> That's not a proof of anything. You do not need a clear definition of the goal for a method to help you approach the goal; you need a method that helps you approach the goal.
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?
> I am also curious as why you believe meditation is not a way to solve problems in yourself. My personal, direct experience is that it does, so I have to conclude that your claim is false based on that alone, and to me this is also direct confirmation that your "proof" is nonsensical.
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. If you have some evidence in your life quality that meditation has helped you, we should confirm what the concrete benefit is. No one can speak about what they do not know, and only those who do not know are silent in the face of a fair question. Over time, as I get to know you and see how you live, I get to confirm that if you cannot show proof of what you claim is inside you then it means you are telling untruth.
> Are you claiming this did not come from Gautama Buddha? Or are you claiming what it describes is not enlightenment? Or are you claiming it does not include meditation as one of the means? ("right mindfulness, right concentration" is what most people would consider to refer to meditation practice, and as far as I can tell it is well supported by other parts of the Pali canon that meditation is what this refers to). Or something else?
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. 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.
> If you mean that he did not describe it as sufficient by itself to attain enlightenment, then I believe you are right about what he said. Then again, I think a substantial proportion of people who find buddhist philosophy interesting does not believe in nirvana. When I meditation, it is not with that as a goal.
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.
Your usage of the term 'nirvana' is interesting. I would like to mention to you that the term 'nirvana' is only misunderstood by modern Buddhists to mean 'cessation of rebirth'. If Buddha taught 'cessation of rebirth' then he was teaching the way that people can die forever. However, that is not what a Buddha teaches people. He taught people to save themselves and to live well. He taught how to bless your endless future lives through what exists in reality. That's why there's a big difference between the upward socioeconomic mobility of someone who learned Buddha's teachings correctly versus someone who didn't. However, a big problem is the fact that it's impossible for people who are untruthful to understand Buddha's teaching. They cannot recognize it due to their lack of virtue and they discard it easily. So I would like to see how you respond before telling you more.