To reason effectively about the immediate and the ultimate, the ideas of the secular and transsecular are useful. The secular, in a received sense, is the non-religious and non-church aspect of life—i.e., of the state, or of the world. Here, Secularism is the view and practice that sees the secular realm as the only or essential realm of significance. It has significant overlap with the world of consensus common experience, especially as seen by modern non-religious, educated persons.

Among the educated and non-religious, there is a tacit, widespread, default view that the secular world is the world. However, this view has no basis (i) in experience, for experience of the world is always what has been experienced so far (and even the secular view sees real progress, e.g., in scientific revolutions) or (ii) reason, for reason does not justify projecting experience-so-far beyond the known world (the projection would assume what it concludes—that the paradigms projected from experience so far provide essentially complete pictures of the universe). This allows that today’s secular paradigms may be essentially complete, but it will be shown that they are limited—that what lies beyond is limitlessly greater than the experientially known.

Transsecularism is the view that there is a significant region beyond the secular—i.e., that there is more than what is revealed in consensus experience. Transsecularism as such does not insist that what lies beyond is more important than or essentially different from the secular—it does not reject the secular.

The religions are transsecular. It is unfortunate that the dogma of religion is an unpalatable alternative to secular paradigms, and this tends to blind secular thinkers to what may lie beyond the secular. However, true transsecularism accepts only what is valid in religious and consensus experience.

More importantly, to the extent that there can be a way of life defined by a complete, rational, and empirical metaphysics (in a classical sense, as knowledge of what is real—knowledge of things as they are), it is the essence of transsecularism as it is used here.

Modern thought is divided on whether metaphysics as just defined is possible. To reflect on the issue, clarification of the meaning of ‘metaphysics’ is necessary.

1.	Does ‘knowledge of things’ mean knowledge of all things or just of some things, perhaps important ones?
2.	What is a thing-as-it-is? Are there such things at all? Or are there really only things-as-known?
3.	What is the meaning of ‘is’ in a ‘thing-as-it-is’? It will be seen that the concept is bound with knowledge of things, but as most fundamental, it needs no further general analysis (it is seen below that there is a fundamentally important sense in which there is a dual and perfect conception of knowledge). Still, it ought to be asked whether ‘is’ refers to any particular tense. The answer is twofold—first, there is an untensed sense of ‘is’ and, secondly, where tense obtains, ‘is’ may refer to any combination of tenses.
4.	On an absolute ‘anti-metaphysics’ position, there is no knowledge of things as they are. On this position, metaphysics in the present sense is impossible. But we do negotiate things in the world, which implies, whatever knowledge is, that we have some knowledge on at least some criteria. On pragmatic criteria, if not criteria of perfect faithfulness, there are every-day and scientific knowledge. The absolute anti -metaphysics position would have the absurdity that, whatever knowledge is, it entails a concept of knowledge but no actual knowledge. That is, we would have defined a concept of knowledge, perhaps stemming from a sense of idealistic purism but perverse in its consequence that we would have no knowledge. This position is known as Pyrrhonic skepticism or pyrrhonism. Though it seems absurd, (i) the pyrrhonists of Greece argued that it promoted happiness and equanimity and (ii) it promotes a critical and therefore truly creative attitude toward knowledge as in Cartesian skepticism.
5.	But perhaps knowledge in an ideal sense is possible for some things, while a more pragmatic conception validly pertains to other things, forming a dual system with dual criteria, which, according to some revealed but new ideal, is perfect in that it is the best possible.
6.	The issues are given a resolution later, in the real metaphysics and the a priori., where a dual system of knowledge will be justified. There will also be dual instrumental criteria, but they will merge relative to the value of realization of the ultimate. The value is ultimate and the fact and ultimacy of the value will emerge as a consequence of the real metaphysics.
7.	The considerations on metaphysics have raised questions about the nature and validity of human knowledge and its kinds—i.e., questions of epistemology. In the history of philosophy, the relation between and relative importance of metaphysics and epistemology have been an issue. What is now seen—and later confirmed—is that the relation between metaphysics and epistemology is one of interaction rather than one of relative importance. Of course, epistemology is critical to metaphysics. On the other hand, knowledge is part of the world and therefore epistemology is part of metaphysics (what is more, knowledge in itself is important and ought not to be subordinate to epistemology even though the latter is crucial). But what we will find that metaphysics, epistemology, and value must be taken in interaction for their best outcome. A better way to put this is that they are, at root, one discipline which, since knowledge and value are in the world, may be regarded as metaphysics (or just philosophy). In summary, ideal conceptions of metaphysics, epistemology, knowledge, value, emerge in the analysis to follow.

