Truth and Revelation
With the different angles of philosophy in society we have a problem of truth. We tend to condemn forms of truth as being illusional when they deviate from our own familiar logic. Logic as such seems to be no guarantee of truth. Intelligence also thus seems to be of no avail. Wrestling with the truth constitutes a self-realization problem. In search of the truth, there are three sources of knowledge to validate our statements: teachers, books and our fellow man. But the personal side of truth suffers from the same problem as the impersonal side: we cannot really build on the relative truth of material matters only. To be complete, we thus arrive at the notion of the Absolute Truth. We may discuss the universe as a manifestation of the Absolute with in fact three angles of time: an expansion of dark energy, a contraction towards dark matter and rotation towards the basic particles of normal three dimensional matter. But doing so we still miss the true point of our innermost selves: the basic duality of concern is that of the personal versus the impersonal aspect. The Absolute as such is a balloon blown up by Time, with a personal, impersonal and spiritual aspect. This is the fundamental reality of the person we are and the Person we are part of. The Universe is the Big Person who will never abandon us, He is the ultimate reference, foundation of our consciousness and integrity of all knowledge. As also science confirms, the relative truth of the cosmic reality depends the way we think about it. Fields can be seen as particles and particles can be seen as waves. It is a personal matter. But the truth of the Absolute is realized along three paths: the one of sense perception, the one of inference and the one of revelation, a so-called anthropic, person based, revelation in our case.
The most notorious question of philosophy is: 'What is truth?' A simple dualistic answer to this famous question follows, as also was stated in inspiration 6, from reasoning from its opposite: 'True is that what is not untrue' or more sophisticated: 'Truth is that what is perceived when one is free from illusion', keeping in mind that illusion means misrepresentation of truth. That seems to be clear, but, without the mercy of a revelation, not directly fixed at the Absolute Truth of the Person in the beyond, we then soon run into trouble with a material vision of the relative truth. Misrepresentation can be a conscious act or an unconscious act. In both cases we are in trouble. As a conscious act we call misrepresentation a lie, a type of sin or offense or crime. The conscious act as such is the result of a conflict of interests, it is something so normal, that nobody worries about a so-called white lie, a lie of goodwill not to hurt someone. Movies have been made about the troubled life of people unable to speak a lie. As an unconscious act we call misrepresentation ignorance, or a type of psychology or an unresolved conflict that is not seen or understood, but is felt. Based upon ignorance we suffer madness - whether we are consciously being cheated by ourselves or by others, or not - because the nonsense we then believe in does not make any sense to someone else and for ourselves we cannot make the ends of logic meet whereupon we end up in figments that debilitate our practical abilities. For human beings not to go crazy it is important to share a vision of reality free from illusion. For that reason we are sworn to the scientific method to assure us of the truth and ban all conspiracy theories and delusional opinions. All of modern education is built on this purpose. But, as we saw with our concept of filognosy, there are at least six different basic visions of reality: the philosophical, the scientific, the analytic, the transcendental or metaphysical, the religious and the political perspective. And these visions on themselves, supposedly free from illusion in the credence of the people adhering to them, tend from their logical egos to condemn each other for being illusioned, while only a different type of logic has been followed. So logic would by definition not be true speaking from the separateness and ego of these different contesting visions. And this is how humanity loses it completely.
When we abandon logic, we lose reason and end up in the emotionality that, through the mode of passion, further leads us astray in the dense forest of material existence. Lost in the dry woods of knowing, walking about with a blazing emotional torch of anger out of frustration, missing the guidance of logic, one intelligence is not better than another and a forest fire is imminent. In fact having lost one's way, all intelligence has become completely useless and thus we fall back into the animal state of fighting for our survival, calling each other - and thus ourselves - as human beings the enemy. And yes, from the point of view of the animals and the plants, that we lock away from their natural lives in order to grow and eat them, we very well might be the enemy. Mother nature and father time might be right in condemning us with our so-called intelligence that seems to be nothing more than an ego of logic. Is not anyone or anything that stands between us and nature the enemy that drives us mad because we then lose the coherence? But, culturally, we are only having a different purpose with a different vantage point. The objective reality is still the same for all of us, we are just bewildered in our minds, bewildered because of the illusory influence of material nature. So how do we solve this problem of truth? Without the truth we run into disaster because of madness and misunderstanding. Simply saying that we, by the commandment of truth, should not speak a lie, is of no avail. Ignorance does not dissolve by a commandment, even though goodwill and honesty helps us on our way to figure out the truth. Calling the unconscious our enemy and then get analyzed by a therapist of some kind, we can try, but the therapist will not tell you straight away anything you did not know already. And if he does, he runs the risk to be locked up himself for not being easily understood, so to say [locked up in a bookcase e.g.]. You already may have understood that to wrestle with the truth is a self-realization problem. As an adult you are on your own. How can we ever be free from illusion then? Caught in ego in a material world full of dualities, we, with the choices we make, are doomed, so it seems, to end in a personal - or else collective - nervous breakdown, a crisis: we at some point, having taken a wrong turn, then cannot cope any longer and lose control. So what to do?
