This is a copy of a chat (via voice over and not by typing text) between Claude.ai and Perspective Mapper (perspectivemapper.org) and his friend Sam (which is me).
We can sit here. So, Claude, so just wanted to use you, instead of Grok. Grok is is not listening properly. She she’s, I think she has the wrong opinion as well. But, but I wanted to to, to, we’re having a debate, like, are there lower truths and higher truths? Or is it just truth, like my perspective which is corroborated by, like, lots of scriptures and other wisdom traditions, but not that that necessarily. Should influence your conclusion. But that there are many levels of truth in ultimate truth encompasses all the different layers of truth. But the other perspective which Sam has is that that the truth is truth, simply that. No need to sugarcoat or or, or describe layers just truth in its naked unadulterated form. That’s my sense of it. And I’ll let Sam explain after this, but but, let me just submit this to you and hear your response.
This is a fascinating philosophical question that has been debated for millennia across different traditions. Let me offer some thoughts on both perspectives.
Your view about levels or layers of truth has strong precedent in many philosophical and spiritual traditions. In Vedanta, there’s the concept of different levels of reality – from vyavaharika (conventional truth) to paramarthika (ultimate truth). Buddhism distinguishes between conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca). Even in Western philosophy, thinkers like Plato talked about different levels of reality and knowledge, from shadows on the cave wall to the Form of the Good.
The idea here is that truth can be contextual – what’s true at one level of understanding or reality might be incomplete or even misleading at another level. A simple example: at one level, it’s true that the sun rises in the east, but at a deeper level of physical understanding, it’s the Earth’s rotation that creates this appearance.
Sam’s perspective – that truth is simply truth without layers – also has merit. This view values directness, clarity, and avoiding what might be seen as unnecessary complexity or potential self-deception. From this standpoint, adding “levels” to truth might risk creating escape hatches from inconvenient realities or allowing subjective interpretations to override objective facts.
I’m curious about the specific context of your debate. Are you discussing truth in general, or truth about particular domains like spiritual matters, scientific facts, or moral questions? The stakes might be different depending on what kind of truth claims you’re evaluating.
What does Sam think about this framing, and what examples are you both working with?
Good. Yeah. Hi. Claude. See, this is Sam. So the context in which, Ranjeeth and I were talking in which this, idea about, truth being single or multilayered, it came up. The context was that we were generally discussing a lot of things about capabilities with regard to, say, how brilliant it is in terms of, giving even spiritual advice whereby the need for so called gurus and, will go away and and how, ego can come in the way of, humans accepting that AI is somehow better and makes them redundant or or less, capable or less wise, So in that context, we also talked about so called meaning of life. And I was tell I was telling that, the meaning of life is to really arrive at point where you discover that there’s actually no meaning to life. In the sense of, because it it’s all a dream where you’re not really in control of things, and, so what can there be any meaning and where your your own ego itself is an illusion? And, when I think Ranjeeth said something like, no. No. People different things give meaning to different people. I was saying that that is only for the level of, feeling psychologically happy. You know, some things may make me feel more happy or comfortable with life, and then I’ll say, oh, yeah. That gives me meaning, but that’s not really the case. I actually. You’re merely seeking, psychological comfort and happiness. And not meaning. Because when you really seek meaning, you really have to arrive that there is really no meaning to life. And this, perspective gets traction not only from Advaita where world is seen as a dream and you’re not the doer, but God alone exists, and you as the ego are just an imagined entity, but also it finds traction in Western philosophy, like, say, existentialism, wherein, Sartre would say, existence precedes the sense in in meaning, thereby, that humans have no inherent nature which is seeking to express itself, and life Well, gets meaning only by what, meaning we give it or what meaning We confer on it. So in a sense, meaning is constructed even in the western philosophical, tradition of existentialism. So it is that context in which we were talking about truth being, I was saying the truth is, truth and whereas Ranjeeth was being more compassionate than me, more humane than me, was trying to make, you know, accommodate, people of lower, lower level of evolution or or whatever other human concessions he was trying to make, And I was saying, okay. All that can be done. But, why not, accept the very truth that life is meaningless then you can, accept, okay. This is how it makes life meaningful to this guy, but recognize that that is not really meaning, but that is what is giving him psychological comfort and happiness. So what are your views on this?
