Thank you for the thought you have put into your reply, I really appreciate it, and agree with what you say, and with the broader Buddhist perspective. If you will pardon my didacticism, you define “reality” and “illusion” 2-3 different ways each. This could be confusing or off-putting if not read carefully. Lately so many people leverage multiple meanings to either deceive or misinterpret, deliberately or inadvertently.

I’d argue we construct what we think is truth from reality. Since reality is itself unknowable, we can only judge our constructions by their consequences (avoiding or not avoiding a bus). So we can’t talk about reality in a discussion of what we think is true. Trying to label various constructions as reality or illusion, perception or fact, true or false, objective or subjective, etc, doesn’t get us anywhere. We can replace such labels by characterizing proposed truths in terms of lived past experience and predicted future experience. I’m trying to articulate all this better in a Medium article.