What is " compassion" to you with regards to Buddhism ?

Well, hmm…, anything that gets posted on this forum usually gets my attention. During our exchange, though, I was looking for evidence of your having a particular kind of experience, Csee. Specifically experience with the ultimate nature of reality. It eventually became clear you aren't experiencing that, because you see no reason to believe there is such a thing. So that settled the matter for me. From this I can deduce that what you are experiencing, what you refer to as realization/s are actually conceptual in nature. This is what Buddhists refer to as ordinary mind. This is using the word conceptual in its broadest sense, all of Samsaric reality is somehow conceptual.

I don't know if this is something I can explain to anyone, much less someone who does not want anything explained to them. But for the sake of the other readers, some might find it of interest…

Csee when you speak about truth you seem to describe the position that all truth is relative, not absolute. For the most part Buddhists I know would agree with this, but with this qualification, we would say all relative truth is relative. The Buddhist students and teachers I am familiar with, and I, believe in an ultimate truth that can not be expressed in words, but rather must be experienced. It is very complicated to talk about at the best of times, and I think it would be very cumbersome to try to describe or discuss it without using any Buddhist terms.

To put it in a nut shell, I would say you are not taking your insights far enough. You have not gotten to the point where you have the combination of experience and understanding that would allow you to let go of the habit of conceptualizing. It is good to understand that right and wrong, good and bad, true and false are not in anyway absolute, but rather are culturally imbued and tend to be self-serving. In other words they are merely concepts, not some kind of absolute reality. Buddhists students and teachers would agree with this. But you are still conceptualizing, still experiencing ordinary mind, when you say therefore there is nothing, or that we are on our way to becoming nothing, or that nothing is the origin of existence. Basically, by saying there is nothing or can be nothing, you are making an assumption that you are unable to test. Nothing is a concept, as is something. There is an ultimate nature to reality, but it is non-conceptual. As I have said before, it can be found precisely between the ideas: this (object) is nothing; this (object) is something. Because it is non-concpetual, it is impossible to define, so truly boundless, and yet aware, and this is our ultimate nature, as well as that of all phenomena. Now you have already said you see no reason to agree, and you can't just take my word for it, that would be silly. So there is nothing left for me to debate with you.

But it wasn't just your saying, I can't agree with an ultimate nature of reality, that led me to the conclusion you weren't experiencing it. It was a lot of things. You have a hard time seeing the value of compassion, this would be virtually impossible were you experiencing what Buddhists mean by realization. You have no real respect for the Buddha, the Dharma or the Sangha, I have never encountered that in anyone, Buddhist or non Buddhist, who has crossed those kinds of boundaries within their heart and mind. Innate respect of enlightened beings seems to be part of the groundless ground one inherits with the kind of experience we mean by realization. You are obviously a very intelligent person, and you have a lot of good insights into the nature of self and mind, but it all refers to different aspects of the ordinary. That is a good place to be, but you are taking the position of someone who has realized, and that is not really appropriate, because you have merely understood.