user-1: What is the nature of a true cognition in Buddhism, or what Buddhism considers as truth? Is it the same as what people consider a logical conclusion made with an empirical process? I feel it cannot be exactly that as various truths exist in Buddhism that aren't easily verifiable with mere deduction.
In addition, how important is truthful cognition/perception in Buddhism? How far can you get practicing things like mindfulness, compassion, etc. without being capable of ascertaining things as 'true' for oneself. 
Finally, and I guess I should've asked this before, what effects/qualities does true information have in Buddhism? Is it timeless? Universal? Beyond doubt? 
So to clarify, these three questions are respectively asking the nature, the importance, and the consequences of truth in Buddhism.

user-1: 
What is the nature of a true cognition in Buddhism, or what Buddhism considers as truth? Is it the same as what people consider a logical conclusion made with an empirical process? I feel it cannot be exactly that as various truths exist in Buddhism that aren't easily verifiable with mere deduction.

The epistemology in buddhism is a tricky one, and does not easily lend itself to western philosophical concepts as far as i can tell. However, i see no claims within buddhism that the path to enlightenment is a strictly deductive practice. The onus is on the practicioner to verify dhamma through empirical (if you will) observations. For the latter, right mindfulness and right concentration plays a huge part.

In addition, how important is truthful cognition/perception in Buddhism? How far can you get practicing things like mindfulness, compassion, etc. without being capable of ascertaining things as 'true' for oneself. 

It is increasingly important depending on what stage of enlightenment you are representing. However, true understanding is not the primary goal, but rather a consequence of relinquishing the fetters binding us to suffering.

Finally, and I guess I should've asked this before, what effects/qualities does true information have in Buddhism? Is it timeless? Universal? Beyond doubt? 

I think it's hard, perhaps impossible to understand the immaterial realms/arupa dhyanas with concepts based on the material realms/rupa dhyanas. To nuance this, one can of course look into the several stages of dhyana for a more detailed rundown of the different progressive characteristics of concentration.

user13709: The truth of Buddhism is directly verifiable in the context of its objective, which is the end of suffering. Indeed, this is laid out in the Four Noble Truths. 

SN56.15:1.5: “Sir, I remember that suffering is the first noble truth you’ve taught; the origin of suffering is the second;the cessation of suffering is the third; and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering is the fourth.

Within this system of axioms, truth is indeed verifiable and deducible.
Conventional belief systems are rooted in identity view, which is incompatible with the four Noble Truths. In other words, if one assumes the truth of identity view, then it is a struggle to have faith in the four Noble Truths.
In mathematics, we must declare our axioms in any proof of truth. For certain sets of axioms, we end up with Euclidean, flat geometry. For other sets of axioms, we end up with hyperbolic geometry. Truth is therefore experienced relative to an axiomatic basis, which is nothing but a set of asserted beliefs. Truth is really about consistency and applicability. The utility and scope of any system of beliefs is its ability to predict outcomes verifiable through direct experience.
Cognition is therefore dependent on axioms, core beliefs held to be truths. And the fruit of that cognition is completely bound up with those beliefs. For those who believe in materialism, the fruit is that which killed King Midas. For those who believe in eternal life, death awaits unconquered. For those who believe in the four Noble Truths, the end of suffering is directly verifiable.
Indeed the practice of Buddhism is basically the gentle erasure of false cognition based on identity view. For if identity is nothing but continued existence of cravings, then one might skillfully wish and practice for the truth of:

AN4.198:15.5: living without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.


user43: The true cognition in Buddhism is tautologically defined as directly knowing and seeing things as they are.
The explanation of this is threefold. 
First, this means a mode of cognition without a contradiction, not prone to contradicting evidence.
Second, it means a mode of cognition which, when taken as a  basis for decision-making and action, does not lead to conflict or suffering, but to peace.
Third, it is cognition that is an extension of the ontological nature beyond words, beyond generalizations and concepts, beyond discrete representation.
This last point means, this cognition is so featureless that it may seem like there's none, and yet it is actually a lot more accurate than our naive crude models we take for the truth. 

