user11674: I hope you can clarify my doubts:

If one is skeptical concerning enlightenment (because no one besides the Buddha and mysteriously only those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practice Buddhism? The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?
I agree on the whole point concerning anicca, but impermanence is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we cant cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isn't that true? If you go by that belief it's quite bitter because monks that are long in their business haven't already realized nirvana/awakening and the chances are high that they wont. So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?
Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough times due to getting bad karma otherwise?
If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightenment 
Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?
What if rebirth truly doesn't exist? The whole point in striving for enlightenment is then pointless.
Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority.


user471: Firstly, if you look at this answer, even one Arahant cannot recognize another Arahant, so no one can confirm the attainments of another definitively.
Secondly, monks are not allowed by the Vinaya to tell their true attainments to the lay people, but they can tell it to other monks. Monks are not allowed to claim to attain something that they did not (that is, to speak the untruth about attainment), to anybody.
Thirdly, you are not forced to attempt to become enlightened or to try to leave suffering (as defined by the Buddha). You can continue as you were. If you're having a good time in samsara and you're quite satisfied with it, you don't have to feel coerced to let go of it.
Fourthly, there are some Secular Buddhists who say that there is no rebirth. This question of your's is best redirected to them: "What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for enlightement is then pointless."

user13011: 
1) If one is skeptical concerning enlightment (because no one besides
  the buddha and mysteriously ONLY those people in his time got
  enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practise Buddhism? The
  whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned,
  Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized
  enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?

It is true that enlightenment is very rare, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive our best. We all strive to be educated, but there are only few who are exceptional, in the same way, we do our best to maintain our health but there is no one fully perfect and healthy. So, we take courage and try our best to be enlightened if we succeed well and good if not the way itself is blissful.  

2) I agree on the whole point concerning anicca, but impermance is
  always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and
  then die at the end. Yes we cant cling to experience, but we can
  recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why
  loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the
  extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on
  everything and better become a monk." Isnt that true? If you go by
  that belief it's quite bitte because monks that are long in their
  business havent already realized nirvana/awakening and the chances are
  high that they wont. So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?

anicca /dukkha/anattaa are higher knowledge and should only be approached by a saintly man who is filled with virtue and his disenchantment with anicca should be based on virtue, not fear or indifference as you put it. 
I must admit, especially on this platform, there is a huge amount of intellectual discussion about these ideas, but, in my opinion, it's just a smoke and nonsense to most of us because one has to be truly virtuous to meditate on these higher ideals. For example, for a saintly man who lives for the benefit of other who has no desire of his own in this world except fulfilling other peoples desire, for him the idea of anatta is easy to comprehend. 

3) Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that
  want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough
  times due to getting bad karma otherwise?

Buddhism is not a fiction and contrary to what you noted the idea of Karma grants the power of what you become in your hand no external things which are independent of your intention (Karma) can affect what you become and this is freedom, the greatest freedom given to man. 
Even if it's a fiction as you say, for my part I should like this fiction,  by the aid of which I should live happily and undisturbed. But you must consider for yourselves what you wish.

4)If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and
  experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can
  become enlightenment

As a said above, only a saintly man should contemplate on these three marks of existence. An evil man or even an ordinary man contemplating on these truths will profit noting and will not lead him to enlightenment but confusion. 

5)Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about
  seeing the 3 characteristics?

The three marks are said to describe the whole existence, so if it takes half a lifetime to earn mastery of say medicine which is a thin subset of mundane scientific knowledge, understanding the whole of existence will sure take a very long time.

6)What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for
  enlightement is then pointless.

Rebirth is true and there is progress to hope for from this life to the next, but even if it doesn't exist and if we can't achieve enlightenment in this life, the path itself is blissful. We live virtuously, free and  untroubled if we follow the noble eightfold path. 

7)Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as
  Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter
  out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are
  succumbed to an argument of authority.

Well, until you know the truth the best option to follow is what is declared by the all-knower, so faith is needed and filtering out true opinion which leads to knowledge is also needed.

user8157: 
The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to
  have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?

Both in the Buddha's time & today, only a relative few people are able to attain enlightenment; which is the official teaching of Buddhism (refer to Dhammapada 174). Buddhism itself is not deceiving people (although many modern so-called teachers are deceiving people). 

