Experiences of the Third Eye (chapter 1)

Chapter One:

“What I try to see, I can see.

What I see, I do not know.

For I do not know, I do not see.”

The essential argument through this thought experiment deals with the notion of knowledge. What is knowledge? It is the state of knowing. To be aware. To see. What may be considered delusion or hallucination or psychosis is merely that which you do not know and therefor cannot see. This chapter deals with the assumption of reality. That is, that reality exists. Since it exists it can be described. I know therefor it exists, is essentially the motto behind this idea. Reality becomes basically a database of knowing, if it exists. If it does not exist, it cannot be classified.

The state of the miracle, according to science, is not so, when it can be explained. As in the source, is always "natural" if it is a part of reality. This is merely an assumption, and a faulty one at that, by scientists. They believe in the miracle of reality. That it is constructed to behave a certain way. That all things that has come to pass to give reality its foundation is by all means natural events that is manufactured by natural means.

The same applies to religious belief, it is said that supernatural entities manufacture reality. Is it important to note if either one is true? Well if one of them is true, then yes, perhaps you should give the victor the benefit of the doubt. But what if both are incorrect? Then surely no attention should be given to them. So let's assume two scenarios. They both are correct. It is possible. Natural laws evoked by natural faculties, and natural laws also evoked by supernatural faculties. Or rather since religious people believe a supernatural force controls the spirit of reality, then yes it must be supernatural laws of this reality which we are perceiving. Which may be possible. Or rather, let's assume that it then boils down to the same thing.

They both believe the same principle under different illusions. One thinks it's natural, while the other thinks it is supernatural. Clearly it's a matter of description. Where human linguistic faculty may fail sorely if we were to be incorrect onto the basis of these phenomena. So essentially, for reality exists, there must be a reason that it exists. Or so we believe. What if there is no reason that it exists? What if God and the natural laws did not create it? Then we would surely be astounded by what is going on. It cannot be either, this or that. Though many people deny that both these two virtues are correct, surely their way of understanding does breach onto the realms of the same mechanisms as the two.

Scientists, philosophers, and theologians. Scientists and philosophers think that religious people are wrong to assume that it is a supernatural entity that has manufactured reality. The theologians thinks otherwise. Though they believe they are at odds, surely their way of thought obscures the main standpoint of any given reality. No one argues that reality is a certain way. We are confused when we do not have freedom of choice. We are confronted with a regard that we are violated. We agree that some things are not possible, and some things are possible. Some of us are philosophical and scientific, while some of us are religious. Some are also both. To assume that this is the way humans are, is to assume that a doctor has always been a doctor. Since birth. One cannot control reality, but one can control reality. As in, reality is what it is, if it exists, but it is also not what it is, if it exists. This means that the nature of reality is human, but it is also not human.

No person is a certain type of person. That approach to human reality is false, or rather flawed. One cannot construct a personality around the notion that one is a personality. No biography will discuss the toilet manners or the obsessive thoughts of a person. Only the dictator and the eccentric is composed in such a way. We sell the personality. We endorse the reality of other-personality. That all is unique, and that we somehow enjoy the mentality of individuality. But what if no one is different? What if everything is the same? Then surely we can assume that our natures are of such an extent not our own. As in, as humans, we are a certain way.

It seems more plausible if it were true. But it is not true. What we seek is a human that is influential, and in great shape, and intelligent. We seek humans that stand out. That is different from everybody else. In a world where people are different, everyone is supposed to behave the same. They call it manners.

But let's return to the assumption of God, and the denouncement of God. What is so important about it? Well to assume that humans have to think a certain way, is the foreground of both these ideologies. It is not forcibly liberal to note that one does not know. It is not naive. It is arrogant if one knows. What one does not know one does not see. What one knows one must see. If one does not see, then one does not know. This chapter deals with the phenomenon of two things. One is God or rather the existence of Heaven, and the other is personality, or the assumption of reality. We assume that reality exists. We assume that we are naturally or supernaturally in existence. We are either neither or both or one of the two. We have no choice in the matter. Supposedly these ideas are important. And so we believe that they are. Which may be considered a form of abuse if one were to be atheistic, or a form of grace if one were to be religious.

One is opposed to the other, and the other is not actually opposed to the other. Why would a religious person believe that a person who chooses to not believe must believe? They would or they would not. Essentially the question is, what is so important about belief and disbelief? Nothing actually. If one were a person without influence. A person living a simple life. A person away from all ideal. The personality of a person is dictated by magic. We are constructors of magic. We call it intelligence, creativity and sophistication. We are assuming that for we communicate we relate, and for we relate we communicate. It is not so. No one actually cares. As in, it does matter, but it also does not matter. Some just do not agree. This is where the story comes in.

