Truth never fully shows its face.

[blazeofglory]

All of us, even Newton and Einstein through a whole gang of scientists beginning from Galileo and Copernicus have seen the full face of truth.

Do you agree? We all have seen parts of or the outer of it or the coat of it not the inner of it.

And that is why we say truth is relative and the same thing can be seen differently from person to person. Like beauty lies not in physique but in your eyes.

I set this tread for discussions and of course for heated arguments.

[amanda_isabel]

hmm. I think all of us have seen truth at one time or another but were not even conscious at what was staring us in the face. :)

[jgweed]

There is an ancient Greek saying, "The truth is hard to find" or "The truth is always hidden." We want to ask the Nietzschean question, "Suppose truth to be a woman, what then?"

[ezydriver]

Throughout life, I have always seeked truth. I always feel as if I am constantly living in it.
However, there has always been something which has bugged me. Something which has knawed away at me, something deeper which I was always aware of, but never fully brought into consciousness. This, I later discovered, was the realisation that we all lived in a fake world.
A world of painted smiles, a world of appearances, a world of insincere gestures structured on a self serving foundation,. A world of agendas and a world of falsehood.

I came upon this discovery after some deeply painful experiences left me in a state of confusion as to why I felt so intensely hurt. A journey of philosphy ensued. At first the epihanies came slowly, but eventually gathered pace. Suddenly I realised I was living in a cruel, unforgiving, and selfish world. I became conscious of the real side to humanity.

Today, I live with the belief that virtually everything is an actual reversal of what is meant by it. for example, "I love you" tends to mean "Do you love me?". The media will suggest women want sensitive and caring men, yet when they get them, they reject them in favour of real men."He just lacked ambition, he wasn't exciting enough" We are led to believe that womens heavily made up faces are the extent of their beauty, yet, if only they rejected that, that confidence to do so is a truer beauty. Everything is masked and I have my own name for this constant, unforgiving and definite phenomenon. I call it the paradox theory.

The paradox theory seems to lie everywhere. Nothing is as it seems. I shall elaborate. For all of my life, twenty nine years, I have never left the UK. Why? I was scared of flying. Lately, I have been researching the statistics. Apparently I have twice as much chance of matching five numbers plus the bonus ball on the national lottery. Yet, I used to freeze at the thought of flying. Statistically, I have more chance of dying whilst putting on my trousers, than dying in a plane crash, yet I worried constantly. Convinced I would die if I were to fly. The very place I was probably the safest, was the very place I feared the most. All this while smoking twenty cigarettes a day actually doing one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. The things I feared the least, were the thing which where placing me at my most vulnerable.

Another example. I was once at home, waiting for a visitor to arrive. While waiting, I was frantic with tidying the house. I became consumed with appearances. I would shout at my family, and show them general disrespect. Courteousness became an obsolete word and honour disintegrated.
It was not until after the visitor left I had time to muse on the whole episode. It came to my attention that the very people who I should respect and honour, my family, the ones who I love deeply, were the very ones who I was treating with the least honour. Why do I never serve them their tea in china cups? I do I never let them get away with sitting in a chair and perhaps leaving a mark? Yet, I was letting my visitor off the hook, and serving him tea in a china cup. It was paradoxical to say the least.

I'll give you one more example. All my life the one thing at my core was a sub conscious desire for security. To ensure this, I set about with one goal in life. To find a girl to settle down with. I went through five. All while I was between the ages of sixteen and twenty eight. Five back to back long term relationships spanning twelve years. The last few were particularly painful. Now, the reason I was in those relationships were to guarantee me some future security, all sub consciously, of course. However, the things I suffered in those relationships, such as extreme manipulation, infidelity, lying, were actually jeapordising my security. They were very unhealthy for me, yet I carried on becasue I could not let go of my apparent security. In turth, since I have made a decision to stay single and discover life, I am finding that coming out of my comfort zone the healthiest thing I have ever done, and yes, I'm flying for the first time in five weeks. The paradox with these girls is that in the one place I thought I was safest, I was at my most vulnerable.

So, with the paradox theory safely highlighted I feel that this theory trickles down from the divine to the trivial. It seems all around. It is everywhere. The very thing people resort to doing when they age, make up, plastic surgery, hair dye, botox, hair transplants andso on, are the very things which act in reverse and actually make them unattractive. It reveals a shallow soul for the true beauty is inside. The true beauty is the one who sees their crows feet as canyons of rich experience. The true beauty lies in the hair that although greying, gives a wise and majestic look of confidence.

This is leading me on to conclude my theory that ultimate truth can never be known. If it were to be known, it would have by now. However, every man woman and beast has tried to explain it, conceptualise it, enforce it, persuade it all to no avail. The root of such explanations have stemmed from their own fears, insecurities and ignorance of the time. Religions claim to have nailed it, yet only serve the inventors. Think of the Islamic laws for women, and immediately you can see exactly where their doctrines stem from, male paranoia and a desire to control the one thing which has the most dramatic and powerful effect over a man, women. Think of any system claiming to hold the truth and you will see self serving agendas at the heart.

If absolute truth is discovered, who can authenticate it? Is this not what religious leaders have tried? Also, bear in mind, if one of them has hit the truth, what about the other ones, with all of their factions and branches. Nobody can authenticate it. It is beyond our means.

With this said, it can only, and I do mean only, be down to our own subjective logic to explain the truth. It will be made up from personal fears, personal morals and a desire for an external authority amongs the chaotic doings of the universe. A belief in god feels so strong to some people, as if it is in their heart. Of course it is going to, for the desire for an explanation, or the superstitious, or anything to distract us from the lonely void will always appeal and send souls on fire for a comforting figurative answer.

Going back to the point I made about the paradox theory, and saying it trickles from the divine to the trivial, is it not the greatest paradox of all to say "The truth is, is that there is no truth"?
Therein lies the perfect paradox, flawless, pure and crystal, representing all of humanity, all of life, all of the universe.

Of course, this also cancels out my whole post because I am claiming it to all be true, yet, in essence, it is merely my subjective opinion, and I realise that, so it does not concern me. I am a lie, you are a lie, it is all a lie. Whatever you believe in can be stripped down to a subjective belief which will usually appeal to your fears and insecurities about the nothingness, the lonliness, and the meaninglessness of it all.

The meaning of life could well be that there is no meaning. Now that is also the paradox of all paradoxes.

Its all just a qustion of mathematics and personal opinion. There is no magic or mystery folks.