"well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and
  better become a monk."

Buddhism does not teach this to all people. For ordinary people who cannot abandon sex & family, due to instinctual drives, urges & fears, Buddhism teaches them to make good kamma so they can go to "heaven" (DN 31). 

So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?

Buddhism is not about belief. Buddhism is for people who desperately need to find peace because the world is not an attractive place for them. If you still believe TV, movies, sex, luxury, fancy cars, boats, video games, porn, family, God, Jesus, etc, are attractive, desirable & worthwhile things, enlightenment is probably not for you.

Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough
  times due to getting bad karma otherwise?

Yes, Buddhism is another fairy tale but only for puthujjana (the blind masses). Refer again to Dhammapada 174.

If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencig them during meditation then even an "evil" person can
  become enlightenment

No. An "evil" person cannot even see the 3 characteristics because the mind of an evil person has too many hindrances. 

Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?

It doesn't take long. It only takes a long time for ordinary people who have lots of instinctual drives ("hindrances"), such as sexual lust, fear of death & selfishness. 

What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for enlightement is then pointless.

Reincarnation is not related to enlightenment. Further, reincarnation does not exist. The only real "re-birth" is the rebirth of thoughts of egoism. 

Most people and monks dont question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter
  out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are
  succumbed to an argument of authority.

Thanissaro has done many wrong translations and given many wrong teachings however his PDF internet book called 'Shape of Suffering' is true & real. Buddhism teaches its followers to question every doctrine (AN 3.65; MN 95; MN 38; etc). 

user11288: 
On rebirth

The continuity of the self experiencing process may arguably be described as a fabrication, a weaving together of arisings and passings of conditionally determined moments of consciousness, a stream of deaths and (re)births funnelled through stages of becoming by the psycho physical aggregates of the 'experiencer' tightly knit together by the energy of craving. Following that line of thought, the break-up of the body is nothing but a moment of that process, albeit a more noticeable one.
SN 22:100
SN 22:22
Now, about the kammic energy of craving fueling the rebirth process, there is a nice sutta using the metaphor of the jumping off sparkles of a fire that, carried away by the breeze, can ignite another raging fire, even a long way away... But for the life of me, I just can't remember the precise reference right now.
With Mettā

user3701: Many of your questions are well-addressed in the Kalama Sutta. The tl;dr of the Sutta is that a group of people, who are overwhelmed many different spiritual paths, ask the Buddha how they should evaluate the truth of one path over another. The Buddha provides a response indicating morality and mindfulness as paths that lead to benefit, regardless of doctrinal differences (e.g. belief in afterlife, etc). Paths of greed and hatred will not be beneficial in this life or in another.
This Sutta also establishes a general principle in Buddhism: we are not expected to believe in doctrines; rather, if we wish to improve the conditions of our lives, the Buddha gives us tools that we can put to the test directly. You don't need to believe in impermanence, rebirth, kamma, nibbana, etc. to practice meditation or live by a moral code. But if you do practice morality and mindfulness, your life will improve precisely because your mind, meaning how you see the world, will have changed fundamentally.
This might answer some of your questions on, e.g. on impermanence: The Buddha teaches that impermanence is a fact of life. Recognizing or rather experiencing this is not about giving up on life; it's about understanding what you can and cannot control in life, which in turn may help you understand what things are truly valuable in life. We learn from this that pursuing money, wealth, and fame, for example, simply cannot lead to true happiness because these things are impermanent, subject to change, and beyond our control. Monks are (possibly) not people who have given up on life, but rather people who have decided to pursue the things in life that really are valuable and within our control, viz. morality and purification of the mind through meditation. Obviously, this is not an easy thing, but no one ever said it would be. Nevertheless, there are so many grades of benefit that moral living and meditation bring, that even one who does not attain nibbana in this life will benefit in the here and now from good conduct. 
This also (hopefully) answers many of your other questions: Enlightenment is not just about "academically" or "theoretically" understanding the Four Noble Truths or the Three Characteristics. It is really about incorporating them fully into one's experience of life, which can only be done by personally testing them through moral living and meditation. This is why an "evil" (i.e. immoral) person cannot attain enlightenment; by definition such a person has not really let go of the defilements that prevent us from experiencing these characteristics as a reality. 
Happy to clarify where needed. 

