Ñāṇa wrote:This is a highly dubious claim that isn't supported by the Buddhist suttas nor any Buddhist tradition. Moreover, if you dismiss the Buddhist view of saṃsāra and rebirth then why would you want to attain liberation from saṃsāra? And why would you want to appropriate the term "nibbāna" for your goal?
First I think my "dubious claim" is supported by suttas. Sutta clearly speak of nibbana here and now
and nibbana as the ultimate release from suffering.
But as I said, some people interpret "dhukka" as inclusive of physical pains, sickness and old age. If that is the case then obviously the only way to end dukkha is to end existence. To such a person, there is no way to experience cessation of suffering while still being alive. How can he end suffering if old age is suffering, if sickness is suffering, if death is suffering. So, irrespective of what the suttas say of "cessation of suffering", they think the "only way out of suffering" is to end existing. So the whole "cycle of rebirth and samsara" come in to play.
Either way what matters is, to those of any school, the "present moment" is applicable. No matter what you believe in, the whole "cycle"
is still visible in the present moment.
And I am really not interested in Ven T's commentaries any more than a ven. A's or ven B's commentaries. They are all just interpretations to me. I will take it all 50-50.
Ñāṇa wrote:Not according to the suttas. Buddhism offers a much greater potential for human knowledge than this.
The suttas I have read do not claim that all practitioners have direct knowledge of life after death. Even some arahaths do not have such knowledge or powers. I don't consider it as a directly verifiable part of dhamma. But I do not refuse or whole heartedly accept it either.
Ñāṇa wrote:No, it's not. The traditional interpretations of saṃsāra and rebirth are quite consistent.
Since when was traditional "interpretations" the gospel?
Ñāṇa wrote:This again shows your lack of understanding of the Buddhadhamma.
It's easy to make personal remarks such as "dubious claim" or "you don't know" but in intellectual discussions they don't hold much ground.