Is the whole of reality what is being denied by some Buddhists?

Question

1. Is the whole of reality what is being denied by some Buddhists?

So, for as long as the sensation of pleasure or an atom or visual consciousness or apple is thought to belong to everything that exists, we are confused about them; and everyone is. If so:

2. can we add that everything absent from the whole of reality exists?

I know you can literally couple the fire sermon (the Buddha goes nowhere after death) with the unanswered questions (does the Buddha exist after death, in unanswerable). But maybe they're saying that in his no longer existing in the world, he is beyond every concept except existence? So the question is unanswerable because of the assumption that he has somewhere to go.

Answer 1

If you pick up a bowl of water and carry it across the room to a table, the water will splash against the sides of the bowl and develop eddies and waves as you move. If you come back an hour later, The splashing and eddies and waves are gone. So where did they go?

When pure consciousness is disturbed it develops its own splashes and eddies and wavs. Some of these we alienate as 'karma' or 'phenomena'; others we identify with as 'self'. If we don't let them still, they perpetuate, constantly recreating themselves. If we do still them they fade to nothing, and yet we lose nothing in the fading.

A man we call Gautama awakened to the stillness of pure consciousness. The man died; the stillness didn't.

Answer 2

Even brain-mastubating can be taken on as if it would be real, right?

Why not simply take on ways of thinking the Liberal pointed out to go beyond desire of all kind?

In that way, of which he tries, good householder wouln't stop go after the refrigerator or are there first signs?