user-1: Big questions begs for big answers :)
"If one is skeptical concerning enlightment (because no one besides the buddha and mysteriously ONLY those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practise Buddhism?"
First a small correction: there are many who, through time, had declared to have reached the same enlightenment that the Buddha declared. The Buddhist tradition (literary and cultural) does talk about past and present arahants, those people who brought the buddhist training to it's conclusion during their lifetime. Speculations about who is arahant is a favorite "past times" of buddhists.
As to the question itself, many people see the benefit of a large number of buddhist practices and assimilate them in their lives even if they don't believe they would get enlightened during their lives. So, I suppose it's a personal choice based on other things, not only in the belief of nirvana "here and now".
"The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?"
Well, bhikkhu Bodhi is not the only bhikkhu ever lived. He is notorious in the west for his scholar work and social engagement. But being notorious, scholar, or engaged have very little to do with how far one is on the path. Besides being notorious, do you think he is a model of accomplishment?
"[...] but impermance is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we cant cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme.."
The bitterness understanding of Buddhism is quite unfortunate and buddhists who take that stance often seem to flirt with depression. But I don't think that's a good understanding of the doctrine. See this thread: Buddhism is kind of depressing.
""well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isnt that true?"
I guess if we stick only to genuine motivations that lead people to ordain, than perhaps, yes...it's a decision to be fully dedicated to the way out of suffering -- and, more often than not, to help people as well to ease their own suffering.
"If you go by that belief it's quite bitte because monks that are long in their business havent already realized nirvana/awakening and the chances are high that they wont. So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?"
I think it's safe to say most monks are monks in the formal sense: they wear robes, and they are affiliated to a sangha. That says nothing about their day to day. Are they committed to training the doctrine of their own religion, do they even know what these are and how to practice them? Or are they doing something else? I think, more often than not, it is the latter case.
And then, there's another kind of monks, people who are often hard to encounter. And these can be quite special people.
"Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough times due to getting bad karma otherwise?"
It could. Are you sure, though?
"If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencig them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightenment. Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?"
Perhaps a more informative description of Nirvana (arahatship) is the destruction of ten fetters. Studying what they are might give a glimpse on how hard it is to accomplish this goal.

Some Mahayana sects might add a few extra requisites to characterize final liberation.
"What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for enlightement is then pointless."
Maybe enlightenment would be pointless in this case, but would the entire teachings as well? After all, there's this very life still to take care of.
In one of the discourses, the Kālāmas put forward similar questions to the Buddha. While talking to them, the Buddha found the Kālāmas agreeing that good deeds lead to welfare and that bad deeds lead to harm. In other words, that being a good person has benefits in this lifetime. Then, using a hypothetical person who has strived to become greatly virtuous, he offered the following argument:

“This noble disciple, Kālāmas, whose mind is in this way without enmity, without ill will, undefiled, and pure, has won four assurances in this very life.
“The first assurance he has won is this: ‘If there is another world, and if there is the fruit and result of good and bad deeds, it is possible that with the breakup of the body, after death, I will be reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world.’
“The second assurance he has won is this: ‘If there is no other world, and there is no fruit and result of good and bad deeds, still right here, in this very life, I maintain myself in happiness, without enmity and ill will, free of trouble.
“The third assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil comes to one who does evil. Then, when I have no evil intentions toward anyone, how can suffering afflict me, since I do no evil deed?’
“The fourth assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil does not come to one who does evil. Then right here I see myself purified in both respects.’
-- AN 3.65

Basically, he is saying that being virtuous has, at least, benefits here in this very life. And if turns out there are intrinsic harmful effects of evil actions, one won't suffer them because one does not do them. Now, if there is another life after death conditioned by the previous one, the effects of bad actions won't drag one to a suffering realm. So, in essence, being virtuous is a win-win situation.
Notice the Buddha is not asking the Kālāmas to believe rebirth at face value. He is just teaching them to be intelligent with their choices in a situation where they don't have the knowledge to be certain about things they are uncertain.
"Most people and monks dont question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority."
I think there are people who take what the texts and their teachers say as "working hypothesis" and put them to test. There are also people who take them as authority. And there are people who take them as authority and filter out contrary evidence.
Perhaps the majority is in the blind belief side. Then again, for one example, I read it's pretty much the same scenario in the mathematics circles when Bertrand Russell was studying, when no one questioned the foundations of mathematics or saw it's fragility. It was pure blind belief.
Cracking wrong beliefs is not an easy thing, anywhere.

user43: Good honest question, love it. Let me give you an honest answer.


