You can test this out any time quite easily and see for yourself the truth in it.
But I cant, since I cant have perfect cessation of suffering at any time.
While you cannot test out the perfect cessation of suffering,
what I was referring to, specifically, was that you can test out the theory that
once the realisation of emptiness is grasped, dukkha no longer arises,
because you essentially said (I tidied it up a bit):
"...I've not found an actual indication of why the realisation of emptiness should lead to the cessation of dukkha..."
so, that is what I was addressing.
But first, allow me to establish the premise that
dukkha arises from the mistaken view that
arising appearances have some finite reality to them, some "thingness" and thus some degree of permanence,
and it is our perpetual sense of dissatisfaction when the dissolution of those appearances occurs
...when people die, when shoes wear out, and so forth,
which is the essential experience of dukkha,
of some sort of constant, restless dissatisfaction in the mind.
--and so, let me give you an example.
Suppose you eat your fill at a big holiday meal (Thanksgiving, in the U.S.)or something like that.
If you think that as a result of having eaten your fill, that you will not get hungry again tomorrow or the next day, that you have somehow permanently solved the problem of ever having to eat again, that is a mistaken view, and you will experience suffering when you become hungry again...not because you will need to eat, but because you thought that the big meal you recently had was going to bring you permanent satisfaction, and it hasn't.
On the other hand, knowing full well that the meal and the experience of being full both arise as temporary events, and thus do not possess any substantial or permanent reality to them (in other words, grasping the "emptiness' of the meal) in another day or so, when you feel hungry again, you will not suffer as a result of that big dinner having come and gone
. You will simply search for something new to eat. You may suffer from hunger if you don't get another meal, but it won't be suffering resulting from mistakenly believing that the banquet at which you feasted was going to provide you with the permanent end to hunger.
This is not only analogous to how the direct perception of the emptiness of phenomena prevents the arising of dukkha,
but is also a concrete example. This is, in real time so to speak, what it is about.
Now, if you are asking for evidence that a Buddha ever existed, meaning the legendary being who achieved the permanent cessation of suffering (nirvana) or that such a state of being is even possible, then there is certainly some truth to the claim that no direct evidence is presentable, and that one either believes it or doesn't.
The belief in this theory of liberation is based on one very sound observation,
which is that all beings strive for the cessation of suffering,
and that when the particular conditions which result in a particular type of suffering are removed,
the suffering stops.
So, if you take your hand out of the fire, it stops burning.
Where the "belief" part, the unprovable
part actually comes into play
is in the assertion that all beings possess the potential for buddhahood.
That is the "belief' part of Buddhism. It is the core belief which every buddhist holds.
But is it just a random unprovable?
Is it any more valid than believing in any other unprovable
Is "attaining Buddhahood" any more reasonable that saying you will turn in to pixie and spend eternity riding unicorns?
Here, you have to go back to the Four Noble Truths, in which it is explained (or at least suggested)
that the cause of suffering is grasping to the appearances of things as somewhat permanent realities
"me" and "that thing" that "me" "perceives".
We cling to "me" as having some kind of finite reality to it.
We cling to "that thing" as having some kind of finite reality to it.
We cling to "perception" as having some kind of finite reality to it.
and so, you can take these three appearances, look at actual examples in your everyday experiences where these appearances arise, and you can apply some understanding of "emptiness" to them to see if theses appearances have any substance to them, and you can see first hand, over and over again, the results turn out the same:
Neither "me' or "that thing" I "perceive" has any substantial, finite reality.
Thus, it can be deduced that grasping or clinging to these appearances
as having substantial reality to them is a type of confusion.
Confusion results in suffering,
when you eliminate the confusion
the suffering stops.
I mean, it's pretty straight forward.
So, from this analysis comes the premise that
one's original state of mind, or "true nature' or "original face before your were born" or whatever you call it,
the original nature of the mind of all beings IS
free of confusion,
because whenever you remove confusion, you have clarity.
So, the problem in finding evidence may be in trying to prove a negative.
"enlightenment" isn't something you gain.
it is what is left over after the confusion which arises from grasping to appearances ceases.
it's like wiping the dirt off an old window.
When you wipe off the dirt,
the window was there all along.
when you make the glass completely clear,
you don't even see the window.