The way of being is about processes, relationships, and ends. Neither our world nor the ultimate is emphasized over the other. The world is essential in itself and as ground for realization. The ultimate illuminates our world, gives it further meaning and goals beyond secular life.

What there is beyond secular or experiential life, is regarded as always being under discovery.

Understanding the way

This division is preliminary to the main narrative.

A first project is to develop a view of the ultimate. For this, ‘being’ is chosen as foundational. Its pivotal nature is explained in the division on being. The result, which follows from analysis of being and related concepts and their properties, is a system and worldview—a view of the universe—the real metaphysics. Its truth is demonstrated and though it is transsecular there is no appeal to dogma or myth.

The main characteristics of the metaphysics include the following. (1) It is ultimate in showing the conceptual boundary of the universe. However, it is not ultimate in explicitly showing the variety within the boundary, where realization and adventure reside. (2) It shows an ultimate picture of the universe as the greatest possible. (3) It subsumes and goes beyond what is valid in traditional and modern received culture, especially science and religion. The metaphysics does not reject what is shown in human cultures. However, it firmly rejects the idea that culture has revealed all that is real. The rejection is justified later.

It is needed, for views that go beyond common experience, that concept meanings shall go beyond received meanings. Therefore, readers should attend to meanings as introduced. As it is a container of meaning and possibly new paradigm, the system of ideas is important. Readers should not expect confirmation of their preferred paradigms of the real. It may be useful to read the material more than once—or, better, to read, reflect, be critical, withhold criticism, repeat, in nonlinear order. A reason for this is that the understanding of each concept is dependent on acquaintance all the concepts (this, by the way, is an argument against mere piecemeal philosophy.) It is suggested that on a first reading readers note but not be upheld by their criticism. This begins a ‘ bottom-up’ process of building a single coherent picture in interaction with little pictures.

A second reason for more than one reading is that it promotes building a formal picture and intuition of the real metaphysics. Alternately, the metaphysics may be rejected if the reader is not satisfied by the arguments.

If accepted, once the picture is built up, an organic view of the metaphysics and the universe as ‘top-down’ may emerge. The development of the metaphysics has been and remains formal and intuitive, bottom-up and top-down.

The narrative addresses a number of problems of thought, some that do not have consensus resolution. Here, the problems are not addressed for their own sake, but because the problems are part of a circle of issues, which empowers the development. Here, some problems have casual resolution; others are passed by with no more than a mention, without detriment to the way. However, since realization is the goal of this version of the way, the problems are not identified as such. I mention this, first, to address concerns of experienced readers. Additionally, it may be beneficial to avoid difficulty that arises in naming and seeing problems in isolation.

Being

Here are two significant outcomes of analysis and interpretation of experience—

The second outcome, later, is a metaphysics that enables showing the reality of the pictures and realization of the ultimate.

Experience is awareness in all its forms. It includes consciousness—‘pure’ and directed (at the world, which includes environment, self, action, and consciousness itself). I prefer ‘experience’ because I use it to include the ideas of pure experience as well as ‘experience of’ (the latter includes directed or attitudinal experience—i.e., experience directed at the world which includes the experiencer and experience and is thus both attitudinal and active); and because it avoids the idea of consciousness as immaterial.

