No Consciousness or Perception in Buddhist Nirvana?

[Jaberwocky]

Is there any way of knowing anything for certain? If you don’t remember your past lives then you have no knowledge of them. Can Jesus actually forgive sins? You can’t see it. Feelings are unreliable. I personally choose to believe it.

The roots of a tree are faith, the trunk hope, and the fruits charity.

The Catholic Church actually teaches that Fideism (which is where what you said falls under) is an error.

Christians (ideally) do not believe Jesus as a credible source because he can forgive sins. That is obviously beyond verification.

We believe he is something more and worthy of our ears because he died and rose from the dead. If he just lived and died, we can only conclude that he was just a man who was insane or worse considering his claims to be God.

Buddha on the other hand just claimed he was a man. But there seems to be no shortage of a fan base that thinks he knew more than what a person can grasp as a man. Even if Buddha or any other man witnessed the “ultimate meaning behind the Universe”, they wouldn’t even know if it was a dream or not because there is no way to verify.

As human beings, we are limited to our observable sphere of knowledge and cannot ever come to know anything beyond it by ourselves. Even if we were to imagine it, we will not know if it were true.

That is why Christianity is described as God’s search for man rather than man’s search for God.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Same to you. How do you know we get one life?

Because I am Christian. I am Christian because its founder named Jesus died and rose from the dead and I find the historical evidence for it quiet reasonable. Therefore I listen to what Jesus had to say.

Why would I listen to Buddha or some other random man or woman who says “this is how the World is” when that is beyond the physically verifiable realm of knowledge?

As a human being, even if you had come to know what the world outside of you was like, that would have to be through some vision or mental “awareness”. But unless you can show that you are more than just a man or have some authority over the natural world, the whole thing is pointless.

Buddha for all his “WAY” business couldn’t keep himself from dying. He died and never came back to life. Of course he claimed that his “WAY” didn’t mean you had to live forever so we were to expect him to die. How convenient isn’t it?

As far as empirical evidence goes, Buddha would have to be considered as just another man speaking about things above his grade.

 

[Emese]

The problem here is that the fact that Buddha had many lives before him is also an unverifiable fact. It is a transcendent claim beyond empirical verification. Buddha must therefore already prove his credibility to know things beyond physically verifiable truths in order for us to even accept his claim that he had a prior life.

As it stands, he has not really given any proof to think he is anything more special than a character like Freud. Therefore it is unreasonable to think he knows anything more than you and me regarding things beyond the physically verifiable world. For all we know, he had a great imagination and was a bit deluded. Everything that Buddha said that is empirically verifiable can be accomplished by Psychotherapy and therapeutic drugs. So the mantra that “Buddhism works” is not good reason to think the actual transcendent claims in Buddhism are true.

So we have no reason trust Buddha on things beyond verification which includes the entire concept of Reincarnation, Nirvana and Karma and other sort of things he might have invented.

But if you do know of some actual reason to think Buddha knew more, you can present your evidence and we can look in to that. Till then, this whole discussion on Nirvana is like discussing what an Elf in Lord of the Rings really looks like

As I prevoiusly said, there is no “evidence”. The same way there is no evidence to prove that we only have this 1 life on Earth either. We have no evidence to “trust” anybody…so you might choose to belive christianity’s one-life theory or you may choose to believe reincarnation.

 

[Jaberwocky]

As I prevoiusly said, there is no “evidence”. The same way there is no evidence to prove that we only have this 1 life on Earth either. We have no evidence to “trust” anybody…so you might choose to belive christianity’s one-life theory or you may choose to believe reincarnation.

Huh?

Maybe I was not clear. We trust Christ because he died and rose from the dead. That gives reason to think he is something else than just a human. If you feel the evidence for the resurrection is not convincing, then you don’t become Christian. Simple as that.

Buddha just lived and died like every other person who claimed they were special. So it gives us no reason to trust them.

People don’t just “trust” every looney who wants to say he knows the way, right? How unreasonable is that?

So either we trust a person reasonable to believe in or we don’t. Buddha I am afraid does not qualify because by his own admittance, he is just a man.

 

[rossum]

You only get one life as far as we know

The instructions for remembering your past lives are in Chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga. If you want certainty, then the instructions are there for you to follow to gain that certainty.

