A review of Can M. Güralp's 'The Unrelative Truth'

From the first page ‘The Unrelative Truth’ by Can M. Güralp demands attention with thought-provoking concepts of religion and interpretation of faith. This is not a sectarian work, but a weighty treatise that freely employs doctrines from the world’s major religions and philosophies in support of the author’s personal view of God and belief in the ‘Ultimate Truth’. The book’s stated philosophical premise rests on the ‘Ideal’ as the first element of a three-tiered structure of religion set forth by William James (1842–1910) in his book Varieties of Religious Experience, but the author offers others. The first element of an Ideal defines the fulfillment of man and the perfection of all things. The next stage is a judgment intended to disclose in the actual world some defect or flaw that separates present life from the Ideal fulfillment. The last stage is power—whether it is knowledge, a person, a divine law, a model for conduct—whose function it is to nullify the distorting effect of the flaw and unite man with the Ideal. The author maintains that ‘Science and religion both claim territory for reliable interpretation and justification—one in the domain of being an object, and the other of being by an object.’ Referring to Richard Dawkins, ‘A book which addresses the “existence of God”—The God Delusion—is a good example of how confused contexts can get in the way of a rational mind, giving rise to justifications for atheism. In essence, while chasing after an invalid premise, the book itself becomes an oxymoron…’ Of course, many readers will seek umbrage with that proposition.

A major proposition by the book is that ‘God owning humanity (us), with equitable unconditional and ceaseless care and love, is “divine Ownership.”’ A person’s ‘soul’ is permanently interlinked with God’s spirit, as the ‘observed’ and the ‘observer’ cannot be separated, enabling one to be liberated by awakening to the Truth of ultimate order. Discussing God’s nature, the author’s position is that God ‘is’, a Truth beyond question. Failure to accept that hypothesis is a failure of faith and will color the reader’s further understanding of the book. Readers will be confronted by the statement that truth must ‘be convincing so that one can agree with it. What one understands by the words “truth” and “true” is dependent on a person’s experiences and personal standing as a conscious individual.’ When the author states that ‘all religious conflict originates because of the absence of knowing God’s True Nature in the proper context’, this ignores history and diminishes the book’s message. Delving deeper into the book takes considerable mental perseverance and courage, as the arguments become more esoteric and convoluted.

Handling a book like ‘The Unrelative Truth’ objectively, especially one expressing a personal religious philosophy, is always difficult, as such a work invariably triggers an involuntary response from the reviewer, and Can M. Güralp has definitely triggered a response from me. For readers who follow one of mankind’s major religions—I am excluding philosophical disciplines such as Confusianism, Taoism and Buddhism that don’t have a basis in any deity—they will find ‘The Unrelative Truth’ a challenging alternative hypothesis for their faith. For those with a belief, but are not adherent practitioners, or those who have developed their own individual philosophy and are willing to question established dogma and allegorical history, this superbly written and researched book will provide ample material for lengthy, and undoubtedly energetic, discourse. Can M. Güralp’s extensive material spanning theological and philosophical writings has enabled him to formulate a personal philosophy on faith and God, but it is a philosophy that I found contradictory, confusing and provocative, which in many respects attests to the success of the author’s intention. Readers prepared to struggle through sometimes complex arguments in order to distill coherent ‘unrelative truths’, will find ample intellectual reward, if not necessarily spiritual peace.

With a book such as The Unrelative Truth, it is not possible to simply write a review and walk away. The book generates far too much material for thought and discussion. Because of that, I have included personal observations and issues for which I feel the author needs to provide additional clarification.

Author’s responses are shown in bold text. and readers can form their own opinion.

Preface & Introduction

When the author states that God is Perfection, he fails to resolve a philosophical dilemma best described by asking: If God exists and is perfect, why would he willfully create imperfect human beings, knowing that giving them free will would enable mankind to explore all facets of behavior not viewed as ‘perfect’ by those in religious authority, who history has shown were and are themselves far from perfect. Suggesting that this is an invalid argument as man does not recognize God’s ‘unrelative’ nature, merely avoids confronting and answering the dilemma.

The problem you state arises from how you “see/acquire/receive” God: an external “He” who is separate from the created is not accepted. Confounded contexts cause the dilemma. In relative contexts we learn by comparing: we judge perfect versus imperfect, good versus bad, etc. In unrelative context there cannot be comparison since no other exists: only the One—OwnSelf. The imperfect in the world (relative existence) can be repaired, “resolved,” by relative means with fidelity to the imperfect nature. Page 127 deals with this question.

