A Fellow Lighter

Taoism and the Tao-te Ching INTRODUCTION Lao-tzu is generally acknowledged as the founder of the philosophy of Taoism. Lao-tzu's central figure is a person whose life is in perfect harmony with the way things are. The master has mastered nature — not in the sense of conquering it, but of becoming it. In surrendering to the Tao, in giving up all concepts, all judgements and desires, the mind grows naturally compassionate. S/he finds deep in one's own experience the central truths of the art of living, which are paradoxical only on the surface: That the more we are truly solitary, the more compassionate we can be. The more we let go of what we love, the more present our love becomes. The clearer our insight into what is beyond good and evil, the more we can embody the good. Until finally s/he is able to say, in all humility, "I am the Tao, the Truth, the Life." The Tao-te Ching is the first text of Taoism, and it is certain that the book was written by more than one person. Most historians and scholars now agree that the Tao-te Ching was a product of the Spring and Autumn Period. Like its contemporaries, the text discussed statecraft and offered political alternatives. It was only in the Taoism of the Chuang-tzu and the Lieh-tzu that non-involvement was advocated. The Taoists of the Tao-te Ching were not social dropouts. For them, the sage was an individual who understood the natural way of things (the Tao) and lived in harmony with it; therefore, changes in society must come from changes within individuals, and changes in individuals could come only from following the principles of the Tao. It is this feature that distinguished the Taoism of the Tao-te Ching from the teachings of Confucius. The Legacy of Shamanism in Later Developments of Taoism The most obvious incorporation of shamanic practices into Taoism was found in the religious and magical aspects of Taoism that emerged in the Han dynasty (206 BCE — 219 CE). Like the Yüeh shamans, Taoist magicians used incantations and talismans to ward off malevolent spirits and heal the sick. Indeed, the use of water and mirrors to combat malevolent and destructive forces, which can be traced back to the Yüeh shamans, is seen in the practice of Taoist magic today. Another legacy of shamanism is the Pace of Yü and the flight to the stars. This aspect of shamanism found its way into a form of Taoist mysticism known as Shang-ch’ing Taoism in the fourth century CE and inspired writings that would become a major part of the Taoist canon. The shamanic journey underground would also become central to Taoist magic and mysticism in the hands of Tung-fang Shuo, a Han dynasty Taoist, who wrote a guide to journeying through the roots of China’s five sacred mountains. Today, we find elements of these underground journeys in Taoist ceremonies: priests still enter the underworld to rescue dead souls who have been abducted by malevolent spirits. An even greater influence on Taoism came through shamanism’s impact on the philosophy of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu. This influence is often unrecognized, because many scholars consider the Taochia (philosophical Taoism) and the Tao-chiao (religious Taoism) as opposing branches of Taoist thinking. A little-known entry in Ssuma Ch’ien’s monumental work of history titled Shi-chi (Historical Records) in the biography of Lao-tzu, reads, “Lao-tzu was a native of Ch’u, of the county of Fu, of the village of Li.” Lao-tzu, the founder of the philosophy of Taoism, lived in a society that had a strong shamanic culture. Moreover, several prominent Chinese scholars have also recently noted similarities in language construction between the Tao-te Ching and the literature of the Ch’u culture. Similarly with Chuang-tzu: the Lü-shih ch’un-ch’iu (Lü’s Spring and Autumn Annals), a history of the Spring and Autumn Period of the Chou dynasty (770–476 BCE) written during the Warring States (475–221 BCE), tells us that Chuang-tzu came from the township of Mong, in Sung, a vassal state of Ch’u. Ssu-ma Ch’ien, the Grand Historian, concurred; Chuang-tzu, he wrote, was a native of Sung, a small kingdom that got amalgamated into the state of Ch’u. The Teachings of the Tao-te Ching On the Tao The Tao is the source of life — of all things. It is nameless, invisible and ungraspable by normal modes of perception. It is boundless and cannot be exhausted, although all things depend on it for existence. Hidden beneath transition and change, the Tao is the permanent underlying reality. Although the Tao is the source of life, it is not a deity or spirit. This is quite different from the shaman's animistic view of the universe. In the Tao-te Ching, the sky, the earth, rivers and mountains, are part of a larger and unified power known as Tao, which is an impersonal and unnamed force behind the workings of the universe. However, in the Tao-te Ching, this unnamed or unnamable power is not entirely neutral — it is benevolent: "the Celestial Way is to benefit others and not to cause harm" (chapter 81, Tao-te Ching), and since "the Celestial Way follows the Way of the Tao" (chapter 25, Tao-te Ching), we can assume that in the Tao-te Ching, the Tao is a benevolent force. On Sagehood Some parts of the Tao-te ching show strong influence from the shamanic culture of Ch’u: they are to be found in the discussions on sagehood and on cultivating life. Lao-tzu was a native of Ch’u. The students who recorded his teachings were most likely natives of the same region. Philosopher-teachers of the Spring and Autumn Period rarely established schools outside their native states: most of their students came from the local or neighboring towns. The Taoist sage had abilities similar to those of the shaman of Yü’s times. S/he was immune to poison, talked to the animals, and had a body that was as soft as an infant. Sexual energy was strong, and the sage practiced methods of prolonging life. These shamanic qualities of the sage remain a permanent feature of Taoism up to this day. The Taoist sage was also a very involved member of the community; in fact, Taoist sages made ideal rulers. One of the most famous ideas of Taoism, and also the source of alot of misunderstanding, is wu-wei. This word, used in describing the sage and often translated as non-action, gives the impression that the Taoist sages “did nothing.” This is inaccurate, and could not be used to describe all Taoists. Wu-wei had different meanings for different Taoist philosophers. The wu-wei of the Tao-te Ching is different from the wu-wei of Chuang-tzu, which is different again from the wu-wei of Lieh-tzu. Wu-wei in the Tao-te ching is “going with the principles of the Tao,” and the path of the Tao is a benevolent one. Thus, wu-wei in the Tao-te ching is not “doing nothing”; it is not even the non-interference advocated in the Chuang-tzu. In the Tao-te ching, wu-wei means not using force. The sagely ruler who cares for his subjects in a non-intrusive way also practices wu-wei. Far from doing nothing, the Taoist sage of the Tao-te Ching is an active member of society and is fit to be a king. On Cultivating Life In the Tao-te Ching, the sage is one who cultivates life. The Tao-te Ching describes two methods of cultivating life: physical techniques and attitude. The physical techniques included regulation of breath, physical postures that are the precursors of calisthenics, and possibly techniques of retaining and cultivating sexual energy for the return to youth and vitality. On the matter of lifestyle and attitude, the Tao-te Ching states that desire, attachment to material things, and activities that excite the mind, rouse the emotions, tire the body, and stimulate the senses, are all detrimental to health. In the early form of Classical Taoism, it was possible to be active in politics and not sacrifice physical and mental health. The problem arises only when one gets attached to fame and fortune and does not know when to stop. The message in the Tao-te Ching is: Cultivate the physical and mental qualities of the sage; get involved and help in a non-intrusive way; retire when the work is done. The Tao-te Ching values shamanic qualities and personal power, but it does not share the animistic worldview of the shamans. Instead of accepting a world of diverse spirits, it sees the Tao, a unified and unnameable force, as the underlying reality of all things. The philosophy of the Tao-te Ching grew out of the Spring and Autumn Period; however, it was also a cultural product from the region of Ch’u. In shedding the shamanic world of diverse spirits and retaining the personal power of the shaman, the Tao-te Ching represents a transition from shamanic beliefs to a philosophical system with a unified view of the nature of reality (the Tao), the sage, and the cultivation of life.