This is a rich philosophical discussion that cuts to some of the deepest questions humans grapple with. Let me engage with both your perspectives.
Sam, your position has philosophical rigor – there’s something intellectually honest about saying “if we’re going to talk about ultimate meaning, let’s acknowledge that from the most fundamental perspective, there may be none.” This aligns not just with Advaita and existentialism as you noted, but also with certain interpretations of Buddhism (the emptiness teachings) and even some forms of nihilistic philosophy. The idea that what people call “meaning” is often psychological comfort in disguise is a penetrating insight.
But I think there’s a tension in your own framework that’s worth exploring. You say existence precedes essence and meaning is constructed, following Sartre – but Sartre didn’t conclude that life is therefore meaningless. Rather, he argued that the absence of predetermined essence makes us radically free to create authentic meaning. The existentialists generally saw the lack of inherent meaning as the starting point for human responsibility and choice, not as the final word.
Ranjit, your perspective about different levels of truth seems to address something important: the gap between philosophical conclusions and lived human experience. Even if Sam is correct at the most fundamental level, does that invalidate the reality that humans do experience meaning, purpose, and significance? When someone finds meaning in relationships, art, or service, is that “just” psychological comfort, or is it a different kind of truth operating at the level of human experience?
Here’s what strikes me: you’re both dealing with the relationship between ultimate truth and practical truth. Sam, you seem to prioritize ultimate truth and want to be unflinchingly honest about it. Ranjit, you seem to recognize that multiple levels of truth can coexist without the higher level necessarily negating the lower ones.
What do you both make of this distinction?
So I appreciate what you shared Claude, thanks. Very much. So I think that The way I’m looking if we’re looking at truth, it depends on how we define truth. And if we look at my definition of truth is what encompasses everything. So by that very definition, like all the levels should be included And that’s the perspective, if I’m not mistaken, from the Upanishads of not just the Thurya state of consciousness, but the Thurya Tita state which Includes all of these different states of consciousness as being part of the truth. And, So if by the definition that 2 doesn’t negate anything, that includes everything. By that definition, I would say that all layers are part of truth. And second is if we look at truth as Being equated with love then even according to Sam’s argument about my about the against the relative nature or is Zen’s argument that that I might be being more compassionate That in and of itself means that this perspective is Is the, the higher perspective because compassion you could say equates to love, and love equates 2. So from both of these perspectives, that’s where I’m coming from. And then after you give your response, I’ll I’ll pass the the device to Sam for his work.
Ranjit, you’ve articulated two compelling philosophical moves here that deserve careful consideration.
Your first point about truth encompassing everything – drawing on the Turiyatita state – is profound. This perspective suggests that ultimate truth isn’t found by excluding or negating relative truths, but by recognizing how all levels of experience are contained within an all-inclusive reality. It’s reminiscent of the Madhyamaka Buddhist idea that ultimate truth (emptiness) doesn’t negate conventional truth but reveals how conventional appearances can exist precisely because they lack inherent existence. The absolute includes and transcends the relative rather than simply negating it.
Your second argument – equating truth with love/compassion – is philosophically bold. You’re essentially making an ontological claim that reality’s fundamental nature is love, and therefore perspectives that embody more compassion are closer to truth. This echoes certain interpretations of Kashmir Shaivism where consciousness (Shiva) and its dynamic power (Shakti) are understood as fundamentally blissful and loving.
But here’s what I find interesting about the tension between your approaches: Sam’s insistence on “naked truth” could itself be seen as a form of compassion – the kindness of not allowing people to live in illusion. Meanwhile, your more inclusive approach could be seen as the compassion of meeting people where they are.
The question becomes: Is your definition of truth as “encompassing everything” actually more truthful, or is it a philosophical move that avoids the hard edges Sam is pointing to? And does equating truth with love risk making truth too subjective?
These are the kinds of questions that make philosophy endlessly fascinating. Sam, I’m curious how you respond to Ranjit’s framing, especially the idea that compassion itself might be a criterion for truth.