If one is skeptical concerning Enlightenment (because no one besides the Buddha and mysteriously ONLY those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practise Buddhism?


Enlightenment is attained by a lot more people than you realize. It's just not advertised for reasons of political correctness and compassion. It's like telling kids there is no Santa Claus - kinda pointless and only hurts the kids.

The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?

This is not how it works. You don't literally "escape impermanence", instead your perception of reality changes in such a way when impermanence no longer matters. Enlightenment is not becoming a Superman. It's more like getting able to see the true nature of "The Matrix". Again, this is not a literal change in how you see stuff, it is a fundamental change of one's mental framework and therefore of one's interpretation. 

2 I agree on the whole point concerning anicca, but impermanence is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we can't cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isn't that true? If you go by that belief it's quite bitter because monks that are long in their business haven't already realized Nirvana/Awakening and the chances are high that they won't. So why then believe in Nirvana and Enlightenment?

This seems to be a misunderstanding of the attitude of detachment/revulsion, promoted by Theravada and the lower yanas of Mahayana for the sake of motivating beginners. Accepting Impermanence is not all there is to [Mahayana] Buddhism, far from it. It's more about seeing how things truly work and learning to work with them.

Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale meant to trick people who live poorly to keep quiet in the tough times through fear of getting bad karma otherwise?

There is an element of fairy tale in Buddhism, and there is a real element. And the real element is pretty damn real and mindblowing.

If Enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightened.

It's much more than that, both in the sense of intellectual realization, and in terms of actual personal mastery in real life.

Why does it take so long to become Enlightened if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?

It takes a long time because we have some deeply lying conceptual mistakes about reality, due to which we have accumulated much emotional baggage rooted in those conceptual mistakes, and on top of that we tend to actively fight it when anyone tries to show us our mistakes and delusions. We have all these explanations and rationalizations that we cling to, and they are connected with events in our personal lives, providing support and sustenance to delusion. It's like a tangle of hair made from wrong concepts, emotions, and karma - very difficult to untangle.

What if rebirth truly doesn't exist? The whole point in striving for Enlightenment is then pointless.

Rebirth of individuals does not exist. There is rebirth of information. Because future lives are made from information left by the past lives, Enlightenment is not pointless.

Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority.

That is true. Most people are unfortunately pretty closed-minded - not because of a fault of their own or inherent weakness, but (quite counter-intuitively!) out of their best intents. People try to make sense of it all using their logic and common sense, and filter out all nonsense. But because it is so tangled up, it is not always obvious what is nonsense and what is real. Deferring to authority is infinitely easier than trying to make sense of it all by oneself. 

Unfortunately this entire Buddhism thing is a mess. It has this extraordinarily valid and useful stuff in its core, lots of confusion around that, and even more fairy tale stuff on the outside. I was very confused by it for decades and suffered a great deal. Now that I got it, the purpose of my life is to help people avoid wandering in the jungle as I did, and go straight to the well. Sometimes when doing this I wonder if by my efforts I only contribute to the jungle, as did my predecessors before me. But alas, I do what I can :))))
Let us know if we can help you here and please don't hesitate to start asking specific questions about Buddhist concepts and their application to real life. 

11674: <p>I hope you can clarify my doubts:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If one is skeptical concerning enlightenment (because no one besides the Buddha and mysteriously <em>only</em> those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practice Buddhism? The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?</p></li>
<li><p>I agree on the whole point concerning anicca, but impermanence is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we cant cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isn't that true? If you go by that belief it's quite bitter because monks that are long in their business haven't already realized nirvana/awakening and the chances are high that they wont. So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?</p></li>
<li><p>Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough times due to getting bad karma otherwise?</p></li>
<li><p>If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightenment </p></li>
<li><p>Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?</p></li>
<li><p>What if rebirth truly doesn't exist? The whole point in striving for enlightenment is then pointless.</p></li>
<li><p>Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority.</p></li>
</ol>
 471: <p>Firstly, if you look at <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22036/471">this answer</a>, even one Arahant cannot recognize another Arahant, so no one can confirm the attainments of another definitively.</p>