Once there was a man, who knew nothing of religion and science. When he was asked once, what does he believe. He said; what is belief? The person asking the question looked confused. It is the medium of knowing. It is what is real for you. Surely you know what belief is! The man said, he did not know what belief is, but he knows that belief is supposed to exist for all. He also said that men who have beliefs have a crutch. Even the mightiest of emperors have fallen apart from belief. Even the wisest scientist and philosopher has lived solely on belief. He said not that he had no belief, he merely said he does not know what belief is. He didn't think that a person has to think like that. He didn't know that it existed. This does not mean that he did not believe, or rather chose not to. No, he merely lived the way of the animal. One who has no assumptions about anything. One who only lives in the present.

It is assumed today that we live in the present. That we have manufactured a world to resolve our present. To give new meaning to our present. The man did not think that belief is thinking. He thought that belief is something that is misrepresented. That one must believe in something for belief existed. This is the problem with belief. It deals with the notion that something has to exist first, for something else to exist. All human faculty of intelligence, creativity, and sophistication revolves around this notion. Something had to give birth to responsibility, reason, and many other forms of human behavior. The man merely assumed that one cannot believe in something because belief existed. Belief to him was not a natural phenomenon, it was not part of nature. It was alien to nature. He did not use the word believe. He merely resorted his life to what he knows. Or rather what he was revealed. As in, he only lived his life in the present. If there was a bridge, there was "a" way to cross the river. If there was no bridge, there was at least "a" way to cross the river.

He did not think about it much, no, he rather thought that where he is, is more important than where he is supposed to be. All this intelligence, creativity, and sophistication, seemed to him to be the business of someone else. He knew that belief existed, he just didn't know what it was. Not that he was never asked or challenged about belief, no, rather he never thought it is necessary. He did not assume that for he does not believe in something, he is a disbeliever, no, he was rather under the impression that belief in itself wanted him to be a certain way, and he did not want to be a way. He'd rather be a tree, or a mountain. He'd rather be a river, or a cloud. He'd rather be like them, than any other human.

This is essentially the answer to all things. As I repeated myself, I noticed that the answer is simple. The question is, what is belief? The answer is, there is no such thing. All is merely knowledge. You either know or you do not know. You either see or you do not see. Also you may be under the impression of seeing, but that may be merely an impression. Those people are of the strangest sorts. They are religious about their disbelief. Or rather they are under the impression that what they experience, which is hard to explain, or understand, for it is of a confusing sort, is that which must be experienced to experience something. As in they know that what they know is what they have to know. Or rather, what one knows is what one must believe one knows. Or rather, I know something, because I can know something. We call it intelligence.

The whole world believes in a farce called intelligence. The whole world believes in a farce called creativity. The whole world believes in a farce called sophistication. The whole world, this man thought, knows nothing about knowing, they rather know "things". Their whole make-up revolves around things. As in objects. People are also objects. Though some people say we should not objectify people. It's a nasty word or trait to them. Let it not be so. Essentially the man thought, that his thoughts had nothing to do with belief. For it is too simple. Belief is something called knowing. He did not think that things are that simple. He thought that the action of thought is more complicated than it seems, and the results are more complicated than we believe. He did not think people are more intelligent than others. He did not think intelligence existed. Why would we be more intelligent than others? Why do we think that is so important? Why do we fight for our minds?

Should we not be under the impression by now, that since we live, we have to be gloriously in tune with that which we live through. It's the unawareness of the uterus of the fetus. It's the awareness of life of those born. We admire all folks, not because we have to, but because we can. But humans are not that complicated. So the man believed. He thought that the question of belief is not that important. He didn't know why it is so important to humans. He didn't understand what belief is, because he thought he can live anyway he wishes. Why must there be a certain range of things to know, and to think about? This is the motive behind all the humanities. No one can deny it. It is the cosmetic make-up of a human being. It is the grounding of a sane mind. It is all that exists. It exists for us.

We know the nature of religion, science, philosophy, and culture. Belief may be considered as something to do with faith. It may be considered a part of our mind. It may be considered unavoidable. Essentially it may be a lie. As science develops, our deepest fears comes to life. Science claims that there is no god. I think it is against consolement. Of course there is a god. The nature of god cannot perhaps be understood by humans. So the scientists, philosophers, and theologians are all wrong to assume that they know anything about god. Their professions have made them dogmatic. It has made us all dogmatic. Dogmatic about reality. Dogmatic about life. Dogmatic about existence. They think they know something about something that is truly mysterious. We think we know something about something we are not. We all have beliefs the man told the other. Surely you must have one?

