[zbuc]

Thanks for the reply...

> Reality can be defined as the set of results which are determined to appear from the problems that things in the world have. Because these results are determined in a fixed principle, someone who knows Buddha's teaching can easily recognize an discuss any field of study at length without difficulty, even if they've never studied it before, because they can realize how it works and thus recognize the problems (matters) involved in the field through the person they're talking to.

I don't agree with this. My perception of reality is: examining without adornment, recognizing anatta and anicca. That is, to look at all things without coloration from judgement and to recognize them both in their selves and not-selves(in other words, the simultaneous existence and non-existence of a phenomenon, related to its dependent origination from the surroundings).

I don't think it has anything to do with an egotistical human view of "reality" -- such as being able to understand any subject without having been exposed to it. Of course you can't understand anything without having been exposed to it... you are still a human, you still have a brain, you still have memories and collected knowledge.

Reality isn't, to me, about words or concepts, but instead it concerns the inherent nature of phenomena.

[blueprint]

I read your message - i've heard but never learned about anatta and anicca, so I don't know what experience you had. But I'm interested so I'd like to confirm about it through simple questions if it's alright..

So, my question is, what could you know (or become to realize) through that teaching?

Thanks

[zbuc]

You could come to realize the nature of reality, in Buddhist thought. The three marks of reality in Buddhism are anatta(not-self), annica(impermanence), and dukkha(suffering/dissatisfaction).

The basic teachings of Buddha say that all things share those attributes.

So, in practical terms, all things will pass, and things aren't necessarily what they seem, and attachment causes suffering. Even more practically -- don't take everything so seriously.

[blueprint]

When describing something in reality, we have to have some substantial matter to discuss, but I couldn't find any concrete things in what you said. For the sake of discussion, I'll mention that I can also discount some of them.

* Not-self: I is myself, even though what are in myself can be changed. I tend to produce results of a certain kind, indicating some coherent originator of those results (my self). Could you elaborate on a very concrete example (something which can be verified) of not-self?

* Impermanence: Things which are not true are impermanent, but the truth itself is fixed and permanent.

* Dukkha: This is the most dangerous trap in Buddhism. It's not a fact of reality that we have to suffer. If we don't have good society, nobody can be guaranteed to be happy. There are ways in Buddha's teachings to be happy. However, Buddhist monks often use this in a bad way and teach that people can be free from all their suffering if they meditate sufficiently and properly - and that this is Nirvana. But that's absolutely wrong. Nirvana does not mean cessation of suffering. Every living creature must receive influence from the environment, and so even a man who experienced Nirvana many times still suffers from things like hunger and the cold. What is different about him is that he has no anguish and illusion about them, and so the hate disappears.