Suggesting that this is an invalid argument as man does not recognize God’s ‘unrelative’ nature, merely avoids confronting and answering the dilemma.

The whole book is on this, (Chapter 11) The Ontology of the Truth explains the invalidity of viewing God as an existent “He.” How we miss recognizing God’s true nature is at the root of misguided arguments made (“by religious authority”) while relying on relative mediated (aboutness) truths of existence. The Compass of Ownership tries to show the path to “answering the dilemma.” Human perfection is at “oneness state” to which transcendence carries (Eastern traditions) one who is worthy to experience unrelativity of pure be-ing-ness (detachment).

Stating that, ‘Religiously motivated conflicts in our world are not over God, per se, but over doctrines and ideas about God.’ the author is ignoring history, which points clearly to the fact that almost all religious conflicts were motivated by personal and political power, and religion was merely a convenient vehicle used to rally followers, as the Catholic Church’s pogrom against South American peoples, and more recently, the Taliban and ISIS conflicts, clearly demonstrate.

I can definitely say that if “God” reality is known by all the people in the world in the same way, there would be no personal and political power struggles; this would be the Garden of Eden or “the Kingdom of God” realized. The reason for this is because to know God in this way one had to mature spiritually to the extent they are continually in the right “selfless” region of the Compass where compassion reigns.

‘Chapter 10 argues that oneness of God’s Nature is a priori state of existential affairs that cannot be dismissed nor denied—it is an inerasable given.’ Yes. The author should note that the existence of a God is an assumption (and a wrong one) and a belief promulgated by religious authorities to justify their existence and satisfies an innate human need for psychological/spiritual comfort, and is not a proven fact. They may be doing this but that is not my position. I refute this at the beginning of Chapter 1 the notion of “God’s existence,” and proofs attempted, with historic examples given on page 154. Giving a monotheism God a ‘He’ gender is an example of how mankind has created all gods in man’s image, (exactly: the mind creates idols in place of the Real—the unrelative Selfhood) with all the man’s faults and frailties. One only has to look at Greek, Egyptian, Roman and Hindu mythologies as evidence.

It was interesting to read how the author disposed of the conflict between religion and science, by saying, ‘Science and religion both claim territory for reliable interpretation and justification—one in the domain of being an object, and the other of be-ing by an object.’ Science is not subject to justification (e.g., experiments are justification of the physical, relatively measured, reality), it simply demonstrates verifiable facts, whereas all religions are metaphysical constructs that have no basis in fact (Author disagrees: unrelativity is a fact of human condition in a unique way and in own context; experienced throughout the ages from which revelations flowed), but a contrived ‘Truths’ and opinions. I try to explain how the constructs of the mind are obstacles to attaining the purity of be-ing as one “is.” Opinions are mediated truths (cognitive) suggested about God.

On page 92 SIRDS example needs to be re-looked at closely to realize how context for 2D and 3D are different to the extent that one picture cannot be seen in a different context. 3D is not a “fact” for 2D context until one transcends the “dissonance” of the 2D pattern, then becomes an experienced fact of a three dimensional image. As long as we keep our gaze on the 2D pattern prejudicially to make sense of it analytically, scientifically, we will not attain the 3D image.

Suggesting that the book will explain God’s nature (isness), the author is presenting his personal ‘god vision’, supported by theological writings (which have exoteric/relative and esoteric/unrelative parts), which in turn present their own personal visions to describe God (there is one vision—the unrelative isness for Presence when the vision is of the esoteric), as there is no manifesto from God (those theological writings are the revelations “from God,” e.g., “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” The manifesto from God is through “sonship”(page 138) as Hz. Jesus is the revealing agent) that describes who and what he is (not kosher language–anthropomorphic). Saying that God knows everything (Selfhood of “is” knows OwnSelf without any external dependence; all “is” is within OwnSelf therefore owns and knows all that is owned with perfect inclusion), knows what we are thinking, is all-powerful, are attributes in which mankind has found comfort (per “divine Ownership”) in order to cope with the challenging reality of living.

Chapter 1 – About God’s Existence

The author disposes of the (invalid) question whether God exists by saying (God “is” of Be-ing for Presence), ‘Since the question is out of order, and therefore contextually (existence is not of divine Context) inappropriate, I see such a pursuit as futile…’ By saying this, the author simply accepts the existence of God (Author disagrees. I do not accept such view of God: this is a false premise. I accept the Presence God “is” as a fact of my be-ing with my presence here and now, as it is for you) as a fact, which does not allow for any explorative discussion, as this would invalidate the book’s premise in pursuing the ‘Ideal’.