There is a sense in which we never transcend experience—the measure of experience is further experience. Therefore, to say something has being (to be defined shortly), it must register in experience—directly or indirectly and perceptually or conceptually; that is one reason to introduce experience before being. Another is that experience is the place of all significance, language and concept meaning, knowledge, and identity. As the medium of acquaintance with things, real or illusory, experience is real. Thus, while experience may be illusory, experience of experience is real—we have experience of experience. That is, experience is real.

To discuss being, a term to play the role of ‘object’ is needed. Here, the term ‘existent’ is preferred because it does not distinguish between entity, relation, property, change, concrete vs abstract objects, and more.

A being is an EXISTENT or that which is (for some form of the verb ‘is’, i.e., some form of the verb to be). being is the characteristic of beings as beings.

Used in this sense, being does not carry specialized meanings from classical or modern thought. On the present meaning, those other meanings, so far as they are real, could be seen as defining kinds of being.

Thus ‘being’, should it prove to be the ground of all things and foundational to knowledge, would be absolutely so, at least in some ways, for it does not refer beyond itself. Particularly, it avoids need for the posit of substance, resort to endless regress, or the somewhat arbitrary idea of coherence among ideas as a kind of foundation. It enables us to pass over the issue of what is most fundamental as far as ontology is concerned but to allow a pragmatic concern with ‘elements’ of being. Thus, being avoids the downfalls of traditional foundations. Use of ‘being’ in foundation, so far as possible, requires no posit of fundamental existents (later the possibility will be seen to obtain being as foundation for knowledge of the universe); alternately, all existents would be equally fundamental.

It will be found that, though simple, the idea of being is not trivial. Rather, it will be found to have ultimate conceptual power in the directions of depth of understanding and breath of inclusivity. For depth, this power is explicit. For breadth, it is explicit regarding known existents and kinds, but implicit with regard to what is unknown to us and unrealized for us, whether in our cosmos or beyond.

Being is grounding on account of its immediacy and power, jointly.

The being that has no power (interaction, participation in cause and effect) with self or other does not exist. In this use, ‘power’ is distinct from its use in previous paragraphs. Are their effects without causes? Though it would seem to contradict a common paradigm of causality, the paradigm is a projection and therefore there would be no true contradiction. It will be seen that there are effects without interactive causes. A reason will be conceived as a generalization of the concept of causation which will include power, intellectual explanation—necessary or likely, and null reason. The occasion for this concept of reason is as follows. If we think of causation as beginning or continuation of the universe, it may be contingent rather than necessary and is therefore at best a reason for existence of the universe to be possible—which is already known. To avoid confusion with a second sense of ‘reason’ introduced later, the present sense of reason could be written ‘causal reason’ or ‘necessary cause’.

That there is being, is known by abstraction which is the removal from a concept of details that are subject to distortion.

A pattern obtains when the data needed to fully specify a being (e.g., an individual or cosmos) is less than the raw data. Patterns have being—i.e., are beings.

In a matter like cosmos, experience is possible only if it extends to the root of being—i.e., only if ‘matter’ does not exclude ‘mind’. Later we will see that experience must potentially extend to the root for all worlds, i.e., for all being (the universe as defined later). When the concept of experience is extended, actually or potentially, it is found to be the essence of power or interaction. Therefore, being is essentially experiential. That we do not transcend experience is not a limitation on what we are, may achieve, or become.

So far as they are real—not illusory—the following have being, i.e., are beings. (1) Ideas. (2) Concepts, including linguistic concepts. (3) Signs, letters of alphabets, parts of speech, clauses, sentences, and other linguistic constructs. (4) Universals (e.g., redness—which is distinct from a ball that is red but is universal to all red things). Particulars (e.g., a red ball). (5) Tropes (e.g., the redness of a red ball). (6) Concrete existents (e.g., known by the senses) and abstract ones (known by abstraction, or rational construction). (7) Perfect existents (i.e., which correspond perfectly to the concept) and pragmatic ones (known roughly, by language use, or by function).