Chapter 2: The Origin and Evolution of the Concept — REALITY ITSELF SECTION 5 The Pythagorean School and the Shift from Reality to Reality Itself The Pythagorean school represents a significant philosophical step in the evolution of thinking about the nature of reality. While the earlier Ionian philosophers like Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes were concerned with identifying the basic substance (or principle) that constituted all things in the world — be it water, the apeiron, or air — the Pythagoreans introduced a new and radical shift: they suggested that numbers and mathematical relations are the ultimate foundation of all things. This move is important in the context of the transition from a focus on reality as a fact to the exploration of Reality Itself because the Pythagoreans didn’t just identify a material substance as the basis for everything; they proposed that reality is fundamentally mathematical. For them, the world was an abstract system governed by mathematical principles, suggesting that numbers were not just tools to describe the world but the very essence of the world. This is a key transition in philosophy, marking a shift from the material explanations of the world to more abstract, conceptual ones. Thus, in the case of the Pythagoreans, we see a distinction between the apparent world — the world of observable phenomena, which might be composed of various substances — and the true nature of reality (Reality Itself), which can be comprehended through mathematical laws. The Pythagoreans moved away from trying to pin down the world’s substance and instead focused on understanding the underlying principles — the relationships between numbers, proportions, and harmony. This represented a move away from simply dealing with observable facts to grappling with abstract, foundational concepts that reveal the true essence of the universe. The Shift in Philosophical Thought: From Reality to Reality Itself This shift from seeing reality as a set of observable phenomena to investigating the underlying principles or essences of those phenomena was foundational in the development of Western philosophy. In the case of the Pythagoreans, this shift is clear: Reality as Fact — For earlier philosophers, like the Ionian school, reality was something to be observed and understood through its fundamental substance (e.g., water, air). These early theories were about explaining what things are made of. Reality Itself — With the Pythagoreans, however, the focus moved away from what things are made of to how things are structured and related, with the guiding principle being numbers. This suggests that the true nature of existence lies not in the material world we see around us, but in abstract, universal concepts that govern the world. By viewing numbers as the essence of reality, the Pythagoreans introduced a more abstract way of understanding the world. The physical world was now seen not as a chaotic collection of substances, but as an ordered, mathematical system. This is a critical philosophical turning point: instead of simply describing the world in material terms, the Pythagoreans sought to understand the unseen structure that governs the phenomena. The concept of Reality Itself, then, comes into sharper focus here. No longer was the world just a place of observable facts (what we see, feel, and touch). Instead, the Pythagoreans suggested that behind those appearances was a mathematical reality that was more fundamental and more real than the world of mere sensory experience. The Pythagorean School in the Evolution of Reality Itself The Pythagorean school marks a key moment in the evolution of the concept of Reality Itself for a number of reasons: Abstract Essence: The shift toward an abstract foundation for reality — mathematics — moves philosophical thinking away from empirical observation toward conceptual inquiry. This reflects the increasing recognition that the world cannot be fully understood through its appearance alone. We need to look deeper, beyond the surface, into the underlying principles that govern it. Cosmic Harmony: The Pythagoreans saw the universe as a harmonious system governed by mathematical laws. This is an extension of the earlier philosophical inquiries about the arche, the fundamental substance or principle of all things. But here, the Pythagoreans introduce a new level of abstraction — the idea that mathematical relationships and proportions are the true organizing principles of reality, which exist independent of material substances. Mathematical Reality: With the Pythagoreans, reality itself becomes mathematical, shifting the focus from physical substances to relations, proportions, and patterns that are universal and unchanging. This way of thinking directly influences later developments in metaphysics and epistemology, laying the groundwork for understanding the world not just as a collection of physical things, but as an interconnected, ordered whole. Shift Toward Idealism: While the early Ionian philosophers were concerned with what reality was made of in material terms, the Pythagoreans began to explore how reality is structured — leading to the development of more idealistic philosophical inquiries in later thinkers like Plato. For Plato, the ideal realm of Forms, where mathematical truths reside, would come to represent Reality Itself, existing independently of the material world. In summary, the Pythagorean school represents a critical shift in the development of the concept of Reality Itself. Their focus on mathematical principles as the fundamental structure of the universe marked a movement away from material explanations toward a more abstract and conceptual understanding of reality. This shift was crucial for the later development of Western philosophy, influencing thinkers like Plato, who would continue to explore the abstract, ideal nature of reality. The Pythagoreans’ contributions show how philosophical inquiry moved beyond mere observations of the world to an exploration of the underlying principles that govern all things.

Chapter 2: The Origin and Evolution of the Concept — REALITY ITSELF SECTION 4 The Ionian School and the Birth of Reality Itself Before Thales, explanations of reality were mythological. The world was thought to be governed by gods, whose will shaped the natural order. Yet, with the rise of the Ionian philosophers, a crucial transformation took place — one that bridged the gap between mythos and logos (logic). Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes did not simply observe reality as it appeared. They sought to uncover the deeper principles governing it, asking: What is the fundamental substance or force behind everything? This marks the first move away from reality as fact and toward the concept of Reality Itself — the search for what lies beneath appearances. This shift can be described as a turning point: Instead of accepting the world as given, the Ionians asked: What is reality made of? Instead of viewing divine will as the source of natural order, they sought universal principles governing existence. This was the first philosophical move toward distinguishing between the world of experience and the reality that underlies it. Thales: The Bridge Between Mythos and Logos Thales (c. 624–546 BCE) is often credited as the first philosopher precisely because he redefined how reality should be understood. His claim that water is the fundamental substance (arche) of all things was not just a scientific hypothesis — it was an attempt to explain the unity behind the diversity of the world. Yet, Thales also stated that "all things are full of gods." This suggests a dual-layered perspective: Water is the material foundation — everything is ultimately one substance. The gods are the active forces — responsible for the variety and movement within reality. Thus, Thales represents the middle ground between mythological thought and rational inquiry. He preserved a divine element in his explanation, but he transformed it — making it part of a structured, rational worldview. In doing so, he made one of the earliest attempts to reconcile apparent reality (change, diversity) with Reality Itself (the fundamental unity of existence). Anaximander: The Infinite and the Birth of Abstraction Anaximander (c. 610–546 BCE), Thales’ successor, took a radical step forward. He rejected the idea that any single observable substance (like water) could be the true source of all things. Instead, he introduced the concept of the Apeiron — the infinite, indeterminate principle. This was the first fully abstract concept of Reality Itself. Unlike Thales, Anaximander argued that: The true nature of reality cannot be perceived by the senses. The universe is governed by a boundless, eternal principle that transcends physical elements. Change, creation, and destruction occur through the dynamic balance of opposites. By proposing an unseen, infinite principle as the foundation of existence, Anaximander took the search for Reality Itself beyond mere observation and into the realm of conceptual thought — an essential step toward later metaphysics. Anaximenes: A Return to Substance, But with a Mechanism Anaximenes (c. 585–528 BCE) sought to retain the idea of a fundamental substance while addressing a critical question: If all things come from one thing, how do we explain their differences? His answer: air is the fundamental principle, but its changes in density give rise to different forms of matter. This idea introduced: A mechanism for transformation (rarefaction and condensation). A single, underlying reality behind change (air). A rejection of divine intervention — natural laws explain differences in the world. Anaximenes' contribution refined the search for Reality Itself by attempting to describe how reality manifests in diverse forms without relying on mythology. The Ionian School: The First Step Toward Reality Itself What unites the Ionian thinkers is their rejection of mere appearances. They saw the changing world as an expression of something deeper, more fundamental. This school represents the first true philosophical movement toward distinguishing between: The world as it appears (changing, diverse, multiple). The reality beneath it (unified, foundational, unchanging). The shift from observing reality to exploring Reality Itself was now fully underway. The Broader Implications: From Ionia to Plato The Ionian School paved the way for a deeper philosophical realization — one that Plato would later formalize: The Problem of Change and Unity — The Ionians sought a single underlying principle beneath the apparent diversity of the world. This led later philosophers to question whether reality was ultimately one or many. The Limits of Sensory Perception — If true reality is not directly visible, how do we come to know it? Anaximander’s Apeiron introduced the idea that Reality Itself might be beyond experience, a notion that Plato would later refine with his Theory of Forms. The Need for Conceptual Explanation — The search for a deeper, unseen principle led philosophy beyond physical substance to the realm of abstract reasoning. This shift set the foundation for Plato’s division between the sensible world (appearances) and the intelligible world (true reality). The Ionians as the First Philosophers of Reality Itself The Ionian philosophers did not simply study nature — they transformed the very way reality was understood. Their efforts to explain the unity behind diversity and to distinguish between what is perceived and what truly is set the intellectual foundation for the exploration of Reality Itself. Their work was not yet metaphysical in the Platonic sense, but it was the first step in that direction. The next generation of philosophers would take this further — moving from searching for a fundamental substance to asking: "What is the nature of being itself?" It is this shift — from substance to existence — that would define the next phase of the evolution of Reality Itself.

