DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ArraryTauTDew** · 05-30-2011, 01:28 AM

The difference is that some of us admit to experiencing a "reality" in which appearances arise and exist on their own level of interaction regardless of the fact that they are without substance.

For example, I see a picture of what appears to be a chess set on my computer screen. That is true, relatively speaking. Ultimately, however, there is no picture, merely a collection of pixels.

Likewise, through our attachments to arising appearances we take for "real" things which ultimately are not and from this we like or dislike things and so forth, engaging in things which perpetuate suffering.

Some people go on and on about how others engage in pointless speculation, but when asked about what they themselves experience as real, they only hire Sakyamuni to do their talking for them.

Dhamma is truth, truth is absolute, it is pointless to question that which is absolute, and good buddhists do not engage in that which is pointless. Is this not true, comrade Sutka?
:hug:

05-30-2011, 01:28 AM	#6
ArraryTauTDew Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 441 Senior Member	The difference is that some of us admit to experiencing a "reality" in which appearances arise and exist on their own level of interaction regardless of the fact that they are without substance. For example, I see a picture of what appears to be a chess set on my computer screen. That is true, relatively speaking. Ultimately, however, there is no picture, merely a collection of pixels. Likewise, through our attachments to arising appearances we take for "real" things which ultimately are not and from this we like or dislike things and so forth, engaging in things which perpetuate suffering. Some people go on and on about how others engage in pointless speculation, but when asked about what they themselves experience as real, they only hire Sakyamuni to do their talking for them. Dhamma is truth, truth is absolute, it is pointless to question that which is absolute, and good buddhists do not engage in that which is pointless. Is this not true, comrade Sutka? :hug:
	Quote