To attain reality we must first come to understand what constitutes illusion. For ‘truth’ to transcend ‘falsity’, it must not oppose it. To resist the ‘illusion’ is to become illusionary. Either something is pure or it is not. One iota or atom, nuclei, neutron, ad infinitum, of taint ruins the integrity of the pureness of ‘purity.’

To quote a religious friend of mine who denounced Buddhist thought by trying to say that ‘if reality is an illusion then this book and its contents are apart of the illusion and so they are illusionary.’ To which I report, then too is that criticism part of the illusion and so it too cannot be held true. Therefore, in telling me thus he deems to recommend to me that whatever ‘truth’ I might squeeze from Buddhism is but a drop of falsity trapped in the great sponge of illusion.

To attempt this mode of philosophy will lead my friend here. If he is in possession of the truth via his religious views then he is admitting to the world that what they see here is an illusion and that he managed to scrounge up truth from the friendly words of a prophet. A prophet who said this world is an illusion and that He indeed is the only way beyond this ‘falsity’ we live amongst. He says that we are not to value the words of man for man is false and that he is truth. This also tells the dear reader that entertains himself or herself currently, that indeed we are a mere bundle of potential truth bound to the ‘attachments’ of this life on earth (also called ‘illusion’).

If ‘truth’ is to exist amongst illusion then it must to be inherently a species of the illusion. If ‘truth’ is a species of the illusion then knowledge is a pretense of truth that depends upon the illusion. Knowing is illusionary as it pretends to hold ‘truth’ and yet it is subjectified truth and when we apply subjection to any object of observation then we objectivity it based upon the illusion or perspective-truths we originate our views from.

In order for a Christian to be a personification of truth, they must give up the illusion and yet they embrace the illusion as if illusion could be truth. To depend upon truth is to also depend upon the illusion for they are attached by their truth to this world of mirrors. To try to convince a fool to be wise is as foolish as that fool for which the wise man wishes to convert. Therefore, you are either wise or you are a fool. To interject one with the other is futile and therefore, foolish. To be truthful among what is illusionary is to be an illusion. Calling things an illusion whilst present in the illusion is being involved in the illusion, yet this observation too is then the illusion, and even this is the illusion. The trouble is that if one is to look beyond the illusion it is not to look to a truth, rather it is to change how you look upon it. There is one thing that is not illusion, and that is atomic-awareness, an awareness that comes from the physical spiritualism of and manipulation of, atoms.

Atomic Self-Awareness

The atom has transcended its origin (being merely an aggregate of undefined elements that constitute it) in the physical world as mere reflections of atoms and aggregates of atoms that in formation create and in separation destroy ‘form.’ Form then transcends (via the aggregate of atoms and its constituents) into physical forms such as a rock or a drop of water. These physical aggregate of atoms then become tangibles that order themselves and plan upon the forming of certain objects that wish to remain that object. Atoms must vibrate and move and yet they retain their physical forms for which they so willingly remain. They do not change into another thing but remain that piece of the rock unless that rock is destroyed. A rock is forever a rock until an outside force has made itself known. However, these atoms are not destroyed but become new physical forms.

Ponder with me the rock and its ‘tangibility.’ The rock is a rock because our logical mind must come up with a label for it to categorize it so that by doing so it can generalize it so that in a simple form it can ‘understand’ it. However, all a rock is truly, is a pile of atoms acting as a singular source of energy that we call a ‘rock.’ If we look upon this rock as a rock, we then can conclude that this rock is only a ‘perspective rock’ because it exists only by perspective, whereas it truly is nothing but an aggregate of atoms acting as a ‘solid form.’

Next one is to ponder from whence did this ‘rock’ come from and where does it go when it is destroyed? According to Buddhism and Christianity, everything comes from the nothingness that is God. Upon destruction, everything must return to its source, and that source is God. Creation ex nihilio states that God created man from nothing; this nothingness is of the spiritual realm, or the energy that is Heaven or Nirvana. We come from nothing and we return to nothing, and yet we are unique parts of a single whole.

‘To have a beginning there must also be an end. To end is to have perpetual beginning. In life, there is death, because without death life would not exist. The duality exists so that we can comprehend the void; when in truth the void is a singularity. It is neither existent nor is it non-existent. The dichotomy is the human error of trying to understand its relation to nothingness. We came from the void of God and in order for God to experience his nothingness; he created the universe. The universe is the only possible way to measure the vastness of something so incredible as nothing. To create an endless existence, he only explained the immensity of the void. A single human is as fantastic as the earth. Each cell in each species of animal and bug is as incredible as the entire universe. The atom, the electrons and the neutrons that make it up are the elements of, the fundament of God. The soul wants to return to its natural state, which is pure energy. Energy is the source that leads the soul back to nothingness. For energy is a manifestation of the naught or in other words, it is God or ‘The Source.’ The ‘I am’ of the soul must be ‘voided’ and returned to the ‘potentiality’ of ‘perpetuality.’ This is what the Buddhists call Nirvana and the Christians call Heaven.’

Causality

‘God is immaterial. God is the intangibles that are squeezed from the lemon of our experience that is not material, not substantiality, but profound and beyond. It matters not whether you taste the juices, whether you feel the juices or the surface, but that you do not comprehend the lemon, nor its juices or its origin. God is neither the lemon, the juices, or the materialism the lemon and the juice represent; rather God is both and more. God is and is naught, and thus is the beyond. God is the naught whence the lemon came and God is and is not the lemon and its juices.’

