Français Français Français                               more readable page                     😀?!NO COOKIES!?😇     

General Epistemology        Chapter V-5       


V-5 The meaning of life, the good and the evil


(Permalink) (note 92 on scientistism)

(Permalink) The scientistists are at least correct on one point: the physical world (and also logic, reasoning, etc) offers us no purpose, no meaning of life, no morals, not even the smallest message or direction for use of our existence. Therefore, if such things exist, we have no physical way and no logical way to find them! Thus the psychological consciousness, pure production of the neurons, can not find these things. Hence the regular failure of all the intellectual philosophers without a spiritual approach.

And also the imposture of all the fascist ideologies which deny morals, or base it only on some disgusting examples that nature offers us on Earth: predators, selection, competition, etc.

This situation is not a surprise: If a meaning of life exists, or a morals, etc. then these things make sense only for the consciousness itself. And only the free will, or fortuitous events such as moments of super-awarenesss or NDE, can send the message to the brain. (Well, strictly speaking, the fantastic analysis capabilities of the brain allows it to consider consciousness. But it will still have to «choose the good», and therefore receive information from it)

So the meaning of life, messages, morals, can be known only by the consciousness. Now that we know to hear it (to scientifically observe it), then let us see what it has to say.

Did a Creator God left us some direction?

(Permalink) Many consider that the meaning of life has been defined by God, or that He created the universe with a precise intent. This is why we begin this chapter with Him. Attention, due to numerous accidents, as a security measure, all the dogmas are strictly prohibited in the theology lab.


Many scientists have a Christian culture (or even are Christians). Thus, when scientists reason on God, the image they invoke is the Christian one: a character of human appearance, male, bearded, enjoying a consciousness and intents similar to the Humans, but served by infinite parapsychological powers. He created our physical universe with all of its contents, He knows everything happening in there, and He has full power over our afterlife. Cool, just pity that He sends us to hell before coming saying hello and explain what He expects of us...

However, this conception of God is very far from being the basis of all the religions. Thus many religions are polytheistic, based on karma and reincarnation rather than on any definitive hell. Buddhism distinguishes itself by refusing any Creator God, but it offers to also become Deities, Angels! Taoism, on its side, considers only cosmic forces which must circulate and balance themselves. More modern Western thought currents, from the French Revolution to the New Age, propose more abstract variants of the Christian God, see completely depersonnificate the divine, as with the Force of the Jedi. Animism, at last, considers personification of the forces of nature, that we can intercede for various purposes.

If so, we must certainly not be astonished if what we find while seeking God does not necessarily matches the specific concepts of any given religion, and could even fit into none. Eh yes, the purpose of a scientific thinking is not to comfort us into arbitrary beliefs, but to find the truth, whatever it may be.


For this reason, the «official» word of General Epistemology is rather «Transcendence», in order not to favour any conception among the others. However I may still say «God», to avoid misunderstanding, or where the usual debate says like this.


The metaphysical basis of chapter III-3 make clear that a physical universe can start and exist without external cause, by the simple play of the creative nonsense (the resolution of a paradox by the arbitrary reification of one of the contradictory terms). The reflections of chapter IV-6, more specific to the history of our own physical universe, also recall that we found no clear trace, nor of intentional creation, neither of any intervention aimed at guiding our universe in a specific direction, and even not of any message clearly visible to all the beings. But they also show that such interventions (creations or orientation) can also happen without recognizable traces, and that it would even be the interest of an hypothetical creator to proceed discretely. So that we cannot really conclude about all this.

The principle of economy of hypothesis thus suggest to reason without a Creator. This is anyway what tells the logical self generation theory, where, through the creative paradox, a universe can start without external cause, and especially does not need to be intentionally created. But there is no argument to formally exclude a Creator: we must therefore leave the door open to the idea of a Creator God, or to other hypothesis such as those of the spiritual worlds, the branes (note 73), the control of life by extraterrestrials, etc.

But even the apparent absence of a Creator God does not allow us to conclude that there would be no message, no morals or no meaning of life to discover. For instance, we may need to meet some criteria to find it.