All the answers to your questions are available, if you wish to find them. It is just that you need to search out the answers for yourself. I have already quoted that Kalama sutta in this thread:

[The Buddha said:] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.” (emphasis added)

The Buddha does not expect anyone to take his word for things. If you want to know something, then find it out for yourself. By all means accept advice from “the wise”, but in the end you have to discover things for yourself.

Can you do that?

I cannot do it for you; it is up to you to do it for yourself. I cannot avoid your unskilful actions for you. I cannot perform your skilful actions for you. I cannot do your meditations for you.

rossum

 

[Jaberwocky]

The instructions for remembering your past lives are in Chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga. If you want certainty, then the instructions are there for you to follow to gain that certainty.

All the answers to your questions are available, if you wish to find them. It is just that you need to search out the answers for yourself. I have already quoted that Kalama sutta in this thread:

[The Buddha said:] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.” (emphasis added)

The Buddha does not expect anyone to take his word for things. If you want to know something, then find it out for yourself. By all means accept advice from “the wise”, but in the end you have to discover things for yourself.

But my point is that this is absurd. What if Christians told you become Christian and when you asked “why?” they replied “only way to know is to be one and find out after you die?”. I would consider that unreasonable. Wouldn’t you?

While the subset of Buddhist teachings that are empirically verifiable (that if you meditate you will become happy and feel at peace) may be 100% true, that is not an indicator that the rest of his teaching that go beyond it is true. Niravana might be a fairy tale.

Since Buddha cannot really know anything beyond the verifiable space of knowledge as a human being, no one should trust the man.

I cannot do it for you; it is up to you to do it for yourself. I cannot avoid your unskilful actions for you. I cannot perform your skilful actions for you. I cannot do your meditations for you.

That’s fine. What you can do is provide me ONE good reason to believe this man as being able to know something beyond this world. As I explained to you, as an ordinary man, even if he were to see something like “Nirvana exists!! You have arrived at your destination” sign, he himself will not know if that is just a trick of his mind.

Just think about this a bit critically. Ask yourself how you would one day know if you attained Nirvana. Then ask yourself if those observations or feelings you will have need to necessarily reflect an actual reality/truth or whether it could just be a mental state of your brain.

If you do have an answer to the above, please do share it with us.

 

[Emese]

Huh?

Maybe I was not clear. We trust Christ because he died and rose from the dead. That gives reason to think he is something else than just a human. If you feel the evidence for the resurrection is not convincing, then you don’t become Christian. Simple as that.

Buddha just lived and died like every other person who claimed they were special. So it gives us no reason to trust them.

People don’t just “trust” every looney who wants to say he knows the way, right? How unreasonable is that?

So either we trust a person reasonable to believe in or we don’t. Buddha I am afraid does not qualify because by his own admittance, he is just a man.

I understand your reasons for believing what you believe, but you must also understand, that people who follow Buddha’s teachings have also have their reasons to believe him, just like you have your reasons to believe Jesus.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I understand your reasons for believing what you believe, but you must also understand, that people who follow Buddha’s teachings have also have their reasons to believe him, just like you have your reasons to believe Jesus.

Yes, so these reasons can also be evaluated objectively.

If I were to say that I believe in Christ because he died and rose from the dead, that is a reasonable thing to do given that I have good reason to believe he did die and rose from the dead (which is also an empirically verifiable fact for someone who lived at the time).

But in the case of Buddha, almost everything that matters is not empirically verifiable. The fact that he reached a higher state of being/consciousness is not something we can really verify. At the end of his life, he died and passed away like any other human being. So that further reduces room to trust him as really being anything greater.

This is why I would say that there is no good reason to be Buddhist. Why? Because Buddha cannot be trusted with things beyond this world.

What most Buddhist confuse themselves with is the truth or practicality of the meditation techniques and ethical system (I know this because I spent few years in Sri Lanka). They forget that the truth of these claims are nothing special if they can see it themselves by using it. So it is more than possible that Buddha himself did experience these things by following his methods. But the question is whether he actually attained an objective higher state of consciousness. That is something, if you think a little bit, you will realize that no human being can answer including Buddha himself once he reached that point.

Do you see what I am saying here or no (I am asking because I understand what I said could be unclear and not because I am belittling you or anything)?