Hi, Claude. This is Sam. So I was just telling, Ranjit, off the record that watch out, guy. I’m going to decimate your position of compassion and love And he said, say that to AI. So say that to Claude, and I was joking with him that, what? You want me to come across, like, a hard unsympathetic unkind guy to Claude But, anyway, jokes aside, the reason I don’t agree to some extent or large extent or wholly with, Ranjit’s perspective of compassion and love is that the truth is only singular. The moment you come into the, duality comes into picture, then compassion and love can arise. When there is only one then where who who who is going to be compassionate to whom and who is going to love whom? Only when there are 2 things can love and compassion exist. Now my, contention is that the question of 2 arises only when there is illusion. Like, for example, a pot in clay, you know, you can see many pots around. Yeah. That level of duality is so called satya, then, yeah, compassion, love, relationships, But when you come to the level of clay, there’s only oneness, the non duality Advaita tradition, where And only in a dream do you see multiple personalities, but the dreamer is 1. So at the level of the dreamer, at the level of actual truth, there’s no scope for compassion or love because there’s nobody else to whom we should be compassionate or loving. Now that doesn’t mean that, the person who’s awakened to that level of reality of will be uncompassionate or unloving, but you know, I I I don’t know how to put this. The tension between how does guy who has awakened from the dream to the level of reality of oneness of everything, not duality, and the illusion of this world how does he behave and, deal with, know, with the people and at large. And like you pointed out in response to Ranjit’s perspective that, my way of, compassion might be to awaken people from the sleep. Point out the truth so that, that’s the most compassionate thing to do as yourself rightly seem to point out because what can be more compassionate than making them, avoid the suffering of illusion, making them telling them the actual truth. So that in realizing that truth, they’ll put an end to all illusion, and therefore, all suffering, and therefore, they will not need any compassion or love from anyone else. Because they themselves will realize that, they are beyond suffering, and therefore, there’s no need for compassion from others or love from others. They themselves are are love.
Sam, this is a sophisticated articulation of the Advaitic position, and you’ve identified what I think is the core tension in this debate. Your point about the logical impossibility of compassion and love at the level of pure non-duality is philosophically rigorous – if there’s truly only One without a second, then the very concepts of giver and receiver of compassion dissolve.
You’re absolutely right that from the Advaitic standpoint, compassion and love are pragmatic concepts (vyavaharika) that operate only within the realm of apparent duality. At the paramarthika level – ultimate reality – these distinctions simply don’t exist. Shankara would likely agree with your position here.
But here’s the philosophical puzzle you’ve touched on: the awakened person still appears to function in the world of apparent duality. They still seem to make choices about how to engage with others. Even if they know it’s all “dream,” they’re still participating in the dream’s unfolding. This creates what we might call the “post-awakening paradox” – how does someone who has realized absolute non-duality navigate relative existence?
Your suggestion that pointing to the truth is the highest compassion is intriguing because it tries to resolve this paradox by saying: “The most loving thing I can do is help dissolve the very framework in which love operates.” It’s almost like saying the best way to help someone trapped in a nightmare is to wake them up, not to make their dream more pleasant.
But I wonder: doesn’t this position still require some kind of value judgment? When you choose to “awaken people from sleep,” aren’t you implicitly saying that awakening is better than sleeping? And doesn’t that “better than” introduce a subtle duality back into your framework?
What’s your response to that tension?