The Ideal is the cause of existence—pre-essence of all existent. Existence is the temporal aspect of be-ing. Eternal aspect of existence is God. God’ existence implies temporality and not immortality. Relative presence is existence, unrelative Presence is Be-ing: God—version-less Truth. Existence is for infinite versions. God is not dimensional infinite. God “is:” in-finite.

Referring to Richard Dawkins, ‘A book which addresses the “existence of God”—The God Delusion—is a good example of how confused contexts can get in the way of a rational mind, giving rise to justifications for atheism. In essence, while chasing after an invalid premise, the book itself becomes an oxymoron…’ Since Dawkins presents anthropological and scientific arguments that refute the existence of God, and therefore threatens the author’s personal beliefs and raison d’tre for this book, such works must out of necessity be ridiculed and dismissed by the author (Author disagrees). By saying, ‘God neither exists nor does not exist. God is.’ the author himself demonstrates confusion (Author disagrees). The rest of Chapter 1 is a convoluted and confusing attempt to explain God’s existence (Author disagrees: I am attempting to explain the reality that is not of existence; missing the meaning of “isness.” Is this because you do not accept the difference between existence and be-ing?) beyond any possibility of argument. God simply ‘is’ and the reader must accept that at face value (Author disagrees. If one is not convinced what is there to accept. Here your usage of ‘is’ is not the way it is used with God “is.” This is the key missing element in your position causing you to miss the mark. The whole aim of the book is to help and have any person to hit the “mark” by showing and explaining the need to detach from relative cognitive reasoning of what is not relative by nature. On page 29 the source of confusion is expressed. When we carry, in Bacon’s words, “argument or inference” or knowledge from a different “world of experience” then we are in danger of confusion. Dawkins refuses to acknowledge the divine “world of experience” since he has not experienced it (nothing wrong with that) but he calls the message of those who have experienced it “delusional” (this is not acceptable). I say it is the same thing that he does, thinking that (with “scientific” certainty) he knows all “worlds of experience.” The world of esoteric or mystical experience is of the unrelative: the experience of pure be-ing as is the nature of humans (including Dawkins which he cannot acknowledge) as God-is-ness, or simply isness.

I will use the SIRDS example on page 92 again. I do not know if you were able to see the 3D image in Picture1 but, if I have not or cannot see the shark image and turn around to call you delusional even though you can and have seen the shark image then what is going on? Your “world of experience” having seen the 3D shark image is different than mine since I cannot/have not. The expected mature attitude is for me to learn from you the technique to see the hidden image by following your guidance if you offer one. Dawkins says there is no 3D image in Picture 1 and calls you delusional even while you say the shark image is there—as a fact.

The author neatly sidesteps the numerous inconsistencies and errors in the Bible, which arose from centuries of theological ‘correction’, by stating that the scripture should not be taken literally, but interpreted spiritually. However, the author cannot have it both ways. The reason I distinguish between relative and unrelative is to not have it both ways. One of the ways is relative and the other way is unrelative. We must be certain which one we are talking about. Errors are of relative nature: right and wrong (errors) are relative realities. If the Bible was inspired by God, then every word should be ‘Truth’, as many fundamentalists believe, but this is not supported by variations in the gospels. I claim “inspiration” is through the experience of the unrelative realm at oneness state, while its communication and following interpretations belong to the relative realm that are language based, also dependent on time and place. The whole purpose of TUT is to direct our attention to the timeless, placeless Truth and not be distracted by the variances in language that may and have caused discrepancies. If our intention is divinity then we should agree to inquire into the unrelative aspect (and sections) of the Bible or any other holy text. TUT aims to resolve conflicts sourced by relative errors about the unrelative Truth. There are many texts on the fallacy of Bible inerrancy, and the author should look at ‘The Invention of Jesus’ by Peter Cresswell. I am sure there are but our topic is “unrelativity.”

Chapter 2 – Unifying Religious Understanding

The author maintains that, ‘People urgently need to realize how there is unity between all religions and the truths they hold. Unfortunately, most cannot come to terms with such a fact that the solitary Truth, at the core of all religions, can be seen relatively by different people.’ This assertion ignores a fundamental point that haunts all religions, that there is no solitary ‘Truth’. All philosophies and religions have a set of tenets and moral guidelines that can be applied across cultural divides, but they cannot be unified under a banner of nonexistent single truth, as ‘Truth’ was defined by the writers of religious texts from a specific cultural and spiritual background. If there were a single elemental truth, mankind would not have engaged in centuries of religious warfare. The author’s point that people everywhere should accept divergent views about God without incurring the wrath of those who don’t share that view, is laudable, but ignores current human nature.

