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

igm wrote:

If it is possible to put an end to suffering then that would be important, not just to me but to all others as well. I believe we all want happiness and to be free from suffering but every happiness we find is eventually lost and every suffering we remove returns.

And how did that go for you? Did Buddhism end your suffering and that of others?

igm wrote:

When the Buddha first taught it was referred to as 'Turning the wheel of the dharma' literally, 'Giving the teachings of the Buddha'.

A prayer wheel is a physical representation of that, i.e. on the wheel is a Buddhist teaching phrase and when you turn it... you turn the wheel of the Buddha's dharma... literally.

If it's a representation, how can you turn it "literally"? How is that not a contradiction in terms?

You've misunderstood what I was saying but let’s leave that to one side.

Also your post is so long I couldn't possibly reply to all of it in one go, therefore:

In your reply you also said:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I must say that the “…if people want to follow his teachings and they follow them correctly and for long enough” is an interesting addition. Zeus could probably had said the same thing. If a person is willing to suspend true logic and thought…he/she can convince him/herself of damn near anything…which may well be what you are doing.

The example you have given about Zeus makes my statement about following the Buddha’s teachings seem illogical. But you could change the word Zeus to ‘Golf Pro’ i.e. you want to learn something about golf. The golf pro says he knows how to teach you what you want to know. You don’t know for certain that he can but you follow his teachings on the subject until they are complete. You then attempt them yourself. If you are successful you are now certain the golf pro could teach you but before that you were uncertain. Now the golf pro example as opposed to the Zeus example seems very reasonable. If in everyday life someone knows something that we do not, then we have to follow the advice of that person, if we want to know what that person knows. Only when we have finished following that person’s advice can we know that the advice was worth following. How can anyone teach anyone anything without following their advice?

So, what are you saying? The Buddha says he knows something. He will teach it, if you’d like. After you've followed his teachings you will know if he was correct or not. On the way to accomplishing his teachings you should not have cause to doubt that his teachings are correct, if you understand them correctly, because they will obviously be correct ,up to that point, as they will be in accord with your own commonsense based on your growing knowledge of the subject. The same would be true of a Math, Physics or Science teacher or any teacher of any subject.

Respectfully, so what, my explanation works for me and perhaps for neo the one I wrote to.

Name one thing the Buddha taught that you are certain is not really just a guess?

The example you have given about Zeus makes my statement about following the Buddha’s teachings seem illogical. But you could change the word Zeus to ‘Golf Pro’ i.e. you want to learn something about golf. The golf pro says he knows how to teach you what you want to know. You don’t know for certain that he can but you follow his teachings on the subject until they are complete. You then attempt them yourself. If you are successful you are now certain the golf pro could teach you but before that you were uncertain. Now the golf pro example as opposed to the Zeus example seems very reasonable. If in everyday life someone knows something that we do not, then we have to follow the advice of that person, if we want to know what that person knows. Only when we have finished following that person’s advice can we know that the advice was worth following. How can anyone teach anyone anything without following their advice?

So, what are you saying? The Buddha says he knows something. He will teach it, if you’d like. After you've followed his teachings you will know if he was correct or not. On the way to accomplishing his teachings you should not have cause to doubt that his teachings are correct, if you understand them correctly, because they will obviously be correct ,up to that point, as they will be in accord with your own commonsense based on your growing knowledge of the subject. The same would be true of a Math, Physics or Science teacher or any teacher of any subject.

Name one thing about a golf pro's teachings that I or anyone could know weren't just a guess? The important thing is, just as the golf pro's teachings could very well be correct, so too could the Buddha's teachings also be correct.

That is straightforward logic.

The Buddha says he knows something. He will teach it, if you’d like.

So you would agree that you cannot trust that a supposed teacher of gold...can actually teach golf. At best, the instruction may be valid...but may even be harmful...may teach you things that hurt your game sour. (Not an unusual happening, by the way, because damn near every golfer thinks he can teach the game.)

