Religion is just another philosophy.

[Fairy]

Reality/ Beingness/ Life / aliveness nature, or whatever concept is apparently being superimposed upon this unknown nameless Oneness is a silence no one ever heard or wrote.

There is nothing to talk or write about. There isn’t nothing to talk or write about.
Nothing is talking or writing. Nothing isn’t talking or writing. Nothing is being heard, or seen, or sensed, or known.
Nothing cannot exist therefore nothing has to be. Nothing is impossible therefore nothing is possible, and never not possible.


“ A non-dualist has nothing to say. He has no interlocutors for he is "one" with all. Any words he uses are functioning at the level of dualistic "thinging". There is no "path to truth" which can be described. In short there is only "spiritual quiescence"....perhaps what you want to call "awareness". “

“ This is the antithesis of "In the beginning was the word..." (John 1:1) “

[Self-Lightening]

“ A non-dualist has nothing to say. He has no interlocutors for he is "one" with all. Any words he uses are functioning at the level of dualistic "thinging". There is no "path to truth" which can be described. In short there is only "spiritual quiescence"....perhaps what you want to call "awareness". “

“ This is the antithesis of "In the beginning was the word..." (John 1:1) “

To be a genuine non-dualist, one must also be a dualist, though. The antithesis has to be "resolved", exploded, sublated. This is why Aleister Crowley said,

"1. In the beginning doth the Magus speak Truth, and send forth Illusion and Falsehood to enslave the soul. Yet therein is the Mystery of Redemption." (Crowley, "The Book of the Magus".)
https://iao131.com/commentaries/liber-b-vel-magi-sub-figura-i/

Without enthrallment, there can be no redemption; without illusion, there can be no truth. To be sure, as I wrote almost eleven years ago,

'[The Evangelist John's] gospel begins with a hymn to the logos and represents Revelation’s capture of Reason'.
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/note-on-the-first-chapter-of-leo-strauss-final-work/37017

But as I wrote little over two weeks ago,

'The Latin translation ratio lacks the key meaning of "speech, word, statement" in the original Greek word, lógos, and this meaning is literally "gathering" (of words or, perhaps, thoughts).'
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/interesting-take-on-socrates-last-words/80343/35

And, almost seven years ago,

His [i.e., Heraclitus'] elusive notion of the Logos did not just refer to Reason. Reason is constituted by the principle of identity or, in other words, of non-contradiction or excluded middle; but that is only half the Logos. As I wrote recently:

'Reason has been misunderstood as being opposed to revelation. To be sure, the principle that constitutes it is that A is different from not-A, but that's only half of it. The other half is to then see the unity of the two, the whole that is more than the sum of its parts. Not a divine but a natural revelation, if the two are even opposed—a revelation of the divinity of nature.' (Open letter to Leonardo DiCaprio, 7 October 2017.)

We cannot experience our sober, day-to-day consciousness, with its truisms like the aforementioned principles, as a revelation; but it seems to me that Heraclitus did experience his awareness of the Logos as a revelation: a revelation of the paradoxical character of our phenomenal world.

"They do not comprehend how what pulls itself apart pulls itself together: a high-strung² harmony, thoroughly like that of bow and lyre." (Heraclitus, fragment 51, my translation.)

[…]

² παλίντονος, "re-flex", as in a reflex bow. Another version has come down to us, which has παλίντροπος, "re-curve", as in a recurve bow.

[Source: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/nature-and-god-are-history/45224]

[Fairy]

To be a genuine non-dualist, one must also be a dualist, though?

Yes of course. Non-duality is pointing to the idea that only “language” is dual, only “thought” is dual. But the space between the words and thoughts, is the true self of awareness, which is one and no other.

“Thought” is the movement of mind within the oneness of awareness. Awareness never moves, and never ages, it’s timeless.

Awareness is the real state of being, it is forever at rest and peace eternally.

Non-dual simply means: two, but not two.

[puto]

A religion has a meaning. The meaning is a philosophy. Religion's meaning is not philosophy.

[Fairy]

A religion has a meaning. The meaning is a philosophy. Religion's meaning is not philosophy.

''Meaning'' is an intent to know something.

Therefore, religion is the intent to know something as knowledge. It's a claimed philosophy, meaning, it's actually a meaningless claim to know something that isn't actually real or true.

