Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.
A beggar had been sitting by the side of a road for over thirty years. One day a stranger walked by. "Spare some change?" mumbled the beggar, mechanically holding out his old baseball cap. "I have nothing to give you," said the stranger. Then he asked: "What's that you are sitting on?" "Nothing," replied the beggar. "Just an old box. I have been sitting on it for as long as I can remember." "Ever looked inside?" asked the stranger. "No," said the beggar. "What's the point? There's nothing in there." "Have a look inside," insisted the stranger. The beggar managed to pry open the lid. With astonishment, disbelief, and elation, he saw that the box was filled with gold.
I am that stranger who has nothing to give you and who is telling you to look inside. Not inside any box, as in the parable, but somewhere even closer: inside yourself.
"But I am not a beggar." I can hear you say.
Those who have not found their true wealth, which is the radiant joy of Being and the deep, unshakable peace that comes with it, are beggars, even if they have great material wealth. They are looking outside for scraps of pleasure or fulfillment, for validation, security, or love, while they have a treasure within that not only includes all those things but is infinitely greater than anything the world can offer.
The word enlightenment conjures up the idea of some super human accomplishment, and the ego likes to keep it that way, but it is simply your natural state of felt oneness with Being. It is a state of connectedness with something immeasurable and indestructible, something that, almost paradoxically, is essentially you and yet is much greater than you. It is finding your true nature beyond name and form. The inability to feel this connectedness gives rise to the illusion of separation, from yourself and from the world around you. You then perceive yourself, consciously or unconsciously, as an isolated fragment. Fear arises, and conflict within and without becomes the norm.
I love the Buddha's simple definition of enlightenment as "the end of suffering." There is nothing superhuman in that, is there? Of course, as a definition, it is incomplete. It only tells you what enlightenment is not: no suffering. But what's left when there is no more suffering? The Buddha is silent on that, and his silence implies that you'll have to find out for yourself. He uses a negative definition so that the mind cannot make it into something to believe in or into a superhuman accomplishment, a goal that is impossible for you to attain. Despite this precaution, the majority of Buddhists still believe.
Why is the Buddha silent on what comes after there is no more suffering?
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 2
The correct answer is Option (2) → He wanted others to find out the answer for themselves
The writer says the Buddha is silent on what is left when suffering ends, and "his silence implies that you'll have to find out for yourself." He gives only a negative definition so that the mind does not turn enlightenment into a belief or an impossible goal.
Why the Other Options are Incorrect?
Option 1: He did not want to divulge the secrets of Enlightenment — Incorrect. Wrong reason: to divulge is to reveal something secret. The passage does not present enlightenment as a secret he was hiding; his silence is meant to make each person discover it.
Example: The minister refused to divulge the details of the agreement.
Option 3: He believed that he is the only one who can achieve Enlightenment — Incorrect. Contradicted: the writer stresses that enlightenment is nothing superhuman and is the natural state of every person.
Option 4: He believed that enlightenment is an incomplete project that cannot be accomplished in an lifetime — Incorrect. Contradicted: the Buddha used the negative definition precisely so that enlightenment would not seem a goal impossible to attain.