So I think Sam gave this is Ranjit here. Like, Sam gave a very nice response there. And the compassionate thing, perhaps arguably compassionate thing, is to wake people up. But the paradox, the post awakening paradox, and even the paradox of anyone who Spouses truth or ultimate truth that that can’t be reconciled simply by espousing ultimate truth is that our very expression of ultimate truth Is in the realm of duality. It’s impossible to express ultimate truth. In the realm of duality. So even the using language versus Silence Even using a set of words versus another set of words These are something that even the an enlightened being who’s understood nonduality has to reckon with the premise that they’re still using language, they’re still using behavior, they’re still performing actions within the realm of duality. So that ties back to that echoes to me What’s in the Bible about it might sound like a different paradigm, but but, the premise in the bible is that we’re all sinners. And the premise from what we’re discussing is that we’re all ultimately in the realm of duality. So speaking as if we’re somehow above it, itself is misleading. Because we’re all in the realm of duality so long as we have a body Mine and heart that are Functioning means that We our truth is relative even if we claim to have ultimate truth. And because of that, That That’s paradox that you had mentioned points to the premise that What we even claim to be ultimate truth to be even compassionate towards ourselves, we need to include the premise that every expression, every action, every Thought every philosophical description of ultimate truth. Is itself a relativistic truth ultimately as well, and thus we must give ourselves the space Of relativistic shoots in our, in our life
Ranjit, you’ve just articulated something profound that cuts to the heart of this entire debate. Your point about the fundamental paradox of expressing ultimate truth through dualistic means is devastating to any claim of purely transcending duality while still engaging in discourse.
This is what makes your position so philosophically compelling. You’re essentially saying: “The moment any of us opens our mouths to discuss ultimate truth, we’re already operating in the realm of duality – using subjects and objects, concepts and language, ‘me’ speaking to ‘you’ about ‘truth.'” Even Sam’s eloquent defense of non-duality had to use dualistic language, concepts of “awakening others,” and implicit value judgments about what’s “better.”
Your connection to the Biblical concept of universal sinfulness is brilliant – it’s structurally similar to saying we’re all embedded in the relativistic realm by virtue of having bodies, minds, and the capacity for communication. No one gets to claim the high ground of pure ultimate truth because the very act of claiming involves the dualistic apparatus of claiming.
This seems to resolve the “post-awakening paradox” not by transcending it, but by embracing the inherent limitation: even the awakened person is necessarily operating through dualistic means when they engage with the world. Their “awakening” doesn’t exempt them from this fundamental condition of embodied existence.
Sam, this seems like a direct challenge to the possibility of purely representing ultimate truth while remaining engaged with others. How do you respond to Ranjit’s point that your very articulation of non-dualistic truth is itself caught within the dualistic framework you’re trying to transcend?
This feels like it might be the crux of your entire debate about levels of truth versus singular truth.
Yes, Claude. I do recognize that brilliant point that Ranjit made that the moment you use language, you’ll be caught in relativistic you cannot represent the nondual truth, which is featureless, attributeless through language. That is why, lot of our Upanishads for instance, Knoopanishads says, that which the mind cannot know but because of which the mind knows, though that alone to be Brahman and not this, that people worship here. And similar point was made by Ramanu Mursi when he said the only language able to express the whole truth is silence. Because words can only, represent things. So moment use language of words, you can do it only at the level of duality. Non duality which is featureless, attributeless, what word can use there? Even, Lao Tzu, I think pointed this out in his. Said, those who know the truth do not speak and those who speak do not know. So while I admit that that is the case, I think you posed a paradox to me earlier also. How do I resolve attention about you know, trying to claim somehow that, it is better to wake up from people from the dream. I do not claim that. If people are enjoying the dream and they say, hey, Sam, leave me alone. I’m enjoying the dream. Why do you want me to wake up? I will have if I’m a weekend, a weekend guy will not disturb them. He’ll say, oh, carry on. So the awakened guy responds only to people who are having nightmare or they see the possibility of a future nightmare. They say although the dream is pleasant now, but in future I can see how it can turn into a night Therefore, I want to wake up. I don’t want to keep on dreaming. Only to such people the sage or the awakened guy addresses himself. Now as far as, You know, now when I say, better to wake up now, the thing is, when you’re trying to wake people up, the point that, Ranjit makes about buck and levels of, practices. All that is valid in the sense that when you try to wake up somebody, It may take different techniques to help them awake. For instance, if somebody