Of course you do: you believe in clairvoyance for heaven's sake... Without any good reason other than that you want to believe it. That's the very definition of 'blind faith/belief'.
Testimonies are only evidence in law, not science.
You keep repeating the same non-arguments. If you don't have anything worthwhile to say (a.k.a. new and not some variation of 'X people experienced it' I'm done with this discussion.
Do show me where it says that Buddha did not reject dualism and in fact believed in souls and the like. He taught the doctrine of non-ego which is the exact opposite of the concept of a 'soul'.
If you want to believe Zen Buddhism and the teachings of Thich Nat Han are contrary to Buddha's teachings that's your business. It's not like we can ask him, can we? In Buddhism there are many schools of thought as to what was Buddha's 'true teaching' is: who can claim to be right in this?
If you acknowledge the thesis of non views is correct how can you claim your view of the existence of clairvoyance is in accord with this? It's a view, isn't it?
How do you know that I don't have any good reason to believe in clairvoyancy? I belive in it because I've have experienced it undeniably many many times from my teachers. Do you want me to explain what kind of experiences I have had that have made me believe in it?
The Buddha taught literal transmigration of soul's between lives and taught literal rebirth in the 6 realms of Samsara. It is only in the ultimate reality of emptiness that the six reals nor it's beings exist, but they exist in same manner that human and animals.
The doctrine of the ego-illusion does not mean that we don't have souls. It means that the ego is a fabrication and is simply a concept we cling to. We posess a invididual minstream without beginning and without end. In the Mahayana it is allowed to call buddhanature our ego-less soul.
It is when a person's mind is purified of all defilements and obscurations and as well as insight into emptiness that omniscienc becomes possible and the mind crystal clear reflects and know's everything. . In buddhism it is said that our mind is omniscient in nature and this becomes manfifest when our our obscurrations and karma is purified.
Thich Nat Han sells his version of buddhism because he believes that many modern people can benefit from it's methods, ethics and qualities without believing the in the religious aspects, which is completely true. But all Budhdha's and buddhist scripture teach literal rebirth(life after death etc) and they also teach about the psychic powers of buddhahood and bodhisattavahood.
An enlightened being can go into samadhi and direct their will at any question or object and get whatever answer or insight there is.
There are many schools of buddhism for sure and sometimes there are few contradictions but I would say in general they are pretty much in harmony with each other.
If you are done with this discussion, you're welcome to not keep on going, but do you want me to write about the experiences I've had of clairvoyance from my teacher and advanced practioners or will you just think that I'm a stupid-flat earther because I claim to have witnesed some phenomena which are considered quite rare?