Some scientists tried to find a «message from God», or a «direction of use of the universe», in the constants of physics, or in the images of the Big Bang. That He could put His message here looks very strange to me, because it conditions its decoding to the mastery of high physics, in a powerful economy where people are alienated to strong hierarchies. This is rather a very precise choice of evolution! It is however clear that spiritual evolution implies other choices, not incompatible, but which do not make high physics compulsory, or large hierarchical societies. Clearly, if there is a message, it must be decodable «with the bare hands», for example by a civilization of dolphins, see by a simple titmouse.

Thus, such a message must be found and understood easily, by all kinds of creatures, even without hands, even without intellect. However it is not forbidden that it provides some protections, against those who may misuse it. After all, if there is a God, He necessarily has a specific project, and we can expect what He dislikes that we put obstacles against it, and even that He set up some traps for the bad guies. The simplest is that the decoding is the test. For example, if He wanted to select intelligence, He would use a difficult mathematical coding, as in the movie «Contact». But a merciful God is much more interested in a spiritual coding.


And it is really what we observe:


Practical work: find the meaning of life


(Permalink) To keep in the tone, I express how to find in a poetical way:


The meaning of life is inscribed on the screen of our mind, in the language of the heart. And our eyes automatically come on it, as soon as we stop our inner movie.


And what do we find, then?


In the summer 2008, in my group «Shedrupling» in Second Life, I repeatedly led meditations designed to achieve these conditions. The text was simply «If you take birth again in an entirely new universe, with all the powers that you may wish, starting completely from anew, without any physical or mundane constrain or obligation, but absolutely free to do whatever you want, what would you like to do?» Followed by a few minutes of silence, for each attendee to find his answer.

Attention! Do not read the responses of others before attempting the experiment yourself, because you may be unable to find your own answer. For this reason, I specifically request not to quote the four following points, without this warning!


As a matter of facts, everyone gives a different reply to the question, in as astonishing variety. However, beyond the vocabulary issues, I quickly noticed that the replies can all be sorted in four categories:


(select the text under to be able to read it, ONLY after doing the experiment described above):

1) being a given creature

2) being happy, enjoying

3) exploring, knowing

4) sharing, loving others

(Thanks NOT to quote these four points without the warnings and the description of the experiment, in order not to denature the experience of others)


Certainly there is no transcendental revelations in there: these desires are quite common, even the fourth. But the fact is that these responses were given by people who had no preparation for meditation, and no specific spiritual or political awareness: very ordinary people, who were in Second Life for having fun without thinking, and even some idiots or reactionaries who were criticizing what I was saying before hearing it. I also abstained to include «my» reply, nor even the replies of «recognized» philosophers or masters. The reason is that the raw and spontaneous entries of random ordinary people, without selection or orientation, make a much better quality sample for a scientific data taking.

However, it should be noted that these choices, if they include large categories, are still very specific choices: I never recorded any reply such as «enslaving», «owning», «making suffer» (and even not «being a vampire», as one could expect in Second Life). Even the ridiculous «transmitting one's genes» is totally absent of the actual concerns of people.


Is the fact that people have finally only a rather oriented choice of fundamental desires, an evidence of the existence of an almighty «God», creator of the universe and endowed with parapsychological powers? Some will jump on the «Yes»... but we still need some objectivity: this argument is much too light to demonstrate such an important fact. If God is real, then He hides well his game... So we still cannot conclude on this point, and we are no more advanced than in the previous subchapter.

The purpose of life

(Permalink) Let us therefore consider these innate desires, not caused by a situation, opinion or culture, as intrinsic properties of consciousness (while genetic conditioning, such as the desire for food, sex, etc. are obviously not intrinsic to consciousness: If the food was not necessary, we would not desire it, not to mention reproduction). This means that these desires are properties of this consciousness, independent of its content, independent of our opinions, our projects, our culture, our ideology, independent of our happy or depressed state, and even independent of our race, gender and specie! We already know such intrinsic properties of consciousness, such as seeking pleasure and fleeing pain (probably the oldest), or not to be able of stopping «thinking at something». But that we have specific inclinations to know or do some specific things goes further: we are not empty shells just good at randomly receiving everything which passes by. We are beings who have a purpose. That this purpose appeared naturally with the evolution of life and consciousness, or that it was designed by a Creator before He started our universe, this does not much matter in practice (ethics, society, art, etc. as discussed in the sixth part).

The expression «purpose of life» has been so wasted, that it has become a subject of joke, like the one of the cult leader who says, with bright eyes and an eager smile, that there is a purpose of life at $250, and one at $5000!