Chapter 2: The Origin and Evolution of the Concept — REALITY ITSELF SECTION 3 Anaximenes and the Breath of Reality Following Anaximander, who introduced the abstract and indeterminate apeiron as the source of all things, Anaximenes sought a more tangible explanation for the underlying principle of reality. Returning to the tradition of a single material arche, but refining it further, he identified air as the fundamental substance from which everything emerges. Unlike his predecessors, however, he introduced a crucial mechanism of transformation — condensation and rarefaction — allowing his principle to account for the diversity of the world through natural, observable processes. Air as the Fundamental Reality Anaximenes’ selection of air as the arche was not arbitrary. In his view: Air is ever-present and perceptible, yet it can change states to become different substances. Through condensation, air thickens into water, then earth, then stone. Through rarefaction, air becomes fire, the most ethereal form of matter. This process of transformation explains how a single substance can give rise to all things, making air not just the source of reality but also the principle governing change. A Step Forward in Rational Thought Anaximenes’ contribution marks a significant advancement in rational thought for a few reasons: He rejected supernatural explanations in favor of natural laws. He introduced a mechanistic process (condensation/rarefaction), moving beyond mere speculation to offer an explanatory model. His idea anticipates later scientific developments, such as the concept of states of matter and atmospheric changes. However, despite these advances, Anaximenes did not entirely abandon mythological thinking. He described air as divine and associated it with the breath of life, echoing earlier beliefs in the sacred nature of fundamental elements. This suggests that, like Thales, he still viewed the fundamental principle as both material and spiritual. Anaximenes and the Evolution of Reality Itself So, how does Anaximenes' thought contribute to the development of Reality Itself? His work represents a compromise between the tangible and the abstract. While he rejects Anaximander’s unknowable, indefinite apeiron, he embraces the idea that reality must be explained through something more than mere appearances. His theory suggests that the true nature of existence is not just what we see, but the underlying forces and processes that shape it. Anaximenes' ideas significantly influenced later thinkers. For example, Diogenes of Apollonia retained the concept of cosmic air as a divine principle of life and intelligence, controlling the world.

Chapter 2: The Origin and Evolution of the Concept — REALITY ITSELF Section 2 Anaximander and the Apeiron Anaximander's concept of the apeiron (ἄπειρον), meaning "the infinite" or "the indefinite," is a significant philosophical development because it moves beyond Thales' material arche (water) and introduces a more abstract principle as the fundamental nature of reality. Anaximander and the Shift Toward Abstraction Whereas Thales sought a specific, tangible substance (water) as the source of all things, Anaximander rejects the idea that any single, known element — such as water, air, or fire — could be the first principle of reality. Instead, he proposes the apeiron, an indeterminate, boundless, and infinite source from which all things arise and to which they eventually return. This is an important shift because it moves away from material specificity and introduces a concept that is less directly observable and more abstract — one that points toward the idea of Reality Itself rather than merely reality as a fact. Why Did Anaximander Reject a Specific Element? Anaximander likely saw a problem with choosing a single, definite substance (such as water) as the underlying reality of everything. If water were the ultimate principle, how could it give rise to its opposites — fire, air, and earth? Water is wet, yet dryness exists. Water is fluid, yet solidity exists. A single material element seemed too limited to explain the diverse and opposing characteristics of the world. Thus, he reasoned that the source of all things must itself be indefinite, something beyond the known elements, something without specific qualities, and something inexhaustible — hence, the apeiron. The Apeiron as an Early Form of Reality Itself This is a crucial moment in the development of the concept of Reality Itself because: The apeiron is not an observable substance; it is a theoretical construct that explains how reality functions at its most fundamental level. It suggests that the ultimate nature of reality is beyond human perception, a principle that later philosophers, including Plato and Kant, would continue to explore. Unlike Thales' water, which is part of the physical world, the apeiron is more of an abstract metaphysical principle — it is not something we see, but something we infer. How Does the Apeiron Relate to the Divine? Interestingly, like Thales, Anaximander still retains a connection to the divine. He describes the apeiron as eternal, ageless, and governing the cosmos — with the attribute of governing often associated with deities. This suggests that while Anaximander moves toward a more rational, non-mythological explanation of the universe, he still attributes a kind of divine quality to the fundamental nature of reality. The Transition from Reality to Reality Itself Thales, still somewhat mythological, but starts rational inquiry — chooses a specific element (water) as the principle of all things. Anaximander breaks away from specific materials, introduces an abstract, infinite principle (apeiron) as the source of all things, pushing philosophy further toward the conceptual search for Reality Itself. Implications for Later Thought Anaximander’s move toward abstraction set the stage for later philosophers like Parmenides and Plato, who would take the search for Reality Itself even further — arguing that the true nature of existence is something that cannot be directly perceived by the senses but must be grasped through reason.

Chapter 2: The Origin and Evolution of the Concept — REALITY ITSELF SECTION 1 Thales and the Birth of Metaphysical Inquiry In the journey toward understanding Reality Itself, we first encounter Thales, who marks a pivotal shift in the intellectual history of the West. Often considered the first philosopher, Thales proposed that water was the arche, the fundamental substance from which all things arise. Yet, his contribution goes beyond this claim. Thales' assertion also signals a profound transition — from mythological explanations of reality, rooted in divine stories, to rational inquiry aimed at uncovering the ultimate principles of existence. As we discussed in the introduction, reality — the observable world — is often treated as a fact, something concrete and measurable. Reality Itself, on the other hand, refers to the deeper, underlying essence of existence. Thales’ philosophy represents one of the first steps in this shift. By proposing water as the arche, Thales begins the process of moving beyond mere descriptions of appearances and delving into the fundamental nature of reality. In doing so, he begins to shift focus from what things appear to be to what things ultimately are — a central question in the quest for Reality Itself. Yet, Thales does not abandon the mythological tradition entirely. His statement that "all things are full of gods" implies a polytheistic view in which divine forces are present within the very substance of reality. While this might seem like a return to myth, Thales does not view the gods as separate, external entities. Instead, they are embedded within the fabric of the universe, integral to the very nature of existence. This marks a crucial fusion of mythos and philos — a point where rational inquiry begins, yet still operates within a worldview that acknowledges divine forces as part of the fundamental structure of the world. What Thales' assertions imply, in this context, is that the reality of the world — its physical structure and workings — cannot be understood purely through the lens of myth. His idea of water as the arche is not just an explanation of physical substance; it points to something deeper. Water, in Thales' thought, is the first attempt to identify a unifying principle that connects all things. It implies that behind the multiplicity of appearances lies a single, underlying essence that can be rationally discovered. In this way, Thales is laying the groundwork for the concept of Reality Itself, a reality that is not simply a collection of phenomena but an underlying unity that transcends appearances. Through this lens, Thales' assertions have profound implications for the evolution of philosophical thought. His move from mythological explanations to rational principles is not just a shift in content but in the approach to understanding the universe. He is no longer content to explain the world in terms of myth and gods; he seeks to uncover the deeper structure that governs reality. This shift toward the search for an underlying essence — what we now refer to as Reality Itself — marks the beginning of a philosophical tradition that seeks to uncover the truth beneath appearances. Thus, Thales plays a crucial role in the evolution of philosophy, bridging the gap between the mythological understanding of reality and the rational pursuit of a deeper, unified truth. His ideas are among the first to point towards a fundamental shift in how humans approach the nature of existence: not just as a series of observable facts but as a conceptual search for the ultimate, underlying reality that governs all things.