Well summarized. The “current human nature” is relative and unrelative at the same time. When we ignore the “ur” human condition then we think we are alone with the “r” human condition which while is the source of desired diversity, leads to conflict by subjectivity and self-centricity.

The rise of Shi’ia and Sunni sects, and the schism between Catholic and Protestant movements, have little to do with divergent religious thought, but politics and the struggle for power to dominate and control behavior and thinking of the ignorant populace. With the emergence of modern education and dissemination of accumulated knowledge, it is not surprising that major religions are losing followers as people are no longer prepared to blindly follow religious authority and dogma that has little connection with faith, but hollow ritual. Author agrees.

When the author states, ‘One must be very careful not to fall into a common error by comparing, especially, religions, because comparing causes infidelity to their integral natures, in particular with respect to their relative genealogy.’ this suggests that it is somehow sinful for people to utilize one’s intellect to question, reason and challenge.

I do not like the word “sin” and have not used it in the book. I like Kierkegaard’s usage of “sin” as something that keeps one away from being on the right path. There is nothing wrong in using the intellect in its right proper context (as I am doing it right now). Again the “world of experience” while being utilized in the right context needs to be kept in the foreground. There must be respect for each world of experience of an individual since the uniqueness of that experience with integrity is essential. Same goes for a religion: respect for their history, their accumulated knowledge and ways of expressing that knowledge (relatively). Comparing two religions is comparing their worlds of experience (of culture) which cannot be expected to be the same. Judging one superior over the other is denying their experiences which is infidelity. To understand something objectively does not need comparison but observation with submission to the reality under observation as it is in itself. This is the scientific principle applied for discovering the way something really is, unfortunately from outside.

Comparison starts with a selected (prejudged) reference to match; the mind is very good at this. There can be one world of experience of the unrelative human condition but many different ways of expressing that one world relatively. Comparing this world of experience with any other relative world of experience is infidelity to the nature unrelativity.

Libraries of religious writing exist because man was prepared to question and challenge theological dogma (dogma is manmade hence relative and can be challenged to be corrected), which in turn brings spiritual and moral enlightenment (dogma cannot bring enlightenment, on the contrary freedom from dogma can bring liberation and enlightenment), shunning blind obedience (freedom of the individual is the key for spiritual success). In absence of rational scientific explanation for natural events, people will continue to seek explanation in an all-powerful deity, the supreme cause of everything, as this provides a comforting backdrop against which the rigors of life become bearable. That is why religions thrive in countries whose populace is uneducated, and is failing in Western societies exposed to critical thought. Education brings freedom of thought and courage for self-knowledge/reliance.

Chapter 3 – Owning Spiritually

If by ‘seeing’ God, one’s soul is ‘owned’ by God and his spirit, (your soul is owned unconditionally whether you see/know God or not) which implies that God’s presence is in that person (you are in the Father, and the Father in you), also implies that being owned, the person is incapable of doing wrong (doing wrong is conditional and relative to the disposition of the wrong doer) to himself or others because those acts are contrary to God’s nature. However, since mankind has and continues to perpetrate evil, people do not ‘see’ God and our souls are clearly not owned by God.

People do not see, unfortunately that, they are owned by God as they own God, uninterruptedly. Each act belongs to a relative creature reflecting their understanding of their presence: its meaning, significance and belonging. Anyone ignorant of divine Ownership cannot fully honor life to the extent owned by God hence incompleteness, “evil,” is caused. All souls are owned as their instance of the Spirit God “is.” Our be-ing-ness is of God. Seeing God is seeing in the way all are owned by one source that gives the presence (unrelativity) and a life (relativity).

