Mi'sen

perhaps, then I misunderstood, or chose to grind my own axe. I'm just not sure that suffering can't be gotten rid of, effectively, for example, so I'm not sure it's a ridiculous philosophy. (Dukkha, otoh, well, perhaps not. But if you don't care, that's very close.)

Yeah, I came at that particular problem from my own cyclothymic baseline. I have periods where suffering is an overwhelming constant and I wish only for its end, and periods where it feels hardly relevant at all. Over time, that both damages and immunizes you.

There may be stable states which avoid it. The core Mahayana criticism of Theravada is that Arhat nirvana is not a stable state. Eventually you will fall out of it. That is unacceptable to them. Arhat is not a stable state, whereas Buddha level is. (Again, no idea if true.)

So, things I agree with: - Only an accomplished practitioner can say what something is really like, experientially. Things I disagree with: - Accomplished practitioners are qualified to deal in absolutes. How do they know what does or doesn't end? I don't see how they could.

They can't know it eternally. They can know it for years, and if you believe in spiritual bodies (and if you don't most of cultivation Buddhism and Hinduism is bullshit to you), then you can speak for centuries and millenia at the least.

I question that premise. I certainly believe in elite-level athleticism, but most elite athletes are strongly deluded about their own skills. It's seemingly of benefit to their practice.

In my youth I was a very very good runner. The difference between the actual elites and the very good is heartbreakingly large. I could multiple lap good non runners. The world level guy could lap me. Most people never get to a level where they can even understand the gap.

but spiritual practice is more like acrobatics. There are break points: at certain levels of acrobatic skills you can do discrete actions that lesser acrobats or ordinary people can't even do. You aren't just faster by X seconds, or stronger.