Spiritual Awakening: Reality, Distortions, and Enlightenment - #1
Making “stories” fall away
Watch the video or scroll down to read
Reality and Truth
Reality is everything that exists.
Truth, with a capital T, is the representation of Reality in its totality.
It’s nothing magical or mystical. There is only a single truth, because there is only a single reality.
There is no such thing as a “material” reality versus a “spiritual” one. There is only one Reality. Any distinction between a “material” reality and a “spiritual” reality is therefore meaningless. No such distinction exists; it is an arbitrary boundary. If we were to make any distinction at all, it would make more sense to think in terms of the visible versus the invisible.
What is visible versus what is invisible is not a distinction between two objective domains of reality. They are the same reality. The difference is only in perception. The distinction is therefore not objective, but relative to our ability to perceive – dependent on the limits of our senses and on the technological instruments available to us. The visible is what we can perceive, while the invisible is what we cannot perceive (with or without instruments).
Not long ago, even X-rays were invisible to us, simply because no instruments existed that could detect them. It is entirely possible that future technologies may allow us to perceive what we currently label as “spiritual.” In the present, however, the term would remain a misnomer: we would not be dealing with something “spiritual,” but with something that is presently invisible and may one day become visible. Reality itself would remain unchanged; only our capacity to perceive it would have expanded.
A similar mistaken distinction appears in certain doctrines that oppose illusion (maya) to reality or truth (satya), in much the same way that “material” is opposed to “spiritual.” According to these views, illusion is dismissed as non-real, while Reality is reserved exclusively for what is called “truth.” This distinction is no more valid than the one between “material” versus “spiritual.”
There is nothing that can be considered non-real. What is called “illusion” is fully part of Reality. Once again, there cannot be a division between the real and the unreal, because the unreal does not exist; there can only be a distinction based on perception. Maya corresponds to what is visible; satya corresponds to what is invisible. Both are equally part of Reality. “Illusion” is no less real than “truth”—the difference lies only in what can currently be perceived and what cannot.
Even the distinction “illusion” (maya) versus “truth” (satya) is artificial. One metaphor that makes this easy to understand is the following: what we perceive through the lens of the naked eye can be called an “illusion” relative to what we can observe through the lens of a microscope, which would be a more precise representation of “truth” because it is more accurate; it has more details. What appears under the microscope’s lens gives us understanding closer to ultimate Reality than what appears through our eyes. But what is observed is not two different realities. It is simply two different lenses through which we look at the same Reality. The distinction exists only in the instrument of perception.
As with the supposed opposition between “material” versus “spiritual,” the separation between illusion and Reality does not actually exist. It depends entirely on the limits of our perception. Reality is one, encompassing both what is visible today and what remains invisible. Everything is part of Reality-illusion included.
If we insist on using the word “illusion” we must understand it as an approximation of Reality and not as something completely separate from Reality.
Mental Maps
Truth, with a capital T, can be known only in theory, not in practice, because it would require knowing the position and motion of every particle in the universe.
In practice, we can only know our personal “truths,” understood as simplifications of Reality that we call mental maps.
Why do we have to rely on simplified versions? Since we cannot know the position of every particle in the universe and their direction, we have to simplify reality in order to attempt to understand Reality and navigate life.
The problem is that once you start to simplify something, there are many ways to do it and they are all imprecise. Consider a wild party where many things are going on. Some people are kissing their partners, some are kissing strangers, some are intoxicated and doing things, some are sober and doing nothing, some are playing pranks, some are victims of pranks, some are watching various parts of this. There is only one party but everyone who attended will characterize the party differently – It was a great party! It was a terrible party! It was boring! – because everyone experienced different parts of the party, then they assumed the part they experienced is representative of the entire party. In consequence, they extrapolated their partial experience of the party to the entire party, which means they assume the party was a lot simpler (or more “homogenous”) than it actually was.
It is the same for absolute truth. We each carry around not the complete and absolute truth but our personal simplification of Reality.
Each mental map contains information drawn from an individual’s experience and the inferences based on that experience.
Mental maps are encoded using stories we believe.
This gives us a personalized and simplified representation of Reality, which is not Reality.
Problems with Mental Maps
Mental maps can have two problems: a lack of information (the problem of ignorance) and information that does not correspond to Reality (the problem of distortion). The latter are called unfounded stories.
The first problem, ignorance, is a problem of incomplete knowledge or “blank spots” in the narrative.
For example, when someone goes out to find mushrooms, they need to know which ones are poisonous and which are edible – but those mushrooms can look very similar. The ignorance of not knowing which is poisonous and which is edible can kill you: You eat nothing in order to avoid the poisonous one, and you starve to death, or you eat the poisonous ones along with the safe ones and die.
But if you can tell the difference between which mushrooms are poisonous and which are edible, then this discernment will save your life.
The second problem, distortion or unfounded stories, comes from flawed inferences from experiences. For instance, someone might believe that the earth is flat because they see a flat earth. But this does not correspond to reality. To part with this unfounded story, they will need certain experiences that reveal internal contradictions or inconsistencies with reality.
This is not simply a philosophical exercise but it has very practical implications. For example, “bad” mental maps create distortions about our understanding of Reality, which will reduce discernment, which will lead to poor decisions, which will produce pain.