Chapter 4 – Divine Ownership

‘God owning humanity (us), with equitable unconditional and ceaseless care and love, is “divine Ownership.”‘ This statement is a personal and theological point of view not supported by the Bible (“I am in the Father, and the Father in me” is the support). Read the Old Testament to discern the vindictive and vengeful nature of God. The story of the flood as one example represents many thorny problems for the three major faiths based on the Old Testament. The Bible writers have given God omnipotence and perfection, yet his creations are not perfect, but he is seemingly helpless to do anything about it. God’s solution (according to a writer at that time) is to wipe mankind off the face of the Earth. That is supposed to be an example of God’s ceaseless care and love? (No) Man has freedom to choose, which results in the ability to do harm to self and others, which can be termed ‘evil’. If this is man’s duality, it implies that God’s presence is also a duality (God’s presence is unrelative to the creation where good and evil arise sourced by relativity) of ‘good and evil’. An omnipotent, perfect God must know ‘evil’ to strive and eradicate it from us, which begs the question why would God create man with this duality.

“The wolf shall dwell with the lamb / The leopard lie down with the kid; / The calf, the beast of prey, and the fatling together, / With a little boy to herd them.” Although poetically charming, those sentiments do not reflect reality. Moreover, if God created everything, man and beast, then he gave his creations all the behavioral attributes we see today. Theologians cannot have it both ways. As long as we are not in the proper context there will be the appearance of having it both ways. Staying put on the relative space while making sense of “I am in the Father, and the Father in me” may cause us to think this is gibberish. But it is not when one is in the right context for discourse. What is the reality being spoken by Hz. Jesus in John: 14:11? How is it that X is in Y and simultaneously Y is in X? Is this possible in any worldly context? One can see from the expression that the word “in” is being erased by approaching it from two directions. Unity Equivalence_2 is being spoken by the statement after transcending from Equivalence_1 by nulling the relativity inherent with the “in” word. To suggest that those sentiments are the ‘Truth’ and are something mankind should strive to achieve, is a falsehood.

What is God’s ‘nature’, the reader may well ask. Exodus 3:13–15 expresses God’s own appellation and also nature with “I am (That) I am.” Theologians have given God many attributes that mostly reflect an ideal version of human behavior and moral belief sets, as no one has received a manifesto from God that explains him.

Those who have transcended their relative ego-selves receive knowledge that explains. TUT gives instances of this, one of which is:

Bhagavad Gita is one of the Vedic Upanishads; in Section VII:12, conveys beyond the relativities to inform us of the nature of Selfhood:

“You must know that whatever belongs to the states of sattwa [goodness], rajas [passion] and tamas [darkness], proceeds from [M]e. They are contained in [M]e, but I am not in them.”

The other is, my favorite, by Hz. Jesus: “I am in the Father, and the Father in me.” This is so to the point, a perfect expression of the unrelative nature of God (the Father) inseparable from the created.

Chapter 5 – Faith with Reason

The author maintains that, ‘faith is based on one or more assumptions of truth—while hoping without certitude that something else is true, or will turn out to be true—so that one can gain a new presence, with insight…’ I found this proposition mutually exclusive. If belief is based on assumed truth disseminated by a particular philosophy or religion and a trust in the validity of that truth, why then would a person hope that something else (the unrelativity of divinity) was true, implying that his belief system is not based on truth at all and is not deserving of trust.

This is the basis of science. Always moving to higher orders of discovery on the shoulders of previous work verified to a level dependable for the next (“something else” of) truth. Scientist must have faith in the previous work without reinventing the wheel. What I mean by “something else” is that thing not yet known but will be by working toward it with faith in the process that one relies on.

‘The human intellect, with its cognition as the thinking faculty, is not qualified to visualize or intuit adequately the spiritual unrelative Reality, requiring a shift in a manner away from the usual analytical methodologies.’ This statement begs the premise of ‘Faith with Reason’, because the author’s entire book is an exercise in visualizing (rather, in stressing the direct experience which is named “instanding”) the spiritual unrelative reality. Does the author claim a privileged position where only he is able to fathom and unravel the God Reality? To unravel the utterance “I am in the Father, and the Father in me” by asking “in what context would this make sense” is the “position” I would like any reader to be in. It is not a privilege but the inherited human condition. The author does not promote reason and questioning, but ‘liberated consciousness with choiceless awareness.’ In other words, blind acceptance and submission as a path to heavenly reward.

Author disagrees. I certainly promote reason and questioning to establish self-reliance to see the unrelative aspect of reality by understanding how it would not make sense if we are not in the proper “divine” Context. I am reasoning and pointing to a process each person needs to follow to transcend (“to instand”) for direct knowledge (being given the fish versus learning to fish). In no place in the book do I suggest “blind acceptance.” I list “degrees of openness” in Chapter 7 to explain how in different ways we open ourselves to be convinced for agreement. Submission is shown to be the ultimate degree of openness (not blindness) for knowledge since one has given up their perspective in exchange for to receive with objective, the truth as it really is, as it is in itself, not what somebody says it is. TUT writes:

‘Bertrand Russell approached submission similarly to what I view the role of a scientific mind?set ought to be. He wrote:

“The submission which religion inculcates in action is essentially the same in spirit as that which science teaches in thought; and the ethical neutrality by which its victories have been achieved is the outcome of that submission.”

