I think you're going back now on what you said earlier about the status of our abstractions. In an earlier comment you said, "Either suchness is shaped in a certain way or it is not. We can imagine ways in which it might come to be shaped, or is statistically likely to come to be shaped, at some time in the future, but those probable shapes are not real. They exist only as concepts in our imaginations."

Now you're saying the abstractions are only not real in a technical Buddhist sense which nevertheless allows for the events represented by the abstractions to occur.

Obviously, the future isn't presently real (unless we're talking about the physicist's block view of spacetime). We'd be talking about the probability of certain events coming to pass in the future. And the question is what status those assessments of probability have for an enlightened Buddhist. Are those abstractions fantasies, illusions, delusions, etc? Should they be ignored or shunned as misleading? Or would life be impossible under such extreme, uncompromising empiricism/solipsism?

I think it's the latter, which brings the Buddhist closer to what I was saying about the pragmatic status of our mental models that approximate the reality of even far-flung events.

I sense your frustration, but the reason for the divide seems clear to me. You trust Buddhism and Buddhist practice. I trust philosophy and reason. We believe in different methods. Now, I don't presuppose that Buddhist experience is wrongheaded or empty, but I do leave open the possibility that it's not what Buddhists say it is, for reasons given by Leo Strauss (the esoteric-exoteric distinction).