 

[Emese]

But my point is that this is absurd. What if Christians told you become Christian and when you asked “why?” they replied “only way to know is to be one and find out after you die?”. I would consider that unreasonable. Wouldn’t you?

While the subset of Buddhist teachings that are empirically verifiable (that if you meditate you will become happy and feel at peace) may be 100% true, that is not an indicator that the rest of his teaching that go beyond it is true. Niravana might be a fairy tale.

Since Buddha cannot really know anything beyond the verifiable space of knowledge as a human being, no one should trust the man.

That’s fine. What you can do is provide me ONE good reason to believe this man as being able to know something beyond this world. As I explained to you, as an ordinary man, even if he were to see something like “Nirvana exists!! You have arrived at your destination” sign, he himself will not know if that is just a trick of his mind.

Just think about this a bit critically. Ask yourself how you would one day know if you attained Nirvana. Then ask yourself if those observations or feelings you will have need to necessarily reflect an actual reality/truth or whether it could just be a mental state of your brain.

If you do have an answer to the above, please do share it with us.

To my understanding when Jesus talks about heaven he talks about nirvana. I think nirvana and heaven are just 2 different words describing the same thing.

May I ask what kind of reason or evidence are you looking for? What would you find convincing enough to believe reincarnation for example?

 

[Jaberwocky]

To my understanding when Jesus talks about heaven he talks about nirvana. I think nirvana and heaven are just 2 different words describing the same thing.

They are not the same thing. In fact, according to Jesus (and reason), no man can come to know of the existence of Nirvana or any other supernatural state of that kind.

May I ask what kind of reason or evidence are you looking for? What would you find convincing enough to believe reincarnation for example?

You cannot give me proof for reincarnation as much as I cannot give you proof of heaven or salvation. So that is certainly not what I am asking from you.

What we can give are reasons to think the person claiming “this is how the world is like” is worthy of belief.

Jesus died and rose from the dead (something that a person at the time can witness as happening) and displayed that he is truly above the natural order of things. So its reasonable to accept him.

Buddha on the other hand just died. So there is nothing to think of him as possessing any knowledge of the ultimate reality of things. The part of his teaching that is verifiable (like peace and joy through meditation) do not give us reason to think he got the rest right either. Even worse. Buddha himself claims he is just a man.

How can “just a man” know what the ultimate reality must be without someone else telling it to him?

Think of the following thought experiment.

Lets say John and a lot of others have been put to sleep and is kept that way in a machine (imagine something like the Matrix). John is living in a dream world induced by the machine. John starts meditating with the hope of achieving a greater consciousness. The machine responds by giving him a sense of joy. John continues further. The machine then makes John feel like he knows everything in the world and puts him in a “Nirvana” like state. John thinks that he has now figured out what the world is really like beyond his existence (in the dream).

The problem as you can see is that John, no matter what he does cannot ever come to know what the world outside of his dream is like. Only way for him to know is for someone from outside to go and inform him of that. You would presume that when a person who controls the machine enters John’s dream, he will demonstrate it by breaking the rules that John has experienced as how the dream world works.

So going back to Buddha, as a mere human being, he cannot know anything about the purpose of his existence in the supernatural sense (to achieve nirvana, reincarnation, etc). He is another John in the world.

For Christians, Christ was someone who came from outside. He displayed he was from outside by breaking the rules of the world and coming back to life.

So it is reasonable to START believing in Christ whereas it is unreasonable to even start believing in Buddha.

 

[billcu1]

The Catholic Church actually teaches that Fideism (which is where what you said falls under) is an error.

Christians (ideally) do not believe Jesus as a credible source because he can forgive sins. That is obviously beyond verification.

We believe he is something more and worthy of our ears because he died and rose from the dead. If he just lived and died, we can only conclude that he was just a man who was insane or worse considering his claims to be God.

Buddha on the other hand just claimed he was a man. But there seems to be no shortage of a fan base that thinks he knew more than what a person can grasp as a man. Even if Buddha or any other man witnessed the “ultimate meaning behind the Universe”, they wouldn’t even know if it was a dream or not because there is no way to verify.

As human beings, we are limited to our observable sphere of knowledge and cannot ever come to know anything beyond it by ourselves. Even if we were to imagine it, we will not know if it were true.