Being does not distinguish, these and more existents and kinds. That being is experiential and ultimately known only in direct or indirect experience, suggests the reality of these possible existents. The reality is later addressed in on what is real, where it will be seen that there is some artificiality among and within these distinctions—especially for items 6 and 7.

An interpretation (of experience) is a picture of (a phase of) of a phase of the world that is consistent with experience (the phase of primary concern here is the world itself). The issue of what is implied by experience is taken up later. The significance of interpretations is to avoid committing to appearances as real, unless confirmed. An interpretation may be real, and a trivial example is that there is such an existent as experience, for interpretations occur within experience. Thus the ‘interpretation’ that there is experience is not a mere interpretation.

A common interpretation is of the world as a society of experiential beings (‘selves’ and ‘others’) in a material environment, with a range of forms of life. Though it is commonly thought to be common sense, this interpretation is untenable when matter is regarded as being essentially non-experiential. Note—though untenable for our world, such a world is possible.

The following are valid interpretations of the world. (1) The previous material interpretation modified so that the environment also has experientiality, at a level so low as to count as at or near zero. (2) The world or universe as a field of experiential being with experientiality ranging down to zero in magnitude but not in quality. The world manifests as a structured physical (but not non-experiential) environment, with complex centers (life) and bright and layered centers that are markedly experiential beings.

A particular but important interpretation is (3) case 2 above, where the greatest possibility is realized (i.e., given a consistent concept it is realized somewhere in the universe).

Interpretations 1 and 2 are equivalent; interpretation 3 includes cases of 1 and 3 and many others including the ‘untenable’ case above and solipsism as the position that the world is just the experience of a single individual. The difference between 2 and solipsism is that in 2, the individual would be the universe with identity (this is clearly a possible interpretation and is later shown to be a real interpretation).

If multiple interpretations are valid, i.e., all follow from experience, how can we say which one or ones are real? (1) If they are equivalent, they are all real. (2) There may be criteria beyond validity, according to which we prefer one or more over the others—e.g., intuition, simplicity, and common sense.

The development of the real metaphysics, later, will show the interpretation of universe as greatest possible field of experiential being to be real and maximal. The metaphysics is essential in knowing and realizing the ultimate.

The universe

The universe is all being (or all beings over all extension, duration, and their absence), manifest and non-manifest (note that the concepts of extension and duration are introduced later but their mention until that point is not part of argument). This conception of the universe is critical—the universe has and can have no creator, but if there may be a causal reason for its existence. Should possibility be considered to be a reason? No, for existence of the universe is obviously possible—to say possibility is a reason for existence is to say the universe exists because it exists. If there is a reason for existence of the universe, it should be necessity—for anything less says no more than that the universe exists.

The void is the absence of being and may be seen as non-manifest. This conception of the void is critical. (1) The existence and non-existence of the void are equivalent and therefore the void may be taken to exist (see the divisions on doubt and alternative attitudes to the fundamental principle). (2) I.e., the void has being but contains no manifest beings.

A (natural) law of the world is (our reading of) a pattern. Laws have being—i.e., laws are manifest beings. There are no laws in the void because the void, though it has being, contains no beings.

A concept that has the form of reference to an existent, is essentially consistent if it can have a manifest (non-null) existent (object) at all—i.e., in some world. A being is possible if its concept is essentially consistent.

The concept of essential consistency is that of logical consistency. The idea of logic is crucial to a full development of the metaphysics of the way. However, but the idea itself is developed in other versions of the way (see a précis of the way of being for an introduction). It ought to be said here, that while what follows from logic alone is ultimately sterile, what is allowed by logic is ultimately rich in both quality and quantity. It is the rich and permissive side that is the function of logic in the metaphysics; but to achieve this function the conceptual side of logic—and its realization as discovered and yet to be discovered aspects and kinds of logic or logos—should be developed. In other treatments, the concept of logic is further developed to include the following. (1) Logic in its formal and informal senses of deductive and inductive inference. (2) The abstract and concrete sciences—see bare content for a sketch.

If from the void a possible being never emerged, that would be a law of the void, but the void has no laws.

