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?

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'. — boundless

May I be free of suffering and the roots of suffering
May I be free of fear.
May I be free of anger.
May I be free of craving and aversion.

I've just recite this as a way to reset and enjoy the associated buzz of having a mind and body at peace.

I wouldn't want everyone to be that way all the time because humanity would disappear. I love this world. :smile:

Once again I can’t make sense of what you’re saying. — praxis

I have got the feeling this user likes to be contrarian rather than agree with points we are saying, perhaps thinking it some kind of losing ground, and will throw a spanner in the works even on things that don't seem contentious just to keep the adversarial dynamic.

It is a question of - should you 'submit' and accept all these fantastical ideas in order to reach higher levels of attainment or can they be cut out while still getting to the destination. — unimportant

If Buddhism is a religion, then without the supernatural and religious elements, it wouldn't be a religion.
The supernaturals and religious elements can be taken in as symbolic phenomenon for beliefs and interpretations. Sufferings too, can be symbolic.

For a billionaire, not having another 100 billions could be felt as suffering. Some folks believe they are reincarnating every morning when they wake up from sleep.

And if we accept that there are many things which has no explanation, for example, your own birth (how were you born as you, not Socrates?), then we could accept we don't know anything about death and reincarnation, and all the supernatural stories?

Once again I can’t make sense of what you’re saying. — praxis

I wasn't trying to be confrontational or obscure but I can admit that the post you quoted was unclear. So, let me just start by saying that, no, the problem is not the translation. Other scholars used different English words for the Pali word 'dukkha' but that's not the point. Indeed, however, the quote you gave is of pivotal importance. As Nyanaponika Thera wrote in the same essay I already quoted:

Statements in the form of negative terms include such
definitions of Nibbāna as “the destruction of greed, hate and delusion” and as “cessation of
existence” (bhava-nirodha).
...
Negative ways of expression have another important advantage. Statements like those
defining Nibbāna as “the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion” indicate the direction to
be taken, and the work to be done to actually reach Nibbāna — Nyanaponika Thera, Anatta and Nibbana, p.14-5

Clearly, the 'cessation of suffering' is a 'negative description' of Nirvana. What Nyanaponika wrote above seems cogent. It is hard to understand the 'origination and cessation' of 'suffering' if we do not know what 'suffering' is. And, perhaps, we should understand what 'suffering' is in order to reach the 'cessation of suffering'.

Remarkably, the Pali sutta themselves had a rich understanding of the word 'dukkha' that included 'things' that aren't so evident to be 'suffering' for me. I'll quote a few examples:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering. — SN 56.11, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation, emphasis mine

While arguably the other things that are named are easily seen as suffering except for the 'five aggregates subject to clinging' that clearly is a technical expression, the declaration that 'birth is suffering' can sound strange. How we should understand it?

Another example:

“Bhikkhus, there are these three kinds of suffering. What three? Suffering due to pain, suffering due to formations, suffering due to change. These are the three kinds of suffering. The Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these three kinds of suffering, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.” — SN 45.165, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation

Now, "suffering due to pain" seems clear. But what about the other two? What does even mean "suffering due to formations"?

And even another example, where the Buddha is reported as saying:

Good, good, bhikkhu! These three feelings have been spoken of by me: pleasant feeling, painful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. These three feelings have been spoken of by me. And I have also said: ‘Whatever is felt is included in suffering.’ That has been stated by me with reference to the impermanence of formations. — SN 36.11, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation, my emphasis

It is not obvious to me that "whatever is felt" should be included under the heading of 'suffering'.

The translator, Bhikku Bodhi, wrote an essay about 'dukkha'. However, it should be noted that there are different interpretation even of what 'dukkha' is among Buddhists. For instance: do arhats and Buddhas suffer while alive? Does the "whatever is felt is included in suffering" apply to those who are without attachments? If you seek online, you find different answers (I have no time right now to point to sources, but I think it is easy to find them).

So, clearly, just appealing to the fact that "suffering" is said to be the problem and "cessation of suffering" the goal doesn't really help to understand "what the Buddha meant". One should be open to the possibility that, perhaps, one might have a different notion of "what is included in suffering" than, say, the Buddha had.

And, if we come back to the problem of 'rebirth'. Is it totally unrelated to what the Buddha (or a specific Buddhist tradition) mean by 'suffering'? Perhaps, yes. But maybe no.

And, I should add that curiously I never found an instance of a pre-20th century Buddhist who denied rebirth. No 'early Buddhist school' (either inside the Mahayana or the 'non-Mahayana') I am aware of denied it. Conversely, you find many discourses attributed to the Buddha in which he explicitly refers to it and even discourses (as the 15th collection of the Samyutta Nikaya I qouted in my earlier posts) in which the Buddha seems pretty clear in using the belief in samsara as a motivator for practice.