Missing the point of what the word unrelative stands for is a sign that one cannot desert one’s points of view to that exent—totally—to experience their ontological origin, within.

Dealing with religious fundamentalism which has given rise to warfare in the Middle East and Afghanistan, the author states that, ‘True fundamentalism represents the actual trust in the way toward the Truth, God “is” ‘This affirms fundamentalism, provided that it is viewed from a purely spiritual viewpoint, ignoring the fact that all religious (false fundamentalism) fundamentalism is not a struggle over faith, but an exercise in political and/or personal power. The Truth that God ‘is’ is not a truth, but an assumption of faith, subject to endless interpretation.

The Truth that God “is” is the actuality at the end of a process, through faith in one’s own spiritual nature, beautifully expressed by Hz. Meister Eckhart: “God’s isness is my isness.” On which fundamental are we to base action in freedom if not on our true origin in divine Ownership?

Chapter 6 – Fidelity by Ownership

‘The current treatment of divine Justice does not involve punishment or suggest retribution, or getting even with restitution for “sinful” acts. Divine Justice always “is”—the Good—with positive potential that is not, unfortunately, part of our relativistic time-bound consciousness.’ Regrettably, this supposition is not consistent with Biblical and Quran writing that emphasize punishment and eternal damnation for committed sins and failure to adhere to established dogma (these are the relative aspects that aim to cause conformance through fear). Christian priests revel in pounding the pulpit with a promise of eternal hellfire to those who transgress. That is not a reflection of a loving and caring God. Apparently, they do not appreciate in which context they are speaking from. Their ailment is the Confounded Context Syndrome (page 29).

Chapter 7 – Knowing the Truth

‘The ultimate Truth can never be arrived at through a cognitive effort. In other words unrelativity cannot be acquired through relative means. It can only be achieved by unlearning beliefs, viewpoints and conceptions until one reaches the person reaches the state of initial innocence.’ This concept is difficult to accept as it contradicts the author’s previous position outlined in Chapter 5 – Faith with Reason. It is not certain what is the author’s objective. On page 97 the author wrote: “There is an enormous difference between submitting to an external truth and submitting to a way as a guide to an internal truth.” The faith needs to be in the method that will carry one to the truth. What is being emphasized is the bridge between belief and knowledge (to move beyond the bounds of belief). Faith is the bridge that carries us from the unknowns (in/by belief) to the known, from the unseen to the to-be-seen. To arrive at first hand “internal truth” one needs to rely one’s self (page 96). On one hand it appears that everyone must hold some faith in the divine Truth, yet faith is useless (the author does not say that) without firsthand spiritual knowledge, as faith alone leaves one with a ‘creed that wants to hold your hand while guiding you in the hope that the transcendent will somehow come your way.’ Does this imply that all religious dogma is false, a pale substitute for acquitting direct spiritual knowledge?

Dogma is not necessarily false but can be, while insufficient because it is about God (hence leads to the creation of “[g]od of belief”) and in most instances because of its strict boundaries limits the freedom for directly acquired knowledge of the Reality by instanding. We need to be precise where to place dogma on the spectrum of ways to knowledge (page 114) and use it carefully according to how far it is distant from the unrelative Truth at one end of that spectrum.

The author’s answer to why evil exists in the world, ‘…why, as most of us expect, there should not be “evil” in the world even while God—the Creator—is perfect. Is God not responsible, as the Owner of the cosmos, to create in Own “perfect” image? God’s perfection appears absent in the world since the created realm is relative and therefore incomplete in any context of discussion…’ is founded on a contradiction.

Again, the “contradiction” is a sign of confounded context syndrome. God’s perfection is in own divine Context. Perfection does not belong to the world where individuals are of the multitude, incomplete and separate and excluded from the whole by their relative references. The unrelative realm is oneness, hence complete (in divine Ownership) and beyond comparison (being the only one) and therefore perfect. Our understanding in our world is relative to the self hence imperfect by the act of relative judgment. Our instanding while in the world is unrelative to the individual hence deemed perfect by the act of selfless consciousness of pure Presence of be-ing.

