For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Did the monks eventually find the emptiness they were searching for, or are the monks still searching?Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 12:44 pmmonks in Asia spend decades searching for said emptiness...
-Imp
I never told myself-who am I
Not sure where you are going with the above.Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 11:02 amBut this is an assumption. Who or what is making that assumption?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 10:26 amThis is why the end game of theism is eternal life in heaven or paradise or continue to live somewhere out there after physical death; this is so evident with the majority.
A theist is simply a mental construct, so can a construct that is imagined, ever be real? if the answer is no, then why keep constructing these constructs as though they were real just so that they can be deconstructed again, do you see a repeating dilemma here?
Can reality repeat itself exactly, or is reality unwritten, only appearing as a story written from a mental perspective, a view point that's already moved into the death of past as though it never mattered at all, and who or what is aware of all this non happening, apparently happening?
Where are you going with reality.Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 11:06 amNo you're not, you are talking to a projection of your own mind. That you believe exists for real.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 10:56 am I am discussing with an empirical person with an identity as long as that person is alive and capable of discussion.
Say I am discussing with A face to face.
I am discussing with an empirical person with an identity A. He exist as real as long as A is alive and capable of discussion.
If A suddenly got a heart attack and is certified dead, there is no more A but merely a corpse with no name.
How can that which only exists some of the time, and then becomes non existent be real, surely real would indicate something that is absent of unreality?
Scientific realism is the belief that whatever is discovered by Science exists absolutely independent of the human conditions.Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 12:37 pmIf the universal objective of science is to look via physical empirical experiment to tell them what is true or real, what can anti-realism possibly mean, exactly?
I mean what doesn't exist, what is not observable, what cannot be, already doesn't exist in existence, right?
So the idea that is ''anti-realism'' just comes across as a completely meaningless concept, surely?
If scientists are looking for actual empirical guaranteed answers to what is real and true in existence, then they too are just doing the same thing theists are doing and looking for some kind of rational logical permanence to what reality is exactly.
Or, can the scientists admit they have no guarantee what reality is at all? can they admit that they know nothing of any beginning or ending to reality therefore, it's simply unknowable?.. especially to something that is a finite thing called a human being , how can something that is finite in nature know anything of what's real, unreal, true, or not true, of what's rational or irrational, logical or illogical? How does that work?
That's what you are either failing, or ignoring to address in this discussion VA. So as you like to point out, are you also willing to strip back the layers of mental constructs until you reach emptiness, and explore that to see if it's a fixed thing, or not? Bearing in mind, the mind has no other frame of reference to compare itself to, except through the conception of itself, which is being observed, but by what exactly, can that which is observed as a physical object observe itself? That's like saying a tree can tell itself it is a tree, when the tree clearly doesn't do that.
Present your argument, or admit, you do not know what you are talking about. I'll continue to do same.
If Buddhist monks in the East apply:Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 1:06 pmDid the monks eventually find the emptiness they were searching for, or are the monks still searching?Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 12:44 pmmonks in Asia spend decades searching for said emptiness...
-Imp
A human being is a concept known. It's not an empirical real thing. It's actually a nebulous construct of the mind.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 7:15 am
Not sure where you are going with the above.
A theist is a real empirical human being.
It is not a mental construct like Santa Claus or God.
The thought I am drowning in a river is of the body mind mechanism, it's a dream of a drowning that is happening to a 'me', so I ought to fight for my life.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 7:15 amWhen a real empirical human being is drowning in the middle of a river, he will grab anything to save his life, this is very empirical real.
Again, this is all due to the unconscious clinging to a body/mind mechanism, that is 'thought' 'believed' to be real, and so refuses to let go, clinging on for dear life, for it fears it's own death as it believes itself to be alive...without ever recognising fictional mentally constructed characters known as concepts cannot die, they are unborn, so death is impossible.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 7:15 amWhen a real empirical human being is triggered with unavoidable existential fear [inevitable mortality], he will grab anything to save his life, i.e. the idea of God is the most effective mean to save oneself from eternal death hell.