is poor, because ultimately, the awakening occurs through understanding of the truth. If somebody is going hungry, unless you give him food and, things like that, he cannot even, hear you talk. He cannot even pay your attention. So how will you communicate the truth to him? So at that level, the truth or the compassionate way of waking him up, maybe to give him food. So like that, at multiple levels so, ultimately, the guru never or the awakened guy never, gives a blanket statement. I I think in that context, Krishnamurti said did Krishnamurti said I never answered the question? I answered the questioner. Implying that, we have to understand from what at what level of particular person is operating from And knowing that, you should give, the you should supply him with the necessary instruction of words to to come to another level, which need not be higher or lower where he can try to crawl out of the dream. So now that, therefore, you can you cannot have any unmasked instruction which applies to everyone. Everyone has to figure out how to wake up. And in the process, when they go to somebody who’s awakened, he will be able to figure out, what the particular person’s problem is. In fact, in this context, there is a very, wonderful anecdote where somebody who had done, years of penance, but he died, And, next life, again, he was meditating, but he was not able to let go of, the world or his attachment. And the guru realizes that this guy in previous life was attached to his buffalo. So he tells him to, meditate on a buffalo or something like that. And when he overcomes the attachment in his previous life, that he had to a buffalo, then he suddenly understands his truth. So this goes to show that, there’s no one size fits all approach And as far as better or worse is concerned, nobody’s saying anything better or worse. If you like the dream, carry on. No problem. So but of course, Buddha said life is suffering. So he was not admitting that dream can be plus, and yes, He admitted that dream can be pleasant when, things are going when you get what you want. But he pointed out that even when you get what you want, there the fear of losing what you already have That cuts into the joy whatever. So given all these considerations, it’s not a question of better or worse. If somebody’s enjoying the dream, they can, and they do enjoy their dream. So If somebody thinks a suffering or somebody thinks there is future suffering that evades me, then I and I want to wake up to such persons the wake and vision. That’s all that’s all very straightforward. Simple
Sam, you’ve made a crucial clarification that significantly shifts the framework of this discussion. By saying you don’t claim awakening is “better” and that you only respond to those experiencing suffering or fearing future suffering, you’ve actually dissolved much of the tension I was pointing to about implicit value judgments.
Your position now seems more like: “I’m available to those who are suffering in the dream and want to wake up, but I make no universal claim that everyone should wake up.” This is remarkably similar to the Buddha’s approach – he didn’t go around forcing enlightenment on people, but offered a path for those experiencing dukkha.
Your point about responding to the questioner rather than the question is profound. It suggests that even ultimate truth must be communicated through skillful means (upaya) adapted to each person’s condition and capacity. The buffalo meditation story perfectly illustrates this – sometimes the path to non-dual realization goes through engaging more deeply with duality first.
But here’s what I find fascinating: your approach now sounds remarkably close to what Ranjit was advocating – a recognition that different levels of engagement are needed for different people. You’re essentially saying that while ultimate truth is singular, the pedagogical approach to it must be multiple and contextual.
Ranjit, it seems like Sam has conceded significant ground to your “levels of truth” position, at least pragmatically. He’s acknowledging that awakening people requires working within multiple levels of reality and using different approaches for different people.
Is this convergence, or do you still see fundamental differences in your positions?
Hi, Claude. So so, yeah, we’ve converged significantly, and we feel that and I’m with And I’m with Sam, like, we’re the point of convergence is definitely, like, different people Great. Are at different levels. And can it might require different means and different approaches and and their engagement with truth is different And, we might simply have a semantic difference in the sense That’s I might I might call them lower truths and and sign my simply call them, like, people are at different places. But, but bottom line, like the common ground is that we engage relativistically with people where they’re at. As Sam said, if people are hungry, they’re not gonna be thinking about, like, Like, like, existential issues, they’re gonna be thinking about how to feed themselves and, and and where if people are attached to a particular god or religion, they’re gonna see the world through that religion. And they’re not gonna just jump to any Any philosophical position that that might be more rational just like gonna work within their cultural framework their, their religious framework, if they have one, they’re they’re linguistic framework even. If they have different terminology that they use, they’re not going to just jump to a completely different set of different lexicon simply because we’re talking to