Nouveau is right; it is ambiguous. I've never seen anybody apart from him argue the issue with you (I suspect few are brave enough to go down that particular rabbit hole; it's hard enough getting you to see even the most basic things; Nouveau must know that he's pushing it up hill to get you to see this ambiguity), but the ambiguity is real nonetheless. The rest of us have just assumed which of the ambiguous meanings you actually intend; who knows, we may be wrong and you mean the other one, which would put a different complexion on the whole debate. Kudos for Nouveau for trying to get you to see it.There is no ambiguity in the statement that 'the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and with a believing mind.'
It's a simply posted clarification, one that anybody else would be able to see instantly:
When you say that the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and with a believing mind, do you mean:
a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist or
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known?
The two are quite different. By the way, I've always assumed you mean (a), as I think everyone else does. It suddenly occurs to me that you may mean (b). If so, it would explain some of your claims, because if (b) is what you mean and if (b) is true (which is not in evidence and, I think, you cannot show), then you might actually have an argument that the truth and reality is a believing mind.
Reminds me of an old puzzle...how many different meanings can be ascribed to the sentence "Time flies like an arrow"? I think it's five. Maybe six. I'd have to think about it.
It's simpler with your sentence; there are only two.