I've realized that my beliefs aren't neccessarily reality, so I have no problem with understanding what you are saying about that.I've also realized that my explanation of what I've come to realize is the Way is very inadequate in that I can't explain to you what I'm talking about.
Well, because of this it follows that perhaps what I mean by those words might not be exactly your understanding of them. As you've observed it's not who's saying what, it just cannot be put into words. Even if one can make an effort to express it through words it is just an expression, but that is of course useful.
It isn't that beliefs aren't necessarily reality, they are never reality. But as I said in the last message it isn't even about beliefs, beliefs are just thoughts you believe in, and the more basic question is what is the nature of thought, rather than what you believe in. Most people like to debate over the accuracy of their thoughts, whether they be beliefs or just descriptions of everyday phenomena, but the whole point is that the nature of thought is such that they are just processes going on in someone's head, and is a nice model for reality at best. Someone who is more interested in reality will just be not as interested in having nice models for it.
Of course, it isn't necessarily important that someone can talk about it in a lucid manner either, because obviously some people will be better at that endeavor than others, and have different approaches even if they all make use of words. There are plenty of other ways a human being can express the same thing and they should, otherwise it may just be that they are intellectually enlightened and are careful enough to not say anything that contradicts with a certain framework. It doesn't really matter if someone can't express their thoughts clearly, it's more important that they recognize their thoughts are not the real thing, (in the sense expressed above) even if they may seem really close.
Most people seem to unconsciously make the mistake at this level - even if they can talk a good game the whole problem is they believe their thoughts are the real thing, when of course it's just what they think about it. To put it another way, the universe just does not exist in the head of any individual, but those few individuals who are realized are transparent in a sense, because they don't have any nice thoughts they are really attached to, they just express it quite naturally as best they can. By saying believing and being attached to a thought I am pointing at the same behavior, which is that of identification with thought. They have this attitude like their way of thinking IS them, (even though the other viewpoint is certainly also in their head) but all you have to do is ask them "who believes that?" There is most likely no question that there is someone that believes whatever idea is being expressed, but people don't really know who that is. The question that comes more naturally for most is "why do you believe that?" which of course tells you that one thought is dependent on another. That being the case, where can you place the identification? It's just a big conglomeration of thoughts. I'm not arguing that we will recognize some thoughts as true like I have ten fingers and not eleven, by the way, but by identification I mean there is a sense of self confined to that thought or thought pattern. I mean, isn't that why people leaving a religion like the witnesses feels like they're dying? Of course the reality is they're not dying, changing maybe - changing their mind only, which only means some thoughts might be dying.
Along with that, another quote from Ask the Awakened:
Where Truth is, Truth must prevail. Does its mask matter? Changing religion changes nothing but that which conceals the Truth.