So here is this oh so disturbing meaning of life that behaviourism tried so hard to hide, and that the grey politicians and their media clergy are so terrified that we find it out!


The fact is that science has been totally unable to respond to an issue as critical as the purpose of our lives, and even philosophy came to no consensus. Yet can we consider any more important issue than this, both in theory and in practice?

Worse, scientistism, dragging with it science in its madness of considering matter as the only reality, ruled that, since the material world offers no moral directive, neither any general direction to give to our lives, then there would actually be no morals or meaning of life. Yet, this does not prevent the same scientistists from revering all the injustices and atrocities of the animal world, and hold them as high moral inspiration and absolute models for human societies. For example, the xenophobic feudal societies of chimpanzees, with their murderous clan struggles and their hierarchies based on intimidation and manipulation, are presented as the standard for human behaviour. The abominable struggle for survival is presented by number of sadomasochist pseudo-philosophers as a compelling necessity, and by the «sociobiologists» as the first motivation of all human beings! Even the revolutionary greens swallowed without an hesitation the cruel predation as a «wonderful natural balance», to respect at all costs, despite the huge inconsistency with their egalitarian social views

This so-called «absence of morals» is, as everybody understood, an excellent pretext for justifying wild capitalism, its feudal oligarchy and backward inequalities. It does not forbid the same people of presenting their finance, technocracy, nuclear plants, destruction of nature or vivisection as powerful moral commands, that only insane persons would question!

So we can definitively silence all the geneticist cults such as behaviourism: we can certainly scientifically observe that the Darwinian evolution of our genes led them to build structures in the brain which promote their dissemination (sexual desire, family attachment, tribal sense). However this does not mean that individuals have as only conscious intend to transmit these genes: every conscious being is free to choose his purposes in his life, his genes being only a circumstance among thousands of others. In addition, the amoral character of the gene has no argument value against human ethics, no more than the existence of amoral earthquakes is an argument to justify the destruction of towns.

We remember theses scandalous propaganda articles saying that, after «sociobiology», a raped woman resist only in order to «test the genes of her attacker». But is I was a woman facing a rapist, I would instead kick and crush his organs, to be sure that he will not transmit his genetic tare.


This pseudoscientific babble should however not make us forget that, indeed, the laws of matter do offer us no directive, no purpose, no ethics. Even the Darwinian evolution of life seems not particularly focused on beauty, no more than on the elimination of cruelty. The supporters of ugliness may not like it, but the Darwinian evolution created beauty as well as cruelty, just later.

So, if the physical world does offer us no ethical direction, it no more imposes us fascist, morbid or masochistic direction. And the scientistist theory on the lack of moral guidance is just a shady justification, which uses an argument when it suits them, and rejects the same argument two lines later when it disturbs them.


Then, physics is out, as a means to know the purpose of life: quarks, despite their beauty and their charm, offer us no truth.


Out also the masochistic interpretations of the Evolution: Darwin never claimed to be a spiritual master. And certainly not a follower of Sade (note 83). (Darwin, born Christian, eventually lost his faith in front of the injustices of life, but he never became a miscreant).


Out at last animals with fascist or sadistic behaviour: I do not see why we should take them as examples, when we condemn Human fascists or torturers.


So, what remains, then?


Just the little experiment above, that everybody can do.


But is it right to base the very orientation of our lives on a single message perceived in a stealth way into our inner consciousness?


I say yes, because precisely there is NO other.

The scientistist argument of the absence of message into the physical world gets turned against itself: It is this very absence which gives all its legitimacy to the message of the consciousness.


And that, free of any physical, genetic, financial etc. determinants, then we are totally free to consecrate ourselves to the real purposes of consciousness.


I say yes, because we are consciousnesses, and that, in the field of consciousness, it is consciousness which determines what consciousness must do and how. In physics, the boss is matter. In the field of consciousness, it is consciousness who is the boss. And as the consciousness is US, it is US who are the boss. Thus it is perfectly legitimate to listen to the small message, because it is the only one found which applies to the field of consciousness. But it applies here fully and without any restriction.


And yes, we already accepted that 2+2=4, and built a whole science and all the laws with it, also on the sole basis of an experience of consciousness, as much evanescent and «abstract», called «logical reasoning», without any material evidence... but 2+2 can be used to count bucks, so that at least this was retained.