That is why Christianity is described as God’s search for man rather than man’s search for God.

Jesus died and rose from the dead. I know of christian sources that say things a little differently. If you apply buddhas teachings now. It works for your suffering here. With Jesus you have to wait around and die. Nobody has to die. And I know others who have “ascended” Quezecaltal has some stories as to that. Remember that Jesus disciples went for his body during passover. What self respecting Jew would do that? Unless…the body wasn’t dead. Remember he was given something to drink…

 

[billcu1]

They are not the same thing. In fact, according to Jesus (and reason), no man can come to know of the existence of Nirvana or any other supernatural state of that kind.

You cannot give me proof for reincarnation as much as I cannot give you proof of heaven or salvation. So that is certainly not what I am asking from you.

What we can give are reasons to think the person claiming “this is how the world is like” is worthy of belief.

Jesus died and rose from the dead (something that a person at the time can witness as happening) and displayed that he is truly above the natural order of things. So its reasonable to accept him.

Buddha on the other hand just died. So there is nothing to think of him as possessing any knowledge of the ultimate reality of things. The part of his teaching that is verifiable (like peace and joy through meditation) do not give us reason to think he got the rest right either. Even worse. Buddha himself claims he is just a man.

How can “just a man” know what the ultimate reality must be without someone else telling it to him?

Think of the following thought experiment.

Lets say John and a lot of others have been put to sleep and is kept that way in a machine (imagine something like the Matrix). John is living in a dream world induced by the machine. John starts meditating with the hope of achieving a greater consciousness. The machine responds by giving him a sense of joy. John continues further. The machine then makes John feel like he knows everything in the world and puts him in a “Nirvana” like state. John thinks that he has now figured out what the world is really like beyond his existence (in the dream).

The problem as you can see is that John, no matter what he does cannot ever come to know what the world outside of his dream is like. Only way for him to know is for someone from outside to go and inform him of that. You would presume that when a person who controls the machine enters John’s dream, he will demonstrate it by breaking the rules that John has experienced as how the dream world works.

So going back to Buddha, as a mere human being, he cannot know anything about the purpose of his existence in the supernatural sense (to achieve nirvana, reincarnation, etc). He is another John in the world.

For Christians, Christ was someone who came from outside. He displayed he was from outside by breaking the rules of the world and coming back to life.

So it is reasonable to START believing in Christ whereas it is unreasonable to even start believing in Buddha.

Did buddha die? That is questionable. He showed up later to teach. Every philosophical system has it’s flaws. How can you be alive if at some point you were dead. You assume quite a bit.

 

[billcu1]

Huh?

Maybe I was not clear. We trust Christ because he died and rose from the dead. That gives reason to think he is something else than just a human. If you feel the evidence for the resurrection is not convincing, then you don’t become Christian. Simple as that.

Buddha just lived and died like every other person who claimed they were special. So it gives us no reason to trust them.

People don’t just “trust” every looney who wants to say he knows the way, right? How unreasonable is that?

So either we trust a person reasonable to believe in or we don’t. Buddha I am afraid does not qualify because by his own admittance, he is just a man.

Jesus never said he was God. That’s later doctrine taught about him. Are you sure Jesus died and rose from the dead? Or a sleep. What did the Knights Templar find out?

 

[billcu1]

Because I am Christian. I am Christian because its founder named Jesus died and rose from the dead and I find the historical evidence for it quiet reasonable. Therefore I listen to what Jesus had to say.

Why would I listen to Buddha or some other random man or woman who says “this is how the World is” when that is beyond the physically verifiable realm of knowledge?

As a human being, even if you had come to know what the world outside of you was like, that would have to be through some vision or mental “awareness”. But unless you can show that you are more than just a man or have some authority over the natural world, the whole thing is pointless.

Buddha for all his “WAY” business couldn’t keep himself from dying. He died and never came back to life. Of course he claimed that his “WAY” didn’t mean you had to live forever so we were to expect him to die. How convenient isn’t it?

As far as empirical evidence goes, Buddha would have to be considered as just another man speaking about things above his grade.

