If you must write about deeper topics like the soul, death, and causality, how important is it to phrase the dialogue for the audience? Should one use concepts as they are understood by the listener, but not as they ultimately mean, at the root, to the Enlightened? How valuable is the Dummy's Book version of God and all the myriad facets that the question forces us to consider? Does it cause more confusion than it solves?
For instance, if I define God as the pantheists do, as being the sum total of existence, I can then ask the ontological question "What is God?" and have it make perfect sense. (The answer, of course, is "Everything".)
Or is it the perogative of the listener to learn up, as opposed to the responsibility of the writer to write down?
Tip jar: the author of this post has received
0.50 INK
in return for their work.