Only one reality?

The title page to the 1611 first edition of th...

The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To the one who has been struggling with words:

Now, reality is here. Reality includes these words.

If even words are reality, then could there be anything outside of reality? Is there ever anything beyond reality?

Words can focus on different features of reality, such as sound as distinct from light. Light can be contrasted with the relative absence of light, labeled “dark.” However, there is no tangible physical substance as darkness.

So, it is said that light casts out darkness, but that darkness has no power over light. In other words, one cannot add two measures of darkness to a bright room and cause the room to dim.

However, one can add two measures of black paint to some white paint and make dark gray paint. So, black paint is a physical substance that absorbs light rather than reflecting it. Still, there is no actual physical darkness in black paint for there is no such substance as a darkness (except as a label in language).

Light exists independently of humans or human languages. Reality created light without any speaking in the normal human sense of the word speaking. In contrast, reality did not create darkness, except as a label.

Reality might declare “let there be darkness,” but only as a label, not as a substance. Darkness is just a label.

Light, as subtle as it is, is clearly tangible. Even blind people agree that direct sunlight can cause an immediate sensation of warmth and eventually even cause sunburn, right? However, darkness cannot cause anything because it does not exist outside of language.

Similar to physical sunlight, clarity can cast out confusion, but confusion cannot effect clarity. So, if one is confused about a subject, then that is a clear, logical sign that one may have never been clear about the subject, though perhaps presuming understanding and even claiming it, or further defending the claim aggressively, argumentatively, anxiously, desperately, even shamefully.
What we talking about here is called logic, which could be defined as the study of the particular portion of reality known as language and labels. We could also call this exploration by other labels like metaphysics or spirituality. Here is a rather simple presentation of an obvious conclusion that we can make using logic (using language):

The word dark is a descriptive word, called a modifier or adjective. The word darkness was eventually formed from out of the word dark.

Outside of language, there is no tangible, physical reality of darkness. Darkness is only a label. Darkness has no influence on light because there is no reality to darkness except as a label.

Likewise, sound can be contrasted with silence, but silence is just a label. There is no such thing as silence to be added to sound to make the sound quieter.

Light and sound and even hair are real and tangible whether they have been named or not. In contrast, darkness and silence and baldness are just linguistic labels. Labels in language are part of reality, but they are distinct from other facets of reality, such as tangible, physical experience.

So, words can be used to contrast and isolate particular qualities, such as weight and height, but language does not divide reality in to isolated realities. Height and weight are just distinct dimensions within the same universal reality. There is only one reality.

Nothing is more real than reality. Nothing is more powerful than reality. Nothing is more than reality.

Reality alone is fit to label as unitary, singular, complete, inclusive, boundless, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, or holy. Only reality is holy.

Thou shalt hold no reality as more holy than reality itself. There is no reality but reality.

The Prophets of reality that have been celebrated throughout history include Mohammed, Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, and Brahman (AKA Abraham or Ibrahim). The idea that reality has only one prophet is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of reality. There is only one reality, but there are many Prophets of reality.

The famous Greek word logos — “word, speech, a...

The famous Greek word logos — “word, speech, argument, ratio, etc.” — as SVG image. I don’t know if someone still needs such graphics in the times of Unicode, but if you like to use it here it is … (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On the subject of Prophets, let’s review the basics of spirituality. Here is the essence of spirituality:

In the beginning, the words of language are already present. Language is reality, is in reality, and is of reality.

Here are some examples of language, which may not be familiar shapes to you:

בראשית היה הדבר והדבר היה את האלהים ואלהים היה הדבר׃

ܒܪܫܝܬ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܠܬܐ ܘܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܠܘܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܐܠܗܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܀

If any of this seems familiar, we might review a few of the most famous words in human history. From the most famous book in the world today, the Christian Scripture of the New Testament of the Bible, we begin with the verse of John 1:1. Note that the words below are four translations in to the English language of an older language.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

International Standard Version (©2008)
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New Living Translation (©2007)
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
In the origin, The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

The last one may be the least familiar. It is the most recent translation (from 2010).