-1: <p><strong>What is the nature of a true cognition in Buddhism, or what Buddhism considers as truth?</strong> Is it the same as what people consider a logical conclusion made with an empirical process? I feel it cannot be exactly that as various truths exist in Buddhism that aren't easily verifiable with mere deduction.</p>

<p>In addition, <strong>how important is truthful cognition/perception in Buddhism?</strong> How far can you get practicing things like mindfulness, compassion, etc. without being capable of ascertaining things as 'true' for oneself. </p>

<p>Finally, and I guess I should've asked this before, <strong>what effects/qualities does true information have in Buddhism?</strong> Is it timeless? Universal? Beyond doubt? </p>

<p>So to clarify, these three questions are respectively asking <strong>the nature, the importance, and the consequences</strong> of truth in Buddhism.</p>
 -1: <blockquote>
  <p>What is the nature of a true cognition in Buddhism, or what Buddhism considers as truth? Is it the same as what people consider a logical conclusion made with an empirical process? I feel it cannot be exactly that as various truths exist in Buddhism that aren't easily verifiable with mere deduction.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The epistemology in buddhism is a tricky one, and does not easily lend itself to western philosophical concepts as far as i can tell. However, i see no claims within buddhism that the path to enlightenment is a strictly deductive practice. The onus is on the practicioner to verify dhamma through empirical (if you will) observations. For the latter, right mindfulness and right concentration plays a huge part.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In addition, how important is truthful cognition/perception in Buddhism? How far can you get practicing things like mindfulness, compassion, etc. without being capable of ascertaining things as 'true' for oneself. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is increasingly important depending on what stage of enlightenment you are representing. However, true understanding is not the primary goal, but rather a consequence of relinquishing the fetters binding us to suffering.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Finally, and I guess I should've asked this before, what effects/qualities does true information have in Buddhism? Is it timeless? Universal? Beyond doubt? </p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think it's hard, perhaps impossible to understand the immaterial realms/arupa dhyanas with concepts based on the material realms/rupa dhyanas. To nuance this, one can of course look into the several stages of dhyana for a more detailed rundown of the different progressive characteristics of concentration.</p>
 13709: <p>The truth of Buddhism is directly verifiable in the context of its objective, which is the end of suffering. Indeed, this is laid out in the Four Noble Truths. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn56.15/en/sujato#sn56.15:1.5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN56.15:1.5</a>: “Sir, I remember that suffering is the first noble truth you’ve taught; the origin of suffering is the second;the cessation of suffering is the third; and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering is the fourth.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Within this system of axioms, truth is indeed verifiable and deducible.</p>

<p>Conventional belief systems are rooted in identity view, which is incompatible with the four Noble Truths. In other words, if one assumes the truth of identity view, then it is a struggle to have faith in the four Noble Truths.</p>

<p>In mathematics, we must declare our axioms in any proof of truth. For certain sets of axioms, we end up with Euclidean, flat geometry. For other sets of axioms, we end up with hyperbolic geometry. Truth is therefore experienced relative to an axiomatic basis, which is nothing but a set of asserted beliefs. Truth is really about consistency and applicability. The utility and scope of any system of beliefs is its ability to predict outcomes verifiable through direct experience.</p>

<p>Cognition is therefore dependent on axioms, core beliefs held to be truths. And the fruit of that cognition is completely bound up with those beliefs. For those who believe in materialism, the fruit is that which killed King Midas. For those who believe in eternal life, death awaits unconquered. For those who believe in the four Noble Truths, the end of suffering is directly verifiable.</p>

<p>Indeed the practice of Buddhism is basically the gentle erasure of false cognition based on identity view. For if identity is nothing but continued existence of cravings, then one might skillfully wish and practice for the truth of:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/an4.198/en/sujato#an4.198:15.5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN4.198:15.5</a>: living without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.</p>
</blockquote>
 43: <p>The true cognition in Buddhism is tautologically defined as directly knowing and seeing things as they are.</p>

<p>The explanation of this is threefold. </p>

<p>First, this means a mode of cognition without a contradiction, not prone to contradicting evidence.</p>

<p>Second, it means a mode of cognition which, when taken as a  basis for decision-making and action, does not lead to conflict or suffering, but to peace.</p>

<p>Third, it is cognition that is an extension of the ontological nature beyond words, beyond generalizations and concepts, beyond discrete representation.</p>

<p>This last point means, this cognition is so featureless that it may seem like there's none, and yet it is actually a lot more accurate than our naive crude models we take for the truth. </p>