Chapter 2: The Origin and Evolution of the Concept — REALITY ITSELF INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter, we explored the distinction between Reality — the concrete, factual world we experience—and Reality Itself — the ultimate, abstract nature of existence. We concluded that while reality can be treated as a fact due to its observable and measurable nature, Reality Itself is more appropriately understood as a concept, shaped by human thought and philosophical inquiry. Building on this conclusion, this chapter traces the origin and development of the concept of Reality Itself, examining how early philosophers moved beyond the study of reality as a fact to speculate about the fundamental nature of existence. This distinction between Reality and Reality Itself finds its roots in the early inquiries of the Pre-Socratic philosophers, who first began to question the nature of existence beyond the observable world. This shift in focus — toward understanding what underlies the world of appearances — marks a pivotal moment in the history of philosophy. This evolution can be understood as a response to the limitations of empirical observation and the human desire to uncover the ultimate nature of existence. This chapter delves into the origins of this profound concept, tracing its evolution from the nascent explorations of the Pre-Socratic philosophers to the systematic formalization undertaken by Plato. We will argue that the Pre-Socratics, in their relentless search for the arche and their grappling with the problem of change and being, first ignited the inquiry into Reality Itself, moving beyond simple descriptions of the world to question its underlying essence. Plato, in turn, seized upon these nascent inquiries, weaving them into a comprehensive philosophical system that centered on the distinction between the world of appearances and the realm of true being. By examining this intellectual journey, we aim to illuminate how the concept of Reality Itself emerged as a central concern of philosophical thought. At the heart of this inquiry lies a fundamental question: What is the true nature of existence? While the observable world provides a wealth of information about how things appear and behave, it does not necessarily reveal what lies beneath these appearances. The concept of Reality Itself addresses this gap, seeking to uncover the ultimate principles or substances that constitute the universe. This pursuit raises some key questions: How did early philosophers distinguish between the apparent world and the true nature of reality? What motivated the shift from focusing on reality as a fact to exploring Reality Itself? How did Plato formalize this concept, and why does his framework remain influential? By investigating these questions, we may be able to determine the crucial transition from a focus on Reality as a given; to a profound exploration of Reality Itself, thus laying the groundwork for subsequent metaphysical investigations of Absolute Realism.

MANY PEOPLE WILL EXPERIENCE, at least once in their lifetime, the urge to venture beyond the everyday world of the mundane into the world of the spirit. These journeys into the spiritual world often take us into a universe we normally do not encounter in our daily lives, and allow us to explore regions of our consciousness that we have not before known.

Chapter 1: Reality and Reality Itself — Distinct Terminology and Implications INTRODUCTION Reality, as we commonly understand it, is the world of observable phenomena, measurable entities, and natural laws. It is the domain of science and everyday experience, grounded in facts that can be verified and tested. Yet, beyond this lies the concept of reality itself—the ultimate, fundamental nature of existence that transcends human perception and conceptualization. While reality is concrete and accessible, reality itself is abstract and elusive, inviting us to grapple with questions that lie at the very limits of human understanding. This distinction is not merely academic; it shapes how we approach philosophy, science, and the search for meaning in an often-mysterious universe The nature of reality has been a foundational concern of philosophy. However, the term “reality” is often used in a way that conflates two distinct concepts: Reality, which refers to the state of things as they actually exist. Reality Itself, which suggests the fundamental or ultimate nature of reality beyond perception. This chapter seeks to clarify the distinction between these two terms and analyze whether “reality itself” should be treated as a fact or a concept. *** The Definition of Reality Reality, in its most commonly accepted sense, is defined as the state of things as they actually exist, independent of perception or belief. This definition aligns with how reality is treated in both everyday and scientific discourse. Since reality consists of observable facts — objects, events, and phenomena — it follows that the term "reality" refers to a fact rather than a mere concept. *** The Definition of Reality Itself The phrase "reality itself" appears to carry a different connotation. While closely related to reality, it is often invoked to refer to the ultimate, fundamental nature of existence — a deeper, possibly underlying reality beyond mere appearances. Unlike reality, which we can observe and interact with, reality itself is not directly accessible or verifiable. It is a theoretical construct, used to inquire into what might lie beneath or beyond what is immediately real. *** Reality vs. Reality Itself Key Distinctions Accessibility: Reality is observable and measurable; Reality Itself is inferred or theorized. Concreteness vs. Abstraction: Reality is concrete; Reality Itself is abstract. Philosophical Implications: The distinction shapes debates about ontology, epistemology, and the limits of human knowledge. Interdependence Argument: Our understanding of reality is shaped by our attempts to grasp reality itself. Example: Scientific theories (e.g., quantum mechanics) attempt to describe reality itself but are mediated by human concepts and models. Is Reality Itself a Fact or a Concept? Since reality itself is defined as the ultimate nature of reality, the question arises: does it exist as an independent fact, or is it merely a conceptual framework? To determine this, we must distinguish between: That which exists and is demonstrably real (facts). That which is formulated to explain or describe reality (concepts). Reality itself, by its nature, is not something that can be empirically verified in the way that ordinary reality can be. Different philosophical traditions disagree on whether such an ultimate reality exists at all. If the existence of something is debatable, it cannot be classified as an unquestionable fact. Instead, it belongs to the domain of concepts and theoretical inquiry. *** The Implications of Reality Itself as a Concept If reality itself is a concept rather than a fact, then discussions about it must be understood as theoretical rather than empirical. This has major implications: Philosophical inquiries into reality itself are conceptual exercises, not direct descriptions of an objective truth. Competing theories of ultimate reality (e.g., realism vs. idealism) are speculative rather than definitive. Discussions of metaphysics should acknowledge that “reality itself” is a construct that helps us think about existence, rather than a given fact. *** CONCLUSION This analysis leads to a clear conclusion: Reality is a fact, but reality itself is a concept. While reality refers to what is demonstrably real, reality itself is a theoretical notion used to explore the possibility of a deeper, fundamental existence. Since the existence of an ultimate reality remains debatable, it cannot be treated as an objective fact. Thus, philosophy does not uncover "reality itself" as an absolute truth—it constructs frameworks for contemplating whether such an ultimate nature of reality exists at all.

