others would know that is true is if they could also view
all things from all perspectives. Having said that, why would we put limits on our potential? How does one actually know that "At this time, no person can claim to be in possession of Universal Truth because no person is capable of viewing ALL things from ALL perspectives."? Even if someone can view all things from all perspectives, how would people know for sure unless they possess that ability? "

The statement is based on my overstanding of the phrase "Universal Truth". To me, it implies a description of everything that is, was, and ever shall be. And, the view I take is from being in agreement with the ones who say that while we may know (and even be capable of describing) what "is" and what "is to be", we will never be able to describe everything that "was", because included in what "was" is also everything that "never was". In other words, each moment from the 'past' includes not just the specific thing that manifested at that moment, but also the infinite number of things that had the potential to manifest.

And, defining what "is" has been shown not be such an easy matter. Because, in order to describe everything that "is", the space occupied by the describer will also have to be included, which means that the describer will have to cease existence. He/she must be capable of percieving the self as a non-existant object. Deep meditation, it is said, allows one to approach a state where this is possible. However, the act of description, no matter how detailed, always omits a component - the energy that is used to manifest the act of description.

I illustrate what I am trying to say with this metaphor : The air that we breathe out is never the same as the air we breathe in. If it is, if we can consistently exhale the same volume and quality of oxygen that we inhale, then we no longer fall under the description of "people".

You then said : "In my view, the search should not be to see if someone else can see from all perspectives, because the only way one will know that for sure if they can see from all perspectives. The best people can do is to learn and reason to garner as many of the perspectives that are crucial to crystallizing their own selves and minds."

Which I absolutely agree with. We only know for certain what WE know. And, an important distinction to keep in mind is that knowing of limitations is not the same as limiting potential. Potential is always at least one step ahead of limitations, so, the more we extend ourselves today, the more we are capable of attempting tommorow.

Wisdom and Strength.