Is it safe to rely on an experiment made by ordinary people?

Why not? What would they have less than us, scientists or thinkers? I say that anybody can do the experiment, as long as they follow well the experimental protocol described above. This protocol is designed, as we understood, to disconnect the social, psychological or neural conditioning, at least for an instant, and allow for the consciousness to speak by itself, with its intrinsic properties. This is why the experiment works regardless of our culture or lack of culture, and it would work even with retarded people, as long as they are still able of understanding what to do. I am much more confident in an result that any humble popular folk can get, rather than in an experiment that only special people could do. And if you don't believe me, you can still make it yourself!


But it is too simple, some would say. Both the method that the result are ridiculously simple, and we would have missed it for so long? Indeed, it is troubling... and I must say that I don't know the answer: ask to those who have not found. Most likely they were thinking at something else, business, strategies, video game, running purposelessly from immediate goal to immediate goal without wondering the meaning of this endless wandering... And, in doing so, mechanically, they never met the condition for finding: to make a vacuum of any prejudice, of any worldly purpose. But I am not alarmed from this contradiction, which is even not the most extravagant: there are many other fantastically simple things which also seem to be above the understanding of a vast majority, for example that we can stop wars simply by stopping to fight, not to build in flooding areas to avoid being flooded, to stop smoking or drinking to be well, not to waste our lifetime to read horoscopes, not to vote for sadomasochist politicians, not to stay stuck on the beach while a tsunami arrives, etc. What however seems much more fair to say, is that many found, more or less, but without realizing the importance of something so simple and so easy to guess, but about which nobody else was speaking. And it is generally useless to try to explain it to those who have not found themselves, and a fortiori to speak of this in public, in a language and a society which are rather not ready for this (sweet euphemism). It is one of the reasons why I specifically asked you to do the experiment before you read the result, so that you can see its value by yourself.


Others will object that it is not the meaning of life that THEY decided for us... oh sorry... they will have to work themselves in their factories and offices, and lock themselves alone into their cities under video monitoring, guaranteed without colours or ingenuity...


Of course, whose who read the result without making the experiment themselves have no authority to speak of it. Same goes for all who will attempt to explain the result after the theory x or y... created from thin air, without any experimental basis!


In summary, we can state that:


The laws of physics are not valid into the domain of consciousness.


The laws of mathematics are not valid in the domain of consciousness.


The laws of biology are irrelevant in the domain of consciousness.


The laws of financials and business are irrelevant in the domain of consciousness (chapter VI-8).


Predators are not our führers.


Competition, predation and struggle for life are appalling things, even with scientific clothes, New Age clothes or green clothes.


Genes are not gods. They are objects. They do not reason. They do not have intents. They do not have purposes. (But the large biology labs have financial interests).


Then, once nabbed all these statements, as peremptory as off topic, then we can say that yes, the purpose of life is to be happy, to know and to love.


And anybody is free to consecrate his life to one or several of these purposes he will choose, applying it as he chooses, using the means he chooses.


And this meaning of life does not cost $5000, and even not $250: it is free.


I offer it for free... What am I saying, it never belonged to me, many others found it well before me, it always has been there, waiting for us, as available as the air that we breathe. You can do and redo the experiment as much as you like, and find something which will motivate you especially.

(Although I would recommend not to do it too often. If we insist, numerous cultural or psychological interference will pollute the result).

The good and the evil

(Permalink) In the view of the above, we can easily complement the specious and truncated reasoning of the scientistists and positivists: certainly, the physical world offers us no ethics. But in this void, consciousness rises alone, and it is totally free to choose its objectives. A thing that it can however do in full authority, and without any possible dispute, since the consequences of its decisions have meaning only for for it.

And the scientistists, positivists and other materialists cannot contradict us: them who took so many effort to show that there is no ethics or purpose of life in the physical world, can no longer protest when they read that only consciousness is offering these things. Thank you so much, sirs, you and your so selective financial support, your action is ultimately useful, event if it was not your intent.


The oldest, and the most fundamental objective of consciousness is to seek pleasure, and more recently happiness.

The above experience shows more sophisticated purposes, which appeared more recently in the evolution.

Thus, we can define in full authority that the Good is what helps these objectives, and the evil is what opposes them.