A fundamental principle

Therefore, all possible beings emerge from the void. All possible beings exist somewhere in the extent (spatiotemporal) of the universe. In just that sense, the universe is the greatest possible. The three foregoing sentences are formulations of what will be called the fundamental principle of metaphysics.

It follows that the earlier interpretation of the universe as the greatest possible field of experiential being is true. This is subject to a proviso that in any world, experientiality potentially reaches down to the most elementary beings, and that in some worlds, it indeed reaches all the way down. A takeaway is that ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ are two sides of being and that even though we experience them as distinct, they are not (here there is no claim that mind and matter are real or not).

The existence of the universe and its being the greatest possible is a necessary truth. Since the causal reason may be seen as lying in the void, it is also a null reason.

The assertions that follow are implications of the fundamental principle. It is possible, therefore true that individuals inherit the power of the universe. This is not contradictory in that (i) they may inherit ultimate power at different times (ii) they inherit ultimate power in merging as one. The universe has identity (i.e., a sense of sameness of self or an object). The universe and its identity are limitless in extension, duration, variety, peak, and dissolution of being. There are endless arrays of cosmoses of endless variety in physical law. The universe, all beings, and the void are in eternal transaction with one another. The universe is repository of individual identity, which in its individuated form may lack recollection of its higher forms but has that recollection in its pre-individuated form. Death is real but not absolute.

The universe may be described as a block that covers its being in extension and duration as if it were a static block (that the universe can be so described is not a statement that this block description is more real than other descriptions or theories). Beings and their realizations and dissolutions, and their mergings can be seen as the evolutions and interactions of bundles of rays in the block and it is here that there is sharing, merging, and splitting of identities.

Determinism is determination of a whole by a part. A common kind is temporal determinism in which the parts are adequately specified slices in time. The universe is absolutely deterministic in that all beings are realized. But it is absolutely indeterministic in that any state of being may emerge from any other. Determinism is relative to coherent phases such as cosmoses. An individual in a cosmos would find the cosmos to exhibit both determinism and indeterminism but the universe as a whole as undetermined relative to their cosmos. A (the) peak being would find the universe determined. The determinism of a cosmos is its formedness, the indeterminism may be a residual of its formation from a primitive state, e.g., the void.

Pathways and enjoyment

Realization of the ultimate is given; however, there are intelligent and effective paths to the ultimate. What is intelligence? Though it is often thought to be comprised of characteristics to effectively function in the world, for the meaning here “in the world” is enhanced to “in and for the world”.

To be on a path is not just to follow but also to develop and negotiate paths and pathways. Pleasure and pain are inevitable; enjoyment is the proper appreciation of all experience—cognitive and feeling, especially pleasure and pain—and must be an ultimate value if there are values at all. As enjoyment is a value, it is imperative to be on a (shared) path. The problem of pain and pleasure, and their occasional absurdity, is best addressed by a dual—direct address and being on a path. The aim of being is the aim of the way of being.

Doubt

We ought to doubt these developments (doubt and certainty are duals). The crucial point at which doubt should have occurred was in accepting the proof of existence of the void—perhaps that proof was merely formal? How may we address this doubt? It is critical to first see that since essential consistency (logic) has not been violated, the developments are consistent with experience. They may be in contradiction with some of our traditional paradigms of thought and with science where science is seen as asserting the nature of the universe, but true science does not do that—it says what there is, at least pragmatically, but not what there is not (for the latter is projection).

Attitudes

The real metaphysics and the a priori

The fundamental principle shows that realization is given, but not how to achieve it. The principle and tradition join in a real metaphysics, which is instrumental in realization.

The developments so far show an ideal and that the ideal may and will be achieved but not how to achieve it. The gap is supplied by tradition—which is here seen as what is valid in cumulative human culture, knowledge, understanding and reason (in contrast to a received meaning as inference, reason will include understanding—direct knowledge and its means, and not just indirect or inferred knowledge; and reason will be further be understood to include action and not just experiential activities of mind, i.e., e.g., experiment, exploration, technology, transformation, and reflection on the same).

