True.

So, how can we test such a hypothesis. The OP apparently thinks that "scientific evidence" + "some comparative religion studies" showed once for all that it is indeed possible to achieve the same states of 'enlightenment' of the Buddhist traditions without agreeing with their belief. Fine. However, are we sure about that? — boundless

I am not the one who came up with this and I think the subjectivity of religious experiences has been hotly debated for hundreds, maybe thousands of years.

In this general case I am not out to prove anything to the world, it is simply finding what will be satisfactory for my own journey. Likewise anyone who might be on a similar quest they may or may not resonate with what I am suggesting. Isn't that generally how it works?

People on the path try out different teachings and teachers until they find something that works for them.

Even the Buddha himself went around all different disciplines until he rejected them all and found his own way.

Of course, I can't provide any scientific study that show that belief in samsara/rebirth is necessary to achieve the same mental states of those which have been reached, according to the traditions, by arhats, bodhisattvas and so on.

It should be noted that even early Buddhists debated about the nature of Nirvana, the exact meaning of 'not-self' and so on. However this is no textual evidence that I am aware of that any Buddhist school (prior to 'secular Buddhism' of the 20th century) that rejected rebirth. This tells IMO something of how 'central' the belief in samsara/rebirth was to Buddhist from ancient times to nowadays.

To me this is evidence that Buddhists in history regarded belief in the 'supernatural' as somehow essential to their faith.

In this general case I am not out to prove anything to the world, it is simply finding what will be satisfactory for my own journey. Isn't that generally how it works? — unimportant

Fine. But it seemed to me that you claimed that these kinds of beliefs are irrelevant. According to the bulk of tradition, it seems that Buddhist themselves disagreed on this.

Even the Buddha himself went around all different disciplines until he rejected them all and found his own way. — unimportant

And IIRC, it is also often taught to test Buddhist teachings as one tests the purity of gold, i.e. critically. However, IMHO it is quite interesting that despite the disagreements you find about other topics (e.g. the correct interpretation of 'not-self', Nirvana, how to conceive the reality of 'aggregates' and so on), it seems that the various schools agreed on samsara and rebirth. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are right but I believe that one should reflect on this agreement without trying to accept easy answers like "they simply wanted to impose a belief on others to get power" or something.

The more verbosely expressed as prescriptions the more you are likely to discard as indigestion.

Unexpectedly, we seem to be in complete agreement that the cessation of suffering is not the point of Buddhism.

Unexpectedly, we seem to be in complete agreement that the cessation of suffering is not the point of Buddhism. — praxis

I would say I agree if 'suffering' is interpreted as 'suffering as we mean it in our culture' or something like that. Clearly, cessation of 'dukkha' is the aim of Buddhist practice. This is true whether Nirvana is merely the end of dukkha or 'something more'.

Once again I can’t make sense of what you’re saying. I made it explicitly clear that I was referring to what you posted. This:

The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering. — SN 56.34, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation

That can’t be “suffering as we mean it in our culture” because our culture didn’t yet exist. Are you trying to say that it’s a bad translation? If so, wasn’t it a mistake to post it, at least without making a note of the bad translation?

Perhaps you mean that the meaning of suffering has been entirely lost?