The point of practice is the cessation of suffering. There are different ideas about how and when that happens.
Itās also part of proper attention (yoniso manasikara), attention is only focused on what matters, the mind, dukkha, etcā¦
An ariyan doesnāt leave his āfieldā. Thereās a sutta where the Buddha likens ariyans to animals who stay in their territory to avoid being hunted by hunters (mara).
Speculating about what is non-evident is entering the territory of mental sensuality and one is subject to being hunted (craving).
Actually I think the inverse is true, the more people learn about pali and archaeology, the less dogmatic they become and less sure they are that there is only one valid interpretation. Itās usually the beginners who are dogmatic and fanatical about a single interpretation.
As for your comment on the complete teaching, I remember a sutta where the Buddha goes over all the topics of dhamma (5agg, 6fsm, 4nt, d.o., 4jhanas, etc.) and they all have to do with suffering, not the supernatural.
Itās better to look at dhamma as āselected experienceā
The Blessed One said, āWhat is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, āRepudiating this All, I will describe another,ā if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range.ā
There is all that one can experience which includes suffering, and then thereās the restrained limited experience which doesnāt include suffering. Thatās basically what the entire teaching comes down to. Shaving off experience that is not good. It doesnāt matter if there are things beyond the range of experience, that could exist. Thus āexistenceā is more speculative than experience, and therefore fickle and intangible.
2 Likes
Ariya , yes . But not non ariya . And that is all good not leaving your field , but that doesnt mean other criteria are not relevant to the practice , there are different degrees and categories of teachings to be taking into consideration .
As you are being agnostic you seems to be not wavering and quite ācertainā about the 4NT , N8FP , which necessarily includes 4 jhanas , however that is not your own wisdom rather but relying on Buddha wisdom , isnt it ? Then dismissing what is non evident that yourself perceives as speculation seems contradictory . Because why an agnostic do not dismiss 4 jhanas as non evident therefore regards it as speculation ?
4 jhanas is not supernatural ? That is not any persuasive than says rebirth , karma and nibbana are not supernatural .
No the 4 jhanas are not supernatural, they are merely the withdrawal of unwholesome qualities, and each jhana is the further stilling of activity. How is removing things supernatural? If anything itās the opposite of super, itās lessernatural as it reduces experience, not increases.
And not all abhinnas are supernatural either, the main Supermundane abhinna, destruction of the asavas, is not Supernatural.
Furthermore more I am not being dogmatic, I am not saying this is true because the buddha said itās true. Iām saying this is true because itās self-evident. Even though the Buddha discovered the dhamma, the dhamma stands on its own, hence it is an element, and thus self-evident for those who see.
Iām also not being fanatic, Iām not saying āonly this is true and everything else isnātā, Iām simply sharing my interpretation and opinion, Iām not telling you that yours is wrong, only irrelevant to what I believe the dhamma is about, but if you believe the dhamma is about worshipping devas then by all means, walk that path if it brings you pleasure.
2 Likes
No , i think you are somehow misunderstanding here , i mean your understanding of the dhamma overall , you treated some as supernatural or superstitious according to your own sense of definition . You are being biased in certain way and sense . You dismissed devas and other realms as supernatural and superstitious , yet you regards 4 jhanas and abhinna as not supernatural and not superstitious . That is really not compatible . Do you see that .
And i am just pointing out to you what is not evident to you , is not really to be taken as superstitious or supernatural .
Take both 4 jhanas & abhinna nibbana and the other group ie. rebirth karma and devas , those are something not evident too . Or in other words you have to regards both 4 jhanas abhinna nibbana and rebirth karma devas as on the same ground .
Itās not my own definition, supernatural means
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
It is commonly accepted that devas are supernatural. I donāt see the confusion here.
The jhanas arenāt supernatural though. As I said, thereās nothing supernatural about withdrawing from the senses and/or unwholesome mental contact.
The dhamma is not supernatural either, I can see greed, delusion, and hatred, as well as the 5 hindrances, arise from time to time. How is that supernatural? Those things are natural.
There are 6 abhinnas in total, 4 or 5 of 6 abhinnas are supernatural, but the only 1 abhinna that is ariyan, the destruction of asavas, is not supernatural. So the abhinna of the dhamma is not supernaturalā¦
I didnāt say I have no beliefs either, I said that I believe the dhamma prioritizes what is self evident and experiential over what is not and speculative.
2 Likes
So you do accept supernatural ! 
No I am saying what the suttas define, not what I believe.
I already stated what I believe in my first response to you
I never said the suttas donāt talk about the supernatural, I said the suttas say itās not necessary to believe in them as long as you also donāt reject them.
I think youāre glossing over nuance too much.
No , it means you are practicing in according to your own version of understanding and acceptance of it . Do you get i what mean ?
Sure, I never disputed that.
uttari
ind & adjective
- (ind.) further, beyond (+ abl); more; in addition; most, exceedingly
- (adjective) better, superior
to me, some beyond what is ordinarily human does not sound āsupernaturalāā¦ 
supernatural
adjective
- (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
āa supernatural beingā
1 Like
supernatural != supernormal != supermundane
No need to be dramatic.