[puto]

Religion has a meaning and it is called a tradition. Latin: To tie back. Philosophy has a meaning, too, and it is philosophers are the ones left with the questions and then answer them. Peripatetic philosophy was once taught in all schools and the truth of natural religion. The dangers of theology, then happened. Philosophy is a tool, but when the method is wrong. It and philosophy become dangerous tools of the powerful. Read some Machiavelli.

[godelian]

Concerning religion being a philosophy, I think that part of it is indeed philosophy.

A simple definition for philosophy is thinking about thinking. We can further simplify it to abstractions about abstractions. Philosophy is always rational.

Religion, on the other hand, typically falls apart in two parts: morality and spirituality.

Concerning morality, i .e. religious law, in its ideal incarnation, it is indeed an abstract axiomatic system that is capable of deciding between right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral, very similar to secular law.

The moral case at hand is an abstraction about human behavior, and the moral ruling is a rational motivation for the yes/no answer whether the behavior at hand s halal or haram, good or evil, kosher or treif, right or wrong.

In its most effective incarnation, morality consists indeed of abstraction about abstractions.

Spirituality, on the other hand, is about questions for which there cannot possibly be a rational answer, such as, "Why am I even alive?", or "Who is ultimately behind all of this?", or "Why is there so much suffering?", or "is that it? Life seems so meaningless."

Spirituality begins where rationality starts failing.

While philosophy is staunchly rational, spirituality is staunchly not. Spirituality is an attempt at overcoming the limitations of rationality.

Spirituality is not philosophical. If rationality can still handle a problem, then it is not a spiritual one.

[Age]

Concerning religion being a philosophy, I think that part of it is indeed philosophy.

A simple definition for philosophy is thinking about thinking. We can further simplify it to abstractions about abstractions. Philosophy is always rational.

Religion, on the other hand, typically falls apart in two parts: morality and spirituality.

Concerning morality, i .e. religious law, in its ideal incarnation, it is indeed an abstract axiomatic system that is capable of deciding between right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral, very similar to secular law.

The moral case at hand is an abstraction about human behavior, and the moral ruling is a rational motivation for the yes/no answer whether the behavior at hand s halal or haram, good or evil, kosher or treif, right or wrong.

In its most effective incarnation, morality consists indeed of abstraction about abstractions.

Spirituality, on the other hand, is about questions for which there cannot possibly be a rational answer, such as, "Why am I even alive?", or "Who is ultimately behind all of this?", or "Why is there so much suffering?", or "is that it? Life seems so meaningless."

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is this one's own personal religion/belief, and the consequential confirmation biases, also. it BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that there are NO rational answers to the above, (ALREADY RATIONALLY ANSWERED), questions.

And, while this one KEEPS its own personal religion, here, it will NEVER SEE and LEARN what the ACTUAL Truth IS, exactly.

Spirituality begins where rationality starts failing.

While philosophy is staunchly rational, spirituality is staunchly not. Spirituality is an attempt at overcoming the limitations of rationality.

Spirituality is not philosophical. If rationality can still handle a problem, then it is not a spiritual one.

Here 'we' have ANOTHER EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED, and BLIND, Some REALLY WERE.

[godelian]

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is this one's own personal religion/belief, and the consequential confirmation biases, also. it BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that there are NO rational answers to the above, (ALREADY RATIONALLY ANSWERED), questions.

There is no rational answer to the question, "Why does the universe even exist?" There is only a spiritual one.

Rationality is foundationalist, in terms of Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, i.e. basic beliefs must always be axiomatized. This means that these basic beliefs do not have a further explanation that is rational. If they did, then they would not be "basic".

Hence, the very foundations of rationality are ultimately always spiritual.

You cannot know anything without first blindly believing in things. This is the deeper truth about all knowledge.

And, while this one KEEPS its own personal religion, here, it will NEVER SEE and LEARN what the ACTUAL Truth IS, exactly.

The truth is the correspondence between two well-chosen pieces of information. It is a Platonic abstraction, in line with Tarski's semantic theory of the truth.

Spiritual truth begins where rational truth ends.

Here 'we' have ANOTHER EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED, and BLIND, Some REALLY WERE.

Pure reason is deaf and blind.

Pure reason is the only way to truly understand Platonic abstractions. What you can see around you with your eyes, are just shadows of the truth. If you want to see the truth itself, you must close your eyes, and use pure reason only.