Addressing this answer the rest of the post.Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 7:59 amA human being is a concept known. It's not an empirical real thing. It's actually a nebulous construct of the mind.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 7:15 am
Not sure where you are going with the above.
A theist is a real empirical human being.
It is not a mental construct like Santa Claus or God.
Where is the empirical mind that constructs empirical things? You will not be able to show it as an empirical thing.
Even the word/concept 'EMPIRICAL' is a mental construct, not an actual real objective thing.
You are still stuck in the mental maze of belief, where you as infinite awareness are imagining you are a separate 'me' who is far removed from the clarity of your actual real being which is infinite, one without a second, pure unborn awareness immune from death, as both birth and death are impossible, these are simply made up concepts of the mind, which belongs to the dream.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 7:46 am
In theism, it is one-track, my way or the highway.
Is a plastic human a real human?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 8:15 am If you are a fake, anyone can get rid of you and throw into the trash can?
Again, you thinking is too shallow and narrow.Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 8:19 amYou are still stuck in the mental maze of belief, where you as infinite awareness are imagining you are a separate 'me' who is far removed from the clarity of your actual real being which is infinite, one without a second, pure unborn awareness immune from death, as both birth and death are impossible, these are simply made up concepts of the mind, which belongs to the dream.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 7:46 am
In theism, it is one-track, my way or the highway.
There's no such real thing as a theist, or theism. These are nebulous concepts of the mind, that are superimposed upon unknowing reality to make it look and seem real.
Try drawing cartoons of the Islamic prophet in some town square in Afghanistan, then you will experience the terror, violence and death from the 'my way' of the mob there.There is no 'my' way. Again, that's misidentification, misinterpretation and delusion, which is the nature of the dual mind to trick you into believing you are a separate 'me' who is born and will die. But how can that which is 'transient' ever be real? If we were to pinpoint what is real it would be that which is real at all times under any circumstances. Not just real now, but later disappears like when the body stops functioning, because it's animation has disappeared, so was that body ever real? or was the body/mind just a transient appearance of the real? the real being the life without beginning or end, empty pure presence, being the placeholder for all 'appearances' and 'disappearances' inseparably one and the same infinite source.
No wonder we are caught in a loop because you are blind-sighted by biasness.Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 8:24 amIs a plastic human a real human?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 8:15 am If you are a fake, anyone can get rid of you and throw into the trash can?
Define a real human? what's a human made of, exactly?
You need to define;
-what is a human being
-what is real
What is a Human BeingWhat is RealWIKI wrote:Humans, scientifically known as Homo sapiens, are primates that belong to the biological family of great apes and are characterized by hairlessness, bipedality, and high intelligence. Humans have large brains compared to body size, enabling more advanced cognitive skills that facilitate successful adaptation to varied environments, development of sophisticated tools, and formation of complex social structures and civilizations. WIKI
"actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed."
(google dictionary)
So, a human being is real as verified scientifically via the science-biology system.
Do you deny the above?
What you are entangled with [i.e. illusions] is the philosophical /metaphysical state of reality which is very contentious.
The gold standard of what is objectively real is the scientific system of realism.WIKI wrote:Reality is the state of everything that exists, not how they might be imagined. Different cultures and academic disciplines conceptualize it in various ways.
Philosophical questions about the nature of reality, existence, or being are considered under the rubric of ontology, a major branch of metaphysics in the Western intellectual tradition.
Ontological questions also feature in diverse branches of philosophy, including the philosophy of science, religion, mathematics, and logic.
These include questions about whether only physical objects are real (e.g., physicalism), whether reality is fundamentally immaterial (e.g., idealism), whether hypothetical unobservable entities posited by scientific theories exist (e.g., scientific realism), whether God exists, whether numbers and other abstract objects exist, and whether possible worlds exist. Skeptics question whether any of those claims are true, and suggest more extreme postulates. WIKI
... in discussions of objectivity that have grounding in both metaphysics and epistemology, philosophical discussions of reality often concern the ways in which reality is or is not in some way dependent upon (or, to use fashionable jargon, "constructed" out of) mental and cultural factors such as perceptions, beliefs, and other mental states, as well as cultural artifacts—such as religions and political movements—on up to the vague notion of a common cultural world view (or Weltanschauung). WIKI
What else can be higher?
