There are many ways to describe the sight of Heaven. It is beautiful, perhaps, or meaningful. While it is the preferred state, there are times when Heaven is distant. In these times, we learn about what Heaven is and looks like. As Heaven is likely the default state of sentient reality, then from the perspective of being in Heaven, there isn’t anything that is needed to be learned to maintain being in Heaven. However, in a state of distance from Heaven, there is then knowledge of right and wrong, with regard to the idea of an archetypal paradise.
This brings one into a state of needing an answer. The details of the answer aren’t immediately clear, and there is quite a deceiving area of thought surrounding it. However, ultimately, this answer answers the question, “what should I do?” This is ultimately the only question anyone very urgently cares about. Any other questions are relatively non-important, at least with regard to emergency.
More important than what Heaven looks like, is the comfort of knowing one is doing the right thing, all of the time. Heaven could be literally anything, and in this perspective, it may only be a white light, but as long as one is confidently doing what one truly wants to do, then one could not find a greater way to happiness — that is, regardless of what Heaven is, what is truly important to an individual is the choice of what to do.
The question, “what should I do,” is the source and possible resolution of any self-doubt. One can only feel the desperation of being wrong if the person or being is unsure if the person or being was doing the right thing. If one could confidently always do the right thing, then there would be a level of comfort and certainty as a result. There is no other question that truly matters to a person, because the only thing a person can do, is to do something. If a person’s actions are not involved, then there is no way to determine correctness of behavior, from which the issue of self-confidence or doubt arises.
The mind only fidgets in that one way. Otherwise, as there is no urgency regarding any other ideas, there is no panic or looped and hasty patterns of behavior. This fidgeting is the source of true pain.
True pain is the pain one feels if one believes oneself to be the reason (or lack of solution) for a problem, whether it be personal or extra-personal. This is the only possible source of anxiety, as well, and the only any pain that is within the control of an individual.
There is a universal terror of being wrong, and it is inescapable. I believe that logically no one is immune to this terror, regardless of the sophistication of coping mechanisms. Any type of psychological agony can only be effective if the person doubts him or herself. If a person is right, then there is no logical reason the person should feel bad, as there is then no basis for negativity, aside from what is beyond the person’s control. In this way, the soul is saved, and carries the important characteristic of integrity.
Feigning being right is, of course, only a coping mechanism. Many coping mechanisms appear to work quite wonderfully, but enlightenment is a subject regarding the perfection of our understanding, so we will tend towards understanding (otherwise this would be a useless book!).
What we want is to be completely confident that we are doing the right thing. When one gets into the fractured explanations of practical reality, the right thing becomes a topic ill-defined. That’s why much of modern math exists — to write logic as pure math. However, there is a slowness to this, and a missing common intuition to writing only mathematical forms (it does seem easier to use words, then perhaps re-explain using math, later).
Science, as a progression and also as an art, likely can produce an infinite number of permutations of livable realities, so defining things so numerous with as few words as we have or care to learn is impossible.
What is possible, however, is that there is a singular action that the mind does, that forms the basis of all actions that a living being does. Therefore, instead of an infinite number of actions, all organized into a unfathomably complicated puzzle, there is only one action, and there are an infinite number of permutations of that action. Thus, there is singular being that represents the truth of self-expression, and that truth can be mutated into a variety of ways, to produce the perception of reality and the harmony of this variety, which we know as thought.
This possibility is a difficult one to answer, not because the answer is unfamiliar, but because there are so many alternatives to it. For every question that we wonder about the nature of existence, from the perspective of an eternally consistent transcendent ideology, we have a right and wrong option. One can feel each of these, individually, fairly easily, through a kind of common and intuitive sense, but as soon as multiple questions collide, suddenly, the answer is very difficult to discern.
Thus, the answer, to the favorite action of all life and all mankind, is really a process of negating the incorrect answers. Luckily, the understanding of reality is principally finite in nature, and is fairly easy to understand. (The understanding of reality really is accomplished through the negation of the misunderstanding of reality; a person is native to reality and thus to not have an innate understanding of reality would imply that there are actually errors in the world that need to be understood in order to undo the errors.) Once there is an awareness, instead of a combination of blindness and quandary, then the wrong answer is obvious.
After this point, then one may realize that ultimately the only thing that the individual or anyone would ever desire to do was to know not to do this wrong thing — a thing that cannot really be put into words, but is pretty obvious once you know what all of the wrong answers felt like.
As long as there is another question, the truth is still hard to see. Even with almost all of the answers, it is still hard to see. It is quite interesting to me that there is a very pleasant and distinguished change regarding the finishing of the quite tiresome thought process of an adamant desire to know the truth of reality, rather than a much more gradual transition. Regarding the truth of reality, for my entire life, I wanted to know where I am, and I what I was doing in this place. For many, it’s like not being able to see, and it feels difficult. Once one has answered all of the questions regarding the nature of reality, the pieces then fall into place. There is a gap in words, however, regarding a total explanation of all reality, and I’m not sure if it can ever be filled. There is a lot of treacherous territory in explanation, and reality is known in greater detail through experience than explanation. Nonetheless, an understanding of reality is also extremely easy to find, given the right ideas and a good foundation, and that is what I have intended to do with this archive of logic and observation.
Once one knows the wrong answer, I think it is quite pleasant to simply call it, “Satan.” While I do know that there is an artful use of Satan, like funk music, distinguishing where Satan is good, and where Satan is evil, is an impossible task to truly know. Thus, avoiding Satan (or technically avoiding the desire for need than avoiding the aware and intelligent cognitive play of need and resolution) is a more effective and simple way, but the understanding of the evil of Satan can only be known after seeing (and resolving) the entirety of the wrong answer (which comes with finding the right answers).
Therefore, there can be no greater pleasured obtained through pure logic than the one I present to you. It is, literally, unless there is some deep flaw in my logic, exactly what one desires psychologically.
Because of this, and because of the repeated idea that enlightenment can be obtained by anyone, with what the person possesses, then this is the only possible answer that can survive the fluctuation of feelings, person or societal. Because it is the only guaranteed answer, which is possible as the entirety of its reasoning is based on sound logic and is highly resistant to error, then it is, at least ultimately, a true understanding and meaning of enlightenment, and any true answer should, therefore, be a concurrence of this answer.