He couldn’t keep himself from dying? Or he wanted to die?
Jesus died and rose from the dead? Another one claiming that. Are you sure. I can show you other things.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Jesus died and rose from the dead. I know of christian sources that say things a little differently. If you apply buddhas teachings now. It works for your suffering here. With Jesus you have to wait around and die. Nobody has to die. And I know others who have “ascended” Quezecaltal has some stories as to that. Remember that Jesus disciples went for his body during passover. What self respecting Jew would do that? Unless…the body wasn’t dead. Remember he was given something to drink…

I think you are confusing the issue now. If you think that the evidence points to the idea that Jesus did not die from the dead, then you should not be Christian.

I am Christian because after considering evidence as well as counter arguments like the ones you speak of, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection is true. Keep in mind that I can conclude such a thing because it is an empirically observable fact for those who lived at that time.

As for Buddha, the problem is that there is nothing to think he has knowledge beyond this world. You cannot just say you know he is legit because it works in this world. That only says he knew knowledge of this world, not the next or of some higher plane of existence.

Do you understand the problem now?

Did buddha die? That is questionable. He showed up later to teach. Every philosophical system has it’s flaws. How can you be alive if at some point you were dead. You assume quite a bit.

The point my friend is that any philosophical system that speaks of things beyond human verification need not be assented to unless the claimant can demonstrate he is from the outside.

Did you read that thought experiment? That would have explained to you why someone who is already in the dream world cannot make claims that they have discovered what is beyond.

He couldn’t keep himself from dying? Or he wanted to die?
Jesus died and rose from the dead? Another one claiming that. Are you sure. I can show you other things.

I am sure you can. But that does not change the fact that any religion that claims truths beyond this world stands or falls on the merits we have to think the founder is from beyond this world.

Considering that Buddha admitted he is certainly human, we shouldn’t trust him from the get go.

Jesus never said he was God. That’s later doctrine taught about him. Are you sure Jesus died and rose from the dead? Or a sleep. What did the Knights Templar find out?

If you truly thought that was the case all this time, you need to hit the history books. You have writings of Church fathers as far back as inside the 1st century. If you were to include the gospels (which many historians do claim were written inside the first century) that would amount to enough documents within living memory of Christ saying that Jesus claimed he was God.

So its definitely worth looking in to this matter considering it does say in your religious affiliation that you are Latin Catholic.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Did buddha die? That is questionable. He showed up later to teach. Every philosophical system has it’s flaws. How can you be alive if at some point you were dead. You assume quite a bit.

The point my friend is that any philosophical system that speaks of things beyond human verification need not be assented to unless the claimant can demonstrate he is from the outside.

Did you read that thought experiment? That would have explained to you why someone who is already in the dream world cannot make claims that they have discovered what is beyond.

 

[Jaberwocky]

He couldn’t keep himself from dying? Or he wanted to die?
Jesus died and rose from the dead? Another one claiming that. Are you sure. I can show you other things.

I am sure you can. But that does not change the fact that any religion that claims truths beyond this world stands or falls on the merits we have to think the founder is from beyond this world.

Considering that Buddha admitted he is certainly human, we shouldn’t trust him from the get go.

 

[Emese]

They are not the same thing. In fact, according to Jesus (and reason), no man can come to know of the existence of Nirvana or any other supernatural state of that kind.

You cannot give me proof for reincarnation as much as I cannot give you proof of heaven or salvation. So that is certainly not what I am asking from you.

What we can give are reasons to think the person claiming “this is how the world is like” is worthy of belief.

Jesus died and rose from the dead (something that a person at the time can witness as happening) and displayed that he is truly above the natural order of things. So its reasonable to accept him.

Buddha on the other hand just died. So there is nothing to think of him as possessing any knowledge of the ultimate reality of things. The part of his teaching that is verifiable (like peace and joy through meditation) do not give us reason to think he got the rest right either. Even worse. Buddha himself claims he is just a man.

How can “just a man” know what the ultimate reality must be without someone else telling it to him?

Think of the following thought experiment.

Lets say John and a lot of others have been put to sleep and is kept that way in a machine (imagine something like the Matrix). John is living in a dream world induced by the machine. John starts meditating with the hope of achieving a greater consciousness. The machine responds by giving him a sense of joy. John continues further. The machine then makes John feel like he knows everything in the world and puts him in a “Nirvana” like state. John thinks that he has now figured out what the world is really like beyond his existence (in the dream).