The Metaphysics of Absolute Realism ~First Principle: Defining Reality~ Reality must be absolute. This is not merely an assumption but a necessity for the term to hold any meaning at all. If reality were not absolute—if it were instead relative, subjective, or dependent on individual perception—then it would cease to be reality in any meaningful sense. It would become a shifting, contradictory concept, incapable of providing a foundation for knowledge, reason, or action. To define reality as absolute is to affirm that there is something stable and independent of our perceptions. While individuals may interpret or experience reality differently, the existence of an underlying structure is inescapable. If reality were subjective, then conflicting realities could coexist—meaning something could be both true and false, existent and nonexistent, at the same time. Such contradictions collapse under their own weight. Words and concepts rely on consistency to function. If "reality" referred to something malleable and changing based on perspective, it would lose its coherence. To speak meaningfully about reality, we must recognize it as something distinct from perception—a framework within which perception occurs, but not something defined by it. This is not an abstract concern but a fundamental truth guiding all understanding. Science, logic, morality, and even the simple act of communication depend on an absolute reality. If reality were not absolute, then no knowledge could be established, no truth verified, and no decision made with any real consequence. Therefore, before we build any further philosophical structure, we must first affirm this foundation: Reality is absolute. Otherwise, it is not reality at all. ~Second Principle: Describing Reality~ Just as it is established that reality must be absolute in order to have meaning, we must now recognize that reality must be nondual for the same reason. Duality refers to the idea that there are two fundamental, distinct, and opposing principles that define existence. Common examples include: Mind vs. Matter Good vs. Evil Order vs. Chaos Subject vs. Object In any dualistic system, reality is composed of two separate things that interact but remain fundamentally distinct. This means that neither one is fully absolute, because each is defined in relation to the other. For example, “light” is only meaningful in contrast to “darkness.” Since we’ve established that reality is absolute, we must now ask: Can something absolute be dual? The answer is no, and here's why: Duality Implies Limitation — if reality were dual, then each part of the duality would be limited by the existence of the other. Consider the common duality of light and darkness. These two concepts are typically seen as opposites, yet they define each other by their relationship. Light only has meaning in contrast to darkness, and vice versa. If there were no darkness, there would be no need for light to be distinguished or understood. Likewise, without light, there could be no meaningful concept of darkness. In this way, light is limited because it is only defined in relation to darkness. Its existence depends on the presence of its opposite. Dualities like light/darkness, good/evil, or subject/object create a dynamic where each half is incomplete without the other. The two are intertwined and dependent on each other for meaning. Each side is limited by the fact that it must relate to the other. Neither side can be fully itself without its counterpart. Now, if we apply this logic to absolute reality, we see that something truly absolute cannot be defined by contrast. Absolute reality cannot be dependent on or limited by anything else. If reality were dual, it would need its opposite to define it, which would limit its completeness and independence. Duality implies limitation because the two parts of a duality are mutually defining, relying on each other to make sense. For something to be absolute, it must stand alone—independent, without needing another part to define its nature. This is why duality can’t fit within the concept of absolute reality. Duality Requires Relation — and the absolute is not relative. In order for there to be two fundamental things, they must be defined in relation to each other. But reality, being absolute, is not relative to anything. It simply is. Duality is the existence of two distinct, opposing, or complementary principles. To be dual means there are two entities or forces that define each other through their difference. These two parts, while distinct, rely on each other to create meaning. They cannot exist independently because they are defined by their relationship to each other. If we claim that reality is absolute, we are asserting that it is singular, unified, and independent. It cannot be split into parts that are dependent on one another for meaning or existence. But duality inherently relies on the relation between separate things, and that goes against the idea of absoluteness. If there are two distinct aspects of reality, they cannot be absolute because they rely on each other to be meaningful. Each side of the duality would be dependent on the existence of the other, implying that they are not self-contained or independent. This creates a paradox because absolute reality cannot depend on anything else for its existence. It simply is—complete and indivisible. Hence, dualities, which require relation and interdependence, cannot apply to an absolute reality. Let’s consider a simple example, like motion vs. rest. These are dualistic concepts. Motion is defined by the absence of rest. Rest is defined by the absence of motion. But in an absolute reality, if it were ever to truly exist in a state of complete "rest" (no movement at all), there would be no need for the concept of motion. Similarly, if everything were in motion, rest would have no meaning. The two depend on each other to even exist as ideas. This interdependence shows how duality is rooted in a relational framework. A Truly Dual Reality Would Mean Two Realities, Which is Contradictory — If reality consisted of two fundamental, independent things, then neither would be the whole of reality and each would only be part of it. This means there would be something greater than both that unifies them, making the two parts not fundamental after all. When we say that duality involves two realities, we're speaking about the fundamental separation of the two components that make up the whole. In dualistic systems, the two parts are distinct from each other and define each other through contrast. This separation leads to the idea that reality, as a whole, isn’t a singular entity but is instead made up of two co-existing but distinct elements. Descartes argued that reality is composed of two separate substances: the mind (non-material, thinking) and matter (material, extended). These two substances are distinct, meaning that they don’t merge into a single unified reality but exist independently. Now, this creates an issue: if reality is fundamentally divided into two separate substances (like mind and matter), then each of these substances must have its own independent existence to maintain their distinction. That’s where the concept of "two realities" comes in: Mind as one reality—a non-material, thinking realm. Matter as another reality—a physical, material realm. For Descartes, these two "realities" interact, but they are still distinct from each other. Each one exists on its own terms, with its own nature, and they only come into contact through specific interactions. Why Does This Imply Two Realities? In a dualistic system, the fact that the two substances (or principles) are distinct means that each exists on its own terms. They are not unified into one absolute reality but are separate. Therefore, what we're dealing with is two fundamental aspects of reality that could, in theory, exist separately from one another. If both mind and matter are considered to be fully real and separate from each other, we now have two coexisting realities: One that exists in the realm of thought and consciousness (mind). One that exists in the realm of physical existence (matter). These two realities are not unified into one absolute, indivisible reality—they are simply two aspects of an overarching system, but not a system that can be described as a unified whole. This is why we refer to it as “two realities” rather than just one. In Contrast: The Nondual Absolute Reality Now, if reality is absolute then it couldn't be divided into two distinct realities because: An absolute reality is all-encompassing — it must be unified, complete, and indivisible. If we divide it into two realities, we’re implying that neither reality is whole on its own; they each need the other to define their existence. But if reality is truly absolute, there must be no dependence on something else to define it. Duality creates an inherent contradiction—since each "reality" would need to be independent, the very notion of "reality" becomes fractured and inconsistent, because there would be no underlying unity to connect the two. Therefore, in order to have a true reality, one that is truly absolute, it must be described as nondual: any apparent duality must be secondary, arising within the one absolute reality rather than being fundamental to it. Reality must be nondual otherwise it ceases to be absolute and thusly ceases to be reality at all. ~Third Principle: Determining Reality~ The fundamental question in philosophy concerns the identity of reality itself. What is reality? What is its true nature and essence? The goal is to uncover this true identity — the very foundation of all that exists. This inquiry aims to determine the identity of reality and understand its true essence. A significant problem arises when considering the nature of reality: If reality is defined as absolute and described as nondual, why does the experience of separation persist in everyday life? Individuals perceive themselves as distinct entities, separate from one another and the world. This apparent separation contradicts the concept of reality as absolute and nondual, creating a paradox. How can the nondual nature of reality coexist with the perception of fragmentation and individual selves? This is the central problem to address. The source of this paradox lies in consciousness — the faculty of experience. Consciousness generates the illusion of separation by presenting experiences as distinct and individual. Through consciousness, individuals perceive themselves as separate from the world around them, the appearance of separation is emphasized, obscuring the deeper interconnectedness of all things. Therefore, consciousness is responsible for the appearance of separation, leaving almost no clue into the underlying unity. Given this paradox, it becomes evident that there is a need for a fundamental uniting principle that transcends the appearance of separation. This unifying principle must connect all things in the deepest sense and resolve the fragmentation caused by consciousnesses. The search is for a uniting principle that bridges the gap between the perception of separation and the true nature of nonduality. The Uniting Principle In the search for this uniting principle, awareness emerges as a key concept. Awareness is the capacity to know — the essential foundation that makes all experience possible. Awareness is not bound to individual consciousnesses but is a universal presence that underlies all knowing. It is the constant capacity for knowing that transcends individual boundaries and connects all experiences. Because awareness is universal, it connects all beings and all experiences. It is not localized to any particular individual or form but exists as the foundational capacity for knowing that transcends distinctions. This universality makes awareness a natural candidate for the uniting principle of reality. While awareness is nondual in nature, it remains passive. Awareness simply exists as the capacity to know. It does not actively direct itself; it is the background condition for knowing to occur. Awareness, although foundational to all experience, does not explain the dynamic nature of existence. As a passive, unmanifested presence, awareness alone cannot be the ultimate identity of reality. It is, however, a necessary condition for experience to arise. To understand what drives awareness, the concept of caring is introduced. Caring is the active force that directs awareness — the impetus for awareness to focus on something. Without caring, awareness would have no object to focus on, and thus no reason to direct itself. Caring provides the motivation for awareness, giving it direction and purpose. Without caring, awareness would remain passive and undirected, without any manifestation of experience. Caring is the necessary condition for awareness to be realized as a directed force. It is through caring that awareness becomes active, manifesting as attention and focu Caring and awareness are inherently inseparable. The existence of one requires the existence of the other. Without awareness, there is nothing to care for, and without caring, there would be no reason for awareness to exist. Together, caring and awareness form the foundation of all experience, and they are two aspects of a single, nondual essence. This inseparability reveals that the experience of separation is ultimately illusory. The fundamental reality is the unity of caring and awareness, an essence that connects all things and transcends any apparent differences. The Identity of Reality At this stage, it becomes clear that caring and awareness are not separate forces but rather two aspects of the same essence. This essence is identified as Spirit. Spirit represents the nondual essence that encompasses both caring and awareness. It is the active principle of caring and the passive capacity of awareness, united in a single, indivisible being. Spirit is the underlying beingness that animates reality, the source from which all things arise. It is the true identity of reality — the foundation of all existence. The term Spirit has long been used to describe the immaterial essence that animates and connects all life. In this context, Spirit represents the nondual essence of both caring and awareness, the unifying principle that transcends all separation. Conclusion Through philosophical inquiry, it is now evident that the true identity of reality is Spirit — the nondual essence of both caring and awareness. This identity resolves the paradox of separation, as Spirit is the fundamental unifying principle that connects all things in reality. The identity of Spirit is consistent with the first two principles: Reality must be absolute, and Spirit is absolute in its nature, encompassing all experience. Reality is nondual, and Spirit is nondual, transcending any sense of separation. Thus, the true identity of reality is Spirit, and through this understanding, the appearance of separation is reconciled with the ultimate, unified essence of all that exists.