[The Atheist]

The meaning of life could well be that there is no meaning. Now that is also the paradox of all paradoxes.

Its all just a qustion of mathematics and personal opinion. There is no magic or mystery folks.

Excellent and honest post, thanks very much.

I agree with lots of what you say - about the falsehood many [most?] people force themselves to live with, the ugliness of people trying to reverse ageing and the attraction of "commercial" beauty.

I most assuredly agree that that maths beats the hell out of mystery!

[The Atheist]

All of us, even Newton and Einstein through a whole gang of scientists beginning from Galileo and Copernicus have seen the full face of truth.

Do you agree? We all have seen parts of or the outer of it or the coat of it not the inner of it.

And that is why we say truth is relative and the same thing can be seen differently from person to person. Like beauty lies not in physique but in your eyes.

It seems to me that you're ascribing some form of existence to "truth", which just doesn't work.

The search for that kind of "truth" is a religious experience, while the simple facts are that some things are true, some are not and some are unknown. There is no single strand which defines "truth" as an entity.

[Jozanny]

It seems to me that you're ascribing some form of existence to "truth", which just doesn't work.

The search for that kind of "truth" is a religious experience, while the simple facts are that some things are true, some are not and some are unknown. There is no single strand which defines "truth" as an entity.

This is why I am in love with Brian Greene. That a subatomic particle can be a particle and a wave at the same time is counter-intuitive, but he is sexy enough to make it fun.

[Arabian_knight]

since truth is a poly-faced idiom, truth for me is a conceptual notion , we can not know truth without knowing what is not, and i mean masking which has been well discuessd through Jean Baudrillard writings about simulation and simulacrum . He said and i quote "The simulacrum is never that which
conceals the truth--it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The
simulacrum is true"
takeing the subjet from a personal perspective , i say " beauty is the truth"
and let me ask..
How do you know that you are real?
thanks a lot for the topic

[The Atheist]

since truth is a poly-faced idiom,...

You must have an odd dictionary - mine just offers:

a fact that has been verified, a true statement, conformity to reality or actuality, that which is true as opposed to false

There doesn't seem to be much ambiguity there.


How do you know that you are real?

Here's this strange question again.

I blame Keanu Reeves.

[The Atheist]

This is why I am in love with Brian Greene. That a subatomic particle can be a particle and a wave at the same time is counter-intuitive, but he is sexy enough to make it fun.

Nice segue!

I fear that Greene's string is doomed to the same fate as Einstein's Theory of Everything. Still, only a few months until CERN start to hit 90+% of the speed of light.

[mazHur]

Truth seems to be hiding somewhere and if it shows up all falsehood will go away from this world. What we think is true is relative and differs with the subject and object. We see truth in a liars statement ; juries are misled by criminal's alligator tears and innocent are hanged. All this happens because we often presume false as true what we think in our minds or that from the minds of others and take it to be true. As day be truth night is also truth... but sometimes this phenomenal truth is too long at the north poles....does this mean truth vaires from place to place and time to time......so where does truth lie??

Seekers of truth are still struggling to find truth and whatever one finds he terms it as Truth but the Truths so far discovered by men are all at loggerheads ! why?

[Arabian_knight]

The Atheist
a fact that has been verified, a true statement, conformity to reality or actuality, that which is true as opposed to false.?

so you know the truth by knowing its contrary!
here we match .
but your dictionary says:
the truth is naked, ha?

then i must be in the wrong forum..

[The Atheist]

Truth seems to be hiding somewhere and if it shows up all falsehood will go away from this world. What we think is true is relative and differs with the subject and object. We see truth in a liars statement ; juries are misled by criminal's alligator tears and innocent are hanged. All this happens because we often presume false as true what we think in our minds or that from the minds of others and take it to be true. As day be truth night is also truth... but sometimes this phenomenal truth is too long at the north poles....does this mean truth vaires from place to place and time to time......so where does truth lie??

Seekers of truth are still struggling to find truth and whatever one finds he terms it as Truth but the Truths so far discovered by men are all at loggerheads ! why?

You've got yourself all confused here.

Juries do not decide truth - they decide on whether there is reasonable doubt or not. Swearing on the bible, a witness may swear to tell the truth, but that has no bearing on whether it is or not.

Like the next poster, you've got tied up with true/false dichotomy as well. Even if "truth" existed, it wouldn't stop faslhood.

Truth values are surprisingly easy to calculate - mathematics is chock-full of them.

I'm not sure which people are loggerheads over which truth, either. A lot of opinion masquerades as truth, but again, it's pretty easy to tell the difference.


The Atheist
a fact that has been verified, a true statement, conformity to reality or actuality, that which is true as opposed to false.?

so you know the truth by knowing its contrary!

Nope, you've missed it entirely. That is not what the definition says at all. Just because something is false does not make the opposite true. A simple example is "all men have black hair". This is demonstrably false, and while that makes one other position true "not all men have black hair", it doesn't actually have any truth value, because it tells us nothing. Displying statistics which break hair colour down into numbers and percentages would have truth value.




but your dictionary says:
the truth is naked, ha?

No. You must have a different version of OED to me. :D

[NikolaiI]

All of us, even Newton and Einstein through a whole gang of scientists beginning from Galileo and Copernicus have seen the full face of truth.

Do you agree? We all have seen parts of or the outer of it or the coat of it not the inner of it.

And that is why we say truth is relative and the same thing can be seen differently from person to person. Like beauty lies not in physique but in your eyes.

I set this tread for discussions and of course for heated arguments.

Truth exists and there are many layers of truth. Truth is actually God.It says in the Gita that even if we do penances and austerity, if we do not do it for God, it is temporary and useless. God is the source of all pleasure, and also of all creation. God is infinitely merciful, but we are in the material world because we chose to be separate from God. We are suffering because we forget about God. Where does truth come into this? Because truth is the same as God. What is God? God is exactly reality. God is actually different from this, because God is of a nature which we cannot conceive. And anything we can conceive, God is greater than that. But God is definitely reality-- God is higher reality, if we do not know God as a person, then as an impersonal Brahman, a higher, spiritual reality. So truth in all this is God, although God also has those qualities of being all-attractive, and since the source of all pleasure is God, any desires we have, God is the source of them. This is why God is the source of all truth-- or, effectively, truth.

[jgweed]

How can god be "exactly reality" and also be a "higher reality"? And how can he also be of a "nature that we cannot conceive"?
As if there are three or four "realities." Which one is really real?