The author accepts that God is perfect, but somehow he has created an imperfect world (is “he” the watchmaker?), the creatures that inhabit it and flawed mankind, and evil exists through man’s confused understanding of ‘relative perfection’.

While writing my comments it occurred to me that humans are the mediated Presence of God. The question of imperfection, with that view, can be reposed as: Where does any defect in this mediation come from? Is “defect” the human way of seeing relatively, of what is already complete, and perfect with own integrity? When we evolve our ways of seeing selflessly, with “choiceless awareness,” will the defects be invisible? I can see expectations creating defect which implies that our vision is constricted for acquiring in perfect openness to receive the unrelative human condition that is also God’s perfection in divine Context. Can human see own reality while instanding the divine Context of unrelativity? Once human sees in that numinous way how will the world’s “imperfections” appear to him/her, having seen oneness of Presence beyond own relative references and expectations?

By stating that God is perfect, ‘What one understands by the words “truth” and “true” is dependent on a person’s experiences and personal standing as a conscious individual.’ Which means that a person can conveniently (subjectively) disregard (own) agreed ‘truth’ if it conflicts with the person’s belief system. Where do we place objectivity? This is exactly what has been happening and continues to happen, demonstrated by ongoing conflict between religions and interpretation of dogma. Where is the author’s convergence of ‘Truth’ supposedly inherent in all religions? Only possible when religion’s founding is seen to be based on one Truth. “The Truth” is unrelative hence cannot vary from person to persion, or from one period to another period, or from one place to another place. If truth is merely an agreed opinion without the necessity of being backed by fact (it is a fact that there is transcendence: what is learned after transcendence is also a fact that is expressed by “I am in the Father, and the Father in me,” and similar utterances throughout human history) there can never be a convergence of belief systems. Truth cannot be relative. There are relative facts in the world (time and space bound) and there is unrelative Fact in Heaven (eternal: timeless and in-finite). It is either a fact, or it is merely an opinion and should be referred to as such. When someone proposes to know God’s nature, he is expressing an opinion (Is “I am in the Father, and the Father in me” an opinion or an expression of the direct experience beyond all mediation by Hz. Jesus’ mind where opinions belong?), not a truth, as no one has presented (see “Perennial Philosophy” by Aldous Huxley for the repeatability and confirmation) verifiable evidence to support such a statement.

I have indicated in Chapter 12 that human is the instrument to verify the fact of transcendence. Science and its instruments by their relative nature are not up to the task of acquiring pure Presence. It is a fact that unrelative Reality needs to be experienced by the human. The evidence of experience is very personal that will come from within and not from outside with/through mediated man made instruments. Spiritual Reality is unmediated in nature hence between the acquirer and the reality there cannot be mediation in order for the evident to claim “God’s isness is my isness.”

Chapter 8 – God of Belief

Saying that, ‘I can state categorically that all religious conflict originates because of the absence of knowing God’s True Nature in the proper context.’ the author is ignoring history and basic human nature.

What are the benefits for humans to know God’s nature in relation to human nature? The claim here is that if people have not matured to a level to know God’s True Nature then they will naturally be inclined to cause conflicts, religious or otherwise. We can witness this with Hz. Jesus: his teachings for the promotion of love and kindness and understanding for one’s neighbors, etc. are his closeness to and appreciation of God. Knowing God’s nature is equivalent to self-knowing that will impact one’s relationship with others, expressed by the book in terms of right kind of ownership. Compass of Ownership is also pointing out how persons can morally and spiritually evolve with respect to selfless consciousness of life around them.

Conflicts arise on the left side of the red line shown on the Compass while the right side of the arrow avoids conflict. On the right side, it is at one o’clock position where unrelativity is acquired. The knowledge of the divine Nature arises at that point on the Compass (in the center of selfless region) where conflict is not a possibility. Based on the kind of our ownerships one exercises in the world we are either closer or not to the oneness state within.

Moreover, saying something ‘categorically’ implies an irrefutable position of fact, whereas the author’s statement is merely a flawed personal point of view. The Reformation in the 16th century was primarily a revolt against papal authority and had little to do with Christian practice. The Schmalkaldic wars, the Thirty Years’ war, the Low Countries war, the English Civil war, the French Wars of Religion, the Irish Confederate wars, conflicts between the Sunni and Shi’ia sects, all of them were primarily struggles for political power wielded under the banner of religious outrage. The author’s proposition greatly diminishes the book’s validity as a serious theological thesis.