If you want to understand the very foundations of pure reason, you need spirituality, because these foundations are out of reach of rationality. Spirituality is also deaf and blind.

If you try to physically see the truth with your eyes, you will miserably fail.

[Age]

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is this one's own personal religion/belief, and the consequential confirmation biases, also. it BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that there are NO rational answers to the above, (ALREADY RATIONALLY ANSWERED), questions.

There is no rational answer to the question, "Why does the universe even exist?" There is only a spiritual one.

But, there is ALREADY one EXISTING.

Why do you KEEP BELIEVING, ABSOLUTELY, that there is NOT already one existing and could NEVER be one that could come to exist?

And, what is the actual difference between a 'rational answer' and a 'spiritual answer, exactly, anyway?

Rationality is foundationalist, in terms of Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, i.e. basic beliefs must always be axiomatized. This means that these basic beliefs do not have a further explanation that is rational. If they did, then they would not be "basic".

Although you just said , wrote, and claimed above here that there is NO 'rational answer' for 'that question' but ONLY a 'spiritual answer.'

Do you think or believe that what you just said and wrote here was a 'rational answer'?

Hence, the very foundations of rationality are ultimately always spiritual.

But, there can be spiritual answers when there are, supposedly, NO rational answers AT ALL.

You cannot know anything without first blindly believing in things. This is the deeper truth about all knowledge.

This here is another Truly IRRATIONAL answer.

And, while this one KEEPS its own personal religion, here, it will NEVER SEE and LEARN what the ACTUAL Truth IS, exactly.

The truth is the correspondence between two well-chosen pieces of information. It is a Platonic abstraction, in line with Tarski's semantic theory of the truth.

Spiritual truth begins where rational truth ends.

Here 'we' have ANOTHER EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED, and BLIND, Some REALLY WERE.

Pure reason is deaf and blind.

Pure reason is the only way to truly understand Platonic abstractions. What you can see around you with your eyes, are just shadows of the truth. If you want to see the truth itself, you must close your eyes, and use pure reason only.

If you want to understand the very foundations of pure reason, you need spirituality, because these foundations are out of reach of rationality. Spirituality is also deaf and blind.

If you try to physically see the truth with your eyes, you will miserably fail.

And, through 'reason' what was CLEARLY SEEN, and NOT through the physical eyes, is the Truth, like, for example, that this one will NOT help absolutely ANY one, unless, of course, this one could make some sort of monetary gain out of doing so.

And, this was the SAD Truth, gained through reason, itself, of how greedy and selfish some had become in society through so-called 'spiritual' teachings.

Through 'reason' what was learnt, seen, and understood here was that what was called 'spiritual teachings' caused some of the WORST outcomes in societies, and even within 'the world', itself

[godelian]

You cannot know anything without first blindly believing in things. This is the deeper truth about all knowledge.

This here is another Truly IRRATIONAL answer.

There is no rational explanation for the very foundations of knowledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief

Foundationalism holds that all beliefs must be justified in order to be known. Beliefs therefore fall into two categories:

- Beliefs that are properly basic, in that they do not depend upon justification of other beliefs, but on something outside the realm of belief (a "non-doxastic justification").
- Beliefs that derive from one or more basic beliefs, and therefore depend on the basic beliefs for their validity.

The non-doxastic justification for basic beliefs is essentially a spiritual one. There is no rational explanation or justification for basic beliefs. Otherwise, they would not be basic. Therefore, basic beliefs are essentially blind beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notice and observe how no ancient or present day religion or philosophy prioritised happiness, but peace and meaning and stillness.

So even when I got what I thought would make me happy, maybe for a brief spell, it would seem so, but that would always change. But peace within has a calming depth that I can enter into, and the depth keeps expanding.


'' He who seeks, let him not cease seeking until he finds; and when he finds he will be troubled, and when he is troubled he will be amazed, and he will reign over the All. and when he has reigned, he shall find rest. '' ~ The immortal words of Jesus. R. I. P.

Philosophy is one of the critical fundamental of human nature, thus 'Philosophy of Religion' and it can ground whatever X, i.e. "Philosophy of X".

I believe the term 'equanimity' is more proactive with self-development than peace, meaning and stillness.

[Age]

You cannot know anything without first blindly believing in things. This is the deeper truth about all knowledge.

This here is another Truly IRRATIONAL answer.