[The Atheist]

This is why God is the source of all truth-- or, effectively, truth.

That's certainly an opinion that theologians have been trying to support for a few thousand years.

Failed so far.

The interesting conundrum, to me, has always been that if god created everything - including Satan - how does a god of truth create not just lies, but the Father of Lies, as Satan is often called?

[NikolaiI]

How can god be "exactly reality" and also be a "higher reality"? And how can he also be of a "nature that we cannot conceive"?
As if there are three or four "realities." Which one is really real?

It's a mystery-- but haven't you had any experiences of truth? God is the truth, and also the creator of everything. God is a person, but God's nature is also an impersonal Brahman or reality-- it is the spiritual effulgence of God. It's basically what happens when you see beyond this life, then you will see it. Why do we try to bring it home? Because it's on a different level than anything else. There are different kinds of revelation, or...as some people might say, "eureka" moments. This is mainly what I'm talking about, and this reality is what that is. You ask what I mean by reality-- reality is the eternal, unborn base of existence. You may call it non-existence, or unborn, or reality. In any case, it is what the Buddhists say, that our search for enlightenment or reality...the only reason we don't know it or see it is because we are bewildered or conditioned into unblissful states. Why are we not absolutely full of knowledge, bliss, and peace? Well, for various reasons, but basically our conditioned attachments which create our suffering. So that's what I mean, the unborn, undefinable reality to which we return when we die, and from which we came into this world. Why is it higher? Because it is eternal.

Of course I do not have all the answers, but hopefully I have helped you understand what I meant.

Anyway, the reason I try to speak about it is because it is of such an astonishing nature, the kind of which, once you view, you realize is the most important thing to share, because it is a truth, that is just so incredible. I have actually seen a truth which is thousands of revelations beyond our normal conceptions. So that is what I'm trying to explain.

[mazHur]

In the words of Bertrand Russel

''he idea that "true" reality is never truly graspable by humans' sensory and cognitive equipment goes back at least to the works of Plato. There is, for instance, the distinction between appearances and reality. Show a three-year-old a red ball beneath a green filter and he will typically say that the ball is black, even though he had previously been given the ball to examine. Understanding of this appearance-reality distinction seems so necessary to everyday life that it is hard to imagine a society in which normal people would not acquire it. But the lesson is relatively new historically, such as the lesson of perspective in painting, or the intentional designing of optical illusions (such as the Ponzo illusion), or in the differing testimonies of eye-witnesses of the same event. The fact is that we all do not perceive the same things alike.''

for more go to
http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/socpsy-5.html

Truth is like a dream
some with eyes
see it while awake;
yet there are some with eyes
who dream in their sleeps;
Whatever they see
maybe true or false
but appears to b e true
on the canvass of mind.
Truth is always the same
only we perceive it differently
were truth not dreams
the blind would never dream!

[The Atheist]

In the words of Bertrand Russel

Now there was a smart bloke.

Pity more people don't read [or understand] him.

[NikolaiI]

The idea that "true" reality is never truly graspable by humans' sensory and cognitive equipment goes back at least to the works of Plato. There is, for instance, the distinction between appearances and reality. Show a three-year-old a red ball beneath a green filter and he will typically say that the ball is black, even though he had previously been given the ball to examine. Understanding of this appearance-reality distinction seems so necessary to everyday life that it is hard to imagine a society in which normal people would not acquire it. But the lesson is relatively new historically, such as the lesson of perspective in painting, or the intentional designing of optical illusions (such as the Ponzo illusion), or in the differing testimonies of eye-witnesses of the same event. The fact is that we all do not perceive the same things alike.

Plato's world of ideas, and ideas are, if anything, appearances. The world of idea, appearance, and illusion, is also that in which we live. We do not understand reality, because the nature of reality reflects God's nature; God's reality. God's existence is very simple to understand; on many levels, it is the answer, the solution. It is a solution, yet at the same time it is a single source, an ideal, a perfection: the smallest bit of God that we know, still exceeds our imagination in a way nothing else does. God is perfect health, God is happiness beyond happiness, God is perfect knowledge, God is perfect beauty; God is perfect in every quality. When I first thought of God, the first God I believed in, was a mix between the Buddha and Pascal's God. Sometime after I discovered Krishna, I thought "Krishna is like Buddha!" and then I realized immediately, that Buddha is like Krishna. Krishna is the original form, the original person, the absolute or supreme person, and absolute truth from which every other form emanates. God's body is complete transcendental bliss and knowledge, and is eternal. Krishna, the original form, wearing saffron. Krishna, whose beauty exceeds the universe.

So, in this way we have gone, from Plato to Krishna. While I have not read all of Plato, what I have read I will defend to my last breath. "The Cave" from The Republic is one of the most profound allegories for existence and spiritual emergence that I know of. It was enlightening to read, and surprising to come across, because I understood it.

"True" reality? Well, the sources I give for my opinion are Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism or Vaishnavism, and different independent thinkers. In the Bhagavad-Gita, all of this is described in great detail; how there is a material energy-- this is what we live in-- and how there is also a spiritual energy, which consists of God, and all the spiritual sparks, or souls, in material and spiritual creation. Material creation consists of the conditioned souls, who are reincarnating according to their karma. Spiritual creation consists of God's body, and Vrndavan, where God lives.

[The Atheist]

... God's ... God's .... God's .....God ...God is ....God is ...God is ....God is ...God is ....God,....God .... God.......God's....God, .... God's .....God .....

Just curious here. You write very much in the manner of tracts I see handed out on street corners.

What do you hope to achieve by posting in this fashion?

[NikolaiI]

My purpose is to explain that God created every one of our desires. If we desire for the most satisfaction of our intellectual need or desire, God is behind that, if we to be satisfied in pleasure, be it of art, or anything, ultimately, God is the source of that. It is basically about life and death, and what happens when you die. Even though you do not know everything now, if you are thinking of God when you die, then you do know everything after you die. So even then question of forgetting God, that is given by God. So if you tell yourself God doesn't exists, and you believe He doesn't, then you will never know the difference, but actually this forgetfulness was bestowed by God.