                       Neither non-Being nor being

                                               Can have a cause

Cause denotes an effect and if indeed all things are bound to a cause, what was the effect that caused the cause? How indeed is something going to deny nothing? How is nothing to deny something? If rules bind the creator as they bind our universe, then we should learn the truth that cause and effect are mere illusions. “If this happens then this had to be the effect” and yet taking scientific measures one can easily find the fault in these modes of deduction. ‘If I bleed a man that has a stomach then he will feel better as it revealed itself in this effect to be the cause of the stomach’s destruction.’ This sort of reasoning has been the scourge of human reasoning since the beginning of time. “If it has not rained for three weeks and I tap my stick thirty-seven times and if I have been good to my children and proven brave in the hunt then the Mighty One shall let it rain down upon us.” This is easily dismissed because the man never knows if any of the various ‘reasons’ have been deemed worthy until it rains. Yet, it could rain and he could have been a coward, he could have been a tyrant, and he could have tapped his stick but twenty-seven times. This is the error of cause and effect, the product, which is called superstition.

Then the next step in the illusion is to say that it is caused by a certain condition in the clouds and is the condition that proves a cause for it to rain. Although it is scientifically consistent enough to deem it ‘right’ it does not mean that this cause is the product of this effect, always. I am not suggesting science is a waste of time, I am merely stating that it is imperfect. We are seeking reasoning and logic in a universe that functions of chaos and factors for which we have no understanding of. Once we ‘understand’ a cause, we soon find that it does not hold up to our theories of it, at least not entirely. I am not suggesting that we shall not gaze up into the sky and attempt at understanding. I am saying that once we start becoming sure, based on evidence that supports an already always listening or a bias is merely the eyes looking for a set system of circumstances that appear to be consistent and true.

For example, the Big Bang Theory; I am not attempting to say anything against this very well concocted theory however I am going to say that those who support it (as any scientist trying to prevail in a theory or idea) will put all their notions and attentions to the discovery of facts that support their thesis. This sort of madness is what distorts evidence and makes it appear to follow the rules of logic. When indeed it is our mind playing tricks on us just as magician like Mind Freak™ pull on already always listening perceptions. Whatever defies our eyes defies us. Whatever supersedes our definitions defies us. It defies reality and so it defies the established truth. Yet it is not a lie and it does not belong to ‘the Devil.’ It belongs to our arrogance, and our lust for the illusion. What we see is not what happens, it is what we perceive happens. When you look at a cup of water, we all see a cup of water, we all agree that water is in the cup and that it is clear and that it takes the form of the cup. However, what is the cup to you? What is water? What is form? It is an old argument, but age does not take away from its value. What I see and perceive is labeled the same as what you see and perceive but indeed, they are not one in the same. They do not boast of the same cause and effect. There are certain universals such as ‘for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction’ and so, still these are to our best understanding of ‘opposite’ and ‘equal.’ I am not disputing their truth, only their content.

For instance let us take this phrase from Miguel de Unamuno, ‘Knowledge for knowledge sake! Truth for truths sake! This is inhuman.’ We all see the same words, and agree that he is saying ‘truth for truths sake’ but not one of us shall ever agree on what ‘truth’ is. We can look to our various dictionaries for a synopsis of it. However, we can never accept it on moral grounds, on principle or on experience as the same identical entity. If you are Buddhist you will take Truth as a Buddhist truth, and then from there you will mold the perspective of truth from that experience and that personalization of what truth is. Not to mention truth never stays the same, not to a man concerned with it at least, for he is constantly struggling with what is real and what is false. Yes? If you are to ask a man at the age of ten what truth is it will vary drastically from what truth means to him at fifty. If it does not then there is great reason for concern. The world at ten is not the same as it is at fifty. Rather, the world is the same, but we make it change us and this change can be either positive or negative, but it is never the same as it was at ten as it is at fifty. Even if we define truth the same way as we did at ten when we are fifty, our perception and our experience will still morph what that truth means to us.

As David Hume explained, cause and effect cannot explain the one time a pin does not fall, or the reason why gravity suddenly fails our predictions when contemplating the speed of light, and so for cause and effect to be true, the means must be the same and yet it is not. Observation changes the outcome, and therefore observation creates its own causes and effects to find a consistent means and therefore, that, which is observed is aware that it is observed and so atoms are ‘aware’ and so produce their own means based on the ‘knowledge’ that they are being perceived. We then create a cause from the means of that which we observe and therefore, Hume is right, there is no cause and effect but that which we assume by our observation and or our lack of observation. Like a pattern that appears to be chaotic, once under the microscope and studied tediously, it is found that the chaos is not random but orderly. Just as quantum mechanics shows that what makes up our seemingly ordered world is a complex randomness that in its appeared randomness comes our order. What appears to be true is true because we observe it to be true and find all things based upon this observation. All things can be seen by different means, but these means are not the cause nor the effect but just the randomness of how order is seen.

Neither a Being nor a non-Being,              
Nor any Being-non-Being –
No element is really turned out.
How can we then assume
The possibility of producing a cause