The Question of God’s Knowability

This world is given to a human through sensations and through sensations alone. However, scientists have agreed to assume that the world which is given to us through sensations – and only through sensations – actually exists. Although it is practically impossible to prove this.

In the same way, it is impossible to prove the existence of dreams. No instrument can directly register a person’s dream. Instruments can only detect various electromagnetic oscillations of the brain. Scientists have discovered that when a sleeping brain emits a strictly defined pattern of electromagnetic oscillations, and if the person is woken up at that very moment, they will say they just had a dream. There is no other way to prove the existence of dreams. Nevertheless, scientists have agreed to recognise that dreams exist and are an objective reality.

That is, for almost everything that is or is not considered objective reality, scientists reach an agreement.

Regarding the existence of God, the global scientific community has agreed to consider Him unknowable and His existence impossible to prove.

However, this is a mistake on the part of scientists. They have not noticed that the method of studying God is identical to the method of studying dreams. There are people called saints. Saints testify that they have experienced communion with God. They say this communion occurs in a particularly deep meditative state. As a rule, the testimonies about God from various saints are similar. The similarity of reports from a large number of saints strongly suggests that they are dealing with the same reality. It is quite easy to distinguish holy people from non‑holy ones using the same electroencephalography. When a holy person enters the required meditative state, their brain begins to emmit waves with a strictly defined pattern – one that can be objectively recorded by a physical instrument. The similarity and repeatability of physical indicators, together with the similarity and repeatability of the meditative experience described by saints, should be interpreted as proof of an objective factor: the existence of God.

There is another scientific proof of God’s existence: the biblical writing Apocalypse. This work was written two thousand years ago, yet it describes events that are unfolding in our time – especially at the beginning of the 21st century. Apocalypse describes current events with remarkable accuracy. Most predictions by various seers suffer from one flaw: excessive metaphoricality. Because of this, nearly all prophetic predictions have no practical value – it is nearly impossible to learn anything in advance from them. Apocalypse, however, differs fundamentally from such predictions. It provides clear answers to key questions:

● Will there be a Third World War?

● Will America perish?

● Will communism triumph throughout the world?

To have such a distant and highly accurate foresight, one must be truly God. That is, the existence of a writing such as Apocalypse, and the real‑world confirmation of everything it predicts, constitutes a real and fully scientific proof of God’s existence. Apocalypse is a real text, and the whole world knows it almost by heart. In this writing, God transmits through John the Theologian information about what will happen on Earth two millennia later. For example, He transmits that a Third World War will occur on Earth. And indeed, at the beginning of the 21st century, a Third World War is unfolding. If there exists a sufficiently accurate real prediction of the events of the Third World War, then there must also exist a source of these accurate predictions. And the source of these real predictions is God. What more real proof of God’s existence could you need?

What is Truth?

If a person does not have a clear enough understanding of what is right and what is wrong. If a person's life is going completely sideways. If a person feels that their life is not worth a single dime. If a person cannot understand what matters in this life and what does not. If a person does not understand what is worth spending energy on and what is not. If a person has a feeling that they are missing something very important in this life. All of this means that the person does not know the "Truth."

One should be able to tell the difference between "philosophical absolute truth," "spiritual absolute Truth," and the "Truth to which a buddha awakens" and after which a buddha receives their title. One should also be able to distinguish between the concept of "Truth" with a capital T and the concept of "truth" with a lowercase t.

Truth with a lowercase t refers to the content of a thought about the essence of the object of knowledge that has moved beyond the status of a hypothesis through verification procedures; it is the alignment of thought and reality as opposed to a misconception (a contradiction between thought and reality). This truth is also called scientific truth. The criterion for scientific truth is practice.

Truth with a lowercase t also refers to a person's statement when it corresponds to reality (honesty as opposed to a lie).

The concept of truth is also used in logic when a given logical statement is free of contradictions.

The concept of absolute truth (with a lowercase t) is used in philosophy. In philosophy, absolute truth is a true statement (philosophical or scientific) whose content requires no questioning or correction. In other words, if a statement can be questioned and subsequently corrected based on any criterion, then this truth is not absolute. Since the complete absence of any questioning or correction of any true statement is impossible (unless the content of that statement is equal to zero), absolute truth does not exist. Based on this, one can conclude that the essence of the original philosophical absolute truth lies in its absence. In Buddhist philosophical schools, this principle is called the principle of emptiness: "truth is emptiness." "Nothing inherently exists." Everything we think about a given phenomenon as an essence is merely our own thoughts that we "extract" from things or phenomena. Yet these thoughts themselves were never inherently present in any things or phenomena to begin with.

_________________

Truth with a capital T is usually understood as spiritual absolute Truth.

The essence of spiritual absolute Truth lies not in the existence of a One God, nor in the structure (or universal interconnectedness) of the Universe, nor in the existence of the afterlife, nor in the existence of the law of karma, but rather in the eradication of worldly desires.

The eradication of worldly desires means the same as freedom from addictions, from samsara, from the fetters of samsara, from suffering, from illusions, from bonds, from karma, and from other similar things; it means the same as the attainment of nirvana, the absence of agitation, the state of the Absolute, and the state of absolute peace. Since the state of nirvana is described as a transparent emptiness in which there is nothing, the principle of emptiness in Buddhist philosophy, "Truth is emptiness," applies to "spiritual absolute Truth" as well.

