Criticism is implicit in whatever is said by those who claim to have proof. Yet they never provide any traceable evidence for their claims. If you are going to roar the lion's roar, you best say something worthwhile that resonates with the majority of your audience. If all you can muster is the proverbial finger wagging on the keyboard, you did nothing but screech like a kitten.binocular wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:35 pmBut there is no shortage of Buddhists who claim to have proof of Dhamma long before they have attained stream entry, who severely criticize others for being "of little faith". That's one of those situations where Buddhist apologists clash with Buddhist doctrine.
One may not be able to confirm access to Dhamma prior to nobility, but there is access to energy (viriya) and trajectory prior to any sort of confirmation. Yes, some of that is faith-based, but even the mere knowledge of being able to both position attention and compose the mind to varying degrees, along with the prospect for even further composure and trajectory, is directionality towards "something" - something other than how things are "now" and how the used to be prior to any effort to understand. That much you can know. That isn't proof, but if you look at something like the satta bojjhaṅgā (factors of awakening), you can built trust in the progression when your experience - more and more - looks to be corresponding with the meaning that you've heard described in suttas or some other source.