So you would agree that you cannot trust that a supposed teacher of golf...can actually teach golf. At best, the instruction may be valid...but may even be harmful...may teach you things that hurt your game or turn it sour. (Not an unusual happening, by the way, because damn near every golfer thinks he can teach the game.)

On the way to accomplishing his teachings you should not have cause to doubt that his teachings are correct, if you understand them correctly, because they will obviously be correct ,up to that point, as they will be in accord with your own commonsense based on your growing knowledge of the subject. The same would be true of a Math, Physics or Science teacher or any teacher of any subject.

Fine.

And from that, we can assume that you would agree that you should treat the Buddha's teachings that same way.

Let's try another:

Name one thing the Buddha taught about "the true nature of REALITY" that you know cannot be an illusion?

I will say, if a physicist says he has discovered something new then until we understand that he is correct he maybe correct or incorrect... the same is true of the Buddha's teachings... obviously. So, we are certain that physics has been able to reproduce and predict certain things because it is 'after the fact' but anything new in any subject is identical to following the Buddha's teachings because only when they are completed will we know for sure either way. But on the way, when one is following the Buddha's teachings, there will be many results from following the may parts of the Buddha's teachings, that will show, what is being said is not untrue and is commonsense... up to that point.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Fine.

And from that, we can assume that you would agree that you should treat the Buddha's teachings that same way.

Let's try another:

Name one thing the Buddha taught about "the true nature of REALITY" that you know cannot be an illusion?

The Buddha's teachings can be verified up to the point one is at. So one can stay confident in them delivering what they can deliver up to that point without obviously because it's too soon, fully delivering. This would be like the golf pro showing that he is competent and can putt but has up to now only shown you that if you change your grip your percentage of two putts increases.

To get back to your question... as the Buddha's teachings are best studied as a path... understanding his teachings on the true nature of reality comes much later... at the start... one is motivated to attempt to put an end to mental suffering by following the Buddha's teachings. That makes the first step, to be certain what the Buddha meant, by the first part of the first teaching he gave. He said, 'All is suffering'.

Once one has gained confidence in that first part one is ready to continue with the second part. If one cannot become confident that those teachings are correct then one can quit very early on with little time wasted. Or one may just like to learn to meditate the way Buddhists do.. and nothing else... but that is not really Buddhism. Many people like to mix different philosophies together or just pick and mix so to speak. That isn't what the Buddha taught so if it doesn't work don't blame his teachings.

So, one cannot understand the teachings on the true nature of reality until one has progressed to that point.

I will say that the Buddha shows how we can examine the true nature of reality by not saying what it is but by understanding what logically it seems that it cannot be. But as I say it is too soon to explain this as it would be too soon for a golf pro to tell you his last bit of advice... first.

Could you explain how honoring ancestors differs from ancestor worship?

So may I assume you cannot mention even on item that the Buddha taught about "the true nature of REALITY" that you know cannot be an illusion?

The rest of that stuff, igm, is just the normal "my religion is correct" kind of prate that theists roll out when they are stuck for an answer.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So may I assume you cannot mention even on item that the Buddha taught about "the true nature of REALITY" that you know cannot be an illusion?

The rest of that stuff, igm, is just the normal "my religion is correct" kind of prate that theists roll out when they are stuck for an answer.

There is no point to the Buddha's teaching if one doesn't want to attempt to put an end to mental suffering... this must always be kept in mind... so questions about the true nature of reality are only useful as a tool to bring this about. This is one topic and is not an end in itself.

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'?

I don't agree with your second point because it is just the same thing a golf pro would say if he was teaching you. He would say first things first. So, you've made and emotional statement without backing it up about theists when it would apply to any teachings at all. You are correct to say it is just normal.

The soul, God the creator, heaven and hell are not normal.. in my opinion i.e. theism, because they can never be found with the senses.

Whereas, what the Buddha taught e.g. impermanence, cause and effect, etc. can we examined. They are different.

Buddhism is about what we can examine either with the senses or by reasoning and theism depends on things that cannot be perceived with the senses and are taken as true because god says they true.