Does the above necessarily mean that one can't, for instance, 'become an arhat' without believing in rebirth and samsara? Of course, not. However, one can't help but notice that before the 20th century the belief in rebirth was never (to my knowledge - happy to be proven wrong) a matter of dispute among Buddhists (and some Indian thinkers did deny rebirth even at the time of the Buddha, see the 'Carvaka/Lokiya' school)?

You can find, of course, many examples of disputes among Buddhists. They disagreed on, say, the status of the Mahayana sutras. They disagreed on the interpretation of Nirvana. They disagreed on the nature of the Buddha. They disagreed even on the interpretation of "what is felt is included in suffering". They even disagreed on how to interpret the doctrine of 'not-self' that arguably distinguishes more than anything else Buddhism from other religions. They disagreed on what 'emptiness' means and what are the true 'implication of dependent origination' (just to make an example not all agreed with verse 18 of Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning of Nagarjuna and among Nagarjuna's supporters the precise understanding of such a statement is disputed). The Kathavatthu, a commentarial book included in the Pali Canon (I quoted a brief excerpt of one of its sections before) is a good example of intra-Buddhist controversies and debates.

And despite all of these disagreements among Buddhists, I am not aware of any single pre-20th century disagreement among Buddhists about the belief in samsara.

So what? Does this mean that rebirth happens? Of course, not. Those Buddhist might be wrong. However, it is hard to deny that if something like 'arhatship' or 'Buddhahood' exist those who 'reached' such states endorsed the belief in rebirth. Of course, they might be wrong. But one can wonder if, indeed, to reach such states (even if, say, the Sautrantika were right in their 'negativistic' view of NIrvana that is attributed to them - i.e. Nirvana is just a mere absence) is necessary to believe in those things.

I hope I clarified what I meant and I also hope that I clarified that I am not writing these posts just for the sake of being a 'contrarian' or being obscure for the sake of being obscure or whatever.

I hope I clarified what I meant and I also hope that I clarified that I am not writing these posts just for the sake of being a 'contrarian' or being obscure for the sake of being obscure or whatever. — boundless

Yes thank you and I apologise for the accusation as I think I was a little uncharitable there. You are clearly making honest efforts to explain your position.

I suppose our forking in the road is that you are saying the attainments of Buddhism are explicitly dependant upon the belief in rebirth and that these achievements are exclusive to the religious study of Buddhism and so without walking the path and all it entails then one cannot achieve them while I am saying it is a more general religious experience universal to any good religious practice.

So bad religious practice will not produce results in any schools while good practice of the respective religion will produce results. It may be true though that difference religions are more likely to produce awakened ones as the different religions will have different priorities about these outcomes.

I suppose what I am proposing is, to make an analogy, that there are many different martial arts and they are all capable of causing serious injury in the right hands. The injuries to the unfortunate person on the receiving end will be the same so it doesn't matter which martial art it is, even though the techniques to cause injury might be different.

While what you are saying seems to be the only Buddhism is the effective martial art or maybe the only one to cause a certain kind of damage? while the others might cause different and unique damage but not the same damage as Buddhism?

I hope I clarified what I meant and I also hope that I clarified that I am not writing these posts just for the sake of being a 'contrarian' or being obscure for the sake of being obscure or whatever. — boundless

It seems clear to me that you're simply trying to faithfully support your religious beliefs.

It's curious that in your last post you're largely arguing against yourself. For instance, here you write:

And, I should add that curiously I never found an instance of a pre-20th century Buddhist who denied rebirth. No 'early Buddhist school' (either inside the Mahayana or the 'non-Mahayana') I am aware of denied it. Conversely, you find many discourses attributed to the Buddha in which he explicitly refers to it and even discourses (as the 15th collection of the Samyutta Nikaya I qouted in my earlier posts) in which the Buddha seems pretty clear in using the belief in samsara as a motivator for practice. — boundless

You say the Buddha is clear about belief in samsara (not particularly rebirth) as a motivator for practice, and make other references to direct experience, such as this:

Good, good, bhikkhu! These three feelings have been spoken of by me: pleasant feeling, painful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. These three feelings have been spoken of by me. And I have also said: ‘Whatever is felt is included in suffering.’ That has been stated by me with reference to the impermanence of formations. — SN 36.11, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation, my emphasis

No one is denying that rebirth is considered Right View in Buddhism. Views change, however, indeed all things change, right?

A classic example of changing views and those revised views not effecting practice is a compass. Some ancient peoples had rather superstitious views about how a compass worked, yet the practice of using one is essentially the same as it is today. The modern 'right view' of how a compass works doesn't make a compass less effective, and it is no less, uh, motivational.