<p>Secondly, monks are not allowed by the Vinaya to tell their true attainments to the lay people, but they can tell it to other monks. Monks are not allowed to claim to attain something that they did not (that is, to speak the untruth about attainment), to anybody.</p>

<p>Thirdly, you are not forced to attempt to become enlightened or to try to leave suffering (as defined by the Buddha). You can continue as you were. If you're having a good time in samsara and you're quite satisfied with it, you don't have to feel coerced to let go of it.</p>

<p>Fourthly, there are some Secular Buddhists who say that there is no rebirth. This question of your's is best redirected to them: "What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for enlightement is then pointless."</p>
 13011: <blockquote>
  <p>1) If one is skeptical concerning enlightment (because no one besides
  the buddha and mysteriously ONLY those people in his time got
  enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practise Buddhism? The
  whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned,
  Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized
  enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is true that enlightenment is very rare, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive our best. We all strive to be educated, but there are only few who are exceptional, in the same way, we do our best to maintain our health but there is no one fully perfect and healthy. So, we take courage and try our best to be enlightened if we succeed well and good if not the way itself is blissful.  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>2) I agree on the whole point concerning anicca, but impermance is
  always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and
  then die at the end. Yes we cant cling to experience, but we can
  recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why
  loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the
  extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on
  everything and better become a monk." Isnt that true? If you go by
  that belief it's quite bitte because monks that are long in their
  business havent already realized nirvana/awakening and the chances are
  high that they wont. So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>anicca /dukkha/anattaa are higher knowledge and should only be approached by a saintly man who is filled with virtue and his disenchantment with anicca should be based on virtue, not fear or indifference as you put it. </p>

<p>I must admit, especially on this platform, there is a huge amount of intellectual discussion about these ideas, but, in my opinion, it's just a smoke and nonsense to most of us because one has to be truly virtuous to meditate on these higher ideals. For example, for a saintly man who lives for the benefit of other who has no desire of his own in this world except fulfilling other peoples desire, for him the idea of anatta is easy to comprehend. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>3) Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that
  want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough
  times due to getting bad karma otherwise?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Buddhism is not a fiction and contrary to what you noted the idea of Karma grants the power of what you become in your hand no external things which are independent of your intention (Karma) can affect what you become and this is freedom, the greatest freedom given to man. 
Even if it's a fiction as you say, for my part I should like this fiction,  by the aid of which I should live happily and undisturbed. But you must consider for yourselves what you wish.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>4)If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and
  experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can
  become enlightenment</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As a said above, only a saintly man should contemplate on these three marks of existence. An evil man or even an ordinary man contemplating on these truths will profit noting and will not lead him to enlightenment but confusion. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>5)Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about
  seeing the 3 characteristics?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The three marks are said to describe the whole existence, so if it takes half a lifetime to earn mastery of say medicine which is a thin subset of mundane scientific knowledge, understanding the whole of existence will sure take a very long time.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>6)What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for
  enlightement is then pointless.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Rebirth is true and there is progress to hope for from this life to the next, but even if it doesn't exist and if we can't achieve enlightenment in this life, the path itself is blissful. We live virtuously, free and  untroubled if we follow the noble eightfold path. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>7)Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as
  Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter
  out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are
  succumbed to an argument of authority.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Well, until you know the truth the best option to follow is what is declared by the all-knower, so faith is needed and filtering out true opinion which leads to knowledge is also needed.</p>
 8157: <blockquote>
  <p><em>The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to
  have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Both in the Buddha's time &amp; today, only a relative few people are able to attain enlightenment; which is the official teaching of Buddhism (refer to <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.13.budd.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhammapada 174</a>). Buddhism itself is not deceiving people (although many modern so-called teachers are deceiving people). </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>"well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and
  better become a monk."</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Buddhism does not teach this to all people. For ordinary people who cannot abandon sex &amp; family, due to instinctual drives, urges &amp; fears, Buddhism teaches them to make good kamma so they can go to "heaven" (DN 31). </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Buddhism is not about belief. Buddhism is for people who desperately need to find peace because the world is not an attractive place for them. If you still believe TV, movies, sex, luxury, fancy cars, boats, video games, porn, family, God, Jesus, etc, are attractive, desirable &amp; worthwhile things, enlightenment is probably not for you.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough
  times due to getting bad karma otherwise?</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes, Buddhism is another fairy tale but only for <em>puthujjana</em> (the blind masses). Refer again to <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.13.budd.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhammapada 174</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencig them during meditation then even an "evil" person can
  become enlightenment</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. An "evil" person cannot even see the 3 characteristics because the mind of an evil person has too many hindrances. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't take long. It only takes a long time for ordinary people who have lots of instinctual drives ("hindrances"), such as sexual lust, fear of death &amp; selfishness. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for enlightement is then pointless.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Reincarnation is not related to enlightenment. Further, reincarnation does not exist. The only real "re-birth" is the rebirth of thoughts of egoism. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Most people and monks dont question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter
  out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are
  succumbed to an argument of authority.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Thanissaro has done many wrong translations and given many wrong teachings however his PDF internet book called 'Shape of Suffering' is true &amp; real. Buddhism teaches its followers to question every doctrine (AN 3.65; MN 95; MN 38; etc). </p>
 11288: <ol start="6">
<li>On rebirth</li>
</ol>

