Buddhism is about accepting the truth, all truths. Buddhist texts aren't to be followed like dogma but rather to be thought out, considered and debated. However, I'm not asking you if you accept things as real, like objects, if they aren't in line with the Buddha's teachings. Alcohol a given example. I'm asking you if you have any world philosophy or convictions about life that are not part of the Dhamma, or if there are aspects of the Dhamma that you do not accept as true or accurate to reality.
Buddhism is about freedom from suffering!
and I am yet to see the Dhamma refuted.
but to clarify the initial line, just because we think it true or buddhist does not mean it is!
This is in line with reality.
no it is in line with your opinion, doesn't make it Buddhist, or in line with reality (see the underlined quote below.)
It IS "our choice" but "our choice" is predetermined.
Then there could not be choice, because it is predetermined.
I think perhaps we have different definitions of "100% connected". I'm saying that any sort of distinction that we make between "ourselves" and "the outside world" are purely made up. If you doubt this, then define "you". What are "you"? What defines "you"? What includes "you"? Is your finger "you"? or is it just a bodypart? Is your hair "you"? What about your own mind? If you consider it and think about it, there is no "you" that can be differentiated from the "outside world" because every part of our minds is the result of the outside world and belongs to the outside world. There is, in fact no outside world. This is an illusion. That is what I mean.
an individual being.
there is mother, father, spontaniously born beings....
Not seeing it, but just about everything else we do affects things. Walking on it, Drilling into the mountain, blowing it up, building a road on it, etc.
yet how does that effect practice?
Thanissaro Bhikkhus introduction to MN101 wrote:to quote a recent book devoted to the topic, "Karma is the moral principle that governs human conduct. It declares that our present experience is conditioned by our past conduct and that our present conduct will condition our future experience." This, however, does not accurately describe the Buddha's teaching on karma, and is instead a fairly accurate account of the Nigantha teaching, which the Buddha explicitly refutes here. As he interrogates the Niganthas, he makes the point that if all pleasure and pain experienced in the present were determined by past action, why is it that they now feel the pain of harsh treatment when they practice asceticism, and no pain of harsh treatment when they don't? If past action were the sole determining factor, then present action should have no effect on their present experience of pleasure or pain.
To clarify things here, this is true. Some people choose to inflict suffering upon themselves. This is a personal choice, it is not some form of cosmic punishment due to past deeds. However, their suffering is a result of cause and effect. They choose to suffer and thus they suffer. A past action of theirs is their choice to pursue the ascetic lifestyle, and due to this past action they suffer physically. However, the main point in Kamma is the aspect of becoming awakened. It has little to do with superficial physical suffering but rather the overall path to our pursuance of enlightenment. Choice we make affect our path to enlightenment, some positively some negatively.
Actually it is their choice to escape suffering
and now underlined the part most relevant to you.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill