Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5302738)
Frank's reality excludes his participation on a2k; it's a guess, and I don't know!

Because you are a part of reality and you claim to know with certainty you do not know...if so its true you are making a special pleading in the case of at least knowing you do not know...but it might be the case that you do know the nature of somethings in reality and simply are not certain of it...so that you do not know if you do not know but rather you BELIEVE you do not know ! So I ask how is that any different from us Frank ? Don't bypass an honest straight answer I am hoping you rise up to the occasion and enlighten us, so that we come to know why and how you "do not know" for sure !

I do not know the true nature of REALITY, JL.

Do you?

Absolutely not. Any notion of a soul, ego, self is a fictional creation, a ghost in the machine, as it were. Mind is the function of body and body is a mental construct. There is only the experiences of life, but nobody to whom it is happening. Hence my A2K handle.

I just stumbled upon another interesting video, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axaH4HFzA24

Personally Frank, I believe that if you aren't able or willing to expand on why 'you do not know' but complain that others can't except that, then you are really holding a 'personal' philosophy that would be best kept to oneself but confusingly to others you bring it up (without expanding on it) at every opportunity.

My advice would be to keep it to yourself and then you wouldn't have to complain why others want more of an explanation from you, which up to know you have never given. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I am not complaining...and I do not think I have to "explain" why I do not know the true nature of REALITY.

It is true that you need not explain why you don't know the true nature of REALITY, but you contradict yourself by that statement.

If you have no understanding of reality, how can you continue to debate on this thread?

That's all part and parcel of "REALITY."

Re: cicerone imposter (Post 5303423)
I am under the impression Frank keeps confusing knowledge and certainty, as he has experiences like any other living human being, so he might know the nature of reality, at least some of it...what he should be claiming is that he is not certain of what he knows or not knows, because he has beliefs like we all do but no proof not even of his own doubts being legitimate...of course Frank rather stubbornly keep hammering is own tune then listening anyone around...from where I stand this matter is quite frankly totally settled !

PS - When Frank come about and choose to address a rational answer to the legitimate counter he was offered he will be proving is willingness to debate rather then troll...

Frank made his own decision to participate on a2k; that is his reality, but refuses to acknowledge it.

You are wrong.
I am not complaining...

Why, oh why, does it have to be this way?

@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

You are wrong.
I am not complaining...

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

Why, oh why, does it have to be this way?

I may be wrong Frank but this sounds like you complaining that no one can see your point of view but as I've said, you don't say why you take this stance nor what the benefit of such a stance is.

As for whether I know the true nature of reality I've already said very recently that I have confidence that it is beyond elaboration and that I have used critical reasoning to arrive at that conclusion. The experience itself is to be experience in meditation so that is something that is a direct experience and so does not need to be an object of knowledge during that direct experience and cannot be one when that direct experience has ended or is ignored.

Both you and I can only have confidence in our respective positions we cannot be certain but on the balance of probabilities I have made a choice and when I test it in meditation my confidence is rewarded with an unconditioned happiness. That was a purpose (being able to show others is another but I can only say how I've arrived at the experience not give that experience to others) and so that works for me.

Perhaps you could say why you defend your position by just repeating yourself and also never give a benefit that accrues from holding such a position? It will be some time before I ask again (very probably never).

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5303463)
No...Knowledge is information regarding something state of affairs certainty is proof...I guess you don't understand absolute skepticism is self defeating...

There are stuff that I might know that I might heard of for which I have no proof I have knowledge of it but no certainty and all the while I might also choose to believe it or not...but I have knowledge if I am informed about it !

For instance I have knowledge of my experiences but no proof that such experiences represent the true nature of reality...equally I have knowledge of my doubts but no proof that my doubts are legitimate...

It is true that sometimes Knowledge is used as implying certainty or proof but similarly it can be demonstrated that you might know something without having proof for it preventing what you believe comes to be proven true later on...what it means is that knowing and being certain do not necessarily entail each other !

PS - Again, beliefs, if and when true, constitute knowledge even if you don't have proof of them ! Proof can come later and demonstrate your knowledge was legitimate. (meaning at the time you had the information you had the knowledge) (not necessarily the understanding granted)