But given that the Four Noble Truth also includes Eightfold Path that is not even an issue. Also, you are trying to down play rebirth as some sort of lesser teaching; do you feel that way about kamma, the ethical expression of paticcasamuppada?
All i am saying is the buddhas own teachings dont include it, by his own teachings i mean that which is "special to the buddhas" i.e. 4nt, paticcasamuppada
This doesnt make sense, anicca dukkha and anatta are all verifiable.
So is rebirth - no less so.
This is still coming from the view of "rebirth is" and so can eventualy be verified instead of seing how its a speculation
Pure speculation of rebirth? It is no more “pure speculation” than is nibbana, kamma, paticcasamuppada, anicca and the rest
How are these things pure speculation?
Thats your misunderstanding
Well, if it a misunderstanding, it is grounded in your far less than clear musings.
What i am saying is clear, the Buddhas teachings go beyond all speculative views, opinions and mind-sets and are all about what is and investigation into that
There is no speculation about rebirth in the Buddha’s teachings. It is part of the structure of his teachings, and it is included in the full version of paticcasamuppada (with out even resorting to the 3 lives reading of it). If he did not know it to be true, he would not taught as being true. As for being part of the backdrop of the Buddha’s time, that is also not quite correct. Metempsychosis was one among a number of points of view current, and not necessarily the predominate one.
The Buddhas teachings dont contain any speculative view (which rebirth view/stance/belief is) since he has seen with correct wisdom
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
When there is non-identification there are no more speculative views of rebirth, non-rebirth, eternalism etc....
Your claiming that rebirth is a speculative is meaningless. It is no more speculative -- or no less speculative -- than is paticcasamuppada or nibbana or any of the rest.
Its speculative but i didnt say meaningless, it is conductive to wholesome intentions, actions etc
paticcasamuppada is directly verifiable, you can investigate it, reconize it, work with it even, thus with the understanding of paticcasamuppada one can understand nibbana (on some level) which doesnt make it a pure speculative view which rebirth view is
Out curiosity, if I were to say, based upon my dirtect experiennce, I know rebirth to be true, the way the universe functions. Am I deluded any more than if I were to claim that I know by direct experience there is no self?
This is a hypothetical scenario, have you such knowledge?
Saying there is no-self is incorrect since its still liable to have identification with this stance, all conditioned things are not-self
So, what happens when we die? The Buddha never really directly addressed that? These texts that you give a figurative, non-literal, reading to do not address that? When we die, we die? There is no literal rebirth according to the Buddha's teachings?
This is speculation again, what happens when "I" die? will "I" exsist? will "I" cease to exsist? will "I" exsist and not exsist?, this all comes from self view via identification with the khandas and is to attend unwisely and ask the wrong questions. Instead the Buddha focues on dukkha and its quenching, not what may or not be
He taught one should attend to what is and so see the khandas as they are, let go of any identification with them and so be released from all dukkha and also all speculative views (which no longer apply since there is no sense of self)
There is no literal rebirth according to the Buddha's teachings? How is it that you have this great insight into the truly true truth of the Buddha's teachings that contradicts so many others? Should I come and sit at your feet?
What I am saying is the Buddha understood how such speculative views come to be, that the Buddhas own noble teachings dont include them/it. That noble right view doesnt require one to have a view of being reborn after physical death. That the Buddhas teachings are based on what is, what is verifiable and investigated and not what may or not be and no of couse you shouldnt "sit at my feet" and nor would i want you to
Im also stating that rebirth view is actualy attending unwisely
"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to.
This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Actually, have you done much real intensive practice to see what the nature of the the "birth and death and rebirth" of the "I am" in a moment to moment arising and falling is really like, what it really feels like?
If your asking if i actualy practice then yes i do
What i am saying is that the Buddhas teachings show how dukkha comes to be and how to end it. This includes how speculative views come to be (via clinging) and the dukkha inherent in them and how to end that dukkha and speculative view
Im not saying rebirth is or isnt, since this is away from the middle path and back into speculative extremes