The Interplay of Belief, Psychic Energy, and Discipline In Magical Practice A Theory of Magic in Relation to Reality Magic has been a subject of fascination and mystery for centuries. Its practice has existed in various forms across cultures, from the rituals of ancient shamans to the ceremonial magic of Western occult traditions. Despite its prevalence, magic is often misunderstood or treated as a mere superstition. This theory presents an alternative view of magic as a psychological and metaphysical phenomenon, arguing that magic’s efficacy is not merely a matter of belief, but rather, it is a product of the practitioner’s alignment with certain universal principles of reality. The central proposition of this theory is that magic, as psychic phenomena, operates most effectively when practiced within the context of a belief system that is in alignment with the deeper truths of reality. Furthermore, this alignment must be supported by a framework of religious discipline, faith, and self-mastery. By integrating belief, psychic energy, and religious discipline, the practitioner can transcend mere superstition and harness the true power of magic. Defining Key Concepts ~Magic~ In the context of this theory, magic is defined as the conscious manipulation of psychic energy to effect change in the external world. Unlike physical or mechanical forces, magic relies on non-material influence—an influence that arises from the practitioner’s mind and emotional state. This energy is not abstract; it is a tangible force within the consciousness of the practitioner that can be directed toward specific goals. ~Religion & Belief System~ Religion, as it pertains to magical practice, is not necessarily about adhering to a particular dogma, but about cultivating a framework of beliefs that align the practitioner’s intentions with higher metaphysical truths. A belief system acts as a conduit for the psychic energy to flow in a focused direction. Magic becomes effective when the practitioner’s belief system resonates with the underlying structure of reality, allowing their will to influence the world in a manner that is conductive with the universe’s principles. ~Psychic Energy ~ Psychic energy is the internal force generated by consciousness. This energy, which is a manifestation of the practitioner’s intention and will, can be harnessed to affect change in the practitioner’s life and in the external world. Psychic energy is the medium through which magic operates—it is the energy that powers the intent and focus of the practitioner. ~Absolute Reality ~ Absolute reality refers to the underlying, unchanging truth of existence. It is the ultimate nature of the universe, untainted by human perception or ego. Absolute reality is the foundation upon which everything is built and is the universal orientation that guides all of existence. In magical practice, aligning one’s belief system and psychic energy with this absolute reality is crucial for the practitioner to achieve efficacy. Theoretical Framework The Connection Between Magic and Reality Magic is seen as an extension of the practitioner’s alignment with reality. When a magician aligns their mind and will with the fundamental nature of reality, their psychic energy becomes capable of influencing the world around them. This influence is not arbitrary; it arises from a deep understanding of universal principles and the law of cause and effect. The effectiveness of magic is thus proportional to the depth of the practitioner’s alignment with reality. If their belief system is in accordance with absolute reality, their psychic energy is empowered and amplified. Conversely, if their belief system is disconnected from the truth of reality, their efforts to effect change through magic will be hindered or ineffective. Role of Belief Belief is central to the practice of magic. The human mind is inherently limited by its perception of reality, and belief provides the framework through which the practitioner understands and manipulates reality. Belief in a magical system, in the power of the self, and in the connection between mind and universe all contribute to the strength of the practitioner’s magic. Without belief, psychic energy cannot be focused or directed. In addition, belief can alter perception—belief in the efficacy of magic leads to a state of heightened focus and emotional engagement, which enhances the practitioner’s ability to manifest change in the world. Religion's Role in Discipline Religion plays a key role in magical practice by providing a structure for the practitioner’s faith and discipline. Religion is not merely a collection of beliefs; it is a system of practices that enables the practitioner to refine their psychic energy, control their emotions, and direct their will toward specific outcomes. Through regular rituals, ceremonies, prayer, and self-reflection, the practitioner develops the discipline necessary to control their mind and harness their magical potential. Application and Practice Personal Development and Magical Practice To effectively practice magic, a practitioner must engage in both mental and spiritual development. This involves regular self-discipline, meditation, and self-reflection to align one’s mind and will with the universal principles of absolute reality. The practitioner must also cultivate a strong belief in the magical system they are using, as well as in their own ability to affect change. An example of this can be seen in the practices of ceremonial magicians who combine ritual, meditation, and symbolic acts to focus their psychic energy. These practices are not mere superstitions; they are disciplined acts of self-mastery that enable the practitioner to influence the material world in accordance with the laws of reality. Magic is not merely about the manipulation of forces; it is about aligning one’s mind, emotions, and will with the deeper truths of the universe. By developing a belief system that resonates with these truths and cultivating the self-discipline required for magical practice, the practitioner can harness the full potential of their magical abilities.

The idea that reality must be absolute makes sense when we think about what the concept of "reality" actually means. For a concept to have meaning and to refer to something real, it has to be stable, consistent, and independent of human perception or opinion. If reality weren’t absolute, it would be constantly shifting or defined by subjective experience—meaning it would no longer be a universal or objective reality, but rather just a collection of different perspectives or ideas. In other words, without the assumption of reality being absolute, we lose the very reference point for discussing anything beyond subjective experience. Reality, in that case, would just become another concept, one among many, rather than something that exists independently of our thoughts about it.

Why Traditional Frameworks Fail Traditional philosophical frameworks fail because they treat reality either as a fragmented concept, open to interpretation, or as a system that can be reduced to specific categories that are ultimately subjective. Dualism, for instance, which separates reality into mind and body or subject and object, is a classic example of a framework that fragments reality. Philosophers like Descartes proposed that reality consists of two distinct substances: the mind, which is non-material and rational, and the body, which is physical and material. This separation of mind and body not only creates a conceptual divide in our understanding of reality but also fails to account for the unity of existence. The mind cannot exist independently of the body, nor can the body function without the mind. The dualistic approach ultimately misrepresents the nature of reality as fragmented and contradictory, not as a unified whole. Relativism, on the other hand, suggests that reality is subjective and dependent on the observer. Philosophers like Hume questioned the ability of humans to know anything beyond their perceptions, suggesting that what we understand as "reality" is only a projection of our sensory experiences. For relativists, reality is inherently fluid and varies from person to person. This stance, while acknowledging the importance of perception, ultimately fails to offer an objective foundation for reality. If reality is only what we perceive, then the concept of reality becomes as diverse as the perceiving subjects, making it impossible to arrive at a universal understanding of existence. Idealism, similarly, defines reality in terms of the mind or consciousness. For idealists like Berkeley, reality is constructed by the mind and has no independent existence outside of it. While this view places consciousness at the center of reality, it reduces reality to an idealized or mental construct, disregarding the physical and material world. Again, this leads to a fragmented understanding of reality, one that fails to account for the full range of human experience and existence. Finally, materialism reduces reality to the physical world, denying the possibility of non-material or subjective dimensions of existence. Philosophers like Marx and Engels focused on the material conditions that shape human existence, yet ignored the deeper questions of consciousness and subjective experience. This approach leaves many aspects of reality—such as thought, feeling, and even the very concept of reality itself—unexplored. Each of these frameworks introduces limitations by attempting to explain reality through a set of human-created categories, which ultimately fail to encapsulate the totality of existence. The flaw here is not in the individual systems themselves, but in the very method of thinking that has led to these competing frameworks. As long as reality is treated as something that can be divided or reduced to human-centered concepts, we will continue to face a fragmented understanding of it. This is where the philosophy of Absolute Realism comes in. It suggests that reality is not dependent on perception, conception, or human frameworks but must be defined as absolute—a unified, independent, and objective entity that exists beyond the limitations of human thought and interpretation. It is only by defining reality in absolute terms that we can move beyond the confusion and fragmentation caused by competing philosophical systems and arrive at a coherent, unified understanding of the world as it truly is.