<p>The continuity of the self experiencing process may arguably be described as a fabrication, a weaving together of arisings and passings of conditionally determined moments of consciousness, a stream of deaths and (re)births funnelled through stages of becoming by the psycho physical aggregates of the 'experiencer' tightly knit together by the energy of craving. Following that line of thought, the break-up of the body is nothing but a moment of that process, albeit a more noticeable one.</p>

<p>SN 22:100
SN 22:22</p>

<p>Now, about the kammic energy of craving fueling the rebirth process, there is a nice sutta using the metaphor of the jumping off sparkles of a fire that, carried away by the breeze, can ignite another raging fire, even a long way away... But for the life of me, I just can't remember the precise reference right now.</p>

<p>With Mettā</p>
 3701: <p>Many of your questions are well-addressed in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kalama Sutta</a>. The tl;dr of the Sutta is that a group of people, who are overwhelmed many different spiritual paths, ask the Buddha how they should evaluate the truth of one path over another. The Buddha provides a response indicating morality and mindfulness as paths that lead to benefit, regardless of doctrinal differences (e.g. belief in afterlife, etc). Paths of greed and hatred will not be beneficial in this life or in another.</p>

<p>This Sutta also establishes a general principle in Buddhism: we are not expected to believe in doctrines; rather, if we wish to improve the conditions of our lives, the Buddha gives us tools that we can put to the test directly. You don't need to believe in impermanence, rebirth, kamma, nibbana, etc. to practice meditation or live by a moral code. But if you do practice morality and mindfulness, your life will improve precisely because your mind, meaning how you see the world, will have changed fundamentally.</p>

<p>This might answer some of your questions on, e.g. on impermanence: The Buddha teaches that impermanence is a fact of life. Recognizing or rather experiencing this is not about giving up on life; it's about understanding what you can and cannot control in life, which in turn may help you understand what things are truly valuable in life. We learn from this that pursuing money, wealth, and fame, for example, simply cannot lead to true happiness because these things are impermanent, subject to change, and beyond our control. Monks are (possibly) not people who have given up on life, but rather people who have decided to pursue the things in life that really are valuable and within our control, viz. morality and purification of the mind through meditation. Obviously, this is not an easy thing, but no one ever said it would be. Nevertheless, there are so many grades of benefit that moral living and meditation bring, that even one who does not attain nibbana in this life will benefit in the here and now from good conduct. </p>

<p>This also (hopefully) answers many of your other questions: Enlightenment is not just about "academically" or "theoretically" understanding the Four Noble Truths or the Three Characteristics. It is really about incorporating them fully into one's experience of life, which can only be done by personally testing them through moral living and meditation. This is why an "evil" (i.e. immoral) person cannot attain enlightenment; by definition such a person has not really let go of the defilements that prevent us from experiencing these characteristics as a reality. </p>