If you say that beliefs is what you know, then I must say that I only know things which no one has spoken of. If you say belief has something to do with which I do not know. Then I must say that it makes no sense to me what I must know apart from myself. I do not say that I have disbelief's, which is a form of belief, no, I'd rather say that I do not know what belief is. Many people talk about belief, but they do not talk about thinking. They do not talk about correct ways of thinking. I cannot tell you what belief is, because I do not think you would understand me. Belief to me has nothing to do with thinking or knowing, it has no meaning to me. I do not think reality is built like that. I think there are some things which humans have come to assume, and have disregarded the opposing ends of their assumptions. A belief is that which has come to become a thing of importance. One can believe in anything.

Scientists think that we need proof for our beliefs. Philosophers say there is such a thing as the lying mind. A psychotic state. Theologians say they have proof. It's a confusing subject. Essentially belief rests on knowing, whereas knowing has more to it than that. There is so much one can discuss. Belief is the regard one has to the world. Belief is something that we all supposedly possess. Belief is a construction of mind. It is not a mind of construction. What this means is that belief is what we assume is real. It is not important to note about what you believe or disbelieve, when the notion of belief does not exist. All that exists is knowing. And what a person can know is perhaps more important than that a person can know. And so we spend our precious time on what it is we have come to know, and also how we have come to know. We assume even that these things exist. The nature of reality does not suppose that we exist.

So there is no need to afford the time and the effort to resolve that which reality provides to all without assumption. But what if there is a force that assumes? What if reality is aware that we exist? Would scientists find it out? Would we be again drawn into the political? Why is it that so many people do not pursue part of the conversation onto the nature of all things? There is something wrong with science, philosophy, culture, and religion. It expects people to behave a certain way. Though our lives are not like this, one can always state that our world believes that our lives are like this. It's not important essentially.

What is important? Let me rather try to answer this question by stating what is not important. It is not important to tell me the good person you are. Or that you are married. That you are doing something social. That you are intelligent. That you are creative. That you are sophisticated. That you are wealthy. That you have a job. That you have manners. That you are respectful. That you think the universe is constructed a certain way. And so forth. I am not saying that the opposite is correct. But how dare we state that human behavior can be described? If you want a clear mind. Accept everything, and think about nothing. Or rather. Think nothing about anything. Or rather, why don't you agree that this world is more complicated than what the media prescribes, and what the politicians adhere to, and what anarchism is all about.

Reality is about freedom. One is already free. One is already allowed to do as one wishes. One becomes enlightened or not. One goes to heaven or not. I suppose that these things exist. I do not think it harms me in any way to believe or to know that they exist. I don't see how my reality is somehow entangled with conspiracy and corruption and violence just because I think it does exist. I think good people are good people and bad people are bad people. I don't think anyone or anything makes a good person do bad things. Good people cannot do that. This is almost a law of nature. There is nothing wrong with being good. There is something wrong with being bad. It is not a good thing to be good, but it is a bad thing to be bad. Our whole society is constructed like that. But there are some people who seem to believe that their reality is our reality.

The attendants still speaks much louder, but no one actually cares to be honest. They all do it their own way. The man merely meant that for him belief is a construction of the human mind, and whatever one may have come to perceive, only after indoctrination is one of the regard that one has to have beliefs. As in one must either believe or disbelieve. Which is absurd. Science waging a war on religion is absurd. Religion is a kind of culture. Science is a kind of philosophy. My views changed on all things when I realized that enlightenment and heaven is a possibility. That these things are not real for those who do not believe, and for those who have not been admitted into its fields. I was one of many. But I questioned, being in the back of the queue, if these adherents to these things have in anyway direct personal experience of it. Again I was astounded by the amount of people affected by it. I was again one of many. But something was wrong.

Why did I think that they had nothing to do with it? Because I did not see in them the pronounceable effort pulled to gain such a foothold. They depersonalized the experience. They quoted each other. They talked about the same thing the same way. They excluded impossibility. Anyone could obtain this wisdom, if only they believed. I understood why scientists and philosophers denounced these views. It seemed too simple. I did not believe that anyone practicing Buddhism knew anything about enlightenment, and I did not think that anyone who adhered to a religious precept just went magically to heaven. Something was wrong.

But let me get back to the nature of the personality. It does not presume anything about itself, and it does not presume anything onto others. It lives its own life. Our lives have become more social. It has become more one. It has become more unique. We are all doing something everyone else understands. We know everything there is to know. We are all free. We defeated tyranny. Everything means something. The man who wondered what belief is proved a point. It is that which comes after that way of mind. That man can find himself in a state without belief and disbelief. By not knowing that it exists one is liberated from its reality. Essentially the argument rests on the supposition that without knowledge man is a beast. This is not true. Man will always be man. An infant proves it.