A little off topic, but I figure truth is probably derived from something like Justice and Liberty coming together . . .
First, the long-winded preamble (The important part, the question, is in bold):
Having come to Friday, not particularly feeling like aggravating myself or any other consciousness who is gracious enough to read my words with politics, this week, and not yet having a particular topic in mind, I asked a co-worker what a good question to explore might be for this week’s posting. My, I do love my run-on sentences don’t I? Anyway, to my request for his thoughts on a topic he thought for a moment. And his answer was, “What is truth?”
So, before giving what I believe to be as close to an answer as I can put into words, I feel it necessary to answer a question I often put to myself when writing out one of these topics, “What does this have to do with God?”
The cop-out answer is, everything without exception is God, and thus everything has everything to do with God. But, while accurate, that reminds me way too much of a Lady Gaga song. So, to reach just a little bit farther, at least in this instance, I figure the relevance is that if every definition of the divine cannot hold its own in the light of truth, then a better definition of the divine is needed. And thus whatever definition of truth is given must, in part, be an attribute of the divine since, by my thinking, the divine is the only measure by which the divine can be defined. Some trick for something which at its very essence cannot be spoken since its truth is that big. But, teachings tell us attributes can be described, and so . . .
The not-quite short enough response (The answer is in bold):
Truth is that which is experienced the same, no matter from what perspective it is perceived. If any two perspectives have a divergent impression of what they just experienced, that was not the truth being experienced. And in this lies the problem of easily understanding what is truth: impression is different than word-thought, and even different than image-thought. And the answer lies in a leap of faith to those whom have never experienced in such a way: for such a thing as truth to exist objectively, one perspective must be capable of being shared between more than one person. And to any who know exactly what I mean, I say to you, you at least have a hunch of what the truth of the existence of the living God entails. And to the rest I say, seek sincerely, and you will have no choice but to find, but leave belief at the door as you make it a point to experience whatever teaching you happen to be following up with at the moment.
I could probably write a lot more about truth and perceiving it, but why? So, I leave you with the words I studied that were the first that made any blessed sense to me when I was first seeking genuinely some sense of realizing the truth, indivisible, of the divine:
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
And a little music that, for me, sealed the deal:
Tygarjas Twyrls Blog 
Leave a comment