This is what we shall do further, in Chapter VI-2, where we shall pose the bases of a scientifical ethics (And solve some contradictions not addressed in the present chapter).


To go against these objectives does even not make any sense, as it would be sort of self-destructive denial of what we are.

Then, we may wonder why so many people do it. It is that they are hallucinated by the psychological consciousness, full of ignorance and neurosis (chapter V-12), which make them love and hate things at random. Especially since this psychological consciousness is fundamentally unable to find the good by itself. But only sociopaths (chapter V-13) do the evil knowingly.

After, we can make distinctions between the evil imposed by nature, and the evil that we produce ourselves from our inappropriate psychologies. Technology can, to a certain extent, relieve natural evil. But only spirituality allows us to control our psychology. It also allows us to permanently escape the natural evil, after the death.


(Permalink) There are amounts of highly-oriented definitions of happiness, generally in the style «You will be happy if you do like I command (insert here a random masochist practice or discrimination)». We also hear a lot of very manipulative statements like «your happiness is not the happiness of others» or «you complain about the modern world, but people of the Third World do not have washing machines». However nobody could deny that happiness is a state of satisfaction, regardless of its causes.

Happiness is often described as an emotion. In facts, it is more subtle, since we can be happy without being aware of it (we discover that we were happy when we no longer are). But it is a pleasant state, where we feel positive, positive with others, and full of energy. In addition, it implies the absence of concern in the background, not simply to avoid thinking about these concerns.

In the light of what we found, we can define happiness as a state of fundamental satisfaction of consciousness, when it fulfils one of its purposes: being, loving, knowing, sharing, etc. If it cannot, then the frustration at this level results in a feeling of emptiness, of losing our lives. The effects in the modern world are just too obvious: depression «without apparent cause», feeling bad «without defined motive», boredom without knowing what we want to do, «unexplainable» suicides, etc. These problems occur with everybody equally, including wealthy people with many friends and an interesting work. They are not a disease, but the result of an abnormal society, which denies our consciousnesses.



However the physical world imposes many needs (food, housing, safety, health, etc.) and frustration at this level can also cause a great suffering. But here these suffering has precisely identifiable causes (disease, hunger, fear of losing one's job, aggression, bad government...). Of course, when people are relieved of these problems, they say they are happy. Until they meet the fundamental suffering of not being able to realize their life, and understand that eventually they were happier in their African village without washing machines, but with so warm people...


In my opinion, if these two forms of happiness (or suffering) are fundamentally different, however it is futile to oppose them in practice. To do so is even a manipulation: to buy people with washing machines or superficial gadgets, and make them a grey meaningless life. Or, on the opposite course, escaping from the modern world, while thinking to find happiness in a farm which smells of goat droppings.


So, to protect happiness will be to fulfil all the needs of the person, without distinction or hierarchy, regardless of their physical or spiritual nature: food, health, security, stability, meeting others, information, freedom, activities which have meaning, psychoeducation, spiritual teachings... Speaking clearly, to propose a better society, see an un ideal. This is what we shall do all along the sixth part on society.


A cause of suffering we hear much less about, even though it is truly obvious, is the one we are inflicting to ourselves or to others, because of our neurosis, opinions, attachments or hates, not adequate to the situation. The solution is what I call psycho-education (chapter V-12): the mastery of our neurosis stops this kind of suffering. That so few think at this is one of the unfathomable mysteries of the universe (I found it alone in my teenage, so that I hardly see any excuse for our great media and politicians who «do not know»). However, this approach is not new: it is what proposes Buddhism since 2500 years, and to a lesser extent the other religions or philosophies. It works very well, although «adapting our feelings to the situation» has a huge disadvantage: fatalism. And fatalism is also creator of suffering, when we do not try to solve the problems of the world which can be solved. This was particularly visible in Japan during World War Two, but this sometimes happened in other Buddhist countries.

On the other hand, an approach that could be called revolutionary (as in the 1789 French revolution), or Marxist, is to want to change the world with a social ideal, and especially to eliminate the pervert social structures which create suffering (dictatorships, privileges of the nobility or of the great banks...). This is great in theory, but in practice we are still waiting for the results: communism which recreates a dictatorship, democracy which turns into a dictatorship of the media...

