Conventional Reality/Ultimate Reality

There appears no such thing as "conventional reality" in the Pali suttas. 

While the term "convention" ("sammuti; sammucca") is certainly found in the Pali suttas, it does not appear to represent any type of "reality". 

"past lives" (pubbe nivasa) are "former abodes" of the mind, a mental fabrication. Dependent origination is what you are after. Experiencing god in the center of the heart is just another experience, no more or less significant than any other. Refer to SN 12.44 Loka Sutta for an explanation how craving creates our "worlds" via dependent origination:

The Buddha teaches the origin (samudaya) and ending (atthangama) of the world (loka). What is the origin of the world?

• Eye consciousness (cakkhu vinnana) arises dependent on the eye and forms. The meeting of the three is contact (phassa).
• Contact is a condition for feeling (vedana).
• Feeling is a condition for craving (tanha).
• Craving is a condition for clinging (upadana).
• Clinging is a condition for becoming (bhava).
• Becoming is a condition for birth (jati).
• Birth is a condition for decay & death (jara marana).

Likewise for the other 5 senses (ear, nose, tongue, body & mind). What is the ending of the world?

• Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms. The meeting of the three is contact.
• Contact is a condition for feeling.
• Feeling is a condition for craving.
• From the dispassionate (viraga) cessation (nirodha) of that craving comes the cessation of clinging.
• From the cessation of clinging comes the cessation of becoming.
• This is how the entire mass of suffering (dukkha khandhassa) ceases. This is the ending of the world.

Likewise for the other 5 senses (ear, nose, tongue, body & mind).

What is ultimate reality... only one way to find out

Respectfully disagree. Trees can't see each other, just like thoughts. Clue: they are not your thoughts.

EDIT: There's a thought here of a tree and a thought there of the same tree. So what?

He's talking about consensus reality - if there is a tree in front of a group of people looking in the same direction, they'll agree that yes, there's a tree over there.

Yes I would agree to that definition of consensus reality.

And you'll agree that no one else can know our thoughts - as in literally read our minds?

Definitely, though sometimes you might get an inkling of what someone else is thinking from other cues 

Generally speaking yes, but I did once get an exact, word-for-word mental readout of what a friend was thinking, followed seconds later by him saying that exact thing verbatim.  There's deep things affoot in this crazy world of meditation we can only begin to fathom..

And not to derail the thread, re:ultimate reality - I was under the impression that experiencing ultimate reality directly was the point of Buddhism, and all mystical paths for that matter.  Emptiness, Buddha nature, rigpa..  Thoughts?  ;)

Hey T DC, I've had similar experiences but I didn't want to fess up less someone think I was trying to engage in mind fuckery. Glad you did. 

When I first saw ultimate reality (nibbana) I thought it would be permanent but, so far at least, it comes and goes. Probably that's because I haven't had any really clear cessations and I'm still fettered up the wazoo, lost in the middle paths pre stream entry.

By nibbana I mean simply seeing things as they are (and have always been). The weird thing is - so far as I can see - that nibbana is always available but somehow we choose not to let ourselves see it, sometimes for long periods of time. I don't really understand why ultimate reality should let relative reality (samsara-dukha) continue to delude itself, but that just seems to be the way it is. If you wanted to put a theistic storyline around it you could say something like "god lets us suffer just so we can admire him and find our way back to him", but that makes him sounds like a pretty narcissistic mean old man. Also it might give the wrong impression - because nibbana is totally ordinary whereas people tend to think that god is special.

Realized I forgot to answer the second part of your question. Things like seeing emptiness, Buddha nature or rigpa are just experiences as far as I can see - they also come and go and can be seen for what they are - I don't think they are ontologically more privileged than any other experience such as taking a crap or going down the pub, although they can seem quite special for a while before the novelty wears off.

You're sounding rather agnostic.  ;)  My question on ultimate reality wasn't trying to put you on the spot, but rather just contributing a discussion point to the greater thread. 

I generally take it as a given that the core purpose of the Buddhist path, beyond any vauge definitions of "peace" or "happiness", is the genuine and lasting achivement of insight into the ultimate nature of our minds.

It seems pretty standard for people who claim significant attainments, at the 4th path sort of level, to believe that there is a lot more out there to be discovered. That is, the horizon recedes as we approach it. Although the Buddhist texts describe the Buddha as being fully, ultimately, and perfectly enlightened, I don't find it credible that such a state (lasting achievement of insight into the ultimate nature of our minds) exists, or indeed could exist. Take out the word "ultimate" and I think it's reasonable but I am hard-pressed to think of an example of ultimate anything, outside of mathematics.

It sounds to me like a wonderful experience, and apparently you aren't alone with it. There was a time in my practice when I was so infatuated with the dharma that I believed that it could lead to the truth about ultimate reality, as I have heard that it claims to do (although I don't know if it consistently does so or if that's just some parts of it). I no longer make any such claims. I'd rather leave it open, and I appreciate hearing about different experiences, so thankyou for sharing!

I'm curious about how this relates to the dispute between Analayo and Daniel. Could you clarify? 
edit: Nevermind, I saw now that you thoroughly adressed that in the thread. For some reason I had missed that.