Where is Sakyamuni Buddha?

[Malcolm]

Seriously, you want to have a discussion about the words reality and truth? I am not interested.

/magnus

That's OK. I think it's an important distinction, but not all of us agree.

Do you think relative truth is an reality, yes or no?

/magnus

Relative truth is a mistaken cognition about a given thing.

[heart]

That's OK. I think it's an important distinction, but not all of us agree.

Do you think relative truth is an reality, yes or no?

/magnus

Relative truth is a mistaken cognition about a given thing.

Of course, but I am not really talking about that.

/magnus

[odysseus]

There is no 'one and only single reality'. That's Vedanta, not Buddhadharma.

Man, what do you mean? Do you hold that reality doesn't exist at all? Please elaborate, your statement is arousing our curiousity.

It's also still on-topic what you claim, so I will try to prove that reality exists and is impossible to remove. Here's an example of something real (a part of reality) and the post can be accessed anonymously by only having an account with FB. It's with instructions on how to know reality via "an experience". https://www.facebook.com/aigurung/posts ... 7588687487

[Tiago Simões]

Man, what do you mean? Do you hold that reality doesn't exist at all? Please elaborate, your statement is arousing our curiousity.

All realities arise through interdependent origination. Ultimately, what reality is there to talk about?

[odysseus]

Man, what do you mean? Do you hold that reality doesn't exist at all? Please elaborate, your statement is arousing our curiousity.

All realities arise through interdependent origination. Ultimately, what reality is there to talk about?

Indeed, there's only one reality in existence so there is no point in talking about any other realities at all.

[Simon E.]

The idea that there is one reality is not Buddhadharma. You are not getting it.

[muni]

Man, what do you mean? Do you hold that reality doesn't exist at all? Please elaborate, your statement is arousing our curiousity.

All realities arise through interdependent origination. Ultimately, what reality is there to talk about?

Indeed, there's only one reality in existence so there is no point in talking about any other realities at all.

There can only be another reality by fallacy, rejecting the independence and believing in independent things-ones who are self-existent with other reality and characteristics.
Another reality is own idea – fabrication, not an idea by any fellows or any other things, which would be again belief in independence of things-ones.

Wars for example are based on truths, realities.

“Buddha” found the cause of confusion *inside own Mind* by which inner peace was revealed.

[Tiago Simões]

Man, what do you mean? Do you hold that reality doesn't exist at all? Please elaborate, your statement is arousing our curiousity.

All realities arise through interdependent origination. Ultimately, what reality is there to talk about?

Indeed, there's only one reality in existence so there is no point in talking about any other realities at all.

There are many realities, none of which can be called "the one".

[Simon E.]

I dont doubt that you are motivated to help, muni.
But that makes no sense at all. It is not understandable. The language does not compute. The grammar is completely wrong and more importantly, whatever it is you are attempting to communicate is obscured.

You have been posting on this forum and before that on E Sangha for years. A better use of your time would have been to improve your English before trying to communicate on an English speaking forum.

This is meant with good intentions,

[Simon E.]

All realities arise through interdependent origination. Ultimately, what reality is there to talk about?

Indeed, there's only one reality in existence so there is no point in talking about any other realities at all.

There are many realities, none of which can be called "the one".

And all arise dependently from voidness..from great emptiness. The idea that they are one or One is a Vedantic idea, it is also found in some forms of Sufism.
It is not what the Buddha taught. In fact he was careful to deny that doctrine.

[muni]

There are many realities, none of which can be called "the one".

What is called ‘absolute reality or ultimate reality’ is interdependent-empty. By that there is no his wisdom and their wisdom, this would again imply self-existence.

You have been posting on this forum and before that on E Sangha for years.

No Simon, I have never been on that forum E Sangha.

[Simon E.]

Ok my mistake. But you have been posting on THIS forum for years and your language has not improved. And you do not respond to feedback on the issue from anyone.
IF ONE person is able to translate your previous post and tell us what it means..just one. I will admit that I am wrong.

[Simon E.]

All realities arise through interdependent origination. Ultimately, what reality is there to talk about?

Indeed, there's only one reality in existence so there is no point in talking about any other realities at all.

There can only be another reality by fallacy, rejecting the independence and believing in independent things-ones who are self-existent with other reality and characteristics.
Another reality is own idea – fabrication, not an idea by any fellows or any other things, which would be again belief in independence of things-ones.

Wars for example are based on truths, realities.

“Buddha” found the cause of confusion *inside own Mind* by which inner peace was revealed.

This is the post in question. If just one person can give me a convincing explanation of what it means by parsing it, not by simply adding their own reply, will concede the point. From 'There can only'.. to.. 'inner peace was revealed'.