<p>Happy to clarify where needed. </p>
 -1: <p>Big questions begs for big answers :)</p>
<p><strong>&quot;<em>If one is skeptical concerning enlightment (because no one besides the buddha and mysteriously ONLY those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practise Buddhism?</em>&quot;</strong></p>
<p>First a small correction: there are many who, through time, had declared to have reached the same enlightenment that the Buddha declared. The Buddhist tradition (literary and cultural) does talk about past and present <em>arahants</em>, those people who brought the buddhist training to it's conclusion during their lifetime. Speculations about who is arahant is a favorite &quot;past times&quot; of buddhists.</p>
<p>As to the question itself, many people see the benefit of a large number of buddhist practices and assimilate them in their lives even if they don't believe they would get enlightened during their lives. So, I suppose it's a personal choice based on other things, not only in the belief of nirvana &quot;here and now&quot;.</p>
<p><em>&quot;<strong>The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?</strong>&quot;</em></p>
<p>Well, bhikkhu Bodhi is not the only bhikkhu ever lived. He is notorious in the west for his scholar work and social engagement. But being notorious, scholar, or engaged have very little to do with how far one is on the path. Besides being notorious, do you think he is a model of accomplishment?</p>
<p><em>&quot;<strong>[...] but impermance is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we cant cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme..</strong>&quot;</em></p>
<p>The bitterness understanding of Buddhism is quite unfortunate and buddhists who take that stance often seem to flirt with depression. But I don't think that's a good understanding of the doctrine. See this thread: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/21265/382">Buddhism is kind of depressing</a>.</p>
<p><strong>&quot;<em>&quot;well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk.&quot; Isnt that true?</em>&quot;</strong></p>
<p>I guess if we stick only to genuine motivations that lead people to ordain, than perhaps, yes...it's a decision to be fully dedicated to the way out of suffering -- and, more often than not, to help people as well to ease their own suffering.</p>
<p><strong>&quot;<em>If you go by that belief it's quite bitte because monks that are long in their business havent already realized nirvana/awakening and the chances are high that they wont. So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?</em>&quot;</strong></p>
<p>I think it's safe to say most monks are monks in the formal sense: they wear robes, and they are affiliated to a sangha. That says nothing about their day to day. Are they committed to training the doctrine of their own religion, do they even know what these are and how to practice them? Or are they doing something else? I think, more often than not, it is the latter case.</p>
<p>And then, there's another kind of monks, people who are often hard to encounter. And these can be quite special people.</p>
<p><em>&quot;<strong>Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough times due to getting bad karma otherwise?</strong>&quot;</em></p>
<p>It could. Are you sure, though?</p>
<p><em>&quot;<strong>If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencig them during meditation then even an &quot;evil&quot; person can become enlightenment. Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?</strong>&quot;</em></p>
<p>Perhaps a more informative description of Nirvana (arahatship) is the destruction of ten fetters. Studying what they are might give a glimpse on how hard it is to accomplish this goal.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/xCt8m.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/xCt8m.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Some Mahayana sects might add a few extra requisites to characterize final liberation.</p>
<p><em>&quot;<strong>What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for enlightement is then pointless.</strong>&quot;</em></p>
<p>Maybe enlightenment would be pointless in this case, but would the entire teachings as well? After all, there's this very life still to take care of.</p>
<p>In one of the discourses, the Kālāmas put forward similar questions to the Buddha. While talking to them, the Buddha found the Kālāmas agreeing that good deeds lead to welfare and that bad deeds lead to harm. In other words, that being a good person has benefits in this lifetime. Then, using a hypothetical person who has strived to become greatly virtuous, he offered the following argument:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“This noble disciple, Kālāmas, whose mind is in this way without enmity, without ill will, undefiled, and pure, has won four assurances in this very life.</p>
<p>“The first assurance he has won is this: ‘If there is another world, and if there is the fruit and result of good and bad deeds, it is possible that with the breakup of the body, after death, I will be reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world.’</p>
<p>“The second assurance he has won is this: ‘If there is no other world, and there is no fruit and result of good and bad deeds, still right here, in this very life, I maintain myself in happiness, without enmity and ill will, free of trouble.</p>
<p>“The third assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil comes to one who does evil. Then, when I have no evil intentions toward anyone, how can suffering afflict me, since I do no evil deed?’</p>
<p>“The fourth assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil does not come to one who does evil. Then right here I see myself purified in both respects.’</p>
<p>-- AN 3.65</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Basically, he is saying that being virtuous has, <em>at least</em>, benefits here in this very life. And if turns out there are intrinsic harmful effects of evil actions, one won't suffer them because one does not do them. Now, if <em>there is</em> another life after death conditioned by the previous one, the effects of bad actions won't drag one to a suffering realm. So, in essence, being virtuous is a win-win situation.</p>
