Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Religion often functions more blatantly from a metaphysical principle, that's true. The problem is not as much delusion but dilution and confusion. Although one could say a little diluted truth can be worse than a wholesale lie.
I'm afraid you'll have to explain further what the difference is between delusion and confusion.
Your question exists, but not as single experience, your question exists because you ask it inside a context. This is why some would say the answer lies in the question, which is not an answer but an attempt to turn the attention to the subject and the context first. To realize where and why you're asking it. Sometimes it helps with answering it.
You're assuming cause and effect exists, and thus you say my question is being asked inside the context of cause and effect. How ironic that cause and effect can't even assume itself.
You mean you need some more context to access any potential meaning? To see if it might be "real" to you in any way? Otherwise it will remain some random words.
I mean I need more facts in order to understand its implication.
And therefore it might just as well not be. Since they are beyond meaning and meaningless, to say they "are" is meaningless. Perhaps they might be. Perhaps it's a dream or illusion. Perhaps a lie shot straight into your vein. It just "is" you say. If only you're happy?
This is the limitation of language. I say 'things just are', but this doesn't necessarily refer to what I want to get across.
Here is a question that may help. How many toes does a philosopher have?
All your evaluations and comparisons are not right in front of you right now. It takes a little bit more attention to realize that. What is left to be there has in itself no reality of and in itself. You give one thing reality and another not. Wisdom prefers to know and understand this.
Another limitation of language. 'Right in front of you right now' is to say that it is in the present moment. It is the present experience. And the present experience is all there is. Does this make more sense at all?
Here is another question. Why is it more natural for people to think that the sun goes round the earth?
Because this is a forum dedicated to discussion of "the nature of ultimate reality"? At least, the tag-line on top of every page claims it.
If that's the case then I won't need to be forgiven if I invoke other non-existent things while we're at it. Please, let's all pay homage to the the married bachelor. Oh how I love his nondiscriminatory nature. Literally a feminist wet dream.
If you'd claim to be the Tao itself then you would indeed be both married and bachelor, a giant and a dwarf, the universe and a speck of dust, truth and lie. Like you'd say something like "I am the Totality of Matter". Since you aren't obviously and demonstratively, that claim would be false.
And now we see the reason why those old sages said the Tao that can be understood is not the real Tao. Obviously we are not Tao. Obviously we are not caused.
I think we're supposed to be that other thing. Te