Even with science, it is still contentious, i.e.
Scientific realism versus scientific anti-realism.
My view is that of scientific anti-realism.
In your case, you are relying on pure Metaphysics which is non-scientific and has negligible objectivity [say 5/100] thus no basis to arrive at any thing [God, Soul, self-in-itself] real objectively.
Why people cling on to Metaphysics as a basis of reality [absolutely real] is fundamentally psychological, i.e. to soothe the existential pains, dreads, angst from an existential crisis.
This is why the end game of theism is eternal life in heaven or paradise or continue to live somewhere out there after physical death; this is so evident with the majority.
This is the reality you have failed, blinded, or subliminally /deliberately ignore to address. If you can garner confidence to face the cold turkey, explore it.
You're the one caught up in endless thought loops.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 8:41 amNo wonder we are caught in a loop because you are blind-sighted by biasness.Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 8:24 amIs a plastic human a real human?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 8:15 am If you are a fake, anyone can get rid of you and throw into the trash can?
Define a real human? what's a human made of, exactly?
I have already answered the above, here again;
viewtopic.php?p=798863#p798863
You need to define;
-what is a human being
-what is real
What is a Human BeingWhat is RealWIKI wrote:Humans, scientifically known as Homo sapiens, are primates that belong to the biological family of great apes and are characterized by hairlessness, bipedality, and high intelligence. Humans have large brains compared to body size, enabling more advanced cognitive skills that facilitate successful adaptation to varied environments, development of sophisticated tools, and formation of complex social structures and civilizations. WIKI
"actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed."
(google dictionary)
So, a human being is real as verified scientifically via the science-biology system.
Do you deny the above?
What you are entangled with [i.e. illusions] is the philosophical /metaphysical state of reality which is very contentious.
The gold standard of what is objectively real is the scientific system of realism.WIKI wrote:Reality is the state of everything that exists, not how they might be imagined. Different cultures and academic disciplines conceptualize it in various ways.
Philosophical questions about the nature of reality, existence, or being are considered under the rubric of ontology, a major branch of metaphysics in the Western intellectual tradition.
Ontological questions also feature in diverse branches of philosophy, including the philosophy of science, religion, mathematics, and logic.
These include questions about whether only physical objects are real (e.g., physicalism), whether reality is fundamentally immaterial (e.g., idealism), whether hypothetical unobservable entities posited by scientific theories exist (e.g., scientific realism), whether God exists, whether numbers and other abstract objects exist, and whether possible worlds exist. Skeptics question whether any of those claims are true, and suggest more extreme postulates. WIKI
... in discussions of objectivity that have grounding in both metaphysics and epistemology, philosophical discussions of reality often concern the ways in which reality is or is not in some way dependent upon (or, to use fashionable jargon, "constructed" out of) mental and cultural factors such as perceptions, beliefs, and other mental states, as well as cultural artifacts—such as religions and political movements—on up to the vague notion of a common cultural world view (or Weltanschauung). WIKI
What else can be higher?
Even with science, it is still contentious, i.e.
Scientific realism versus scientific anti-realism.
My view is that of scientific anti-realism.
In your case, you are relying on pure Metaphysics which is non-scientific and has negligible objectivity [say 5/100] thus no basis to arrive at any thing [God, Soul, self-in-itself] real objectively.
Why people cling on to Metaphysics as a basis of reality [absolutely real] is fundamentally psychological, i.e. to soothe the existential pains, dreads, angst from an existential crisis.
This is why the end game of theism is eternal life in heaven or paradise or continue to live somewhere out there after physical death; this is so evident with the majority.
This is the reality you have failed, blinded, or subliminally /deliberately ignore to address. If you can garner confidence to face the cold turkey, explore it.