I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

Can you mention one item the Buddha taught about "the true nature of REALITY" that you know cannot be an illusion or a guess?

Your first point is ambiguous... it could just mean, is it possible to tell if Buddha could have been correct or incorrect about the true nature of reality. The answer would be, I don't know that is what I'm trying to find out but so far he hasn't been proven wrong... to me in my investigations. Is that what you mean? If not in what sense are you using the term, 'illusion'?

neologist wrote:

Could you explain how honoring ancestors differs from ancestor worship?

That's easy... no. The Buddha never taught that you can help to end suffering by honoring your ancestors... as far as I'm aware... I can't imagine how that would fit into his teachings or why.

igm wrote:

neologist wrote:

Could you explain how honoring ancestors differs from ancestor worship?

That's easy... no. The Buddha never taught that you can help to end suffering by honoring your ancestors... as far as I'm aware... I can't imagine how that would fit into his teachings or why.

Then why is it considered acceptable?

I don't believe anyone could be certain about what you mean by this sentence.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Can you mention one item the Buddha taught about "the true nature of REALITY" that you know cannot be an illusion or a guess?

I asked you to explain your term, 'illusion' are you saying it means 'guess'? Why you would ignore what I've just said in my last post and not answer my request for clarification is impolite, I can't see what else it could be. I even tried to go for its most likely meaning.

igm wrote:

Your first point is ambiguous... it could just mean, is it possible to tell if Buddha could have been correct or incorrect about the true nature of reality. The answer would be, I don't know that is what I'm trying to find out but so far he hasn't been proven wrong... to me in my investigations. Is that what you mean? If not in what sense are you using the term, 'illusion'?

Name something the Buddha taught was part of "the true nature of REALITY"...and let us see if it is that reasonable, observable...absolutely not illusionary thing you seem to be suggesting it is.

So...name something.

The Buddha says that the true nature of reality is:
Not existent.
Not nonexistent.
Not both existent and nonexistent.
Not something alternative to existent, nonexistent or both existent and nonexistent.

Also, what has this to do with the Buddha’s core assertion that, ‘He can show what suffering is and show how to put a complete end to it, if people want to follow his teachings and they follow them correctly and for long enough?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Name something the Buddha taught was part of "the true nature of REALITY"...and let us see if it is that reasonable, observable...absolutely not illusionary thing you seem to be suggesting it is.

So...name something.

I've already answered this kind of question, 2 pages back! What do you guess is wrong with this answer?

igm wrote:

The Buddha says that the true nature of reality is:
Not existent.
Not nonexistent.
Not both existent and nonexistent.
Not something alternative to existent, nonexistent or both existent and nonexistent.

Also, what has this to do with the Buddha’s core assertion that, ‘He can show what suffering is and show how to put a complete end to it, if people want to follow his teachings and they follow them correctly and for long enough?

igm wrote:

The Buddha says that the true nature of reality is:
Not existent.
Not nonexistent.
Not both existent and nonexistent.
Not something alternative to existent, nonexistent or both existent and nonexistent.

Also, what has this to do with the Buddha’s core assertion that, ‘He can show what suffering is and show how to put a complete end to it, if people want to follow his teachings and they follow them correctly and for long enough?

Name something specific that the Buddha taught was part of "the true nature of REALITY"...and let us see if it is reasonable and observable...rather than possibly illusionary.

C'mon...do it.

Or...(and this is a fine, reasonable response)...simply acknowledge that you cannot.

I've already said, first things first but you want to jump to, 'the true nature of reality', as I explained in several previous posts... when you've understood one part of the teaching it will naturally lead on to the next.

In other words, all phenomena have no independently existing characteristics.

The fundamental teachings of the Buddha are always couched in negative terms because e.g. you could describe golf but that wouldn't 'be' golf... only golf itself is golf, the description can never actually be it... obviously.

- In Science, there are theories, and laws. Theories aren't proven. In other words, there is not hard evidence for them. But even theories can be treated very seriously, and doing so has lead to almost all the major scientific advancements (i.e. most discoveries started off as theories)

How you've come to that conclusion... I guess I'll never know; but you'll need to give reasons, in order to convince anyone who isn't just swayed by (in my opinion) empty baseless rhetoric on your part.

neologist wrote:

igm wrote:

neologist wrote:

Could you explain how honoring ancestors differs from ancestor worship?

That's easy... no. The Buddha never taught that you can help to end suffering by honoring your ancestors... as far as I'm aware... I can't imagine how that would fit into his teachings or why.

Then why is it considered acceptable?

I don't know, neo. See my OP, I am willing to talk about the Buddha's teachings and how I personally understand them. As far as I'm aware the Buddha did not teach about those things... as I've already explained in my last post to you.

So, unfortunately neo, I can't help you.

The difference I am making between Science and Buddhism (or any other religion) is that we trust science to provide tangible benefits to anyone (whether they understand the science or not). We travel on airplanes and depend on CAT scans and X-rays. You have a reason to trust in these things; it is undeniable to airplanes get us places efficiently and that CAT scans save lives.

Science gives us smart phones and laser surgery. Religion gives us dharma wheels, kosher laws and snake handling.

The Buddha says that the true nature of reality is:
Not existent.
Not nonexistent.
Not both existent and nonexistent.
Not something alternative to existent, nonexistent or both existent and nonexistent.

More rhetoric, Frank and now you've added the need to patronize me. There are many thousands of pages of philosophy explaining those four lines on the true nature of reality. You are aware of none of them but you attempt to refute them all with rhetoric and not one reasoned argument.

Buddhism is about: There is suffering. Suffering has a root cause. If you remove the root cause then that puts a complete end to suffering. There is a path with eight parts to it, that if followed correctly removes the root cause and puts a complete end to suffering.

Buddhism is not like other religions because it doesn't believe in things such as the unfindable... creator god, soul, heaven and hell. It doesn't believe in original sin. It can live happily alongside science and is not in conflict with it.

Buddhism is basically a teaching on cause and effect i.e. when certain causes and conditions are present there will be an effect... nothing very religious about that.

So the Buddhist nations ought to be the ones with the least suffering.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So the Buddhist nations ought to be the ones with the least suffering.

I may be wrong, but I don't think they show Keeping Up With The Kardashians in Bhutan. That's a major source of suffering removed in one fell swoop.