Are you saying that prophets ( and I don't mean every so-called prophet) agreeing is problematic?

Right, but it takes one to know one. — frank

Fair enough. I will not say that I have gnosis of them but only intuition and the extent of my current understanding.

All paths of the mountain have the same destination. If you inquire both Smith and Buddha the destination would not be the same.

Never said I was.

You test it through rationality, insight and experience.

I'm not into organized religion at all. For me there is a big difference between those who awakened and the religions created around them.

What?

Are you into interfaith? — frank

Im not sure what that means.

You didn't even understand what I said.
It is childish to put Smith and Buddha on the same category.

Check mate, I think — Banno

Childish

The idea that prophets agreed on some underlying truth works right up until you look at what they actually said. — Banno

The other way around is the truth. When you actually learn what they said, you understand they were saying the same thing.

Joseph Smith and The Buddha — Banno

Don't even mate. Com' on

One could tell a stupid person "you are a smart".
Really, possibilities are endless.

Therefore, religions do not, and cannot, agree — Art48

Religions do not agree but their prophets do.
If you understand their context and the implicit in their words you'll find only superficial, temporal and cultural differences.

I view harm as an unpleasant experience of any kind — Andrew4Handel

I can do a lot of harm while causing pleasant experience. In fact lots of what are harmful on the long term started as pleasant on the short term.

I'm afraid you have understood nothing I said, hence your reply.

I feel given the likely rough terrain and scattered debris, you'd puncture a tire pretty fast. — Benj96

Fair. I'll get a horse then.

Similarly, mightn't understanding as an absolute end in itself, be a kind of irrational idolatry? — hypericin

That's a good question.
I would say that worshiping understanding without realizing it (living it) is irrational idolatry.
It's like praying to the statue of the prophet while shunning the actual prophet.

So at what point does that potential get realized and what's a being? — khaled

Those two are one question.

Man was an animal. As animals we were in accordance with nature, just like any animal is.
At some point that animal became self-conscious. Let me use for this the symbol of The Fall.
After The Fall man was an animal but also something more. That is evident from man's disharmony with nature.
The very thing that makes intelligent also makes us vulnerable to self deception.
One party today says that man is an animal but that is clearly not a complete answer and thus misleading.
Another party says that man is divine, but that is like a farmer trying to sell the seeds for the price of the tree.
I say that man is nothing complete in itself, not a being. So man is a potential.
That potential is realized when there is no more self deception. Man has gained clarity over oneself thus becoming not the slave of body, mind, identity but its master.
In that realization man ascends in accordance with the universe again but now no more as an animal.

This is a perennial myth that is present in all old and new wisdoms.

I have addressed most of your points previously but in short the film scenario doesn't apply in my hypothetical. Like @Philosophim it seems you want to engage these questions in the film's framework.

Pleasure

Yes, this hypothetical changes a lot. My choice may seem radical but I would take the red pill regardless of what the real world is like. Of course assuming that in your hypothetical suicide is an option in the real world.

Firstly no, lastly yes. In the sense that a seed is not yet a tree but the potential of the tree exists in the seed.

The exclusion of those points is deliberate as they open too many doors. My hypothetical is not set in the world of the movie. But if you would like it be be so, be my guest.

It's always has been an evil for me. — universeness

Well, fair enough.

I disagree that your hypothetical is pragmatic — universeness

I disagree. The pragmatism is very clear.

If you are now saying that your hypothetical is only referencing those times in a persons life when you have a choice between two evils, 'happiness at the expense of truth' or 'truth at the expense of happiness' then fine. — universeness

That is it. Although I don't agree that 'truth at the expense of (illusory) happiness' is evil. In your own words:

I ..... eventually gained happiness from the bitter truth — universeness

I will give an ambiguous answer which we can explore together.
A person is a potential of becoming a being.

So, why do you choose a hypothetical that excludes the possibility of achieving truth AND happiness? — universeness

Because there are certain moments in one's life when they are exclusive.

To me, that's a mad mans hypothetical and belongs firmly to the mind of the pessimist. — universeness

It's not pessimist or optimist. It's a pragmatic hypothetical.

But is you main driver for choosing one against the other based on suffering? — universeness

No.

You are presenting the cost of gaining truth as increased suffering — universeness

In choosing the truth the suffering is not necessarily increased in the real world. One is merely refusing the addition of happiness from the matrix.

I have made no complaint. Nor am I discussing suffering although that is an interesting topic. I am only creating a hypothetical where one has the dilemma of either truth or happiness.

which is not necessarily to the exclusion of "truth". — 180 Proof

In reality it may be not. But in my hypothetical it is.

happiness before truth — 180 Proof

Got it.

Ok. What is most reasonable for you? Truth in the expense of happiness or happiness in the expense of truth?

The plot of the first movie does not suggest that life in the matrix 'gives you everything you want and ever could want. — universeness

I'm not using the plot of the matrix. I only borrow the idea of the matrix and red/blue pill. In my setting you can have the perfect life. Where even pain and discomfort is in appropriate proportion so you can enjoy pleasure.

Do you make a distinction between reasonable and rational?

Doesn't that imply that you value truth in the expense of happiness?

Would you say that pursuing happiness and well-being is rational behaviour and denying yourself the opportunity for it, is irrational?

Hypothetical: You have learned that your partner who you love has cheated you multiple times.
I give the chance to press a button and completely forget that he/she has cheated on you. So you continue your relationship blissfully unaware and you are happy.
Would you push the button?

On what grounds are we deciding what is rational? Maybe only choosing the truth is rational. — Andrew4Handel

This is a good point. I myself am not clearly set on what to call rational. That's why I put it in such a question. To arrive at what you are alluding to: Is seeking truth rational or irrational, or maybe something beyond both?

What is the point? If I don't know there is a choice, how do I define "rational option"? — Vera Mont

Its a hypothetical where you are outside the matrix. The point is on the nature of the choice. Not the possibility of making it.

If you like. It seems arbitrary. — Vera Mont

I neither like nor dislike. It seemed pretty clear from your quote. I may have misunderstood it.

Ok. Which value would you attribute to each choice?

We may already be in that situation and we may never know. — Andrew4Handel

Maybe.

In the matrix scenario if you left the matrix what would the alternative be? It could be better it could be worse or a completely mindf*ck. — Andrew4Handel

The current real world.