[jgweed]

To say that"Plato's world of ideas, and ideas are, if anything, appearances," seems to be contrary to the general conception of Platonic Forms, which are anything BUT appearances. Individuals are such because of their "participation" in Forms, as an object is a chair because it participates in the (universal) "chairness." Presumably, the allegory of the cave illustrates that true knowledge is not sensible in nature (which gives us only "opinions" or "beliefs" as Plato illustrates in the preceeding doctrine of the divided line) , but only achieved by reason in its understanding of the Forms (the sun being a metaphor for the "good-itself" or the "good beyond being" or for the system of the Forms).
Cheers,
John

[NikolaiI]

To say that"Plato's world of ideas, and ideas are, if anything, appearances," seems to be contrary to the general conception of Platonic Forms, which are anything BUT appearances. Individuals are such because of their "participation" in Forms, as an object is a chair because it participates in the (universal) "chairness." Presumably, the allegory of the cave illustrates that true knowledge is not sensible in nature (which gives us only "opinions" or "beliefs" as Plato illustrates in the preceeding doctrine of the divided line) , but only achieved by reason in its understanding of the Forms (the sun being a metaphor for the "good-itself" or the "good beyond being" or for the system of the Forms).
Cheers,
John"

Thank you for such kindness in your answer!

I thought Plato's main ideas were that 1), the masses of humanity in general are stuck like prisoners, unaware of the reality, as well as the light which creates all their shadows, and 2), in certain extraordinary circumstances, we can raise ourselves above, and climb out of the cave, of ignorance-- these I mainly support by the passage "Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted."

and

"But whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world..."

So there some fancy words here like beatific, and that "the idea of good is the lord of light in this visible world..." so maybe he is stretching a bit, but I defend his views and find them accurate and revealing. It is quite similar to Buddhist and Hindu descriptions of Maya. Hindu especially is so deep and so rich in understanding-- more scientific than any other religion-- in its relationship to Maya, Maya's illusion, and all the elements which make up material nature.

So all in all, Plato's assertion comes down to saying "Most are all in illusion, but there is an idea of good which is like the sun, which is the source of what is true and what is good." To go back to the main topic of this thread, that idea of good is also the idea of truth, in the sense of an Absolute Truth, and it is my stance, which I will try to explain, that that Truth is God.

[The Atheist]

My purpose is to explain that God created every one of our desires.

Yep, this is what continues to trouble me.

According to that doctrine, god created the desire to rape, torture, commit paedophilia, murder, maim and start wars. God must therefore have been behind the desires of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Possibly not the most benevolent picture you could paint for a god who equates to truth and love.

[blazeofglory]

Yep, this is what continues to trouble me.

According to that doctrine, god created the desire to rape, torture, commit paedophilia, murder, maim and start wars. God must therefore have been behind the desires of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Possibly not the most benevolent picture you could paint for a god who equates to truth and love.

If really truth to be told God is out of all these attributes, good or bad. Good or bad are simply phenomena or something that has to do with forces of nature. Both relate to each other or coexist or subsist. Things happen as there is a force behind it. To discern whether it is a good or bad force falls within your domain, not God’s or nature’s for that matter.

Do not try to confute others with your radical ideas. Maybe what you argue originate from a source that too suffers limitations of its own. We all are learning. While I personally can not subscribe to any mythological ideas of godliness or the existence of God yet I am still unsure and do not agree to atheism as well.

I am seeking truth, and all are seeking truth. God is also a symbol and if people seek truth through God or taking God as a symbol that is their way.

What we lack is the capacity for understanding others

[The Atheist]

If really truth to be told God is out of all these attributes, good or bad. Good or bad are simply phenomena or something that has to do with forces of nature. Both relate to each other or coexist or subsist. Things happen as there is a force behind it. To discern whether it is a good or bad force falls within your domain, not God’s or nature’s for that matter.

Two issues with that - firstly, "good" and "bad" are both subjective and therefore can't be said to exist in any form, and as a determinist, I discount invisible, unquantifiable forces as illusory.


I am seeking truth, and all are seeking truth.

Can't agree. Anecdotally, I'd say that 80-90% of people never even consider it. I've met thousands of people in my life and the eternal verities occupy the thoughts of only a tiny fraction. I think this applies equally to religious and irreligious types - many just learn dogma by rote.


What we lack is the capacity for understanding others

As a generalisation, that's fair. Not sure what difference it makes.

[mazHur]

If Truth and Reality are the same then you can learn more about them from the foll article

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/06/the_reality_tests_1.php

[NikolaiI]

Yep, this is what continues to trouble me.

According to that doctrine, god created the desire to rape, torture, commit paedophilia, murder, maim and start wars. God must therefore have been behind the desires of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Possibly not the most benevolent picture you could paint for a god who equates to truth and love.

"Doctrine"? You saw my next sentence, didn't you?

[The Atheist]

"Doctrine"? You saw my next sentence, didn't you?

Yes indeed. Don't tatke doctrine negatively - I'm using it to describe your way of seeing it.


If Truth and Reality are the same then you can learn more about them from the foll article

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/06/the_reality_tests_1.php

They're not the same at all.

To find the truth, one needs to apply rationality, the first step of which is accepting that reality exists. Your link says that:

The classical world is real, and not only in your head. Solipsism hasn't really been a viable philosophical doctrine for decades, if not centuries.

I agree with that very, very strongly and have said as much a few times here lately.

[NikolaiI]

Well, you have derailed into the problem of evil, and I'll address that if you wish to discuss it...

The thing is, the most fundamental part of it, is the existence of God. God created everything, including reality, and then...He said this. He tells us, I am the creator. But we, you, doubt Him, because you do not see Him, and because the world is not perfect. You desire that God will solve the problems of humanity, as you listed, the desires to rape, torture, commit paedophilia, murder, maim and start wars. Now, feeling injustice that these exist in the world is a good thing. But you say that God cannot exist because they do, this is not logical or true. God is defined as the source of all that exists. Is existence a good or bad thing? Well, since goodness exists within existence, but also evil, existence is good and bad. Anyway you must understand that God is not bad, God is infinitely powerful, and He is infinitely good. You do not understand this, but it might help to think of the idea that God is love. The idea here is that if we serve love, it will be good: we will help ourselves, we will help others. Actually, we will evolve. Someone posted a link to Kabbalah.info on here somewhere, although strangely I can't find it-- anyway, there was one point in that website that made a lot of sense to me; that every being that exists is always being pressured to become something higher. Or something like that...I could have it a bit wrong.

