.It boils down to which plane of truth one is able to experience
But doesn't that presuppose an experiencer? A underlying knower? An inquisitor? The conflict I have had with Theravada is that the illusionary, self is doing both the knowing and the liberating...
So what tells us that after we detach ourselves from everything in this world somehow this ends the circle of rebirth? Isn't that in itself lending buddhism to whatever metaphysical debate about reincarnation and what continues on which is what it's supposedly trying to avoid? If we're not really ultimately there we don't get reborn anyway, right? Which brings me to my other question in my OP. Should then Buddhism be viewed as a strategy of detachment for the termination of stress and nothing more or noble? Is then Thanissaro Bhikku's often disputed term 'the no-self STRATEGY' a more accurate description? Because if we don't want to concern ourselves with metaphysics at all and we still want to terminate dukkha here and now then we can simply, strictly say that Buddhism is not really an '-ism' at all. It's a simple yet difficult (oxymoron I know) 'trick' of the mind. Kind of like 'if I don't really mind about myself, passions, fun stuff, bitter stuff, good stuff, bad stuff' then nothing affects me. A sort of apathy....?? A stoicism taken to the extreme??"Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world"