Post 25 – How the Structure of Being Compares to Other Philosophies

The Structure of Being, as explored in this blog, shares insights with many philosophical traditions—both Eastern and Western. However, it also takes a radically different stance on key issues: What is real? What is illusion? Can we “wake up” to truth? And if so, what does that actually mean?

Most traditions agree that we are trapped in some form of illusion—whether about time, change, the self, or suffering. Yet, they misidentify what is truly real. Some claim impermanence is the ultimate truth, while others declare the self to be an illusion. The Structure of Being, rooted in the necessity of all beings, overturns these views entirely.

What follows is not an exhaustive analysis—such an undertaking would require volumes, which few would read. Instead, this is a highly condensed, almost caricatural comparison. It serves as a first glimpse into the fundamental differences between these perspectives, inviting deeper exploration rather than attempting to settle the matter in full.

How It Compares to Eastern Philosophies

Buddhism: Life Is Suffering (Because We See Things Wrong)

Buddhism teaches that suffering arises from attachment—we cling to things as if they are permanent, but in reality, everything is impermanent. The way to end suffering? Recognizing that nothing has a fixed, lasting essence.

At first glance, this might seem similar to the Structure of Being—both say suffering is rooted in illusion. But here’s the crucial difference:

• Buddhism claims impermanence is real—nothing has an essence (anattā), and everything is in flux.
• The Structure of Being argues impermanence itself is the illusion—every being is eternal and necessary, never truly “coming into” or “going out of” existence.

Buddhism says we must detach because all things pass away. The Structure of Being says nothing ever truly vanishes, so there is no need for detachment—only the need to see reality as it is.

Advaita Vedanta: The Self Is Just an Illusion

Advaita Vedanta teaches that the individual self (ātman) is an illusion. The true reality is Brahman, the undivided absolute, while the world of change and separation is merely māyā (illusion).

The Structure of Being agrees that separation is an illusion—but not in the same way:

• Advaita Vedanta seeks the dissolution of individuality into an undivided One.
• The Structure of Being asserts that each being, although part of a whole, remains distinct and necessary, eternally itself. What’s false is not individuality, but the belief that beings can change, appear, or disappear.

Thus, Advaita sees ultimate reality as a formless unity, while the Structure of Being affirms the eternal necessity of distinct beings within a whole.

Taoism: Flow vs. Eternal Necessity

Taoism emphasizes living in harmony with the Tao, the natural unfolding of reality, where opposites—yin and yang—ebb and flow in a constant state of flux.

The Structure of Being and Taoism both reject the idea of controlling fate, but the difference is significant:

• Taoism says: Everything changes, but don’t resist it.
• The Structure of Being says: Nothing actually changes at all.

Taoism advises us to flow with change. The Structure of Being reveals that change itself is an illusion—every being already is what it must eternally be.

How It Compares to Western Philosophies

Parmenides: Change Is an Illusion, but Being Is One

Parmenides famously declared: “What is, is. What is not, is not.” He argued that change and multiplicity are illusions—there is only one unchanging reality, Being.

The Structure of Being agrees that change is an illusion but modifies Parmenides’ view:

• Parmenides sees Being as an undivided, singular whole.
• The Structure of Being reveals that each being exists eternally and necessarily—not as a mere fragment of an undifferentiated One, but as an unchanging and distinct necessity within the totality of Being.

Thus, while Parmenides grasped the illusion of becoming, he did not yet see that multiplicity itself is eternal and necessary.

Plato: The World of Forms vs. the World of Illusions

Plato saw the material world as a shadowy copy of the World of Forms, where true, unchanging realities exist. According to him, we must turn away from the physical world to grasp these eternal Forms.

The Structure of Being agrees with Plato’s rejection of change, but:

• Plato posits a dualism—a world of false appearances vs. a higher world of Forms.
• The Structure of Being asserts that truth is already present—it’s not a separate realm but the necessary reality of all things, hidden by illusion.

Thus, there is no “higher” realm to seek—we only need to recognize what has always been true.

Christianity: Eternity and the Resurrection of All Things

Christianity teaches that God created the world and that, after death, beings will be resurrected in an eternal state. This idea partially aligns with the Structure of Being:

• Christianity claims beings were created and will be restored in the future.
• The Structure of Being asserts that beings were never created in the first place—they have always existed, necessarily and eternally.

The Christian idea of resurrection points toward truth, but in the Structure of Being, eternity is not a future event—it is the eternal necessity of all things, already present.

Nietzsche: Eternal Recurrence vs. Eternal Necessity

Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence suggests that everything repeats eternally. He challenges us: Would you affirm this life if it returned infinitely?

The Structure of Being agrees that every moment is eternal, but:

• Nietzsche presents recurrence as a possibility, a thought experiment.
• The Structure of Being presents eternity as necessity—every being already is what it must eternally be.

Nietzsche’s eternity is existential; the Structure of Being’s eternity is ontological and necessary.

Final Thought: Seeing What Has Always Been True

Most philosophies call for a radical shift in perception—whether through detachment, self-realization, or existential courage. But the Structure of Being isn’t about changing how we think—it’s about recognizing what has always been the case:

• No being is ever lost.
• Change is merely the illusion of shifting appearances.
• We don’t need to escape, dissolve, or transform—we only need to recognize the eternal necessity of all things.

The Structure of Being doesn’t propose a new theory of reality—it reveals the undeniable truth that has always been there, waiting to be seen.