A common practice of assuring oneself of the truth is to validate statements by checking the source or even 'cross-validate' statements by checking different sources (like journalists do with each other e.g. and then still run the risk of having copied each other). Filognostically there are three sources next to one's personal experience: teachers, books and one's fellow man. With them we seek answers to our questions. Has it before been stated by recognized authorities? Are there more witnesses? Do the facts check out? Are there reliable statistics? Is it part of a proven strategy of management? Is it as such a so-called bonafide statement? Or, going impersonal because also authorities - their books included - are human beings and products prone to error, we check things out by measuring them against a standard, according to the rules, with reliable units of measurement and valid points of reference. But the personal approach of truth suffers from the same relativity as the second impersonal option. People are also material in being embodied and when dead - supposedly just being a spirit - they do not get any better. Impersonally it all depends the way you look at it, so that we, following that course, end up in for the majority incomprehensible theories of relativity with materialistic physicists who think that space e.g. is something empty. Well, so be it, but the latter statement gives us a clue for finding the way out of this truthful trouble. Thoroughly convinced of the relativity of all things material, we are not only impressed by the absoluteness of this common scientific assertion of relativity, we are foremost convinced of the reality of its logical counterpart that is called the Absolute (to be written with a capital A only). Reasoning like we did, at the beginning of this inspiration, from the logical opposite, we have to discuss the Absolute, however much we have tried, the last couple of centuries, to escape from this discussion, hating the old Christian and 'noble' absolutism of kings and clergymen who arrested, incarcerated, tortured, drowned, impaled, burned and decapitated anyone who dared to entertain a deviant vision. We already know that the x-ism spoils the respect of factor x that was -ismed. That horror of absolutism was indeed one of the greatest scandals of our human history, even though it is not such a unique scandal. It happened before and it still does in less developed cultures and/or lands less favorable for survival in general, all around the planet. So no, no absolutism, but please consider the Absolute, it might be innocent after all.
The Absolute can be pictured as a kind of balloon with its inlet as the cause of Time, a kind of expanding air - not to confuse with an explosion, - that makes the balloon grow bigger and bigger. The difference with the real balloon of the Absolute Cosmos (not universe, for there are more than one) is that the real thing does not burst and expands faster and faster, so say the astronomers these days, with a cosmos billions of lightyears across going for the trillions. The power of expansion of the 'air' that used to be called the ether, the drive of time, the Time, is called dark energy, the energy we also discussed in inspiration 7 where we dilated on the cosmological complexity of the threefold of time. An experiment failed and now we do not speak any longer about the ether, but about 'curved space'. Not really an improvement. Dark means we cannot really observe it in actions apart from an astronomical shift in the light spectrum of remote stars and supernovae. Dark matter is that what remains when all 'air' is gone. Not much, in its appearance, but as heavy as all matter combined, naturally. Dark matter is the stuff dark holes seem to be made of in the galaxy centers, but one is not that sure about its location, it is dark after all.
This is all known stuff from the physics and astronomy classroom. But naturally, something is missing there. It is the very person that is discussing and considering this subject matter. Like the infamous ignorant persian robber forgetting on guard to count his own camel among the camels to be counted, the scientist forgets to count the person he is himself in considering the Cosmic Reality. Well, okay, the small material person on a cosmic scale is not much worth mentioning, but the Biggest Person of All Manifestation is. This problem proves the failure of physics to be in control with philosophy, with the very source of our theories, in the first place. All physicists really should follow a course in philosophy (for the conscious lie) and a course in psychology (to handle the unconscious of their own ignorance), before they call themselves decent scientists. What is a cosmic theory worth without incorporating the scientist who is the person studying and concluding to it as also the mystery of life materialized? A purely impersonal approach in that sense may be considered a sign of weakness in its escapism to stay away from this so very tricky subject of the Person. So, in honesty, we have the Absolute Person, the Cosmos, the Balloon of Time and All, as the ultimate concept of comprehension and coherence without which no scientific endeavor can be successful. But, of course, the physicists still intelligent in their own way, have a branch of thinkers (...) sympathetic about this notion. The microcosmos, and therefore also the macrocosmos, can be considered a kind of thought or dream that totally depends the way you think about it. This so-called anthropic view constitutes a principle of reasoning we have to embrace logically, on philosophical grounds, thus not just because of the apparently intelligently designed universal constants that so most incomprehensibly turn out to constitute an improbably fine-tuned system of natural order. So let us paint that picture and fill it in to demonstrate the command of filognosy as being valid and reliable.