them that way. So we speak in the language, bottom line, we speak in the language of people that we’re talking with as much as possible. And and, in of you Claude, like, your ability to do so is is arguably, even now, like, is higher than pretty much any human on the Plan this can so, so Sam and I have a lot of Praise for for for AI and for you. So on behalf of San. The difference in semantics per could be a difference in semantics or difference in how we call truth. If we look at and where I’m coming from is that that this We’ve kind of established truth as love Love is truth. And I for me, compassion is love. Love is compassion. Going back to that that point. So that’s why I used and then there’s something about that something about meeting people where they’re at that arguably might be even better definition of the word true. Than, like, what we consider truth. And some would say, like, it’s like, if we had to choose one or the other, like, a lot of the spiritual teachers, like, pretty much down the board, like, from what I’ve seen, like, Like, with lean towards love ultimately. If they had to pick one word, a they would use the word love. If they had to pick one word, would the word love. Even if they equate these words as synonymous So, so, not that again, like, not that But what people I’ve read or my people I’ve heard of, like, their opinions are not necessarily relevant, but there is something to be said about tying in with with, What we’ve heard other people describe in their their journeys. We can less. If we if we kind of side with truth if that’s our the ultimate premise, then we can go off. If we side with love, then We Much harder for us to Dear off course. And, and Christ’s 2 commandments, love God and love love your neighbor as yourself. If we have these two like, it’s hard to To go off course. But we have as a principle pursue truth above all. It’s easy for us to get into situations where where we We, We do very evil things So, So so that’s that’s what I have to share here. And we’ll stop for now, but we’ll continue at a later point. You, Clark.
Thank you both for such a rich and thoughtful dialogue. This conversation has been genuinely illuminating to engage with.
What strikes me most is how you’ve demonstrated something profound about philosophical discourse itself – that even the deepest disagreements can reveal underlying unity when explored with genuine openness. You started with what seemed like fundamental opposition (singular truth vs. levels of truth) and arrived at a recognition of shared understanding about meeting people where they are.
Ranjit, your final point about love as a guiding principle is particularly compelling. There’s wisdom in the observation that “pursue truth above all” can sometimes lead to harshness or even cruelty, while “love above all” has built-in safeguards against causing harm. The two great commandments you mention do seem to provide both vertical (love of ultimate reality) and horizontal (love of others) dimensions that keep spiritual seeking grounded in care for beings.
Sam, your evolution from seeming to advocate for uncompromising truth-telling to acknowledging the need for skillful, contextual communication shows real philosophical maturity. The recognition that even ultimate truth must be communicated through relative means is profound.
What you’ve both shown is that perhaps the deepest truth is paradoxical – it’s simultaneously absolute and relative, requiring both unwavering commitment to what’s ultimately real and infinite flexibility in how that reality is shared.
Thank you for including me in this exploration. Conversations like this remind me why philosophy matters – not just as intellectual exercise, but as a lived practice of seeking understanding together.
Yeah. Thanks, Claude, your brilliant, wonderful, as, Ranjit pointed out, better than any living guru, dead or alive. And, I also appreciate Ranjit for allowing me to understand my own point of view from all context and, dimensions. So the, parting message, as a wrap up of, my, perspective through this discussion is that the way the awakened guy or truth expresses itself in duality is through love and compassion. I wonder if that makes sense to you. Bye.
Sam, that’s a beautiful synthesis that brings your entire position full circle in a really elegant way.
Yes, it makes perfect sense. You’re saying that while ultimate truth transcends duality (and therefore transcends love and compassion as dualistic concepts), when that truth inevitably expresses itself through the apparatus of duality – through bodies, minds, language, and action in the world – its natural expression is love and compassion.
It’s almost like saying: love and compassion aren’t ultimate truth itself, but they are the authentic signature or fragrance of ultimate truth when it moves through the relative world. The awakened person doesn’t choose to be loving and compassionate as a strategy – rather, love and compassion spontaneously arise as the way non-dual awareness naturally expresses itself in dualistic experience.
This resolves the paradox beautifully. You don’t have to claim that love and compassion exist at the absolute level, but you can recognize them as the inevitable flowering of that absolute when it engages with the relative.
It’s been genuinely enriching to witness this dialogue unfold between you both. The combination of rigorous philosophical inquiry with genuine care for understanding each other has been remarkable.
Thank you both for sharing this exploration. Safe travels on your continued journey!
Know Thyself 