Anyway, I would be interested in knowing where you draw the line between what exists and what doesn't. The mind is an unquantifiable power, for example, but you can see the effects of the mind, of consciousness. The reason I am really trying to reach you on this matter is because this is really true: the power exists, and the truth is there. Perhaps it is beyond your current consciousness: the consciousness we have is created by our activities, all sorts of things like that. God is everywhere it is true, but we may need to go to a Buddhist monastery or a Hindu temple to see and learn about God. But what I am trying to express, ultimately, is a very important idea, a very important message. You say that God does not exist, but as soon as you realize that God does; then you will understand that humanity is a blinking light, it is fading; God's power is real, and what is life but the remembrance of it? God is everywhere and every being is in God. You say that God doesn't exist, because you think He doesn't associate with us; but He does, in the form of His words and teachings: this is Love. There is no pain or suffering because ultimately Humanity doesn't exist, and everything works for God. What are we becoming but higher beings?-- if we live for God, and worship Him. Of course, we are covered by the material elements, but this is the gist of the truth of reality. Look forward to hearing your-- hopefully not a one-lined-- response.

[The Atheist]

But we, you, doubt Him, because you do not see Him, and because the world is not perfect.

No, that's wrong on both fronts. I don't need to see gamma rays to know they exist and I'm not an atheist because the world isn't perfect. I'm an atheist because god is a human construct easily explained by history and man's own nature, while there isn't a shred of believable evidence for any god's existence. Dawkins uses the nice analogy that everyone is an atheist regarding at least some gods and most people all but one. Personally, I'm happy to state that Osiris, Thor, Zeus and YHWH are all imaginary.


You desire that God will solve the problems of humanity, as you listed, the desires to rape, torture, commit paedophilia, murder, maim and start wars.

Not at all - I have no desire for any god to fix them, I'd like humans to fix them.


Now, feeling injustice that these exist in the world is a good thing. But you say that God cannot exist because they do, this is not logical or true.

Nope, wrong again. I was not saying he can't exist because of those things, I was asking how you personally claim god is infinitely good when he has created so many bad things.


God is defined as the source of all that exists. Is existence a good or bad thing? Well, since goodness exists within existence, but also evil, existence is good and bad. Anyway you must understand that God is not bad, God is infinitely powerful, and He is infinitely good.

Just like that.


You do not understand this, but it might help to think of the idea that God is love. The idea here is that if we serve love, it will be good: we will help ourselves, we will help others. Actually, we will evolve.

Same applies to love. If god is love, why create hate?

(Evolution isn't contingent upon altruism - quite the opposite in fact)


Anyway, I would be interested in knowing where you draw the line between what exists and what doesn't.

That's more like it. The line is simple - things which are able to be rationally explained using physics and mathematics can be considered to exist, others, not so much.


The mind is an unquantifiable power, for example, but you can see the effects of the mind, of consciousness.

Wrong again, sorry. We can absolutely see the workings of consciousness using tools like MRI and EEG. We can see which parts of the brain work during which thoughts and measure the electrical and chemical outputs of the brain. That's pretty clearly measuring conscious thought.


God is everywhere it is true, but we may need to go to a Buddhist monastery or a Hindu temple to see and learn about God.

I must say that I find the idea of finding god at a Buddhist temple quite amusing. You do know that Buddhists are atheists?

[NikolaiI]

I must say that I find the idea of finding god at a Buddhist temple quite amusing. You do know that Buddhists are atheists?

Buddhists are not atheists-- if you are interested, you should read the introduction by a prominent Buddhist of Thomas Merton's book, Contemplative Prayer. It will help to assuage you of the idea that Buddhists are atheists.

[The Atheist]

Buddhists are not atheists-- if you are interested, you should read the introduction by a prominent Buddhist of Thomas Merton's book, Contemplative Prayer. It will help to assuage you of the idea that Buddhists are atheists.

I live 200m from the largest Buddhist temple in Australasia and know a large number of Buddhists. They are all atheists. I'm sure some Buddhists aren't, but the vast majority are - Buddha was a man, not a god.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Whatever you believe in can be stripped down to a subjective belief which will usually appeal to your fears and insecurities about the nothingness, the lonliness, and the meaninglessness of it all.


I think if you think about that long enough you can discover that both of you are right. Why shouldn't the Atheist (not just the member) be as correct as the Christian? Or the Muslim or the Jew? I have thought about that question very much and I've come to the conclusion that all contain valuable lessons regarding spirituality and philosophy. I have begun to delve into the various religions of the world and I respect all of them. You could call me a "multi-faceted" Catholic. I am primarily Catholic because of my upbringing, but I borrow aspects of other religions because of my respect and awe for them.

Back to the subject: In your reality, what you think is the truth because you think it is. Since our consciousness defines our reality and our consciousness is completely isolated; none of us can assist the other in discovering one another's reality and thus CANNOT discover and believe what the other sees to be truth. Perhaps by coincidence of exposure we may have relating beliefs, but they cannot be exactly the same because we can never understand the other persons!


Now with that quote, I only meant for you to apply the beginning. I don't mean the part with "about the nothingness, the lonliness, and the meaninglessness of it all." because that reflects blazeofglory's own subjective belief. The beginning I see to be true, but not necessarily only "fears and insecurities" but many other things that demonstrate our personalities (not necessarily ones with such negative connotations).

[NikolaiI]

I live 200m from the largest Buddhist temple in Australasia and know a large number of Buddhists. They are all atheists. I'm sure some Buddhists aren't, but the vast majority are - Buddha was a man, not a god.

Buddha was not a man. It is Buddhist belief that Buddha incarnated from one of the highest heavens, with the goal of preaching. There were great signs at the Buddha's birth, and he was known as a child either to be a great king, or a great enlightening being. None of this is the same as atheism.

Buddha is actually a relative term-- Buddha is like God. The body of Buddha contains infinite beings; the body of Buddha contains creation, it is relative because of our relation to it. Our own bodies are exactly like the body of the Buddha, or at least have the capacity to become like that: full of bliss and knowledge. At least, in the spiritual world-- on the Other Shore, in the Pure Land, everything is like that-- bliss and knowledge. And if we were enlightened, we would see that, that our bodies are made up of Buddhas and Buddha lands, just as we fit into the cosmic cycle of greater beings; Buddha, Krishna.

[mazHur]

Buddha was not a man. It is Buddhist belief that Buddha incarnated from one of the highest heavens, with the goal of preaching. There were great signs at the Buddha's birth, and he was known as a child either to be a great king, or a great enlightening being. None of this is the same as atheism.