[odysseus]

The idea that there is one reality is not Buddhadharma. You are not getting it.

I'm sooo sooorrrrry, but I won't take your word for it unless you can clarify with a valid argument and follow up with a conclusion. But no need for empirical evidence, buddy.

[odysseus]

Another reality is own idea – fabrication, not an idea by any fellows or any other things, which would be again belief in independence of things-ones.

That's riiigghht! The concept of "several realities" is like believeing your dreams are real and parts of "the one and only, singular reality".

Wars for example are based on truths, realities.

“Buddha” found the cause of confusion *inside own Mind* by which inner peace was revealed.

Both peace and war are facts which can't be refuted, even if one dreams about it. If I say there exist many, many facts "inside own mind" - they are still part of the same "one and only, singular reality" and not self-existing, separate realities.

[Simon E.]

The idea that there is one reality is not Buddhadharma. You are not getting it.

I'm sooo sooorrrrry, but I won't take your word for it unless you can clarify with a valid argument and follow up with a conclusion. But no need for empirical evidence, buddy.

If valid argument would make any difference to you on this or any other subject then it would have happened by now. Many members have made valid arguments to you with clarification and conclusion.
You either won't or can't get it.
I'll not waste my time.

[Simon E.]

Man, what do you mean? Do you hold that reality doesn't exist at all? Please elaborate, your statement is arousing our curiousity.

All realities arise through interdependent origination. Ultimately, what reality is there to talk about?

This post answered your question fully. All you need do is unpack it..which will take some cross-referencing and a little familiarity with the concepts mentioned.

[PadmaVonSamba]

"Ultimate Reality" is a term meant to describe that which stands in contrast to the relative, limited, experience we have, that we ordinarily think of as "reality".
"Ultimate reality", of course, as a phrase by itself is somewhat redundant.
When buddhists say that Sakyamuni achieved a level of, or a realization or attainment of ultimate reality, it refers to a kind of awareness that goes beyond or transcends all limited concepts of space and time, even surpassing all dualistic notions of attainment and non-attainment.
For example, we experience phenomena as intrinsically substantial. We experience being in a room full of objects, chairs, tables, windows, books.
Our experience is that these things are solid, unchanging objects that remain as the days and nights come and go. They were there yesterday, they will be there tonight when I go to sleep and will be there tomorrow morning when I wake up. That is our relative reality.
The ultimate reality is that all of those things actually occur as very slowly moving events. They are gradually aging and decomposing. Furthermore, they are made of atoms which are all in motion. Our perception of day and night passing is likewise a subjective perception. There is no intrinsically real, or self-existent thing such as day or night. There is only alternating degrees of light and shadow caused by the constant rotation of the Earth. If we try to find past or future, they do not exist beyond a kind of categorical reckoning in the mind. Everything everywhere is happening constantly at this very second, just a constantly unfolding "now" (although that "now" defining time and space may be somewhat warped, as some astrophysicists can explain).

Because we tend to cling to our ordinary perceptions of things, and of ourselves, as intrinsically existent, unchanging objects, we experience dissatisfaction ("dukkha"), actually a constant dissatisfaction on a subtle level, which is the "suffering" that Buddhism aims to remedy.
.
.
.

[PadmaVonSamba]

"ultimate reality" can also be referred to as dharmata, and as mahamudra, although the use of these terms when applying them to various abstract concepts is a bit ... you have to be careful not to be misunderstood.

Ultimately ... (perhaps better to say, "technically speaking") there is only one reality that is (contains) everything.
If you say there is one reality over here and another reality over there, that fact of "both" is still, in itself, one reality.
There are infinite perceived realities. If you could number them all, put them all on a list, that list would be the whole of one reality.

Hypothetical illustration:
Suppose there is a snail, a cat, and a hummingbird in a garden.
Each perceives their own speed of movement as "normal".
The self-perception of each, in terms of movement, is identical.
So, because each perceives their own pace as relative to their environment...
The cat sees the snail as moving very slowly, and the hummingbird as very fast. A blur perhaps.
The hummingbird sees the cat moving in slow motion, and cannot see any motion of the snail at all. Thinks the snail is a rock, perhaps.
The snail sees the cat moving as a blur, the way the cat sees the hummingbird.
The snail cannot perceive the hummingbird at all, and debates with other snails on the internet over whether hummingbirds even exist or not.
Then two snails go watch flowers blooming.
"wow, don't you just love the way that rose opened up?" says one snail.
"oh darn, I blinked, and missed it!" says the other.

.
.
.

[odysseus]

This post answered your question fully. All you need do is unpack it..which will take some cross-referencing and a little familiarity with the concepts mentioned.

Thanks, even better! You summed it all up for us and I rest my case about the existence of reality.