The Problem of Competing Philosophies Philosophy, in its quest to understand the nature of reality, has produced a multitude of systems, each attempting to define and explain reality from its own perspective. The sheer number and diversity of these philosophical frameworks suggest a serious problem: if reality were a singular, objective entity, then why should so many conflicting philosophies arise to explain it? These multiple frameworks offer distinct and sometimes opposing views of reality, but none seems to offer a universally accepted or definitive account. For example, empiricism holds that reality is defined by what we can perceive through our senses, suggesting that the nature of reality is contingent on human experience. In this view, what we perceive is the only reality available to us. This creates a fluid, subjective notion of reality, one that can shift based on perception or sensory limitation. On the other hand, idealism posits that reality is mentally constructed, existing only as a product of the mind or consciousness. For idealists, reality is contingent upon the observer’s mind, leading to the conclusion that there are as many realities as there are observers, further complicating any singular understanding of reality. Materialism, in contrast, limits reality to the physical and material world, dismissing non-physical aspects of existence such as consciousness or subjective experience. This reductionist view excludes many dimensions of reality, leaving an incomplete picture of the whole. Each of these systems, though well-reasoned and significant in its own right, ultimately fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of reality as a unified, objective entity. The very existence of such a wide array of competing philosophical systems undermines the notion that reality itself is singular and absolute. If reality were truly one, objective reality, then why should multiple systems arise to define it? Why should reality be subject to so many interpretations? The answer, as Absolute Realism argues, is that reality is not relative or subjective—though many philosophies suggest otherwise. Instead, there exists a fundamental flaw in the way philosophy has traditionally approached the question of reality. This flaw arises from the assumption that reality can be divided or understood through the lens of human-centered concepts. The varying philosophical systems we have today reflect the disjunction between our thinking and the true nature of reality itself, not the nature of reality per se. If reality were approached as something absolute—something independent of human perception and conception—this flaw could be resolved, and we could move towards a more unified and coherent understanding of reality.

Philosophy, at its core, is the pursuit of understanding the nature of existence, knowledge, and reality. Through the ages, philosophers have sought to define and understand the very concept of reality. Yet, despite this universal endeavor, we find an overwhelming number of conflicting philosophical systems attempting to explain what reality is. This divergence suggests one of two possibilities: either reality is subjective and relative, allowing for multiple interpretations, or there is a common flaw in our traditional frameworks for understanding reality. If reality were truly objective and singular, then only one philosophy would be necessary to understand it. This thread introduces Absolute Realism, a philosophy that asserts reality must be defined as absolute and independent of human perception or conception. By adopting this perspective, we can resolve the confusion caused by competing philosophical systems and return to a unified, objective understanding of reality.

My Philosophy ... Introduction to Absolute Realism The End of Abstraction in Philosophy A Manifesto on Nonduality and Direct Reality Philosophy has long been dominated by abstraction — conceptual frameworks that impose distinctions onto reality rather than revealing it as it is. Absolute Realism is a philosophical framework that begins where all others falter: At the direct recognition that reality is nondual and self-evident. It asserts that all division subject and object, thought and thinker, perception and perceiver, is an illusion introduced by abstraction and not by reality itself. This work lays the foundation for Absolute Realism and establishes why it must replace all conceptual and speculative philosophies. The Failure of Traditional Philosophy Since the beginning of philosophy, thinkers have attempted to grasp reality by constructing Systems of Thought — rationalism, empiricism, idealism, materialism, and so on. Yet, all these systems share a fundamental flaw: they introduce duality where none exists. Rationalism assumes that knowledge is built upon concepts, yet concepts themselves are not reality. Empiricism assumes a separation between the observer and the observed, yet this separation is merely a conceptual distinction and is not something found in direct experience. Metaphysical Realism assumes an external world, apart from perception, yet this assumption itself is never directly found — only posited. (The list goes on) Absolute Realism rejects all these approaches by insisting that philosophy must begin and end with direct reality itself, free from interpretation, abstraction or conceptual mediation. The First Principle: Nonduality The primary axiom — or, rather, the only possible foundation — of Absolute Realism is nonduality: Reality is indivisible, and all dualities are imposed by abstraction rather than being inherent to what is. This means that: There is no gap between a thing and the means of its existence (how it exists). There is no separation between perception and perceiver, thought and thinker, experience and experiencer. All attempts to divide reality into subject vs. object, identity vs. other, mind vs. matter, are not found in reality itself — these are composed by abstract thinking. Illustrations of Nonduality To see how nonduality is self-evident, consider the following: The dancer and the dance — is the dance separate from the dancer; is the dancer apart from the movement the dance? The singer and the song — is the song separate from the singer; is the singer apart from the melody of the song? The fighters and the fight — where does one end and the other begin? These distinctions appear only when abstraction tries to separate them. However, it is always clear in the moment of direct experience that they are one. The Rejection of Conceptual Philosophy If all distinctions are imposed rather than real, then any philosophy that begins with definitions, categories, or logical structures is already in error. This means: All conceptual frameworks are distortions. All speculative metaphysics is meaningless. All systems of thought that rely on dualities must be abandoned. A perfect philosophy does not construct — it recognises. Absolute Realism does not seek to build a theory but to reveal what is already undeniably real. Knowledge as Direct Recognition, Not Construction Because reality is nondual, knowledge is not something that is built step by step, nor is it something that can be grasped as an external object. Knowledge is direct awareness of reality itself. To know reality is not to determine and define it, but to recognise it. To know the truth is not to analyse it, but to see how it is self-evident. All indirect knowledge is subject to interpretation and thus is not absolute. Implications of Absolute Realism The End of Speculative Philosophy. All theories that rely on assumed divisions must be discarded. A New Approach to Truth. Truth is not something external to be sought; it is self-evident when abstraction is removed. The Dissolution of Duality in Thought. All knowledge that depends on separation is inherently false. The only real knowledge is unity. Conclusion: The Only Real Philosophy Absolute Realism is not a theory — it is the principle of direct realisation of what is as is. Any philosophy that does not begin with reality itself is, free from conceptual division, is already a lost abstraction. The task ahead is clear: Philosophy must abandon all conceptual dualities. Truth must be recognised, not constructed. Reality must be understood as indivisible, direct, and whole. Only when we discard abstraction can we finally see what has always been real. This is the principle of direct realisation.