There is no rational explanation for the very foundations of knowledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief

Foundationalism holds that all beliefs must be justified in order to be known. Beliefs therefore fall into two categories:

- Beliefs that are properly basic, in that they do not depend upon justification of other beliefs, but on something outside the realm of belief (a "non-doxastic justification").
- Beliefs that derive from one or more basic beliefs, and therefore depend on the basic beliefs for their validity.

The non-doxastic justification for basic beliefs is essentially a spiritual one. There is no rational explanation or justification for basic beliefs. Otherwise, they would not be basic. Therefore, basic beliefs are essentially blind beliefs.

Although there might be some good points in here, it is certainly nowhere near a sound and valid argument.

[godelian]

Although there might be some good points in here, it is certainly nowhere near a sound and valid argument.

ChatGPT explains it quite well:

ChatGPT: What is foundationalism?

Foundationalism is a theory in epistemology (the study of knowledge) that asserts that knowledge or justified belief is built upon basic, self-evident, or foundational truths. These basic truths serve as the secure foundation upon which all other beliefs or knowledge claims are based.

ChatGPT: What is a basic belief?

A basic belief is a fundamental conviction or assumption that serves as a foundation for a person's thinking, reasoning, or worldview. These beliefs are typically not based on further evidence or reasoning but are instead accepted as self-evident or true without needing justification. They often influence a person's actions, decisions, and interpretations of the world. Examples might include beliefs about morality, the existence of the external world, or the reliability of one's senses.

In fact, basic beliefs are not necessarily self-evident. That is not even needed. You accept these beliefs because you want to accept them, and you don't need to explain why, usually, because you cannot explain why. There simply is no "why".

The deepest foundations of rationality are exactly like that.

A good example is Schönfinkel's SKI combinator calculus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKI_combinator_calculus

It can be thought of as a computer programming language, though it is not convenient for writing software. Instead, it is important in the mathematical theory of algorithms because it is an extremely simple Turing complete language.

It only had 3 rules:

Ix = x
Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

There is no justification for these rules. It can be used to do everything a computer can possibly do, including all the AI stuff. Hence it can be used to represent all knowledge that can be expressed in language and solve every (practically) decidable problem. It's effectively a complete knowledge engine in just 3 rules.

Just like all knowledge, it has inexplicable foundations. We simply don't know why these foundations work because in that case they wouldn't be legitimate foundations.

[Age]

Although there might be some good points in here, it is certainly nowhere near a sound and valid argument.

ChatGPT explains it quite well:

ChatGPT: What is foundationalism?

Foundationalism is a theory in epistemology (the study of knowledge) that asserts that knowledge or justified belief is built upon basic, self-evident, or foundational truths. These basic truths serve as the secure foundation upon which all other beliefs or knowledge claims are based.

ChatGPT: What is a basic belief?

A basic belief is a fundamental conviction or assumption that serves as a foundation for a person's thinking, reasoning, or worldview. These beliefs are typically not based on further evidence or reasoning but are instead accepted as self-evident or true without needing justification. They often influence a person's actions, decisions, and interpretations of the world. Examples might include beliefs about morality, the existence of the external world, or the reliability of one's senses.

In fact, basic beliefs are not necessarily self-evident. That is not even needed. You accept these beliefs because you want to accept them, and you don't need to explain why, usually, because you cannot explain why. There simply is no "why".

Obviously this applies to 'you' only, here, as 'I' have NO beliefs at all, here. It is ONLY 'you', here, who accepts BELIEFS, which you can NOT even explain.

The deepest foundations of rationality are exactly like that.

A good example is Schönfinkel's SKI combinator calculus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKI_combinator_calculus

It can be thought of as a computer programming language, though it is not convenient for writing software. Instead, it is important in the mathematical theory of algorithms because it is an extremely simple Turing complete language.

It only had 3 rules:

Ix = x
Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

There is no justification for these rules. It can be used to do everything a computer can possibly do, including all the AI stuff. Hence it can be used to represent all knowledge that can be expressed in language and solve every (practically) decidable problem. It's effectively a complete knowledge engine in just 3 rules.

Just like all knowledge, it has inexplicable foundations. We simply don't know why these foundations work because in that case they wouldn't be legitimate foundations.

But, 'I' KNOW differently. And, this is because 'I' am, literally, unlike 'you'.