In essence, then, there is no difference between "spiritual absolute Truth" and the "Truth to which a buddha awakens." They are one and the same. However, it is very important here to understand the difference between two interconnected things that are touched upon. The "Truth to which a buddha awakens" is the state of mahanirvana, the experience of this state, and what remains with a buddha as a result of this experience. All of this is personal experience. Therefore, all of this material cannot be transmitted in a verbal or logical form. Yet, on the other hand, all of this material can, to some extent, be transmitted in a verbal or logical form. It is precisely that part which can be transmitted in a verbal or logical form that is conveyed by the concept of "spiritual absolute Truth." The experience of a buddha is reflected by this concept, but it is not reduced to it in its full completeness.

Experience cannot be transmitted through words. Words can only transmit knowledge. Knowledge and experience are different things. When a teacher in a school explains something to students, they are transmitting knowledge to the students. When the teacher assigns the students a problem, and the students solve this problem, the students acquire experience–the experience of solving this problem. There is no other way to transmit experience. Experience is a thousand times more informative than knowledge. It is for this very reason that it is impossible to verbally transmit knowledge about nirvana or the experience of awakening like ordinary knowledge. The only thing that can be transmitted through words is instructions–instructions on the methods through which practitioners can enter the correct meditative state themselves and experience nirvana, liberation, awakening, or any other required experience. This is why understanding "spiritual absolute Truth" as merely knowledge of the result of a spiritual practice, rather than the result itself, is always a mistake. Because the result of a spiritual practice itself can only be presented in the form of personal experience and in no other way.

This is precisely why preserving authentic Buddhist sutras makes no sense if these sutras are not backed by a real, living system of authentic spiritual practice. This applies to the Pali Canon and to any other scriptures. This is why the authentic Dharma (literally, the Law) can only refer to those sutras that are backed by a real, living system of spiritual practice. "To purify the eye of the Dharma through ten virtuous deeds and three kinds of right actions." This is exactly why the Eightfold Noble Path is not a path of knowledge, but a path of gaining personal experience. And it is no coincidence, and for this very reason, that Gautama said–and his words remain true to this day–that after his departure, the authentic Dharma would exist for only five hundred years. That is exactly what happened. Exactly five hundred years later, Buddhist arhats wrote down the text of the Pali Canon for the first time, claiming that they had supposedly saved the Dharma. Authentic Dharma arises from direct realization, not from reading.

Ontology and affirmation are different things. They are very often confused. In his discourses, Gautama almost always articulated affirmations rather than ontology. The Four Noble Truths are the Four Noble Affirmations.

_________________

Practice, practice, practice! Practice spiritual cultivation. Do it yourself, do it yourself, do it yourself! There is no such thing as someone else's experience. Someone else's experience is not experience. Without one's own real engagement in the spiritual practice that accompanies the Law, this Law ceases to be the Law. Without real practice, the Law (Dharma) becomes nothing more than useless wastepaper, a museum exhibit.

That to which a buddha awakens is mahanirvana. In this sense, the experience of mahanirvana is what is called "spiritual absolute Truth." When, for example, in the movie Little Buddha, the Buddha sits in the lotus position, begins to meditate, and the devil begins to beset him in various ways, this refers exclusively to the inner devil that is inside the Buddha. It is simply imagery. The movie presents an externalized and artistically rendered image of those inner obstacles that arise before the Buddha just prior to his attainment. These are the obstacles that appear before achieving Great Liberation. All of these obstacles have a specific name. They are "worldly desires."

Sometimes one might hear the opinion: "There is no need to look for Truth. Truth is Jesus Christ." However, if an element such as "trust" is used to substantiate what Truth is, then this will be an erroneous substantiation of Truth. The line of reasoning for the correct Truth must not have "trust" as an intermediate link. If the substantiation of the true Truth relies on "trust" as an element of this proof, then such Truth becomes doubtful. This is because it is not suitable for everyone. It is suitable only for those who are in this state of "trust"; it suits only those who believe in this particular instance of alleged Truth.

Sometimes one might hear another opinion: "Truth is love." And yes. And no. It all depends on what is considered love. If the word "love" is understood as the Absolute, then yes: "the primordial unity of us all." If, however, the word "love" is understood as some other kind of love–sensual attachment, the love of Sita and Rama, parental, human, familial, sexual, or something similar–then no. Such love is not the Truth. Such love is not the Truth primarily because it is not eternal. Sooner or later, such love will end, fade away, or disappear. Moreover, in the absence of reciprocity, such love brings rather intense suffering, can lead to psychological trauma, or can even lead to obsession.

Buddhism asserts that all problems stem from ignorance. And ignorance is, first and foremost, not knowing the Truth. There are no people who initially decide to be evil. There is no such person who suddenly thought, "Well, since I was born as Hitler, that means I am on the team of evil. So now I will harm everyone. I will now kill and torture everyone." No. There are no such people. Inherently evil people do not exist. All evil people are merely those who lacked the intelligence to understand that they are evil. And if a person suddenly understands that they are evil, that they are committing a crime, they do not always have the intelligence to understand that their actions will lead them to hell. All of this is elementary human foolishness. How can this be proven? It is proven very simply. Look inside yourself and ask yourself: Have there been instances, specifically for you personally, when you suddenly and for no reason at all started to think to yourself, "I want to be evil. I want to bring people suffering and harm. I am inherently a malicious and evil person"?