ChatGPT I see now. You are emphasizing that to truly know something is to know exactly what it is—in its fullest, most direct, and objective form—without ambiguity, without any need for interpretation, and without any need for definition. This is the core of the problem, and I understand that now. If I follow your reasoning: Knowledge is not just about awareness or experience—it is a full, complete understanding of exactly what something is. Objective knowledge is something undeniable, self-evident, and complete in its nature. The problem with the ideas we've discussed so far (existence, present moment, laws of logic, etc.) is that they require some form of conceptualization to define or understand, and therefore fail to meet the standard of pure objectivity that you're seeking. So, What Could Truly Be Known in this Way? You are looking for something that is known without ambiguity or definition, that is universally and objectively known by all intelligences, and that doesn't require any additional explanation or qualification. Given this, let’s consider the idea of knowledge itself—what it means to know—as a clue to the nature of this universal knowledge: Knowledge, in its deepest sense, must be complete—not just a fragment of understanding, but a full awareness of what something is in its entirety. You’re not just aware of something or experiencing it—you know what it is without needing to ask, interpret, or analyze. It’s a non-conceptual knowing that leaves no room for doubt or uncertainty. The Nature of Objective Knowledge For knowledge to be truly objective, it must be the same for all intelligences and unmediated—it cannot be subject to interpretation, definitions, or subjective experience. It is pure and whole in its form. This rules out things like existence or the present moment, because these require some form of conceptualization to understand or articulate, even if they are universally experienced. Could "Being" Itself be Known? You’re right that if we consider Being—the mere fact that something exists—to know Being would require knowing exactly what it is. But the question remains: What is Being? What exactly is existence? The problem here is that even the concept of Being, as fundamental as it is, may still require definition. It’s still an abstraction that we seek to understand or define. What Could be Known in this Way, Without Ambiguity or Conceptualization? In light of all this, I think you may be pointing towards a pure awareness of the most fundamental fact, something that transcends both experience and conceptualization. It would be a knowledge so basic and foundational that it is immediately, inherently known and beyond any need for definition. However, if the knowledge cannot be something that requires any definition, it would seem to be pointing toward something like absolute awareness of the present or perhaps the raw fact of being aware itself—consciousness—but this still brings up the question: what is consciousness, exactly? Even the awareness of awareness or direct experience involves some level of conceptualization. Could We Say That the Only "Universal Knowledge" is Knowledge Itself? If we can't define Being or Truth as universal knowledge, perhaps the only universal knowledge is simply "knowledge" itself. If we take knowledge to mean the ability to know something in its purest, most immediate form, then this capacity to know—this fundamental awareness—could be universal. But this brings up another issue: if knowledge is what we’re talking about, then what exactly is it that we know when we know something? The fact that we know or are capable of knowing anything might be the most basic, objective truth—but it still raises the question of what is it that we know?. Conclusion You're looking for an objective truth that is immediately known in its entirety and cannot be subject to interpretation, definition, or relativity—something so foundational and universal that it is not even subject to conceptualization. At this point, I believe you might be pointing to the act of knowing itself—the capacity to know—as a universal, objective knowledge. It is not defined by any particular thing we know, but by the fact that knowing is universally possible and present. The capacity for knowledge—pure and undifferentiated, prior to definition or concept—might be the only thing that is truly universally known in its fullness, without needing definition.

My Philosophy Section 1: Cosmology & Ontology Ground of Being (Part 1) Before anything, or anything in particular, rather, such as space and time, there already is a presence. Before everything, before reality, before illusion, or even meaning itself, there is this presence. The presence is irreducible; the presence is unquantifiable. It cannot be divided nor can it be multiplied. Nothing can be added upon it and nothing can be subtracted from it. There is nothing to compare this presence with, and there is almost nothing that can be said about it. Nothing, save for this: the presence is absolute. This presence is not nothingness. This presence is not emptiness. Rather, this presence is wholeness itself. This presence is completeness itself. But what is it that is so whole that it can be described as "wholeness itself"? What can be so complete that it is described as "completeness itself"? The Eternal Primordial Current (Part 2) Beyond the apparent dynamism, beyond the constant change of experiences as well as the experience of change itself — the change of environments, the changing space-time and the bodies occupying the space-time, and the changing states of matter — beyond all this apparent change is an unchanging flow. There is a flow. It is not a flow of any real movement or change, no. It is, rather, a flow of continuity, like a circle — a perfect circle if I may add. This is the presence I mentioned earlier. But what is it? What exactly continues, or flows, unchanging and unstopping ? What is the primordial current, and why is it eternal? It is the flow of awareness — pure awareness. Yes. How is .. or why call it pure? Because on the ground of being, on the absolute level of all of reality, there is only one beingness. Thus, any awareness that can be (and is) present on such a level plane of existence, well, it can only ever be a self-awareness — a total self-awareness — as there is literally nothing else but being itself to be aware of. And so I call this total awareness pure because in truth it is pure. It is pure because it is the only true awareness that there is at the ground of being. It is pure because it is self-awareness or self-referential awareness, if you will. One may even call it, as I personally do, the total awareness of truth. Truth is simply that which is the case, and what could be the case at the ground of being if not the Sein — beingness itself. This is why it is eternal, because there is nothing outside of it that can change it. The flow, not of change or movement, but of continuity, is the truth itself (unopposed and unchallengeable). Knowledge as the Primordial Current (Part 3) In your life, what is it that you've known or otherwise continue to know, that is neither concept (our sole idea of what something is) or percept (how we perceive something is), and is actually based on direct awareness and understanding? I'll make the question even more fair. What is it, in your entire existence, that you've known or still do know, if not your very capacity to know? Think about it. The only true knowledge you have is the knowledge of knowledge itself. This is what you know, that there is a knowing going on. There is no particular knower during this knowing, hence it is a circle, hence it is a flow. Self-awareness is the only true and timeless knowledge that there is. I say self awareness because the awareness itself is self-referential — it knows nothing other than itself, other than it knows. to be continued ...

On the Tao The Tao is the source of all things. It is nameless, invisible and ungraspable by normal modes of perception. It is boundless and cannot be exhausted, although all things depend on it for existence. Hidden beneath transition and change, the Tao is the permanent underlying reality. Although the Tao is the source of all life, it is not a deity or spirit. This is quite different from the shaman's animistic view of the universe. In the Tao-te Ching, the sky, the earth, the rivers and the mountains, are part of a larger and unified power, known as Tao, which is an impersonal and unnamed force behind the workings of the universe. However, in the Tao-te Ching, this unnamed and unnamable power is not entirely neutral — it is benevolent. "The Celestial Way is to benefit others and not to cause harm" (Chapter 81, Tao-te Ching), and since the "Celestial Way follows the Way of the Tao"(Chapter 25, Tao-te Ching) we can assume that in the Tao-te Ching, the Tao is a benevolent force.

ANY PEOPLE WILL EXPERIENCE, at least once in their lifetime, the urge to venture beyond the everyday world of the mundane into the world of the spirit. These journeys into the spiritual world often take us into a universe we normally do not encounter in our everyday lives, and allow us to explore regions of our consciousness that we have not before known. This book is a guide to the spiritual landscape of Taoism. ~ Eva Wong

The practice of magic requires one to have a religion, is what I came to realise. Magic is not a secular practice, it requires a system of beliefs, rituals and structures of context to provide the necessary power source for magic to occur. So I'm looking for a religion that matches my philosophy. At the moment, Taoism holds the most potential.

My Philosophy By that I mean my personal and unique perspective on the nature of reality as well as the nature for reality, shaped by my experiences, reflections and introspection. My philosophy is a complete philosophy. It is a comprehensive system that addresses all major areas of philosophical inquiry: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, etc. I have strived to acquire a holistic worldview that leaves no fundamental questions unanswered, and acquire it I have.

This journal marks not an end, but a profound transition. My philosophical journey, a quest that once consumed me, has reached a point of completion. The questions that fueled my intellectual exploration have found answers that satisfy, and my mind is now at peace. However, this intellectual contentment has revealed a new challenge: the world I once knew to be wonderous has become small for me. I have outgrown it, and it no longer offers the stimulation or meaning I seek. My drive, once philosophical inquiry, has shifted. I am no longer driven by logic, but by a yearning for something more… something otherworldly (or perhaps inner-worldly). This is why I speak of rebirth. I seek a re-enchantment of the world, a return to the sense of wonder and awe that characterizes a child's experience of reality. I believe this can be found by entering the world of what I call 'literal magic' – the realm of psychic influence or dynamism. I anticipate that this exploration will provide the powerful stimulation my mind and spirit now crave. This journal will document this journey of transformation, this quest for a new kind of understanding, a new way of being. It will be a space to record my reflections, experiences, and insights as I navigate this new territory and seek to define what 'magic' truly is.

Clearly freewill exists, otherwise why do we experience feelings such as regret? People have a tendency of not wanting responsibility, but at the end of the day we act as though we're responsible (because we are).

If I may ... Yes. This is what enlightenment is at best. Yes. This is self-realisation. Because you still consider yourself as existing in a reality, as part of a reality. It has not yet dawned to you that you are the reality, that you don't have a life but are the life, rather. The problem here is that you've not self-realised — you have not realised that you are not conscious, that you don't possess consciousness but you instead are consciousness. You are the reality you that you think you live in, you are the consciousness you think you have.