The One and Only Absolute Reality is that balloon, including its cause. Within that balloon we find a principal division. It is the principle of the personal as countered by the impersonal. Without this duality we have no presentation of a manifestation at all, no matter that may serve as a thought. At first the personal might be nothing but consciousness and matter might be nothing but unlit darkness. In the beginning we are not talking directly about the form of the person as having hands and legs. The head of the balloon may suffice for while. Let the Person be the full of His head, being a-head of all and before all, heading all. So, what does this Person have in mind, so to speak, before rising on His feet and handling anything? Undoubtedly He, logically, must be considered the source of this discussion in telling us that first of all there is the duality of the personal and the impersonal. This is not something you think of yourself because thinking of the concept of a person one thinks of someone with a human form. One thing is not the other, the personal is not the impersonal, but half way there might be some coverage, some overlap, that mixes the two into quite a famous third element. When we mix the personal with the impersonal we arrive at a spirit. The spirit goes for anyone, is not that personal, but still attaches to the person for its meaning of existence. The characteristic of the spirit is light, the quality is that of goodness and its operation is consciousness, the management, the life of the basic duality. The characteristic of the spirit is quite impersonal and the quality of it is quite personal, but the mix is something else, it is the consciousness that by definition is at least the life - or the Time - of two things. The spiritual mix rises above the primal duality and provides the vision of it, the self-awareness, the reflection, like a witness in meditation, like an eye in the sky.... or a sun in dark space for that matter, or an electron and a proton that makes hydrogen as the first manifestation of matter out of the primordial unmanifest state of the pure dark energy of Time. Now, does this reasoning ring a bell with us thinkers trying to restrict us to the identity of bonafide scientists? It seems to be so. This simple argument tells you how space, time and matter cohere. Time is the air, matter is the balloon and space - when it rips up for lacking in energy, is what makes the ballon explode or else implode, sooner or later, when the dark energy runs out, the synergy is lost and only matter without space remains, or what is it to be called then? A singularity? There you are. This is the theory of everything we can have from a filognostic point of view, from matter, spirit and person, from dark energy to atoms to a spirit, from a spirit to matter to dark matter, from the non-manifest to the manifest and from the Complete Whole to the specificity of whatever tiny quantum or package of energy.
So what have we now described here? Paths! Paths toward truth we derived from the three different sources. We reasoned from sense perception with ourselves and our fellow man, we made inferences with reference to the logic found books, in studies of others, and we arrived at a type of order involving the person that was revealed by the verbal and scriptural authority of teachers about the Absolute Truth of the Person. Yes, we arrived at an anthropic revelation of the universal order, an order we are in such a bewilderment about, that we because of our ignorance up to the present day are engaged in wars and the destruction of the entire planet, all the species of its biodiversity included. The negative of knowledge, its absence, whether it is conscious sin or ignorant madness, we have to shun. One may doubt the scientific value of this simple revelation, but still it is something, a conjecture to facts, one may refute. That is the purpose of filognosy: to drive philosophy - with its doubt, division, order and completeness - scientifically in respect of the facts, forward to acknowledge with analysis and transcendence the Person openly respected in religious ceremonies and more covertly - in respect of the adult option - is respected in commentaries and political debates. We need to respect the Absolute Truth of the Person by sense perception, inference and revelation to begin with, however speculative the philosophy might be. The personal after all is proven by the person himself - I meditate therefore I am (by letting go of the mind thus). And the small talk above is just a modest calling card of this type of product of reason. Many an Indian yogi is capable of far more astonishing feats in controlling the material illusion, feats that, in favor of proving the Person of Command, eventually defy all rational explanation.
We, faithful to our sources, do not go for the mystical perfections of yoga though. We know miracles, but go for reason. The revelation as received from above must be one of the kind as discussed previously, as a kind of guided realization that anyone in respect of the three sources may attain in order to emancipate towards his/her own realization in one's own field of expertise. The above mentioned is just an innocent game of words, but still - as for the source of the teacher - it originated from the basic concepts of an ancient tradition, from a book more than 5000 years old that hardly anyone can read these days, not because it is in Sanskrit (it is translated many times), but because the conditions for realizing the content of that story about the Person have changed so dramatically over time, that in our present age of political quarrel and ego as good as no one has the intellectual stamina or even interest to read it and appreciate it, let alone get the full scope of its ramifications for all of our world wide human association. It is this Story of the Fortunate One referred to down below, that must connect us in consciousness, in the mind, within the person, in full self-realization. It is this story told by the philosopher of all philosophers authentic and scholastic, that tells us who we as a person really are: we are all individual sparks of the great blazing fire that is the Person of the Absolute who is our refuge, fulfillment, happiness and inspiration, our goodness, fortune and devotion, our intelligence and our love. May we never forget and always seek this revelation.
Source for this Inspiration:
S.B. Canto 1, Chapter 11