The solution is then clearly a non-duality, or even a synthesis between the two: psychoeducation AND social ideal. Adaptation AND ideal. And if somebody asks for the «political line» of General Epistemology, it is nor revolution neither stability, nor collectivism neither individualism, it IS this non-duality. A revolution without psychoeducation is bound to failure, and personal development without a social ideal only leads back to feudalism.

And if somebody does not understand what is a non-duality, then he needs to study.

This is what should have happened in Tibet, if the Communists had respected Buddhism: making the two work together (social ideal more psychoeducation) would have resulted in a unique almost perfect set, nearby canceling the defects of each of the two. And China would be today the most advanced country, a world leader copied and envied everywhere! Unfortunately, the communists refused to do so, and the loss of Tibet is only a very small share of the total damage for mankind: the biggest missed opportunity of the whole second Millennium.


(Permalink) It is always naive to ask for freedom without specifying freedom of what. We often saw that this leads to the opposite result of expected.

The meaning of life defined above allows for a precise definition of freedom: it is the freedom for consciousness to pursue its fundamental purposes. This definition opens a wide range of activities, from the humble daily life in a flowery glen, to grandiose projects for Mankind.

However this also indicates a number of basis activities, which are not directed toward these fundamental goals, but which are necessary for their accomplishment: food, housing, medicine, communication, etc.

This also points at a number of activities which are harmful to these fundamental goals, and that we therefore need to prohibit.

So this freedom is non-dual (chapter I-3) with a discipline which is required for its own existence.

For this reason, we need a more detailed ethics:

Scientific conclusions

(Permalink) So here we are with a clear and accurate meaning of life, together with strong definitions of good and happiness, upon which to scientifically base the orientation of our personal lives and of our societies. (economics, chapter VI-8, politics, chapter VI-10), beauty (chapter VI-9), ethics (chapter VI-2 and following), and even the future evolution of mankind (chapter VI-16). What we shall do throughout the sixth part on society.


And the meaning of life is nor an arbitrary dogma, neither an «opinion»: this chapter provides a clear and simple demonstration, accessible to all. And this demonstration is scientific, in the sense of the General Epistemology. Well, I admit, General Epistemology is not yet taught at the faculty... but it needs to be known first, before being recognized (2012).

It has to be said by the way, that this meaning of life, even if it is nor an injunction neither a dogma, still engages our responsibility. Our interest is clearly to follow it, and especially to let the others to follow it. I do not know if we go to hell if we do not, but at least we are sure to waste our lives if we do not do what we love the most to do!

And above all, in the absence of any other direction, moral or philosophical, about such fundamental matters, then the human societies, governments, science, politics, religions, all have the duty of being at the service of this meaning of life, and are in heavy fault when they are not, losing all legitimacy. These purposes should be included in the constitutions of the states and of the unions. Anything else is only unfounded blather. Oh, that, I feel that it will be «difficult» to accept, hihihi...


It should be noted that I did not included «my» opinion in the experiment above, preferring to gather the contributions of random people. The purpose of this is to avoid the suspicion of disguising a personal feeling into injunctions engaging everybody, or that I tried to present myself as some Prophet:

The prophets and the religions

(Permalink) Oh, I'm certainly not the first to see the little message. And my contribution is even not original: many others noticed it. But most had to quickly renounce to share it, meeting only misunderstanding or hostility. Today, Internet allows at least to publish it, if not to be read.

Sometimes, those who tried to transmit it were called prophets, and their followers established the religions to perpetuate their message. The least that we can say, is that it not always worked well: unable to put the little message into a can, people often sold the can empty. This is why I propose the method instead, so that everyone can get the message himself, instead of depending on any dealer.

After, when you get the message, it is up to you to enter the game. Yes, you personally who are reading me right now, it is up to you to do the experiment, and see, among the four categories above, what will more specifically give a meaning to your life. And to start to act accordingly, depending on the situation in the world.


Of course, each religion founder interpreted the message according to the concepts and culture where he lived, often bringing his personal prejudices, such as this ridiculous sexism which stains the scriptures of several religions.

This is understandable: If the «prophet» was able to capture a valuable glimpse of the Transcendence, this is usually not the case for his entourage, bound to the ambient prejudices. Thus the message leads to a group of followers only if it does not too radically question these prejudices, or if it enjoys a «niche» immune to repression. Anyway, this message is later castrated of its most life-friendly elements, or maimed from its efficient tools.

