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

Frank, your statement "I know there is no self...no soul...and knowing that is key to ridding one's self of suffering" does not apply to the Buddhist thesis. It has nothing to do with such an intellectual "knowing." The successful mystic (which is what the Buddhist strives to be) has rid herself of the suffering resulting from the sense/feeling of having a constant ego-self (as stressed above by Fresco). This freedom from the existential suffering (dukkha) reflecting an attachment to the "sense of self" results from a hard won realization of the ephemeral, contextual, and purely functional value of this useful fiction (the self).

Quote:

Show me any place where I have said "you cannot know that"

Implicit in your writing throughout this thread is your belief that 'you cannot know that'

Quote:

And you know you are not deluding yourself...HOW????

------------------------------------------------------------
At some point, Fresco...if you are even close to as intelligent and insightful as you would have the forum members think you are...

...you will finally recognize and acknowledge that what you think about "self" and non-dualism...

...may be completely wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon, igm...and the rest of you guys. It is okay to acknowledge that you MAY BE wrong.

These are just from the last 2 pages, and these types of statements are right throughout your postings in this thread. It is very obvious that when you say 'you may be wrong' that many times, you also must also mean 'you cannot know'.

------------------------------------------------------------
From another angle - if they do know something, to which you say 'admit it, it's just a guess'...you are directly implying that they cannot know what they know.

Or some of the clearer posts :

Frank Apisa wrote:

You are saying you "know" things about the REALITY...which I view as rather close-minded.

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-14#post-5424418ie. You cannot know, for if you knew - in Franks sentence, you wouldn't be close-minded, you would just be knowledgeable.

JLNobody wrote:

It's neither guesswork nor belief

Frank Apisa wrote:

Non-dualism....IS A BELIEF...which is to say, it is a guess about the true nature of REALITY.

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-16#post-5427978ie. You are saying 'You cannot know'.

Quote:

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT REALITY is...and I am acknowledging that I do not know.

You are suggesting that you do know. You are even telling me (and RL)...what it is.

You may be wrong. Your "explanation" IS A GUESS.

The guess may be correct...but it may be wrong.

ie. You are saying 'you cannot know'.
http://able2know.org/topic/220485-16#post-5428837

There is of course, pretty much a whole thread filled with such sentiment about other peoples beliefs.

In a way, I agree with you (few things are certain) - but I look at beliefs from a 'is it useful' viewpoint, so whether it's guesswork or not isn't the most important thing in the world to me...but just as I apply tests to my beliefs, and to what Buddhists tell me, I also do the same with you.

How do you know they cannot know?

The sainted Wittgenstein ( ) would probably argue that the perpetual "Frank Circus" is generated by Frank's failure to understand the nuances of usage of the verb "to know" and the noun "reality". Specific usages imply specific cohesive groups of respondents who have no requirement to negotiate appropriateness of usage. Thus for "true believers" the "reality of God" is axiomatic and has no further requirement involving "evidence". Similarly, for many meditators " a transient self" is axiomatic irrespective of the general social functionality of a concept of "self integrity". A confusion between general and specific respondents is equivalent to the assumption that all games can be played with the same type of ball.

To guess, is to for example, to guess what color card will appear when one turns over the top card of a shuffled deck of cards. To meditate is like simply turning over the card without any expectations i.e. it is just the absence of a guess. To say that state of mind or the result of it, 'is' a state of guessing, is to fail to understand the obvious... the absence of a guess is not a guess and the result of that, is not by extension, a guess either.

I do not know they cannot know...and have told you that. Why do you keep asking that question?

igm wrote:

To guess, is to for example, to guess what color card will appear when one turns over the top card of a shuffled deck of cards. To meditate is like simply turning over the card without any expectations i.e. it is just the absence of a guess. To say that state of mind or the result of it, 'is' a state of guessing, is to fail to understand the obvious... the absence of a guess is not a guess and the result of that, is not by extension, a guess either.

Unless you can tell me you KNOW for certain that there is no self...and explain how you KNOW it...and can assure us there is no chance you are deluding yourself...

...the "there is no self" is a GUESS.

It may be correct; it may be wrong...BUT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT MOST ASSUREDLY IS A GUESS.

To guess, is to for example, to guess what color card will appear when one turns over the top card of a shuffled deck of cards. To meditate is like simply turning over the card without any expectations i.e. it is just the absence of a guess.

Quote:

I do not know they cannot know...and have told you that. Why do you keep asking that question?

Because Frank, you say one thing (that you do not know they can know) and post multiple statements that heavily imply that 'they do not know'. Some of those statements/questions of yours can not be read any other way. That, and the sum of your similar posts makes your position very clear...that they cannot know.

It's dishonest to suggest that is not what you mean (that they cannot know).

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

To guess, is to for example, to guess what color card will appear when one turns over the top card of a shuffled deck of cards. To meditate is like simply turning over the card without any expectations i.e. it is just the absence of a guess. To say that state of mind or the result of it, 'is' a state of guessing, is to fail to understand the obvious... the absence of a guess is not a guess and the result of that, is not by extension, a guess either.

Unless you can tell me you KNOW for certain that there is no self...and explain how you KNOW it...and can assure us there is no chance you are deluding yourself...

...the "there is no self" is a GUESS.

It may be correct; it may be wrong...BUT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT MOST ASSUREDLY IS A GUESS.

What has your reply got to do with what I've said above i.e. the quote you have replied to?

Reply to my post Frank or not at all... if you wouldn't mind.

Frank, a successful meditator does not say, it is my theoretical conclusion (what you would call intellectual guesswork) that there is no such thing in me called a self). He says Eureka I have looked with total sincerity and patience and cannot find a self behind my efforts. And I have been relieved of the pain of assuming there is a self to which life and death are happening.

I didn't come up with the card-turning example. The card-turning scenario was proposed by Igm. He used it to suggest that meditation would be a way of seeing which card was next.

I am merely pointing out that this this is nonsense.

How many times have I pointed to the fact that the "I", "me", "mine", etc. in my comments on the reality of our ego-less nature are no more than demands of the grammar of our language? You apparently choose to ignore that because you think you can use my use of the personal pronoun as evidence for the ego thesis. Does that sound like hypocrisy to you?