There Is No "True Nature" Of Reality

[Yimpa]

Truth will set you free, independent of what anyone thinks or feels about it. That is the highest teaching.

[Hyperion]

On 28.8.2026 at 6:55 PM, Yimpa said:

You are playing with yourself.

That's relatively (un)true.

On 29.8.2026 at 4:12 AM, Oppositionless said:

It's consciousness.

That's relatively (un)true.

On 29.8.2026 at 4:40 AM, Leo Gura said:

Infinity is the true nature.

That's relatively (un)true.

On 29.8.2026 at 5:09 AM, VeganAwake said:

Reality isn't concerned with human made concepts like "true nature" or "truth" 

That's relatively (un)true.

On 29.8.2026 at 6:20 AM, oOo said:

The universe does not have a plan for you.

That's relatively (un)true.

On 29.8.2026 at 6:58 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

When someone tells me there is no, I think to myself there is yes.  

That's relatively (un)true.

On 29.8.2026 at 0:11 PM, Breakingthewall said:

What reality ultimately is is limitlessness

That's relatively (un)true.

On 30.8.2026 at 5:40 PM, ElvisN said:

It is possible to find out the true nature of reality.

That's relatively (un)true.

[Ziran]

On 8/28/2026 at 8:46 AM, Hyperion said:

Whatever you say about reality isn't it

Which renders this ^^ false.  

[Breakingthewall]

Reality is what is and that's it. The absolute fact of being in its infinite possibilities. The absolute openess inevitably appearing. Sat chit Ananda, what is and being knows that is and being unlimited it's joy is absolute. 

Right now, exactly right now, the absolute is, and you are that. Just open yourself to this fact, drill your ego until only the unlimited remains. If you don't do life is sad. 

[Hyperion]

19 hours ago, Ziran said:

Which renders this ^^ false.  

Relatively speaking, yes. Which means that relatively speaking, it is also true.

Hence:

On 28.8.2026 at 2:46 PM, Hyperion said:

Whatever you say about reality isn't it - and also it is, but so is the opposite of whatever you are saying.

Fascinating, huh? 

[Ziran]

10 hours ago, Hyperion said:

Relatively speaking, yes. Which means that relatively speaking, it is also true.

I beg to differ.  Which renders it true or not.

10 hours ago, Hyperion said:

Hence:  "Whatever you say about reality isn't it - and also it is, but so is the opposite of whatever you are saying."

Fascinating, huh? 

There are at least a few things that can be said about reality.

"In total, All of reality includes: truth, fiction, and the inconceivable"

It's not true?  Show me?  

[Hyperion]

9 hours ago, Ziran said:

"In total, All of reality includes: truth, fiction, and the inconceivable"

It's not true?  Show me?  

Of course it is true, relatively speaking.

Which means that it's also untrue, relatively speaking.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 05:27 AM by Hyperion

[Ziran]

15 hours ago, Hyperion said:

Of course it is true, relatively speaking.

It's objectively true.  Can you describe any conditions which render the statement untrue?

15 hours ago, Hyperion said:

Which means that it's also untrue, relatively speaking.

Prove it.  Bring a set of conditions where the following statement is untrue?

"In total, All of reality includes: truth, fiction, and the inconceivable"

? Did someone tell you that everything is relative, and you accepted it without testing ?

[Hyperion]

3 hours ago, Ziran said:

It's objectively true.

That's relatively (un)true.

3 hours ago, Ziran said:

Prove it.

The opposite of the statement:

"In total, All of reality includes truth, fiction, and the inconceivable"

...is the statement:

"In total, All of reality does not include truth, fiction, and the inconceivable."

Both of them are expressions of (relative) perspectives that exist in and as part of (absolute) truth/reality (which has no opposite because it is all there is). Therefore, both are relatively true/real.

Q.E.D., motherf***er. 

[Ziran]

55 minutes ago, Hyperion said:

"In total, All of reality includes truth, fiction, and the inconceivable"

...is the statement:

"In total, All of reality does not include truth, fiction, and the inconceivable."

Hmmm.  Let's see?  Maybe so?

The negation of "In total, all of" is "There is not at least one of".
The negation of "include" is "exclude".
The negation of "and" is "not this or that".

To be clear:  IFF the proposition is objectively true, then its negation should be false.