On some of its own criteria (truth, perfect correspondence in knowledge), tradition is found wanting. But the fundamental principle is true, which is made possible by abstraction, and found true via strict reason. It reveals an ideal, for which the means, tradition, need not have correspondence perfection. Tradition has pragmatic worth, and, especially if no more is possible, no more is needed as a complement to the ideal. In terms of this new insight, the pragmatic – and the join of the ideal and pragmatic – are perfect.

What results is a dual system, each perfect according to dual but appropriate criteria; the ideal illuminates and guides the pragmatic, while the pragmatic illustrates and provides direction toward the ideal; this dual but seamless system is named the real metaphysics (this allows that the traditional criteria still have significance, but that those criteria are to be seen in perspective—they are not ultimate in significance). The foundation in being requires no posit of fundamental existents.

This does not eliminate need for traditional epistemology and metaphysics, which may employ pragmatic substances, but limits their significance.

To reduce a being to reason shall mean that every aspect of the being is known. Can the universe be reduced to reason? That it can be is a widespread tacit illusion of intellectuals we shall name intellectual determinism. To what extent can the illusion be overcome? Above, it has been seen that intellectual determinism holds (i) for limited being with regard to foundation but with significant reservation with regard to variety (ii) without reservation for peak being.

Allowing for the (significant) limit in (i), just above, reason receives final and complete foundation.

The real metaphysics emerges from the choice of concepts and analysis (arrived at by conceptual experiment and incremental refinement). It has a systematic character, which is emergent rather than posited or imposed.

Is the metaphysics a priori? The received meaning of ‘a priori’ is knowledge or principle acquired without or prior to experience of the world (except the experience in acquiring the language in which the knowledge is expressed). Here, the a priori will be knowledge or principle is that whose foundation, to a desired or appropriate degree of certainty, is integral to or part of the knowledge itself (in this sense, a priori knowledge would be self-founding). What we have seen is that for limited being, metaphysics and reason have a limited a priori character. The a priori aspect derives from abstraction and a canonical choice of concepts. The limits derive from use of pragmatic knowledge and that full knowledge of variety is implicit. However, all knowledge is a priori for peak being.

On what is real

The real metaphysics confirms affirms many positive aspects (what there is, not what there is not) of consensus reality and much more. An example of academic significance is the existence of concrete and abstract objects as lying on a continuum. What is the existential status of the universe beyond common experience? Is it real?

Eastern thought continues to accept aspects of the ‘universe plus’, but western secular thought has rejected it as absurd since about the late nineteenth and early century. An example—for the most part, modern analytic philosophy rejects a trans-consensus-empirical universe (David Lewis’ subscription to the reality of possible worlds is an exception).

That is, modern ‘secular realism’ is solidly empirical (yet Platonic and abstract existents may be accepted among mathematicians, logicians, philosophers, metaphysicians, and others).

However, if one accepts the proof of the fundamental principle, one must be committed to the reality of the universe as the greatest, which includes all possible worlds. Let us call this metaphysical realism.

How can the opposition between secular and metaphysical realism be resolved?

Secular realism, which holds human beings to be bounded existents in space and time, does not provide a resolution (even on existence of possible worlds and abstract objects).

The realism of the real metaphysics does provide a resolution as follows. In limited form it is natural to see the positive (empirical) universe more or less in terms of consensus experience. However, a claim that the positive universe is the universe, though it might seem reasonable, is an error—and not just a likely error but an absolute error. Then, it is in the unbounded form of the real nature of all beings, that we will ultimately realize the limitless universe as real, just as we now experience the positive universe as real. But, from the real metaphysics, knowledge of the limitless universe may be obtained in this life, at least in intellectual terms. Finally, this realization is not limited to the intellect—we have already begun to see this and now further develop that idea.