<p>Notice the Buddha is not asking the Kālāmas to believe rebirth at face value. He is just teaching them to be intelligent with their choices in a situation where they don't have the knowledge to be certain about things they are uncertain.</p>
<p><em>&quot;<strong>Most people and monks dont question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a &quot;working hypothesis&quot; and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority.</strong>&quot;</em></p>
<p>I think there are people who take what the texts and their teachers say as &quot;working hypothesis&quot; and put them to test. There are also people who take them as authority. And there are people who take them as authority and filter out contrary evidence.</p>
<p>Perhaps the majority is in the blind belief side. Then again, for one example, I read it's pretty much the same scenario in the mathematics circles when Bertrand Russell was studying, when no one questioned the foundations of mathematics or saw it's fragility. It was pure blind belief.</p>
<p>Cracking wrong beliefs is not an easy thing, anywhere.</p>
 43: <p>Good honest question, love it. Let me give you an honest answer.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol>
  <li>If one is skeptical concerning Enlightenment (because no one besides the Buddha and mysteriously ONLY those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practise Buddhism?</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>Enlightenment is attained by a lot more people than you realize. It's just not advertised for reasons of political correctness and compassion. It's like telling kids there is no Santa Claus - kinda pointless and only hurts the kids.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is not how it works. You don't literally "escape impermanence", instead your perception of reality changes in such a way when impermanence no longer matters. Enlightenment is not becoming a Superman. It's more like getting able to see the true nature of "The Matrix". Again, this is not a literal change in how you see stuff, it is a fundamental change of one's mental framework and therefore of one's interpretation. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>2 I agree on the whole point concerning <em>anicca</em>, but impermanence is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we can't cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isn't that true? If you go by that belief it's quite bitter because monks that are long in their business haven't already realized Nirvana/Awakening and the chances are high that they won't. So why then believe in Nirvana and Enlightenment?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This seems to be a misunderstanding of the attitude of detachment/revulsion, promoted by Theravada and the lower yanas of Mahayana for the sake of motivating beginners. Accepting Impermanence is not all there is to [Mahayana] Buddhism, far from it. It's more about seeing how things truly work and learning to work with them.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale meant to trick people who live poorly to keep quiet in the tough times through fear of getting bad karma otherwise?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There is an element of fairy tale in Buddhism, and there is a real element. And the real element is pretty damn real and mindblowing.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If Enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightened.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It's much more than that, both in the sense of intellectual realization, and in terms of actual personal mastery in real life.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Why does it take so long to become Enlightened if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It takes a long time because we have some deeply lying conceptual mistakes about reality, due to which we have accumulated much emotional baggage rooted in those conceptual mistakes, and on top of that we tend to actively fight it when anyone tries to show us our mistakes and delusions. We have all these explanations and rationalizations that we cling to, and they are connected with events in our personal lives, providing support and sustenance to delusion. It's like a tangle of hair made from wrong concepts, emotions, and karma - very difficult to untangle.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>What if rebirth truly doesn't exist? The whole point in striving for Enlightenment is then pointless.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Rebirth of individuals does not exist. There is rebirth of information. Because future lives are made from information left by the past lives, Enlightenment is not pointless.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That is true. Most people are unfortunately pretty closed-minded - not because of a fault of their own or inherent weakness, but (quite counter-intuitively!) out of their best intents. People try to make sense of it all using their logic and common sense, and filter out all nonsense. But because it is so tangled up, it is not always obvious what is nonsense and what is real. Deferring to authority is infinitely easier than trying to make sense of it all by oneself. </p>

<hr>

<p>Unfortunately this entire Buddhism thing is a mess. It has this extraordinarily valid and useful stuff in its core, lots of confusion around that, and even more fairy tale stuff on the outside. I was very confused by it for decades and suffered a great deal. Now that I got it, the purpose of my life is to help people avoid wandering in the jungle as I did, and go straight to the well. Sometimes when doing this I wonder if by my efforts I only contribute to the jungle, as did my predecessors before me. But alas, I do what I can :))))</p>

<p>Let us know if we can help you here and please don't hesitate to start asking specific questions about Buddhist concepts and their application to real life. </p>
