[TXmjLW9b]

First, there is nothing speculative about death. We all die with 100% certainty.

So? What is pointless is *speculating* about it. And, again, *believing* in any such speculation is *superstition*.

Second, speculation about suffering after is not pointless at all.

You are calling "suffering" something very different from what the Buddha did.

It is possible to reason about it as follows:

* First possibility: with the physical death of Aloka-D, Aloka-D's suffering is extinguished.
* Second possibility: with the physical death of Aloka-D, Aloka-D's suffering is not extinguished.

You are making the fallacious assumption "life is suffering". The Buddha did not teach that.

According to classical logic, and the law of the excluded middle, these are the two possibilities.

Fallacy of Excluded Middle, actually. There are many more possibilities.

The Buddha would look at things in terms of four possibilities: There is this, there is not this, there is both this and not-this, and there is neither this nor not-this.

If you accept or tend to believe the first possibility,

And then there is the possibility that no one here believes or accepts either of them. In fact, that is the case.

If you accept or tend to believe the first possibility, then the object of the dhamma, the cessation of dukkha, is somewhat pointless. Your suffering is automatically extinguished at death, so you don't need to worry. Ultimately, the problem of dukkha will solve itself. All you need to worry about is avoiding suffering as good as you can until you die.

That is simply the most preposterous argument. Would you tell a mother grieving for her child, "Oh, you don't have to worry, some day you will die and be done with all this"...? Why don't you try that sometime?

This can be achieved by a number of different methods, one of which is dharma lite.

How funny that you now refuse to defend that term, yet you continue to use it. Smacks of cowardice to me.

If you accept or tend to believe the second possibility, then the object of the dhamma, cessation of dukkha, becomes an existential necessity.

The quenching of suffering is a necessity in any case. Suffering sucks. All this intellectualization is just silly.

Even if you enjoy perfect health, wealth, family, friends and your life is one big party, you cannot escape dukkha.

That is the case no matter what. But that does not mean that all of life is suffering. There is plenty of beauty and joy in life. Given the choice of reincarnating infinitely into lives as they are, I would take it. You are equivocating the definition of "dukkha".

In this case, there is not only an urgent requirement to address the cause of suffering in the here and now

-- one that is not there in the first scenario, or in the reality in which neither scenario is relevant?

but it there is also an urgent requirement to cultivate and develop the precepts and the eightfold path in order to prevent future unfortunate rebirth. Now which version did the Buddha teach?

The Buddha did not teach that the 4NT and 8FP were to prevent "{future unfortunate rebirth". He taught that they are for the quenching of suffering here and now.

The sutta support for the idea of continuously cultivating the path over several lifetimes flows naturally from the idea of stream-entry, once-returner, none-returner. So you can draw on any of the suttas where these appear, inlcuding MN 117.

The Buddha doesn't say anything about the idea of stream-entry, once-returner, none-returner in MN 117.

In addition, in the Buddha's Noble, liberative teachings, these terms are used metaphorically, as Valtiel has pointed out elsewhere. The Buddha is talking about future "birth" of self-view, and uses the term "birth", rather than reincarnation. Again, the Buddha never spoke of this "re-birth" you postulate.

As to the other points: nirvana/nibbana is not guaranteed, as Buddhanature exists, but is not necessarily actualised. N

This statement is nonsense. The Buddha did not teach "Buddhanature". I thought you had declared yourself a Theravadan. "Buddhanature" is a mahayana concept. But really, you argue here like an adherent of the tibetan religion.

Yes, the ultimate goal is the end of rebirth which coincides with nirvana.

the Buddha did not teach that. He taught that the ultimate goal was the extinguishment of suffering. Nibbana is that extinguishment. The Buddha lived for 45 years after attaining Nibbana. You might as well put a red dot on your forehead and declare the Hinduism you profess.

A world full of compassion would certainly be nice, but the Buddha never declares such a goal.

He talks about a person who follows his teachings as pervading compassion in the six directions, and that compassion spreading. A world of compassion follows naturally in an world that follows the Dhamma.

He does not talk about changing the world, but he talks a lot about liberation from the world.

Liberation from "the world" of attachment to sense pleasures. he certainly did, however, change the world so far, and it can go a great deal further.

Finally, how rebirth is relevant to practice is explained in the paragraph above addressed to Aloka-D.

you have failed to show any relevance at all.