I don't see how I'm backing out of anything :/Craig: "I dont know if it carries on after death of the aggregates."
Tilt - You may not know, but the suttas clearly teach it, as you did acknowledge (though you are now trying desperately to back track from your fit of honesty).
As I said, in some of the suttas we have the Buddha teaching that there is birth of "I am" after death. All I said was I don't know if that aspect is true or not, and so dont believe or disbelieve either way but would practice the same regardless. Also that Dhamma practice should be practiced in either situation (rebirth or not).
While you may not believe in literal rebirth, there is no reason to try to rewrite the suttas, nor is there any reason to try to characterize those that do believe in literal rebirth, as taught in the suttas, as folks that just do not really, truly understand the Dhamma.
I'm not saying that :/
Just because someone has a view of rebirth doesn't mean they understand Dhamma anyless than I do. I am saying that it isn't essential, and that people can practice Dhamma with or without it.
No I don't, but belief in Nibbana is essentialYou do not know if Nibbana is true, either.
I'm sorry if I come across that way, that's not my intent. As I said, what I was trying to put across is that rebirth view is not essential for everyone, someone can practice Dhamma just as well without holding rebirth view as someone who does, and that the practice of Dhamma can continue if there was rebirth or not, and so it's truth or falsity shouldn't impact Dhamma practice (ideally).If you see the utility in believing in literal rebirth, then I am curious as to why you continue to characterize such believe via your strawman argumentation. No one is saying you MUST believe in rebirth to practice the Dhamma, but I think it would be far more honest of you not to characterize those that do believe in literal rebirth in such a prejudicial way as you continue to do.