“God of belief” is mental idolatry which mistakes the conceptualized God-reality for the true Real. Based on religious conceptions (“dogma”) conflicts are inevitable as well expressed by Plato:

“…look on the sun itself by itself in its own place, and see what it is like, not reflections of it in water or as it appears in some alien setting[?]”

The only valid premise in this chapter is that man is ignorant of God. Everything that might have been written about God and his attributes are merely theological suppositions based on individual views of those who expressed them. The bottom line: no one knows God. From that position, the rest of the chapter merely states that we should simply accept God as a fact and should not bother trying to discern his nature (Author disagrees. Chapter 12 speaks of seeing God to know personally, Chapter 13 speaks of the Way to knowing God). The chapter’s convoluted and confusing ‘relative’ and ‘unrelative’ statements are difficult to fathom, and most readers, I suggest, would not bother wading through them (that would be unfortunate). The basic problem is that the book, across several chapters, constantly returns to the theme of trying to explain God, his nature, and the Ultimate Truth in ‘unrelative’ terms, without settling the issue once and moving on to the next argument. With constant raking over the same point (from different perspectives), I am left confused as to which ‘explanation’ is the ‘truth’! (the unrelative one.) This problem is exacerbated in subsequent chapters with additional arguments about God’s nature, ‘Truth’, be-ing, OwnSelf, unrelative, isness, presence, and other terms.

Chapter 10 – Ontology and the Truth

“God’s isness is my isness.”

This statement underscores the human ontological connectedness with divinity clearly and universally.

Definition: A branch of metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.

Another definition: A set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.

There is no ‘scientific’ definition, or that it is a ‘description of … an entity’.

The author applies the term ‘ontology’ incorrectly, as the definition clearly states that the term is used to ‘study’ the nature of being (that is what the author thinks he was doing, at the deepest level of be-ing as a human). Therefore, there cannot be an automatic ‘human ontological connectedness with divinity’. Applying ‘ontology’ is an attempt to couch the author’s questionable arguments under the banner of accepted academic metaphysical doctrine.

As the author’s ‘arguments’ unfold, they become more esoteric, and it is difficult to follow them and distill the essence of the propositions.

‘For me, as a creature, having lived and died, my personal be-ing of “I am” is without end, since divine Numenon is not relative to me, or to any other person or thing in existence, or that has ever been in existence.’ This proposition is not presenting some verifiable ‘Truth’, but a personal belief/faith and expectation that has no basis in reason, supported only by religious dogma created as an inducement for followers that adherence to established tenets, believers will enjoy eternal life.

‘Spiritually objective discipline can be viewed as “spiritual scientific fidelity,” and that would serve well to counter the subjectivity of the individual mind which, as has been stated, is very prone to biases. Subjectivity surely hinders efforts for uncovering God’s unrelative Reality as the Compass foretells.’

On one hand, the author applauds the scientific method and its achievements, but scorns (highlights) its inability to fathom God. Science provides mankind with verifiable, repeatable ‘facts’ about physical laws and their effects, not agreed truths/opinions. Whereas the study of spirituality is by definition a metaphysical exercise that cannot be reduced to experiment, and is merely an expression of conjecture.

The remaining part of the book takes up previously raised issues and does not present any new ‘enlightenment’. Summarizing, the author is proposing that to reach unity with God, one must abandon self, stop questioning (Author disagrees), and surrender to blind acceptance (Author disagrees: all of the book is about the freedom of the individual (liberation) from dogma and belief) of ‘God is’. (Suggested surrender is to the truth as things are in themselves to “see without seeking,” without bias and prejudice. Detachment in Chapter 12 aims to explain solely to not be blinded by one’s self-centric disposition. Author suggested the Compass as a tool to rid oneself from “blind acceptance.”)

Unfortunately, this is a tired dogma that has plunged mankind into the Dark Ages where the Church, holding temporal and spiritual authority, demanded unquestioning obedience and ignorance from its followers, with those in authority the only ones able to dispense ‘Truth’ and salvation. Failure to adhere to this philosophy was punished by the Inquisition (Author immensely values the teachings of Hz. Meister Eckhart who had faced inquisition). Thankfully, mankind does not live in the Dark Ages any longer, and adherence to flawed dogma is declining, evidenced by a steady fall in Church followers as people question and reason without the threat of the Inquisition hanging over them. I concur with “adherence flawed dogma” by those whose ownerships are in the left side of the Compass, evidenced with the on goings in the Middle East right now.