Then is seems we disagree on dependent origination perhaps its just best to leave it, both sides have been put forward any more discussion would be circularI will say it again: The three lives teaching teaches its happening right now. It also teaches that it happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. But there is nothing about this teaching which moves one's practice out of the here and now. That would be impossible. Practice can only happen in the here and now.
Ignorance and formations have arisen in the past... and they also arise in the present and will arise in the future.
Feelings and clinging arise in the present... and they also have arisen in the past and will arise in the future.
In fact, these two lines are really just two different ways of saying the same thing.
Why did I only focus on those bits? Because those bits represent causes. They are the bits where our practice must focus. We can't do anything about results (other than understand how they came to arise) but we can do something about causes. Seeing feelings as just feelings, seeing all phenomena as annica/dukkha/anatta, leads to the eradication of ignorance. With no ignorance there can be no craving. With no craving there can be no karmic formations.
You are right, to state "I understand it and you dont" is arogant and i did come accross that way although that wasnt my intention, i probably should have started questions betterNo, I do not think so. When one damages something and others have to step in to make repairs... it is good that the repairs were done but it would have been better still if the damage was not done in the first place. When one slanders the Dhamma in a public forum it does much harm to many people. Saying "Buddhists for centuries have gotten the teachings wrong and only I have got it right" is no where near as healthy as saying "I do not understand this teaching which has endured for centuries. Can someone explain it to me?" That is a healthy way to inquire.
Saying there is no rebirth i feel is not slandering the dhamma, this is the basic point that i was trying to express
the buddha stated his dhamma would only last 500 years did he not?
I feel it was good debate since very relevant points were raised on both sides