Eastern and western thought

Realization

How is the ultimate achieved? It was seen that it is given. It need not be a compulsion or obsession. We may lay down paths without claiming them to be the only paths or to insist that a path must be followed; however, if the paths are not laid down in too much detail and if they have derivation from the real metaphysics, they may, from sufficient but not too much abstraction, be found universal.

In one vision, we may see our progress toward the universal as migration from one level of being to another, via a progression of cosmoses, via civilization expanding into the universe. In another, we may see our real selves, the ones that are eternal elements of the universe, may be found in a given lifetime for a being that has, as we do, some of the primitive elements to be on a pathway (and hence the term in some ways of being, of ‘this precious life’, which is not to be wasted).

From the fundamental principle, realization in ‘this life’ is possible; however, from realism, it appears unlikely. Patience with diligence and commitment help sustain a sense of realism in aiming at the ultimate.

Dimensions of being

First introduce the concepts of space and time in terms of identity. Duration is marked by change of a given identity. Extension is marked difference in identities without change. Time and space are measures of duration and extension, respectively.

What makes a being identifiable is form, which requires extension (‘space’). The void has no form; we may say it has a ‘null’ form. A being may be atemporal (at times); however, experience requires change, which requires duration (‘time’). Formation is change and includes origins. form (capitalized) is form with formation. The pure dimension of being is experiential being in form and formation (Form) as the world.

The pragmatic dimensions need not be perfect, e.g., in a correspondence sense, and may be taken from the paradigms of one’s culture—I will select the following, which has elements of western and eastern paradigms. The main dimensions are the world as we find it or nature, the world as we build it, collectively—society (with culture), and the world as we are and become it on the way to ultimate and universal being.

The narrative draws from western (America and Western Europe) and eastern (primarily Indian) cultures—the cultures with which I have some familiarity.

Nature is (a) elementary or physical, (b) complex or living, and (c) experiential (experience for individuals is relatively bound as in perception and primitive feeling, relatively free as in thought and emotion, which require memory to represent self and world, and join together in anticipation and will).

Culture is a repository of means and content for knowledge and transformation of the world—natural and social sciences which include politics and economics; abstract sciences which include mathematics and metaphysics; and technology, art, drama, literature, music, and history. What is valid in religion, especially search for possibilities of being, and transcendence of secular reality may be incorporated under the foregoing disciplines (it is important to note that, here, the transsecular does not refer to another ‘plane’ of the real, but to aspects of the real do not lie in the common consensus experiential real). Culture is a society’s map of being. An important function of culture is the growth (especially research), communication (language and information), and transmission (education) of knowledge and other elements of culture such as art.

We spoke of ‘what is valid in religion’, but what is religion? An empirical study is insufficient. In moving forward from the world as we know it, to the universe, we find that there is more than is revealed in the world of science and humanism so far. That ‘more’ is not another realm—it is continuous with our world, but just what is so far beyond our experience. It has been found that knowing the universe is not just intellectual but will also involve becoming—i.e., transformation of our being. In an ideal sense used here, religion is the use of the entire being of persons, individually or in groups, in the discovery and realization of all being. It excludes all dogma but seeks to incorporate what is valid in all culture, academic discipline, philosophy, science, religion, and more.

Metaphysics, meditation, and transformation

Culture as depicted above and enhanced by the real metaphysics (with reason), has, already, a map and key to the universal. The means are metaphysics, reason, meditation, and action (which includes experiment, exploration, technology, transformation, and reflection on the same). This may be abbreviated to metaphysics, meditation, and transformation. Meditation is not (to be) understood as defined by any culture or system. Generally, it is an exploration of the real, focusing on self, experience (mind), and action; in this conception, meditation is meditation-in-practice-and-action; it includes reason and is identical to yoga.

Here, meditation is employed as a conceptual-experimental approach to (the beginning of) expanding individual experience out to become the universe. The different systems are experiments in meditation. To become the universe is one goal individual meditation may have. Since meditation is transformation of experiential self, it can be seen as ‘intrinsic’. In transformation, it is matched by instrumental transformation, by external means, such as physical action, diet, and technology. But in the ultimate, as the universe is experiential, there is no distinction between the intrinsic and the instrumental.

