I think this is a very enlightened way to understand things. We have many models of reality available to us (whether we're talking "statistical mechanics" or "

I think this is a very enlightened way to understand things. We have many models of reality available to us (whether we're talking "statistical mechanics" or "quantum chromodynamics" or "chakra energies"). Categorizing them as "True" or "False" is not very useful (is Newtonian physics "True" or "False"?). Rather, we should be content with judging our models by whether they are _useful_, and that judgement must be made contextually. Having a mechanistic view of your experiences grounded in neuroscience is useful: It suggests that you should take your medication and that probably helps. Having a spiritual understanding of your relationship to your experiences caused you to do things that helped you and made your life better. Does that mean that model is "True"? Who cares. It's sort of a meaningless question. It was a useful model, and that's all there is. Somewhat relatedly, I was quite influenced by this (unfinished) work: https://metarationality.com/ https://metarationality.com/