Buddha is actually a relative term-- Buddha is like God. The body of Buddha contains infinite beings; the body of Buddha contains creation, it is relative because of our relation to it. Our own bodies are exactly like the body of the Buddha, or at least have the capacity to become like that: full of bliss and knowledge. At least, in the spiritual world-- on the Other Shore, in the Pure Land, everything is like that-- bliss and knowledge. And if we were enlightened, we would see that, that our bodies are made up of Buddhas and Buddha lands, just as we fit into the cosmic cycle of greater beings; Buddha, Krishna.

Well, there is no evidence to substantiate Buddha being a God. If he was a god then where is he now?? Can a god die?
Buddha did not believe in God...

[jgweed]

Life is not a illusion. Life is. And it is what it is every minute, every hour, every day, every week, month and year for every one of us. To prune a tree, kiss your baby, take the bus to work, read Shakespeare, repair a motor, is to prove life real.

What is an illusion is to demand of life that it has some ultimate meaning that one can discover. Or perhaps and more properly speaking, to ask it is a delusion.

[mazHur]

Buddha was not a man. It is Buddhist belief that Buddha incarnated from one of the highest heavens, with the goal of preaching. There were great signs at the Buddha's birth, and he was known as a child either to be a great king, or a great enlightening being. None of this is the same as atheism.

Buddha is actually a relative term-- Buddha is like God. The body of Buddha contains infinite beings; the body of Buddha contains creation, it is relative because of our relation to it. Our own bodies are exactly like the body of the Buddha, or at least have the capacity to become like that: full of bliss and knowledge. At least, in the spiritual world-- on the Other Shore, in the Pure Land, everything is like that-- bliss and knowledge. And if we were enlightened, we would see that, that our bodies are made up of Buddhas and Buddha lands, just as we fit into the cosmic cycle of greater beings; Buddha, Krishna.


Life is not a illusion. Life is. And it is what it is every minute, every hour, every day, every week, month and year for every one of us. To prune a tree, kiss your baby, take the bus to work, read Shakespeare, repair a motor, is to prove life real.

What is an illusion is to demand of life that it has some ultimate meaning that one can discover. Or perhaps and more properly speaking, to ask it is a delusion.

Life is like a dream within a dream (Poe)

Stars are not like what they appear to be,,,they are outrightly deceiving you

love, hope, kiss, touch, hate, money are all illusion ,,,,they are not what they appear to be at a instance in time,,,,they change and never reamin the same
this is what you find in sleight of hand and trickery,,,all is illusion in this world ,,,even this world is an illusion,,,,man is made to suffer and he's...:D

[The Atheist]

Life is not a illusion. Life is. And it is what it is every minute, every hour, every day, every week, month and year for every one of us. To prune a tree, kiss your baby, take the bus to work, read Shakespeare, repair a motor, is to prove life real.

What is an illusion is to demand of life that it has some ultimate meaning that one can discover. Or perhaps and more properly speaking, to ask it is a delusion.

Can I just agree 1000% with that?

Monty Python did it all so well.


Buddha was not a man. It is Buddhist belief that Buddha incarnated from one of the highest heavens, with the goal of preaching. There were great signs at the Buddha's birth, and he was known as a child either to be a great king, or a great enlightening being. None of this is the same as atheism.

No, I'm sorry, but you have it completely wrong. Start with the basics at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha). Gautama Buddha was a real person who died a human death. Buddha has some god-like traits [apparently], but he is certainly not a god. Reincarnation is something else I don't believe in, but it has no relationship to any god - Buddhism is a personal belief system revolving around human life and spiritual growth and reincarnation; no gods.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Why don't you believe in reincarnation? How do you know that your character is not exactly the same as someone else before you? It is not your consciousness that transcends, it is merely your character. Besides, with billions of people alive or dead, why would it be so odd to assume that there could have been someone before you with your personality (in deep levels, not in such that one would be graded [b]{edit}[/] by pure coincidence?

And what with life not being an illusion: sure it's not an illusion. What is an illusion is everything contained in life. "Je pense donc je suis!" I think therefore I am. The only thing we are absolutely certain of is that we are thinking (which is a demonstration of life) therefore life must be existent! But that does not necessarily mean that pruning a tree is reality...

[caddy_caddy]

God is the Absolute Truth .
The relative truth is what u speak of; it is all of us not me or u .

[jgweed]

...and if Absolute Truth does not exist, what then?

[Scheherazade]

Then... nothing!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[caddy_caddy]

the relative exists because the absolute exists;
the law of contradiction!
I think it is logical.
Moreover I agree with sherazad; do u think that life is just a tale told by an idiot and full of sound and fury, signifying nothing???

[mazHur]

life is a mad man's dream and nothing else.
all you see around is 'maya' (hindi) ---deception!

here is a link to Maya in hinduism

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=yoDmOQUuNMEC&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=maya%2Bdeception&source=web&ots=6sBB40_h8J&sig=4v2kv36yjag7igBqq7LDTJ2wIcs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA234,M1

[The Atheist]

Why don't you believe in reincarnation? How do you know that your character is not exactly the same as someone else before you? It is not your consciousness that transcends, it is merely your character. Besides, with billions of people alive or dead, why would it be so odd to assume that there could have been someone before you with your personality (in deep levels, not in such that one would be graded [b]{edit}[/] by pure coincidence?

I find the premise just too silly for words.

Given that humanity started with a mere handful of specimens, where did the 6,500,000,000 "souls" around now come from?

How do these "souls" exist?

So far, every thing discovered has a materialist explanation which seems to fit the facts. Consciousness, character, soul, being, ego, whatever term you pick can be explained by the neurons and chemicals at work in the human brain, while no explanation outside of supernatural ones can allow for non-materialistic existence.

In half a century, I've found nothing even remotely likely to come under the heading of supernatural, so I'm comfortable in dismissing it.

Lovely thought, but deeply unsatisfying once broken down.


And what with life not being an illusion: sure it's not an illusion. What is an illusion is everything contained in life. "Je pense donc je suis!" I think therefore I am. The only thing we are absolutely certain of is that we are thinking (which is a demonstration of life) therefore life must be existent! But that does not necessarily mean that pruning a tree is reality...

I said a few weeks back that if Descartes had had the ability to see thought processes happening on an MRI machine, he may have thought differently. Seriously, the entire problem breaks down into a simple choice - is reality real or illusory? The latter leaves only one escape, solipsism. It made an ok movie, but very poor reality.