Alternative Approaches and Their Flaws
Many people believe one of the goals of Buddhism is to reach a state of non-attachment. The problem with this approach is that it sets a goal, and a goal inevitably creates an attachment to the goal. Thus, we move from the original attachment to an attachment to the goal of non-attachment.
So, by contrast, in this book, we propose an approach that focuses on the “stories” we tell ourselves rather than focusing on non-attachment. Unlike non-attachment, the dismantling of “stories” is centered on a process: observing our thoughts, identifying the “stories” at work, and dismantling them, and not around setting a goal like non-attachment.
Many people believe the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to attain a kind of “annihilation,” “non-existence,” and so on. These approaches understand that enlightenment is a process of removal rather than addition. However, using words such as “nothingness” risks reification – that is, believing that this “nothingness” is something tangible.
To provide an example regarding reification, that is when a concept gets confused with something tangible, we can use the example of a shadow. A shadow is not something tangible intended as something that positively exists but it is the lack of something, the lack of light. The problem when we reify “shadow” is that we end up believing that it is the presence of something instead of the absence of something.
Some people believe that they have experienced a state of “nothingness” because they have reified “nothingness” as something that can be “achieved”. However if they had really “achieved” “nothingness,” that is if they had “become” “nothingness,” then they couldn’t experience/feel “nothingness” because in order to feel “nothingness” you must be something. If you are nothing you can not feel that you are nothing because in order to feel that you are nothing you must be something. “Nothingness” is not the presence of something but the absence of everything.
The result is that these words become merely a new name for the ego. Rather than removing, we add a story in which we identify ourselves with this “nothing” or this “emptiness.”
Our Approach
In this book, we prefer the term “stories,” and our approach is therefore to remove/dismantle these stories. The distinctive feature of the term “stories,” as opposed to “nothingness” or “emptiness,” and so on, is that the concept of “story” cannot be reified. A “story” is clearly an abstract construct that exists only in the mind and can only be removed. We cannot become a story – no one believes they can – and it is therefore clear that a “story” can only be removed.
By contrast, using terms such as “nothingness” or “emptiness” can create the impression that these are states to be reached or even worse, something to become. This creates the impression that enlightenment consists in gaining something, rather than in removing something. For this reason, the term “story” is far more precise. Other terms are potentially dangerous because they can lead us to add new “stories.”
Unfounded stories eventually reveal internal contradictions or inconsistencies with reality.
Critical thinking and introspection help identify contradictory or inconsistent stories in order to recognize that they are unfounded.
Critical thinking involves questioning the stories you tell yourself to figure out if they make sense or match reality. It prompts you to look for evidence and logic in your stories.
Think of a boat on the water. If the earth were flat, we would see the boat get smaller and smaller as it sails toward the horizon. Eventually it would be so far away that we couldn’t see it at all–it would disappear.
But that is not what we see.
The boat gets smaller, but it also appears to go down into the water. The lower parts slowly disappear. After a while, you see only the mast. After that, even the mast disappears. This is because the earth is curved. This new experience leads us to part with the “flat earth” story.
Enlightenment is not something mystical but is rather about noticing when your “internal” “stories” do not match reality – and having the willingness to abandon the “story”/belief.
This is a well-written text—it clears up many false distinctions and accurately shows that we operate with simplifications rather than reality itself. But it stops exactly at the point where the most important part begins.
You reduce the problem to perception and mental maps, that is, to the quality of representation. But the core issue is not how accurate the map is—it’s that we take the map for reality in the first place. You can have a more precise map and still remain completely dependent on it.
The biggest gap in this framework is the absence of a clearly defined “one who sees.” Reality appears, maps appear, errors appear—but the subject who can recognize all of this and stop operating automatically through these structures is missing. Without that, we are left only with improving narratives, not moving beyond them.
The same applies to “Truth.” Reducing it to the sum of all data about the universe is still thinking in terms of information. That remains at the level of description, just maximally expanded. And yet every piece of information is already an interpretation. What is real does not begin with data—it begins with direct existence, which precedes any model.
You are also right that “illusion” is part of reality. But not because it is a less accurate picture—rather because the very capacity to generate illusion is itself a real process. This is not an optical issue—it is a structural one: a mechanism that overlays what is with what has been learned.
There is also the assumption that “stories” can simply be removed from the mind. In practice, they are not just in the mind—they are embedded in language, relationships, and social structures. That means this is not merely a cognitive operation, but a matter of regaining agency in relation to what shapes us.
In short: this is a strong analysis of how our representations of reality are simplified. But it does not answer the key question—who can see this, and what actually changes when that happens? Without that, we remain at the level of better maps instead of moving beyond the need to rely on them.
And here is the key that resolves these inconsistencies: **the conscious field of existence gives rise to visible manifestations, while visible manifestations do not give rise to the conscious field—they can only affirm it.**
From this perspective, it becomes clear why improving maps is not enough—because maps always belong to the level of manifestations, not to that which makes them possible.
explícitamente los mapas mentales modernos tiene un significado en base a la recopilacion de informacion,considerando que esta data puede ser afirmativa o negativa pero su enfoque en la estructuración del pensamiento, la lógica y el control de las representaciones mentales (phantasiai) se alinea con el uso de herramientas de organización visual para mejorar la claridad mental, gestionar emociones y diferenciar lo que está bajo nuestro control.