What does Buddhism say about the random stuff (sankhara?) that just comes into mind when I am meditating? And I mean random, like I'll be meditating and a memory just comes out of nowhere, sometimes a half-visual, half-felt scene of a place I travelled 20+ years ago. Or I'll just start thinking of a person I haven't seen for a long while. This is while meditating, so there is no sense input ~ it's not like I heard a song that reminded me of someplace. It's like my mind has a mind of its own! Is this kind of material related to the "storehouse consciousness"? I think of it as like sitting on a cauldron, because this material just continuously bubbles up ~ sometimes it is an angry boil, sometimes a gentle roil. I would love to learn more about what Buddhism has to say about this phenomenon.

In Hindu cosmology, time is divided into four Yugas (Satya, Treta, Dvapara, Kali), with Satya Yuga, the first epoch described as a kind of utopian golden age and Kali Yuga as an age of decline and moral degradation—the one we are said to be living in now. My question is: - Does Buddhism have a similar concept of cyclical ages, especially a notion of a "golden age" vs. an "age of decline"? - If so, how is this described in Buddhist texts?

Is this fake Buddha quote, 'Everything that has a beginning has an end ', synonymous with Dhammapada verse, ‘All conditioned things are impermanent', the Buddha quote from the Dhammapada, verse 277? If it's not synonymous, can somebody explain to me, how it's semantically different?

"Was Angulimāla, the bandit-turned-disciple of the Buddha, a historical figure or a purely symbolic character in Buddhist literature? What evidence supports either view?"

If my neighbor is real loud, I focus on the noises. It's a sort of involuntary focus. I would like to be able to detach myself from this focus. Until now, I thought focus is part of the 'perception' aggregate, but that doesn't seem correct. Is this sort of focus even part of any aggregate?

I read this: 'Nama-rupa' is simply the aggregates: > And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, > contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and > the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. > Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form. > > SN 12.2 Why is attention not one the aggregates?

What are the kammas resulting in missing opportunities or seizing opportunities ?

In Udana 8.3 , The following passage is to be seen- > There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks > there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could > not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. > But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, > therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and > conditioned. I have seen many individuals on the internet quote this passage from the sutta to state Buddha directly affirmed the existence of A Theistic God. For Instance, A Non-dual, Vedanta Leaning Blogger Claims here - > **A closer reading of the Buddhist texts reveals that the Buddha did > actually acknowledge in many places the existence of what in Vedanta > would be called ‘The Self’ (Sanskrit: Atman) and what others may even > call God. Here is just one example from the Nibbana Sutta verse 3 > (Udana 8.3), which is from the Pali Canon:** > > There is, bhikkhus [monks], that which is unborn, that which is > unmanifest [or has not come into being], that which is not > fabricated/created, that which is unconditioned. > > If there were not, bhikhus, that which is unborn, that which is > unmanifest, that which is not fabricated/created, that which is > unconditioned, there would not be escape from that which is born, from > that which is manifest, from that which is fabricated/created, from > that which is conditioned – that therefore would not have been clearly > known/experienced/seen. > > But because, bhikhus, there is indeed that which is unborn, that which > is unmanifest, that which is not fabricated/created, that which is > unconditioned, therefore escape from that which is born, from that > which is manifest, from that which is fabricated, from that which is > conditioned, is [or can be] clearly known/experienced/seen. > > **We can clearly see that the Buddha is categorically stating that there > is something that is beyond birth and creation, beyond manifestation > and that which is conditioned (ie. all objects).** Similiarly A Baha’i writer uses Ud 8.3 to argue Buddhism implies a transcendent God behind liberation here > **The understanding that God chooses us echoes throughout every > religion. In Judaism, it is God who carries His people on eagles’ > wings and brings them to Himself (Exodus 19:4). In Christianity, it is > God, who with His amazing grace, “saves a wretch like me.” In Islam it > is God who brings us out from the depths of darkness into light: and > it is He who is full of mercy to those who believe (Qur’an 33:43). In > Hinduism, the greatest proponent of Vaishnavism to the West in my > lifetime, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami wrote: “We can only understand > Krsna by acquiring the grace of Krsna,” and in Buddhism, it is very > clear that God, the “unborn, unarisen, and unconditioned” is the One > who frees us, for as Buddhist scripture says:** > > Were there not an unborn, unarisen, and unconditioned, there would be > no escape for those born, arisen and conditioned. Because there is > the unborn, unarisen, unconditioned, there is escape for those born, > arisen, and conditioned. – Udana, 8.3. > > **Salvation is not something we achieve on our own; it is given to be > achieved.** Is there any merit to these claims? Is this Sutta really implying the existence of an Unborn Theistic God, Without whose grace we cannot attain liberation?

I was refreshing myself with some stuff on Madhyamaka. I don't understand how the difference between Prasangika and Svātantrika can be svabhava. How can svabhava exist without changing anything else about conventional entities or ultimate reality? So what other claims does this entail about conventional entities by Svātantrika? Or does Prasangika show their ultimate reality cannot be empty?