?? Is the negation of the proposition false ??

Not ( In total, All of reality includes truth, fiction, and the inconceivable ) = ...

... "There is not at least one of reality which excludes truth or excludes fiction or excludes the inconceivable."

^^ It's false ^^

There are MANY examples of elements within reality which exclude truth or exclude fiction or exclude the inconceivable.  Because the negation is false, in any possible world, then, the proposition is objectively true.

1 hour ago, Hyperion said:

Both of them are expressions of (relative) perspectives that exist in and as part of (absolute) truth/reality (which has no opposite because it is all there is). Therefore, both are relatively true/real.

This is a proposal, not a reason to beleive.

1 hour ago, Hyperion said:

Q.E.D., motherf***er.

See above?  Is there a fault in my reasoning?

[AerisVahnEphelia]

On 29/08/2026 at 0:30 PM, Mellowmarsh said:

The trick with this kind of knowledge is to recognise the duality of such known concepts.

For example: the claim “there is no” in it’s conception known, demands the opposite must also be true. 
 

Even though “concepts known”  know nothing. And this inconceivable conception is the trickless trick. 

there are no catwomans in the wild

[Hyperion]

20 hours ago, Ziran said:

Because the negation is false, in any possible world, then, the proposition is objectively true.

Yes, this is relatively (un)true.

20 hours ago, Ziran said:

This is a proposal, not a reason to beleive.

Sure, that is relatively (un)true.

20 hours ago, Ziran said:

See above?  Is there a fault in my reasoning?

No, it is relatively (un)true.

[Ziran]

2 minutes ago, Hyperion said:

Yes, this is relatively (un)true.

Sure, that is relatively (un)true.

No, it is relatively (un)true.

Your answers are in English.  English has objective rules of grammar and semantics.  If not, then, you and I would not be able to communicate.  Using those rules, there is an objective correct way to negate a proposition.  It's common to overlook this.  Each english speaker thinks they are experts with the language.  But, most are not.  That's why there are college courses and entire textbooks on the subject.

[Mellowmarsh]

1 hour ago, Ziran said:

Your answers are in English.  English has objective rules of grammar and semantics.  If not, then, you and I would not be able to communicate.  Using those rules, there is an objective correct way to negate a proposition.  It's common to overlook this.  Each english speaker thinks they are experts with the language.  But, most are not.  That's why there are college courses and entire textbooks on the subject.

Then again… the famous saying, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education," highlights the difference between institutional instruction and lifelong personal growth. There really is nothing outside of artificially created human syntax. There really is nothing to talk about except illusions. 
 

[Ziran]

2 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Then again… the famous saying, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education," highlights the difference between institutional instruction and lifelong personal growth. There really is nothing outside of artificially created human syntax. There really is nothing to talk about except illusions. 

Semantics and grammar are objective.   Example:  "Pat is punching Sal" is completely different than "Sal is punching Pat"  Agreed? 

When someone is so married to their own doctrine to the point where they deny  that "UP" has an objective meaning... they're stuck in their own echo-chamber.

[Mellowmarsh]

4 minutes ago, Ziran said:

Semantics and grammar are objective.   Example:  "Pat is punching Sal" is completely different than "Sal is punching Pat"  Agreed? 

When someone is so married to their own doctrine to the point where they deny  that "UP" has an objective meaning... they're stuck in their own echo-chamber.

We’re all stuck in our own echo chamber. There’s nothing known outside of human language. Period. 

[Someone here]

All knowledge must be relative . Had it been absolute, it would be eternal . 

[Hyperion]

4 hours ago, Ziran said:

Your answers are in English.  English has objective rules of grammar and semantics.  If not, then, you and I would not be able to communicate.  Using those rules, there is an objective correct way to negate a proposition.  It's common to overlook this.  Each english speaker thinks they are experts with the language.  But, most are not.  That's why there are college courses and entire textbooks on the subject.

Yes I agree, what you are saying here is relatively (un)true.

🙃

[Hyperion]

To anyone following along who still doesn't get it:

The whole point of this thread is to point out the inherent limitations of language (and of the definitions/perspectives that are being expressed through it).

If you cannot grasp this on a meta-level which transcends language and its lnherent limitations, then I simply cannot help you.

Namaste, bitches.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Hyperion