Despite this, it is surprising to find that the religions currently present on Earth, if we consider each of them as a different Aristotelian approach of the same transcendent reality (chapter I-9), offer us a very accurate representation of the divine, that only whose who studied enough religions will really understand.

A well known image in China is that of the vinegar tasters, where the founders of the three Chinese religions (Confucius, Buddha, Lao Tzeu) give each their divergent view about the vinegar (the world). However the fact that they taste from the same bowl means that these three views are non-dual, and all essential to a well understood spiritual practice. In a more modern version, they also invite Christ, Muhammad, a Brahmin, a shaman, a Hopi, master Yoda, etc.

Another image that I like is that of a mountain, with climbers teams who start each from a different direction. Each has its method, its different capabilities and disabilities, but they will all have to face the same difficulties, and they will all meet at the same summit (the one transcendent truth).


It is also said that the prophets were «sons of God». But this expression, in the time of the Gospel, had no metaphysical meaning: to be the «son» of someone meant only to manifest respect or obedience to him, as a child to his parents. As it is still said in Arabic language today. Anyway, the concept of «son» has no meaning in the spiritual world: only physical bodies reproduce with sex!

It must be said besides, Islam states that Muhammad would be the last Prophet. We could see there just yet another arbitrary dogma. But it has an interesting practical use: there are already enough religions like this. If we need to create something new, then it is better to build a spiritual science, free of any dogma and of any power. Or, at least, if we have a traditional religion, to deepen its real human sense, beyond the metaphysical beliefs or arbitrary dogma.


For these reasons, I forbid anyone to consider me as a prophet, or any superior being, or to create a religion in my name. I'm just an ordinary human, with the same genes and the same brain than you, and whatever I did in my life, you can do it too. The only thing I would accept is to be regarded as the founder of an exact spiritual science, as defined in this book, beyond belief, dogmas, or divisions.


All what I did is to push the scientific reasoning in an arena where it was not expected. Okay, recognize, it is doing quite well!


Still, the scientific study of the prophets and other saints arises an annoying problem: the miracles, to which we need to find an explanation. We shall see this in chapter V-10. Well, I shall not request you to do a miracle as a practical work, at least not before I did one myself, hihihi

Careful with imagination

(Permalink) Do not expect from the above experiments more than they can give.

Especially, they are not extra-sensory perceptions, divinations, «channeling», mediumship, «divine revelations», etc. We must not see more than the perception of our own consciousness, with its intrinsic qualities, once emptied of any contingent content. Exactly as to empty a glass allows to see the glass itself, but it does not allow to see what is in other glasses.

A «Christian» criticism of medium visions is that they would be caused by evil entities. Without neglecting this possibility, what I saw myself is not much better: naïve ones who take their imaginary visions for extrasensory perceptions, or worse, vulgar crooks or manipulators perfectly able of producing wonderful or very wise stories (at first glance). So this is actually a path paved with booby traps, mines and finger traps.

Another risk is to make oneself hear voices which match our expectations, our beliefs. «Revealed» religious dogma are often in this case, but also the «alien speeches» of the New Age. On the contrary, if a real spiritual entity contacts us, he necessarily has the ability to prove his quality and legitimacy. If he disappears when we request this, it is that his «message» is not so important.

And if someone is interested to go further in the study of mental emptiness, it is better to study a confirmed spiritual path which deals with these things (Buddhism, Zen, Yoga, etc.)







General Epistemology        Chapter V-5       







Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux (Unless indicated otherwise).




As every independant author I need your support to be able to continue to work on this site and allow for a freedom of expression to exist on the net:




Legal and copyright notice.

Modified in 2024

1) Unless indicated otherwise, all the texts, drawings, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programmation, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to do commercial use, or other evil purposes.

2) You can use the expressions marked with a copyright sign ©, to the conditions 2-1) to tell that the author is Richard Trigaux, 2-2) to make a link toward the definition, et 2-3) not to distort the meaning.

3) If this site disappears, you will then be free to make a mirror of it, of the whole or a part, to the conditions of: 3-1) tell that Richard Trigaux is the author, 3-2) only the rights owners can do a benefit, as guaranteed by the laws, but I forbid them to oppose the publication 3-3) do not distort or denigrate the meaning. This point also applies to the media, Artificial Intelligence and crowd-sourcing systems. cliquer pour verifier


Sceau officiel