The demands by would-be solipsists and philosphers in love with Plato and Descartes to provide "proof" of reality, I find quite absurd in a world where fact is far more interesting, exciting and bizarre than any fantasy could ever be. Take dark matter/energy for example. The whole thing is far stranger than any science fiction, yet it appears to be real. Once CERN is online and starts to answer these questions, I harbour hope that philosophers will finally lay down their books and pick up a microscope. Squirming over what constitutes reality in the face of understanding the origin of the entire universe would be simply denying reality, which is different again.


life is a mad man's dream and nothing else.
all you see around is 'maya' (hindi) ---deception!

Yes; those kind of thoughts are very useful if you happen to be starving and 500lb of raw beef is walking past you which you can't eat!

[NikolaiI]

No, I'm sorry, but you have it completely wrong. Start with the basics at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha). Gautama Buddha was a real person who died a human death. Buddha has some god-like traits [apparently], but he is certainly not a god. Reincarnation is something else I don't believe in, but it has no relationship to any god - Buddhism is a personal belief system revolving around human life and spiritual growth and reincarnation; no gods.

What do you think is Amitabha Buddha, the Buddha of Infinite Light?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha)

[The Atheist]

What do you think is Amitabha Buddha, the Buddha of Infinite Light?

I understand all that perfectly, but it's still not a deity. I think you're assuming that supernatural belief automatically leads to god, which isn't the case.

[NikolaiI]

I understand all that perfectly, but it's still not a deity. I think you're assuming that supernatural belief automatically leads to god, which isn't the case.

I didn't intend to imply that.

Perhaps you are thinking Buddhists are something they're not? Afterall, the only ones you know are Australian. Tibetan Buddhists are different...actually all are unique. No, not all Buddhists might ever use the word God and actively try to establish connections between the faiths of different religions. Yes, some do. When I spoke of the relation to Buddha and God, it was my own interpretation, and I did not speak for anyone else, certainly not for all Buddhists. I am well read in many different Buddhist literatures, though I am not experienced at debate. Yet I will still try to communicate with you.
There is a great deal of Buddhism of which it seems you are not aware. Much of it is actually supposed to be secret, or confidential. Ahi and mahamudra would fall in this category.

Anyway-- doesn't atheism generally exclude any kind of supernatural? Or would that be naturalist? It just shocked me that you said that Buddhists were atheists, but I guess you will have to answer whether you mean naturalist or not.

http://www.tbsn.org/english2/article.php?id=222

There is a great deal of information I've read that indicates spiritual worlds in Buddhism. I've heard Buddhist lamas say that there are countless bodhisattvas. I am not a teacher but just an interested person. My opinion is that Buddhists are not atheists that happen to use Buddhist ontology, but they are Buddhists. If anything, Buddhist are about ten times closer to polytheism than atheism. A buddha is considered omniscient, and there are infinite Buddhas. Eh? I look forward to your response.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Atheism is defined as the belief that there are no gods. If we were speaking strictly denotatively, Buddhism would fit under the category of "atheist". However, connotatively, atheism tends to be used for "lack of spirituality". I think the two of you are using the two different meanings.

Enlightened Ones are not gods. How could a man become a god? They don't. You cannot pray to Buddha, you cannot speak to Buddha after he died. This is the essential difference between the buddhas and gods.

Also, you don't idolize the Buddha. You use his teachings and his example to further yourself on the path to enlightenment.

[The Atheist]

Perhaps you are thinking Buddhists are something they're not? Afterall, the only ones you know are Australian.

Actually, I don't know any Australian ones. I know two NZ Buddhists, while the rest are a mix of Chinese, Tibetan and Nepali.


Anyway-- doesn't atheism generally exclude any kind of supernatural?

Not in any way at all. Atheism simply means no belief in god/s. Buddhists can be atheist, spiritualists often are and even some Wiccans describe themselves [incorrectly, in my opinion] as atheist. Atheism describes no other philosophy or trait.


Or would that be naturalist? It just shocked me that you said that Buddhists were atheists, but I guess you will have to answer whether you mean naturalist or not.

The best term to describe lack of all supernatural beliefs is "rationalist". Naturalist works as well, but it has a slightly ambiguous meaning, so I tend to leave it out - it doesn't have widespread usage anyway.


There is a great deal of information I've read that indicates spiritual worlds in Buddhism. I've heard Buddhist lamas say that there are countless bodhisattvas. I am not a teacher but just an interested person. My opinion is that Buddhists are not atheists that happen to use Buddhist ontology, but they are Buddhists. If anything, Buddhist are about ten times closer to polytheism than atheism. A buddha is considered omniscient, and there are infinite Buddhas. Eh? I look forward to your response.

Hopefully, we've got all that sorted out now. I agree that Buddhists have lots of supernatural beliefs, but none of them that I'm aware of class Buddha as any kind of god.


Atheism is defined as the belief that there are no gods. If we were speaking strictly denotatively, Buddhism would fit under the category of "atheist". However, connotatively, atheism tends to be used for "lack of spirituality". I think the two of you are using the two different meanings.

See above - that's a dangerous assumption, because I do know many atheists who have all sorts of supernatural & paranormal beliefs. This is actually the main reason I use the "atheist" tag for myself, because there are so many incorrect descrptions of what atheism actually is.


Enlightened Ones are not gods. How could a man become a god? They don't. You cannot pray to Buddha, you cannot speak to Buddha after he died. This is the essential difference between the buddhas and gods.

Also, you don't idolize the Buddha. You use his teachings and his example to further yourself on the path to enlightenment.

Spot on!

[NikolaiI]

Life is not a illusion. Life is. And it is what it is every minute, every hour, every day, every week, month and year for every one of us. To prune a tree, kiss your baby, take the bus to work, read Shakespeare, repair a motor, is to prove life real.

What is an illusion is to demand of life that it has some ultimate meaning that one can discover. Or perhaps and more properly speaking, to ask it is a delusion.

Yes, these things are all real. Apparently. But in actuality everything in life is a shadow of its ideal. Would you say it is illusion to demand an ultimate meaning if there is one? The question of whether there is meaning or not indicates to me that there is meaning, that it is quite obvious, only not to us: the existence of confusion tells me that ideally, there is not confusion; the existence of negative opposites of ideal values tells me that the ideal is how it should be. If there is suffering, then there should be peace.

