> Suppose you say you're practicing and teaching mathematics but you cannot tell me what mathematics is. How can I trust that you know anything about what you are teaching?
That is perfectly fine. But it does not prove anything remotely close to what you stated.
> The burden of proof is on the person who says that something exists, not the person who says that they have not yet found evidence of the thing's existence.
Now you are just being difficult. I did not ask you to prove anything. I said I was curious as to why you believe it is not way to solve problems, in the face of a huge number of people who have practical experience saying it is.
> If you have some evidence in your life quality that meditation has helped you, we should confirm what the concrete benefit is.
A concrete benefit is reduced stress levels. And this is a concrete benefit that has had plenty of research to confirm it.
> What I claim here is that there is a huge difference between the practice of meditation that people are learning and teaching in modern times, and the specifics of the method of self-reflection that Gautama Buddha guided his disciples to make efforts to undergo.
This is a very different claim from what you made earlier.
> However, I don't know you yet, and it would be a mistake of mine to share his real teaching with you if I don't confirm how genuine you are.
This is just pure, utter bullshit.
> To be clear, no, I do not mean that meditation is not sufficient by itself. I mean that meditation is not something that makes you closer to Enlightenment. Enlightenment has very strict preconditions and meditation is not a teaching that you can practice which helps you fulfill those conditions.
This was not the claim I was responding to. I was responding to your specific claim that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to enlightenment. This was also the entirety of the context for my use of the term "nirvana". If you have other beliefs with respect to what enlightenment and nirvana means, that's an entirely different subject. While I practice meditation, my interest in Buddhism beyond that is one of a general interest in philosophy - I'm not a Buddhist.
> So I would like to see how you respond before telling you more.
I did not ask you to tell me more, I questioned specific claims you made that to me directly disagree with facts, and you avoided answering the questions as best you can. That to me tells me I'd waste my time listening to anything more.
That is perfectly fine. But it does not prove anything remotely close to what you stated.
> The burden of proof is on the person who says that something exists, not the person who says that they have not yet found evidence of the thing's existence.
Now you are just being difficult. I did not ask you to prove anything. I said I was curious as to why you believe it is not way to solve problems, in the face of a huge number of people who have practical experience saying it is.
> If you have some evidence in your life quality that meditation has helped you, we should confirm what the concrete benefit is.
A concrete benefit is reduced stress levels. And this is a concrete benefit that has had plenty of research to confirm it.
> What I claim here is that there is a huge difference between the practice of meditation that people are learning and teaching in modern times, and the specifics of the method of self-reflection that Gautama Buddha guided his disciples to make efforts to undergo.
This is a very different claim from what you made earlier.
> However, I don't know you yet, and it would be a mistake of mine to share his real teaching with you if I don't confirm how genuine you are.
This is just pure, utter bullshit.
> To be clear, no, I do not mean that meditation is not sufficient by itself. I mean that meditation is not something that makes you closer to Enlightenment. Enlightenment has very strict preconditions and meditation is not a teaching that you can practice which helps you fulfill those conditions.
This was not the claim I was responding to. I was responding to your specific claim that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to enlightenment. This was also the entirety of the context for my use of the term "nirvana". If you have other beliefs with respect to what enlightenment and nirvana means, that's an entirely different subject. While I practice meditation, my interest in Buddhism beyond that is one of a general interest in philosophy - I'm not a Buddhist.
> So I would like to see how you respond before telling you more.
I did not ask you to tell me more, I questioned specific claims you made that to me directly disagree with facts, and you avoided answering the questions as best you can. That to me tells me I'd waste my time listening to anything more.