I already showed you the verse in Aramaic, but you may not have known what it said, so here it is again:

ܒܪܫܝܬ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܠܬܐ ܘܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܠܘܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܐܠܗܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܀
So, if you do not know Aramaic, but you do know English, then you might focus on one of the above English translations of John 1:1. The first three translations are not directly translated from Aramaic in to English, but were first translated from Aramaic in to other intermediary languages, such as:

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

في البدء كان الكلمة والكلمة كان عند الله وكان الكلمة الله.

太 初 有 道 , 道 与 神 同 在 , 道 就 是 神 。

В начале было Слово, и Слово было у Бога, и Слово было Бог.

En el principio ya era la Palabra, y aquel que es la Palabra era con el Dios, y la Palabra era Dios.

So, which would logically be more authoritative: the author commenting on the author’s own words, or someone else who claims to only be translating the prior translation of someone who claims to have at least some comprehension of what the original author meant? Let’s compare the 2010 direct translation from ancient Aramaic in to English with some words you already read, and then consider which is clear and simple and which is more obscure and mysterious:

In the origin, The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

In the beginning, the words of language are already present. Language is reality, is in reality, and is of reality.

Things brings us to focus on a particular word, which is one small word among many similar words in various languages. There is only one reality, but there are many words or labels for various aspects of reality, right?


What does that word mean (the same word written above in a few slightly different alphabets or scripts)? Is it similar to the English word “reality?” We may know of the phrase “I am that which is” (as in “I am reality”) or “I am That I am:”

These words and ideas go back many thousands of years to the Vedic traditions and Hebrew traditions (which may have derived from the Vedic: “I am. I am That. Brahman alone exists.”). Prior to written language, there were oral traditions of teachings about these principles of language and simple logic.

Also, before there were any formal traditions, there have been words for “reality.” Among these words are God, Divinity, Allah, Brahman, the Universe, and הדבר. However, before any of these words, even before any languages or humans, there was already reality, right?

Which came first: reality itself or language to label reality? We can use logic to reach a satisfactory conclusion to that question, right?

Michelangelo-adam-version-hikingArtist illustr...

Michelangelo-adam-version-hikingArtist illustration (Photo credit:

Reality created humanity. Humanity is a form of reality or a facet of reality.

When reality created humanity, reality created humanity in the image of reality (or as an expression of reality). Reality is holy and all the forms that reality takes are holy. The aspect of reality known as humanity is also holy, perfect, and pure, just as the Reality from which humanity arises is holy, perfect, and pure.

Recognizing reality is considered to be of great importance. Many traditions have directed humans to “seek first” the direct experience of reality, with promises of great benefits to follow.

However, all experience is already reality, right? So, the issue then is not experiencing reality, which is the only thing we can experience because reality is what we are. The issue, if there is any, is being clear about reality.

Reality is like a huge house with many rooms. The rooms have different names and may seem isolated from each other, but all of the rooms in reality are in reality, are reality.

Reality is also like a tree with many branches. Each branch of the tree is the tree. There is no part of the tree that is not the tree. The tree abides in the branch and the branch abides in the tree. The words “tree” and “branch” refer to different aspects of the same thing, and that “one thing” is reality.

Reality abides in me and I abide in reality. Reality is in me and I am in reality. I am reality.

The Resurrection of Christ (Kinnaird Resurrection)

The Resurrection of Christ (Kinnaird Resurrection) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Language isolates different qualities of reality from other qualities. However, language does not isolate one reality from the rest of reality, creating two realities. However, language allows for exclusive communication, since only humans can understand the complex formations of language.

Further, different groups of humans use the coded sounds of language in different ways. Some even use written shapes to represent the formations of spoken language.

Some of the uses of language are so distinct from each other that language divides them in to different dialects and languages and language groups. However, all languages are language just like all branches of a tree are the tree.

So, when an oral tradition is written down, does it gain authority or lose authority? Does the authority of God derive from writing down some words or from the words themselves?