The problem as you can see is that John, no matter what he does cannot ever come to know what the world outside of his dream is like. Only way for him to know is for someone from outside to go and inform him of that. You would presume that when a person who controls the machine enters John’s dream, he will demonstrate it by breaking the rules that John has experienced as how the dream world works.

So going back to Buddha, as a mere human being, he cannot know anything about the purpose of his existence in the supernatural sense (to achieve nirvana, reincarnation, etc). He is another John in the world.

For Christians, Christ was someone who came from outside. He displayed he was from outside by breaking the rules of the world and coming back to life.

So it is reasonable to START believing in Christ whereas it is unreasonable to even start believing in Buddha.

I’m not sure I understand the logic in this…I would think someone from the “inside” who is going through the same experiences as everybody else is more “credible” than somebody from the “outside” talking about something nobody knows anything about…And I don’t understand what you mean by Jesus coming from the “outside” anyway…so, NO, I don’t think it would be more “reasonable” to believe Jesus than Buddha based on your reasoning above.
I don’t think it is wise to refer to “logic” when it comes to religion…

I don’t remember Jesus saying anywhere in the Bible that there’s no reincarnation, or that we would only have 1 life here on Earth. To me, Jesus’ teachings seem to tie in perfectly well with the law of karma and reincarnation.

 

[Servant19]

There is no set number, but the number is very large:

[The Buddha said:] “What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?”

“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.”

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

“This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.”

– Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

The continuation of the causal chain of which you are part. What you are now is the sum of many past causes. Unresolved causes will cause you to continue into the future. Someone who has attained nirvana no longer creates any new causes to be resolved, and so the chain ceases on death rather than continues into a subsequent life.

rossum

Is it possible that the Buddhist teaching of birth and re-birth is related to a spiritual birth and re-birth?

This concept can be found in the Christian “forgiving of sins” where you are as one dead, burdoned with sin, and ask God forgives the sin through the priest, one is “re-born”?

This concept can also be found in Islam where it is said: “O My slaves! You sin morning and evening and I forgive all your sins. So call on Me, I’ll forgive you all your sins.” where the need for a human intermediary for sin is eliminated?

This concept can be found in the Baha’i Faith where it is said: “O SON OF BEING! Bring thyself to account each day ere thou art summoned to a reckoning; for death, unheralded, shall come upon thee and thou shalt be called to give account for thy deeds.” where the individual is expected to undergo constant self-reflection (birth and re-birth) in order to overcome ones own shortcomings and power ahead on the path of constant advancement and spiritual improvement?

Nirvana is taught in ALL religions.

As we aspire and work and strive towards a sin-less existence through our own processes of birth and re-birth (on a spiritual level), our ego (self) is quashed, and its consciousness is dampened and we become eternally conscious of the Selfless One (Father, Absolute, God, Allah)

Attributes of the self (ego) include prejudice, desire, lust, greed, hatred, injustice, irreverence etc etc

Attributes of the selfless (spirit) include universal love, unity, generosity, justice, reverence, contemplation, service etc etc

Through the process of action, reflection, study (knowledge), action, reflection, study etc etc, one can be eternally born and re-born in this physical existence, as spiritual beings, striving towards Nirvana, and the loss of the consciousness of self.

 

[rossum]

But my point is that this is absurd. What if Christians told you become Christian and when you asked “why?” they replied “only way to know is to be one and find out after you die?”. I would consider that unreasonable. Wouldn’t you?

In Buddhism you can find out before you die. I have already seen results, as promised. The Buddha lived for 45 years after attaining nirvana, so he could see the full results in his own life.

While the subset of Buddhist teachings that are empirically verifiable (that if you meditate you will become happy and feel at peace) may be 100% true, that is not an indicator that the rest of his teaching that go beyond it is true.

When you get on a plane to Chicago, you are not 100% sure that it will land at Chicago. The plane might be diverted due to bad weather. Does that mean that you are never ever going to take a plane journey, because you cannot be 100% sure you will arrive?

That’s fine.

No it is not. You are still asking questions and not actually doing anything. Instead of posting here, take some time to meditate. “… That person would die Malunkyaputta, before I had ever explained all this to that person.”

rossum