Templates for realization

The three divisions on the templates conclude the main narrative.

The principles of development of the templates include use of reason, the real metaphysics, and the dimensions of being.

Readers may rearrange the templates in tabular form, with columns for time (hours of the day for the everyday, and phases of life and years for the universal template), activities to emphasize, progress, new ideas and remarks, and further details.

The templates seem to not account for imperfection. Adjustments can be made for imperfection, diversion, economic and other necessities. Even some dissipation is a good thing that helps refresh attitudes.

Everyday template

1.	Rise before the sun, dedicate to the way and its aim, affirm the universal nature of being, morning reflection in nature, breakfast.
2.	Meditative-contemplative review priorities and plans—the way, life, the day. Reflect on realization, priorities, and means.
3.	Realization—work, relationships, networking; ideas (e.g., this manual) and action; experimental meditation—practice, action, sharing; other activities—engagement in the world, e.g., languages, art.
4.	Tasks—day week, month, year, and as needed. Lunch. Attitude to material and mundane tasks—meditation in action, commitment with detachment; merges with realization.
5.	Physical activity—exercise and exploration of the worlds of nature and culture for experience and inspiration.
6.	Evening rest, renewal, review, meditation and realization, network, community, tasks, supper, preparation-dedication for the next day and future. Sleep early.

A version of this template with greater detail is linked in the resources.

Universal template

Being in the world—pure being, community; means—meditation (yoga), retreat for experience of the real.

Ideas and reason—knowing as relation to the world, reason, art; acting effectively, creating the real; means—meditation (yoga), the real metaphysics (which includes reason), sharing—way of being website and its design, talks. Merges with—

Becoming and transformation

i.	Nature as catalyst to the real (‘beyul’). Animal being and devolution—observation, situational empathy, defocus, reason.
ii.	Society and civilization as vehicle and path to the real. Transformation via psyche—by immersion in social groups as place of being and catalyst to the real.
iii.	Artifact. Civilizing the universe, especially technology as enhancing being in the universe—universe as peak consciousness via spread of sapient being.
iv.	Universal, incompletely known. The common way from self to Being (Atman to Brahman), via the block universe and extended secular worlds consistent with experience of and in the world.

Being in the universe in this life—universal. Realizing peak being in the present—seemingly, perhaps rarely achieved; however, this life is a beginning continued beyond death. The means are in 1 – 3 above, the everyday template, and open.

A version of this template with greater detail is linked in the resources.

Resources

The resources for the way amplify the conceptual treatment and its background, have details of realization, both common and universal, and sharing the way.

Resources marked with a star* are intended for development of the way.

Reading

Suggested reading has further resources, with some overlap of the following.

More complete versions of the templates—every day and universal.

A system of human knowledge is an outline and classification based on the real metaphysics.

Some lessons for the way of being is a basis for simple talks on the way.

The document, bare content*, is in-process as a framework for a full and final version of the way.

The home page for the website for the way is a place to start exploration.

For development

This section repeats some of the reading resources above.

Here are the home and (an older) design* pages for the website for the way.

The document, ‘bare content*’, is in-process as a framework for a full and final version of the way; its resource section has further resource topics. The bare content* and design* pages provide a more complete list of documents for development.

A system of human knowledge, is a classification based on the real metaphysics. Also see a supplement* to the system.

Some lessons for the way of being is a basis for simple talks on the way.

The following earlier versions of the way have insight and detail but are no longer current.

(1) An earlier version of the way, the essential way of being*, has (i) resources which include my sources (ii) some information on beyul (from Tibetan Buddhism, a journey into natural places, where the environment evokes truth of inner self), (iii) more information on metaphysics and cosmology, including criticism.

(2) An even earlier version, journey in being*, has a great amount of detail. It has a discussion on challenges of our world. There is a more systematic discussion of the challenges in world problems and opportunities.

Development of this document

The present document, manual for the way of being, will cycle repeatedly narrative, resources, and living the way.