In theory, many ways of meditation have been given to stop cravings and aversion. What about practical life? During day to day life, it has often been seen and experienced as well that, "we tend to lean towards comfortablity", whether it be of body or brain. Let's take a basic example: one living in a rented house tend to go for a own-home(whenever possible).... even monks of modern era tend to go for own-kuti/monastery. For this one needs money. Reason being given is, "i feel more freedom inside my own-home instead of rented one". Another eg. : Using technologies, more resources for making life easy-going. Resaon being given as: we have less headaches, more respect, easy-flow of society. Even if i properly give time to analyze, realize, etc. bhlabhla, stay *disconnected* to this modernized life, there is definitely no need for me to ask this question! If one doesn't go for maintaining status, using hi-fi techs, spending money(either for dana purpose or for anything else..), ........ It's more likely to be 99.99% that such person would be physically and mentally **behind** from others. One simple solution came is:: live like a bpl(below poverty line) person but this will definitely decrease morale and enthusiasm of nearby-ones, decreasing their chances of learning dhamma. (If possible, kindly don't include advice for meditation to a freak and too-ignorants) i am more concerned into balancing the life(middle path for householders) such that both nearby ones and me can have less possible crave, more possible dhamma! **Edit::** Maybe, this answer is somewhat talking about balance in last 3 paragraphs. But it is also saying to re-engage in earning money to get approval of others.....getting approval is ok but how would money change someone's behaviour, confusing to me?

I am looking for companies who operate in resonance with the ideas of right livelihood. I have looked for them, but don't seem to be finding any. Does anyone know how to find companies that practice right livelihood? Kind regards, Timothy

I’m in Drikung Kagyu and have a lama in that lineage and find the Gelug approach to emptiness to be extremely helpful to viewing emptiness. I know all these philosophies in Rime point to the same truth, but I still wonder how its viewed to hold philosophical positions from another lineage but of course keeping the practice your lama outlines for you? I’ve read Tulku Rinpoche book on Rime and in the beginning it says to keep integrity of lineages, but obviously now many lamas receive teachings from multiple lineages. Am I ok in viewing emptiness from a Gelug pov as a Drikung Kagyu if it’s helpful for me?

I was reading that the Zen monk Hakuin suffered a debilitating condition called zen sickness before his enlightenment. This seem to be a direct result of his practice. Does anyone know what this was? Has there been a retrospective medical diagnosis of this? Are there equivalent stages of the path in other traditions? Should I be worried? Thanks

If there's no specific purpose in life, If we have to give meaning to life by ourselves, then why doing good and bad matters ?

In the Dīgha Nikāya 15 (DN 15), the Mahānidāna Sutta, the Buddha outlines a a complex stratification of "seven stations of consciousness" and "two dimensions" > “Ānanda, there are these seven stations of consciousness and two > dimensions. Which seven? > > “There are **beings with multiplicity of body and multiplicity of > perception,4 such as human beings, some devas, and some beings in the > lower realms. This is the first station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings with multiplicity of body and singularity of > perception, such as the Devas of Brahmā’s Retinue generated by the > first (jhāna) and (some) beings in the four realms of deprivation.5 > This is the second station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings with singularity of body and multiplicity of > perception, such as the Radiant Devas. This is the third station of > consciousness.** > > “There are **beings with singularity of body and singularity of > perception, such as the Beautiful Black Devas. This is the fourth > station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings who, with the complete transcending of perceptions > of (physical) form, with the disappearance of perceptions of > resistance, and not heeding perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) > ‘Infinite space,’ arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of space. > This is the fifth station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings who, with the complete transcending of the dimension > of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ > arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.** **This is > the sixth station of consciousness.** > > “There are beings who, **with the complete transcending of the dimension > of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ > arrive at the dimension of nothingness. This is the seventh station of > consciousness.** > > **“The dimension of non-percipient beings and, second, the dimension of > neither perception nor non-perception. [These are the two dimensions.]** ~ DN 15 Is the Buddha here describing subjective, internal states of consciousness that can be directly known in meditation, or externally existing cosmological realms that other beings inhabit? This ambiguity is especially pronounced in the case of the “dimension of infinite consciousness.” Is this to be understood as a temporary mental perception - an internal expansion of awareness beyond form - or does it point to a more ontological reality in which consciousness itself is experienced as boundless? If so, what does this imply about the nature of consciousness: is it something objectively infinite by nature, or is any perception of “infinite consciousness” merely a constructed meditative perception, still within the conditioned world, and thus ultimately impermanent?

I have constant chronic pain. Would really like to be rid of it. Is this considered a negative desire in Buddhism? I remember in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the Buddha stated that the second Noble Truth is "craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming." I guess I interpreted the craving for non-becoming to apply to my desire for my pain to be gone.

As in, any perception of life being cheerful/serene/wonderful/nice to experience is indicative of some sort of undesirable over-indulgence, and that a sort of neutral unaffected experiencing is preferable. Does the Buddha ever warn of calling the world/life something positive? Does the Buddha himself perhaps ever ascribe positivity to the world?

It is often said that Nibbana is unconditioned. But isn't Nibbana to be attained through practice of the Noble Eightfold Path (abandoning desire, meditation, realizing paticcasamuppada etc)? Aren't those practices conditions for Nibbana? What am I missing here :) ?

I am asking this in reference to the aircraft that crashed in India. Is there anything like collective karma, like the alayavijnana (Collective Consciousness)? ( I should not say this, but...) Like, sometimes the entire community suffers, like the Jews in the Second World War. Or sometimes there is an earthquake, natural disasters...If the dependent origination is correct, then should there be a reason behind the mass suffering?

Does the Buddha ever instruct us to meditate for the sake of meditation's immediate and temporary benefits? If we see meditation as a car for gaining insights and understanding, but also as a tool for improving our focus or mood or (non)reactivity - does the Buddha ever explicitly urge us to meditate for the latter effects?