I didn't mean to kick off a debate about how things actually are - merely to point out that Rawatism is locked in a semantic loop with it's hang up about belief.

>Narratives are just stories. It's not a requirement that they tell the truth. It is a requirement that our brains have a model of the world as it truly is. Otherwise we could not adapt to and survive in it.<

From such a structuralist perspective, the model merely has to approximate to an individual organisms sensual experience within a given tolerance - it certainly does not have to represent  the world as it truly is , whatever that may be.

Yes,  it is the case that human 'narratives' are frequently 'untrue' - the Rawat narrative is fundamentally based on deception and misrepressentation - yet thousands of ardent Rawatites lead lives that have allowed them in some measure to survive, prosper and reproduce - evolutionarily significant results. For premies the Rawat narrative has proved 'good enough'.

But the idea that there is available some pure perception of the nature of existence (whether that is rationalistic, spiritual or whatever) which allows an individual human being to most effectively negotiate their organic behaviour, seems to me to deny the limited nature of organic existence.

N