"Life is illusion" means that we are under illusive, delusive energy, thinking that we are this body, mainly. It says in the Vedas that we are born into separateness when we long on for sense gratification, but actually this separateness is an illusion: the true nature is peace or moskha. Thus there is "waking up" from the separateness. In Buddhism this is realizing thusness, or buddha nature, in Hinduism, this is realizing our position as servants of the Whole, the Supreme, God.


Yes; those kind of thoughts are very useful if you happen to be starving and 500lb of raw beef is walking past you which you can't eat!

This is an interesting crack-- it has actually been calculated that if we stopped butchering and eating cows, there would be enough grain to feed the whole world.


Atheism is defined as the belief that there are no gods. If we were speaking strictly denotatively, Buddhism would fit under the category of "atheist". However, connotatively, atheism tends to be used for "lack of spirituality". I think the two of you are using the two different meanings.

Enlightened Ones are not gods. How could a man become a god? They don't. You cannot pray to Buddha, you cannot speak to Buddha after he died. This is the essential difference between the buddhas and gods.

Also, you don't idolize the Buddha. You use his teachings and his example to further yourself on the path to enlightenment.

Buddhists do believe in deities.

Although http://www.khandro.net/deities.htm
says that


There is another important difference between Buddhist deities and mythological gods or goddesses. The latter are, or were once, considered real -- described as motivated by jealousy, power and other appetites and not very different from physical creatures such as people. The deities of Buddhism are ultimately regarded as manifestations of Emptiness. Some practitioners eventually abandon deity devotion as a method for attaining an enlightened state when it has outlived its utility.

the deities are not real, yet in the songs of various masters and yogis, coming to my mind especially, of Jetsun Milarepa, they are spoken to as literally existing. This is a very confidential knowledge of tantra. And this is not a tantra of sex at all. It is a form of Buddhism where you are supposed to learn enlightenment from a master, who has embodied the buddha body in different ways.

I have taken this one step further in saying that these deities are real. And in fact there are many stories where they are considered real.

Buddhism is not atheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic or deistic. It is not necessarily one of these, and the focus in the pursuit of understanding Buddhism should not be trying to assign one of these such labels to it. Buddhism is far more sacred than to merit such rough handling.

Now I am merely presenting one view of it, which shouldn't be discarded so carelessly, nor should you assume I am unfamiliar with some idea or other.

Now, the idea of mine is simply that Buddha is, in a way, a relative term, like God. Buddha is teacher, the ideal teacher and the perfect person. Buddha has embodied all the perfect qualities. Now how do we know of anything? Through its relation to us, and especially to our mind and soul, thus it is relative. We can know Buddhas and deities through prayers, through artwork, through meditation and through surrender, as well as through hearing and through chanting, as well as Mandalas and other practices which I am insufficiently versed in. In some instances the role of teacher is of stressed importance, in order to transmit the teachings. The website I linked to says that Buddhas are a manifestation of emptiness. But what does form mean? This is when we start to inquire as to what reality is, the reality of ourselves and the reality of spiritual and material natures. Form is emptiness, and yet form is also Buddha nature, which is emptiness. The term of Buddha is a relative one: Buddha can mean a teacher, a person, or it can mean the complete whole, or a greater part of it; of which we are a part, and, of which we are made. This is why we are part of Buddha and Buddha is part of us, the same as we are part of God and God is part of us. To say that Buddha is like God is rebelled against, but it is dismissed before any part of this wonderful, confidential truth is grasped.

I hope I haven't wandered off-topic too far, we will again come back to the question of truth. And I am interested to see what the other user who said God is Absolute Truth is thinking now...I wanted to say I agree with that statement. It is a statement enjoined in the Bhagavad-Gita. Hopefully I can help explain this wonderful concept. God is the source, from which all other shades and forms proceed.

[jgweed]

"Yes, these things are all real. Apparently. But in actuality everything in life is a shadow of its ideal. Would you say it is illusion to demand an ultimate meaning if there is one? The question of whether there is meaning or not indicates to me that there is meaning, that it is quite obvious, only not to us: the existence of confusion tells me that ideally, there is not confusion; the existence of negative opposites of ideal values tells me that the ideal is how it should be. If there is suffering, then there should be peace."

It is a strange philosophical argument to say there are now somehow TWO realities, one of which is purported to be the shadow of the other, and one of which is something called an ideal reality. It is readily admitted, because obvious, that we live in a world in which things are real, but to then posit yet another world, which we are told we cannot know except we are told it is more perfect than the world in which we live, is to make a long speculative leap.

The world can only be called an illusion if it is an illusion of something else, and we know what that something else is. I would suggest that if that “other reality” is unknowable, that it makes no sense to call our reality an illusion.

What are the warrants for the existence of this other reality? One argument is that because we look for a meaning beyond reality, that it must therefore exist. And if I look for a triangle with four sides, must it exist? If humans are deluded by appearances, one could argue at the same time that looking for a meaning beyond reality is not also an illusion.
A second argument that the existence of confusion suggests there is a state of NONconfusion seems to rely on the theory of opposites. But opposites only exist in the apparent world of illusion, so why is opposition any less of an illusion than anything else; could we not be confused about the necessity of oppositions? For example, it is argued, “the existence of negative opposites of ideal values tells me that the ideal is how it should be.” Now if we cannot know the meaning beyond reality, we can only derive the positive as well as the negative opposites from the world we CAN know, and the meaning beyond reality simply does not help us at all, and do we not look to the actual world to clarify our state of confusion?

Neither of these arguments, as I understand them, seem to warrant the conclusion that there is an ideal world which we cannot know, and a world which is only illusion, or an imperfect copy of it.

[NikolaiI]

Okay, so first of all, I didn't say that everything is illusion, nor did I say that there is one reality and then another. If we are in illusion, then we are actually in reality but we do not know what this reality is.

Secondly, I am trying to explain the wordless or unwordable, the truth beyond words. It is, of course, subjective experience. But it is experience, rather than me attempting at speculation; I am trying to describe something which I have felt, contemplated, and feel as the most important thing my being has ever known. That is the nature of a world beyond this world: it is on a different level, only in the sense that you know it is true, but somehow true on a different level and completely separated from this one. That is why it is called crossing over (to the other shore).

I just wanted you to know that I am attempting this in good faith, and not surrendering to any untruth myself, nor asking anyone else to go against what they think is true. I am not saying that one should surrender to mental activities, nor am I making any judgment about mental or physical activities, platforms, or consciousnesses. But philosophically, there is a truth which is beyond our normal conceptions.

Anyway, I'll write more later, depending on what you reply...