Some of the old monks like Balangoda ananda mahathera seem to understand the difference
Iām scared if I misrepresent the Buddha and other Ariyas words.
I just put this from Sutta.
According to Buddha, One who has destructed the Asavas has miracle of instruction. They can bring any regular human to the path and end of suffering here and now.
See AN 3.60 and DN 11
"Brahman, there are these three miracles. Which three? The miracle of psychic power, the miracle of telepathy, & the miracle of instruction.
ā¦
"And what is the miracle of instruction?There is the case where a certain person gives instruction in this way: āDirect your thought in this way, donāt direct it in that. Attend to things in this way, donāt attend to them in that. Let go of this, enter and remain in that.ā This is called the miracle of instruction.
ā¦
"As for the miracle where a certain person gives instruction in this way: āDirect your thought in this way, donāt direct it in that. Attend to things in this way, donāt attend to them in that. Let go of this, enter and remain in thatā:this is the miracle of instruction, of the three, appeals to me as the highest & most sublime.
I donāt dare to denigrate any of Ariyas who has samma samadhi or have achieve the destruction of Asavas due to this:
āThese dear beings did bad things by way of body, speech, and mind. They spoke ill of the noble ones; they had wrong view; and they chose to act out of that wrong view. When their body breaks up, after death, theyāre reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.
Anyway, Good Luck.
1 Like
I donāt think an ariyan training on the path would be bothered with what other people think or say on a forum, as they would be more concerned with what their own mind is doing. If they were bothered, then it would be an opportunity to reflect on these mind mechanism or activities at work.
2 Likes
When one says three poisons (greed, ill will and ignorance) can be seen here and now, however one, who said it, canāt see the three poisons in the writing act here and now.
Then the writing is just hollow, void. 
Clearly one hasnāt understood.
Vijjacaranasampanno
The absorption states are scientifically researched.
Recarnation is not scientifically researched because we cannot capture what happens after death. On the other hand, logic, the survival of anything after the death of the components is very real. It sounds ridiculous to me that I only have Khandas once in the billions of years, and then again I wonāt have X time, may forever.
The question is good. Is there a kammic continuity between lives? If so, which part of kamma goes on. I bet on the will to live, how much our mind is trained. However, this is only a hypothesis.
Sorry for my english, guys
1 Like
You should deconstruct this line of thinking
āWhatā has anything? A body is born, ages, and dies. This body has a brain that labels things, one of the things it labels is itself, āmeā.
Labels donāt exist, they are descriptors, they describe things, nothing more than a thought. A thought is nothing more than a clump of neurons temporarily holding some configuration for a mere nanosecond.
So what exactly āhas the khandasā? A label certainly cannot have the khandas. A thought is of the khandas, so how can a thought have itself?
There is nothing to have in the first place, only a delusion, no different than thinking one can fly if one believes hard enough.
Your sentence is no different than saying āIt sounds ridiculous to me that I can only walk and not fly my entire life, I should be able to fly with my mind at least once in 80 years of being alive.ā
2 Likes
No, it does not. The Buddha explicitly stated in AN 10.211 that believing that rebirth and kamma arenāt real (aka mundane wrong view) is conducive to rebirth in hell; on the other hand, believing in rebirth and kamma (aka mundane right view) is conducive to rebirth in heaven:
They have wrong view. Their perspective is distorted: āThereās no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. Thereās no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. Thereās no afterlife. Thereās no obligation to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And thereās no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.ā Someone with these ten qualities is cast down to hell.
ā¦
They have right view, an undistorted perspective: āThere is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There is obligation to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.ā
The part āsomeone with these ten qualitiesā is because right and wrong view are just one of the ten conditions that the sutta discusses. Itās not as if all secular atheists were gonna get reborn in hell. Iām just pointing out that the texts are neither secular nor agnostic, contrary to what some secular Buddhists defend.
The goal of traditional Buddhism is freedom from dukkha, which is tantamount to release from samsara. Without samsara, secular Buddhism takes Buddhist practices out of context and put to the service of mundane well-being, like reducing stress and enhanced concentration. Donāt get me wrong: Iām not saying that this is wrong, immoral, cultural appropriation or anything like that. Anybody may meditate in order to have a better life, but that doesnāt make one a Buddhist. In fact, most Buddhists donāt even meditate.
Btw, Iām using the term āBuddhistā here to refer to one who has faith in the Buddha, which is something defined in SN 48.9:
And what is the faculty of faith? Itās when a noble disciple has faith in the Realized Oneās awakening: āThat Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed.ā This is called the faculty of faith.
Of course, one canāt believe that the Buddha is the teacher of gods and humans without believing in gods.
In conclusion, Buddhism is a religion like any other, but the abundance of practices conducive to a better life has made Westerners interested. Honestly, I find this marvelous and am myself included among these people. However, the desire to be part of a legitimate group has made many, but not all, secular Buddhists distort the Dhamma. Again, thereās no problem in meditating and applying loving-kindness, just remember that thatās not everything that Buddhism is about.
1 Like
The EBT inherit beliefs from their historical context. Differentiating the EBTās from their historical context takes different arguments dependent on the school and oneās preferences.