Who has more authority: God, the Prophets of God, or those who translate the words of the Prophets of God? Does a religious tradition gain authority through being translated and then having the translation translated again in to English? If you only comprehend English, then words in English certainly are the most useful kind to you, but if you are clear directly about reality, then will any words about reality confuse you or cause you any anxiety?
If you know from personal experience that sunlight can cause temporary blindness, then does it trouble you if someone does not believe the same or even argues against it? When something is clear to you, there is no argument about with translation is best. You can tell a decent translation from a confused translation, but there is no concern with getting other people to approve of something that is very clear to you, like feeling sad that other people do not explicitly agree with you that sunlight can cause temporary blindness. That would be just a social anxiety, which is quite distinct from the actual reality of blinding sunlight.

Those who have the faith that comes from direct experience cannot be blinded. In contrast, those who insist on particular constructions in language are already blind. They believe in mere words, they repeat mere words, they worship mere words, but they are not clear about the reality to which the words point. Which is more important: the particular words or that to which the words point?

Does reality require language to be real? Does logic even require language to be valid?

Can one make logical deductions silently- even monkeys and dogs and rats use logic to achieve their purposes, like going around barriers, right? Haven’t you ever seen a cat measuring for a jump between one perch and another? That is logic!
So, which language is the most real? Which branch of a tree has exclusive claim to speak for the whole tree?

These are silly questions. However, to share these silly questions may result in a wide variety of reactions. Some may be offended and outraged by these questions. Logic may seem very threatening to fools, so be aware that reality includes both fools and sages.

Sages do not expect everyone to comprehend logic. Sages do not expect everyone to comprehend English or any particular language.

The one who is clear about reality may be very rare. The one who is clear about reality (including the reality of language) may also be very quiet.

If Jesus was God, why did he pray to himself?

If Jesus was God, why did he pray to himself? (Photo credit: Zombie Inc. Wholesale Zombies for Over 25 years)

Those who speak with great anxiety, desperation, and animosity about anything may be quite ashamed of some aspect of reality. However, if there is a purpose for every possibility within reality, then there is a time for calm and a time for anxiety, a time for cooperation and a time for animosity, a time for promoting clarity about language and a time for obscuring the reality of language through institutions of churches, public schools, mass media, and so on.

So, the sage does not crave to disturb those who are easily ashamed (who deny their confusion). The sage does not need their approval and does not get frustrated struggling to make them clear. The sage is simply clear.

English: Icon showing the Resurrection of Jesu...

English: Icon showing the Resurrection of Jesus, at the inner side of the Resurrection Gate to the Red Square, Moscow (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Be selective as to how you share this language. Be cautious in choosing with whom to share it.

For those who fear reality, they may not recognize yet that shame is the fearing of the reality that they are. They may be hesitant to reveal their reality, their authority, their divinity, to explore the logic of language fully.

They may be ashamed of reality. They may be afraid of the revealing of reality. They may resist it and fight against it and condemn it and persecute it. They may struggle with words and logic and reality, even though they are themselves entirely composed of reality.

Those who have contempt for churches do not understand churches. Churches are simply systems for organizing attention, perception, and behavior. Churches identify some doctrines in language and then indoctrinate that language. That is just what they do. Realize the reality of churches.

Churches are not systems for promoting the development of logic and language and intelligence, or might not be. Even university institutions have institutional interests that promote certain kinds of activities and discourage or punish others. If you want the full benefit of introspection, studying scriptures or going to lectures will only be a stage in the process.

Beware of those who display a contempt for any of reality. They may be ashamed. They may be terrified.

Respect them as one possible portion of reality. Withdraw from what is repulsive and focus on what is attractive.

Recognize loud opinions as loud opinions. Recognize quiet wisdom as quiet wisdom. There is a time for being loud and a time for being quiet.


The above is an expansion on this prior post/video:

The word "shlama" (peace) in Aramaic...

The word “shlama” (peace) in Aramaic round (Syriac) and square (Hebrew) script (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Tags: , , , , ,

One Response to “Only one reality?”

  1. John 1:1 | Midkiff Moments Says:

    […]  Λόγος, was a very important concept in Hellenistic culture, as explained by many scholars (like this one). In a very dualistic culture John is laying it out up front that there is no separation between […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: