Further, I studied buddhism for a while. I have no idea what you're talking about. In other words, YMMV.
You didn't point out a problem clearly, so I'm not sure what you think I should have done instead of branching a philosophy discussion. You'll note that the only thing to which I replied from Maro's answer is his comment about Buddhists being right. My reply has nothing to do with his commiseration, and I believe I stay on topic 100%. Besides, if you want me to reply to Maro's commiseration, my answer is that we should verify everything in OP's post first before deciding with what to commiserate. Why commiserate in places where OP is actually repeatedly at fault and chose the wrong way? How can you properly commiserate at times when OP was right if you can't see where they are? That's not justice to the investors, nor OP, nor is it the way to help OP to find the right way. Fact is neither you nor I know OP. Anyway, see my own reply to OP in my comments.
"Further, I studied buddhism for a while. I have no idea what you're talking about. In other words, YMMV."
I've often experienced this kind of reaction from today's Buddhists. I don't understand why. What I do know is that it's impossible to understand the truth with untruthfulness inside oneself. I also studied Buddhism for long years, traveled a lot, and met a lot of people, but I've never found in any country a Buddhism which is for the living people.
It's critical that this result is informed accurately to human society so that people can protect themselves from being cheated by falsehood.
I've never found in any country a Buddhism which is for the living people.
Very interesting. You and I would probably get along just fine.
Did the Buddha teach the Four Noble Truths? The third noble truth about the "cessation of suffering and the causes of suffering". How can what you say be true then?
You asked a very good question. Buddha, when he was Enlightened, also attained nirvana. What this means is that he saw the world of origin, where everything dies and is reborn again. This is why he could see that all the results are made by the causes. So, it's because nothing exists in the world of origin that Gautama said that there's nothing there. But Buddhist monks often misunderstand this as that when you attain nirvana you can finish all your suffering. However, Buddha never claimed that. He explained that when he attained nirvana he could be free from agony and illusions. But no creature while it is alive can be free from suffering. If we don't eat, we suffer from starvation. If we go to a cold place, we feel cold. So to cease suffering forever means that one would have to stop being reborn and die forever. The only way to free from suffering while you are alive is to disengage your consciousness from your body. This is what modern buddhism guides you to do through meditation. But it's the exact opposite way of Buddha's teaching. Buddha taught people to save themselves and to live forever, not to die forever.
In other words, one person's dominant world viewpoint is not everyone elses, and that's perfectly ok.
For example, for me, trying to understand spirituality/meditation with the mind, is like trying to be a know it all about swimming by studying, watching, and discussing swimming without jumping in the water. True teachings of any kind in my mind are meant to teach one to lead themselves through whatever comes up. Then again, I'm pretty anti-dogmatic, ritualistic but still maintain some mindful disciplines to keep my attention where I want.
See how I said something so personal to me but it might not mean anything to anyone until they've done the equivalent in their own way?
To know what they taught, look at their life activities. Even though people didn't treat him very well while he was alive, Buddha had endless love and mercy for people, and tried repeatedly to awaken them so that they can save themselves.
Because Buddha tried to help awaken people non-stop for 45 years and because his teaching is still accurate by today's view, I know that he would never lie and tell people to practice something wrong. That's why whatever is true or not true, among what Buddhist monks claim is Buddha's teaching, can be proven by the facts. If it's Buddha's teaching, it will have all the evidence and no falsehood.
I've also met many Buddhist monks, so if you're still not convinced, I can show you as much evidence as you need that they don't realize anything about the true teachings of Buddha. As long as you give me questions I can give answers. One simple fact is that if monks know Buddha's teaching then they should have some evidence that they learned directly from the master. But that is impossible since Gautama Buddha died 3000 years ago. So I'm not claiming I know Gautama's teachings but my reasoning and experiences as explained here are only that which I've seen with my own eyes and verified with substantial proof.
> The contents of those scriptures have been retranslated countless times. Besides this fact, they were only written down about 500 years after Gautama Buddha died. Third, the words that were written down were those as transmitted by ordinary people, who had a huge gap in level of consciousness between them and Buddha, so they didn't understand exactly and didn't write down Buddha's exact words.
This could be true.
> Buddha said that he never taught anything of his own.
What is your source for this? How do I know that your source hasn't also been re-translated countless times? How do I know it wasn't only written down 500 years after Gautama Buddha died?
The majority says that the Buddha taught that we could end our suffering in our life. You say he didn't. You say he taught something else, but you offer no evidence. I'm just wondering what your evidence is.
---
edit: I truly mean no disrespect in this. I'm just curious.
My answer to what proof I have claiming Buddha said that he didn't teach anything of his own is in scriptures, but it's in numerous ones. When Gautama was passing away, a disciple asked Buddha from whom he should learn and Buddha replied that he should learn from himself. Gautama also advised a great number of people to confirm everything directly, and not to jump into believing words without confirmation. Verification is the way that people can save themselves from a lie. So I don't know Buddha's words since I never heard from him directly but I can tell that he taught that to people since it's found consistently throughout all accounts of him.
Not totally true. I want to point out that there's a huge gap between what Buddha saw and taught and what is said by the teachings in modern Buddhism.
Gautama Buddha went to people basically every single day for 45 years and tried to awaken them. He absolutely did not teach people that it's possible to eliminate suffering while alive, and he never taught that meditation is a way to enlightenment. Instead, if we make a gist of the content of his life work teaching we can see that he taught two things: the theory of transmigration (reincarnation), and the law of cause and effect. He taught these things to make people realize how the world works, and what he taught is still totally accurate even by the view of today's world. There were ways in his teaching from the problems people have to the solutions they want to get. But those ways are absent from modern Buddhism.
So we can conclude that while things in the world exist through change (reincarnation), there is another constant meaning in the world, and that is "truth", or law, of how the world works – the law of cause and effect.
When we see and understand the world of the truth then what we find is permanent and never changes. All the answers are fixed. Only questions change.