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

Give me a specific question. I will answer it fully.

Please excuse the questions again - but if 'you cannot know the true nature of reality'...and you don't take guesses at it...what is left for you to work on?

There is nothing confusing about that...you say it yourself. So perhaps you'd like to clarify what you find confusing.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Give me a specific question. I will answer it fully.

I've asked two questions in the last 2 pages.

vikorr wrote:

Please excuse the questions again - but if 'you cannot know the true nature of reality'...and you don't take guesses at it...what is left for you to work on?

vikorr wrote:

There is nothing confusing about that...you say it yourself. So perhaps you'd like to clarify what you find confusing.

I think an answer to the first would help make your position clearer

An answer to the second might help clear up some confusion.(the second is a request of course for clarification, but close enough to a question)

Please excuse the questions again - but if 'you cannot know the true nature of reality'...and you don't take guesses at it...what is left for you to work on?

...and you don't take guesses at it...

...what is left for you to work on?

I am trying to find out who knows what (to the best of my ability)...and not getting very far.

I would say something along the lines of: I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...so I decline to do so.

So...I guess I could say that I am looking to see if some "unambiguous evidence" exists. I do not know if it does or not...although I suspect it does not.

Do you know the true nature of the REALITY of existence?

Will you answer that question?

What difference does any argument in this forum make?

And yet, probably, the question leads down the wrong path. I think a better question would be : 'what difference does your belief make in your life'.

The answer to both sides may have several similarities.

What difference does your argument here make?

Whatever you have come up with....ours...is about the same.

Quote:

I am trying to find out who knows what (to the best of my ability)...and not getting very far.

You don't get an answer because you dismiss any answer as a guess. The answers are either too simple (It is what it is.), or too difficult, ( You have to study and meditate for years).

There are answers that some people have found, but you dismiss them as simply delusional.

For each one of us that is looking for the answer we have to be willing to put some investigation into various possibilities. And then, after some thought, we either continue following that path, or move on to something else.

There is no answer that is both simple enough and complete enough to satisfy your requirements.

Hi Frank,

Thanks for your response. This is the part I have been trying to obtain for some time

Quote:

I would say something along the lines of: I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...so I decline to do so.

So...I guess I could say that I am looking to see if some "unambiguous evidence" exists. I do not know if it does or not...although I suspect it does not.

So, given that this is the case...the next question is - why do you not ask of the Buddhists 'what makes that a meaningful guess to you', or 'what makes that an educated guess', or a similar question (this thread is about Buddhist beliefs, rather than about reality). Surely if you believed in educated / meaningful guesses, then you would be curious to know what a person has based their understanding on?...and that curiosity would lead to open & friendly questioning about why they think it's valid? (which doesn't necessarily include just surface questions)

Quote:

Do you know the true nature of the REALITY of existence?

Will you answer that question?

You know how you state that you do not know the true nature of reality? So to you, you don't need to answer the question 'what is reality'?

Well, as I've said previous - whether I experience and know reality is meaningless to me. From my perspective :
- I experience what I experience
- I acknowledge that I may not interpret things correctly (because I have filters that don't always allow for clear understanding)
- I acknowledge that I still need guiding principles (which will be based on my not truly clear understanding)
- I acknowledge that I still need to make decisions (which will be based on my possibly inaccurate guiding principles and my not truly clear understanding)
- I acknowledge that I have to do the best that I can, and ensure that my systems (beliefs / guiding principles / filters / emotions etc) serve me the best they can.

ie. right throughout that process is the possibility for error. The debate on reality adds further concern for error...and to me that is actually counter-productive...so it has no useful meaning to me.

Do I know reality? I'm guessing that sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I would go with JL and say I experience reality...but after the immediate experience, my interpretation of it is likely to have inaccuracies.

On bigger questions like God...I like the idea that one exists (not necessarily in the religious form)...but if it doesn't, that's okay.

I've told Frank a number of times that I prefer he use the term speculation instead of guesswork. When I think of the latter what comes to mind is someone trying to guess (without evidence) under which of three walnut shells a pea is located. But trying to come up with a relatively plausible conclusion regarding something like the nature of reality or the existence of a God is an intellectual matter of speculation

vikorr wrote:

What difference does any argument in this forum make?

And yet, probably, the question leads down the wrong path. I think a better question would be : 'what difference does your belief make in your life'.

The answer to both sides may have several similarities.

Frank Apisa wrote:

What difference does your argument here make?

Whatever you have come up with....ours...is about the same.

you guys make an adorable odd couple...my point was: that for an argument to be fruitful, there needs to be a deep-seated common interest in play. otherwise, it's just people yelling at each other on the internet. sometimes, although increasingly rarely, we discover our humanity (yuck to that becoming a noun). sometimes we discover compromise is impossible and *actual, physical* violence is the result...wherein, one wins, and everybody suffers. but to regard violence as a a condition of humanity is ridiculous.

arguments about ontological details are stupid. to quote Albert Camus, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide." it is painful to me to see smart people destroying their own potential through meaningless dissent with potential collaborators. mutually-assured argumentative destruction, or social irrelevance, is a bloodless form of intellectual suicide,

i guess what i'm saying is, i'm tired of seeing arguments between smart people online where the priority is "trying to be right". if compromise is impossible. then: you're both wrong, even if one of you is technically correct. internet arguments are popular, because there are no short-term consequences for maintaining them. and the lack of understanding re: consequences is not helpful for the human race. we are breeding a new generation --that's susceptible to "celebrity news", and "news bites", and "gossip news" (a spoken contradiction, if i ever heard it) -- and that doesn't realize that none of that is relevant to their (and/or the rest of the world's) standard of living.

this thread started as a Q and A; it has become an ideological playground...why should i give a ****?

IMO largely a good post.

Your late entry as a spectator (a l'etranger) re-emphasizes the difference between social discourse towards common goals, and the divergence of non-contextual language ("on holiday"). In addition you make interesting comments about the significance or otherwise of modern communications to psychological "reality". But do not those comments mitigate against your last sentence ? Maybe you should consider that "the stranger" is still a social self which merely predicates its status negatively.

You ought really to eschew obfuscation.

I DO NOT DISMISS THEM AS DELUSIONAL.

they think it is impossible that they are deluding themselves

But I defy anyone to show me how he/she can be certain that it is not a delusion.

Quote:

I DO NOT DISMISS THEM AS DELUSIONAL.

they think it is impossible that they are deluding themselves

But I defy anyone to show me how he/she can be certain that it is not a delusion.

Hmmm... Defiance is a strong word. You leave no room for consideration. Obviously, the decision to follow a line of teaching is not black and white. No matter the subject. With this criteria for judgement there would be no learning. If you want to apply this to yourself, that is your decision.

More twaddle !
Its screamingly obvious that if you don't know what "reality" is, then you don't know what "delusion" is !
Take another turn round the ring .