Some descriptions of Dharmakaya in Mahāyāna Buddhism portray it as ultimate,formless unconditioned reality. This sounds similar to how Brahman is described in Advaita Vedānta as the absolute unchanging ground of all existence. Does this means both concepts are essentially positing the same thing?

Buddha has taught that Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. I agree, however being an ignorant fellow, I believe I am body, I am eyes, I am intelligence, I am consciousness, my wife is mine, my son is mine. What do you find as you, yours, or yourself, honestly? (This question attempts to find out depths of our ignorance)

This summer I got the chance to spend 20 days at Pa-Auk Tawya forest meditation center in Myanamar and I did Anapana-Sati for 20 days. Now I'm back at my university, but when I look back I see that during those days at Pa-Auk even a single talk of 2 mins would make my practice weaker as samatha practice requires strong concentration. \ Given that in our daily lay life we have a lot of interactions and distractions, I think it would take decades to even reach first jhana in samatha meditation. **Is it really possible to make progress (attain jhana) in samatha meditation in our day-to-day lay life in a realistic way? Has any lay person had profound experience in samatha practice?**

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 am an above beginner level meditator. I have been practicing Vipassana meditation regularly for the past 6-7 months. By regularly, I mean 1hr of sitting meditation at least 5 times a week. I have not been able to control my lust. I try to remain mindful during acts of sexual gratification, but I have very few moments of awareness. The rest of the time, I am just going with the flow. Although I am a lay person, I want to be celibate. Please guide me. I remember a story wherein Buddha said to someone how one should eat as if they are eating their own child having lost in a desert. Are there any such stories from Buddha's life/teachings regarding this subject? Basically I need some inspiration. Please share your experience if possible

I just completed my first 10 day vipassana retreat. I'm wondering if anyone has had this experience and how long it took for it to subside; I've seen the question posted by other users experiencing it, but no follow ups. Around day 5 of the retreat, I started to experience a floating, swaying sensation after the meditations. During the evening discourse, I couldn't look at the TV as it felt like it was moving. By day 9, I had some intense experiences during the meditations, like I was no longer in my body but merely a witnessing the body and everything around me seemed fragmented. I was also having a hard time narrowing my focus on my body, like my awareness of my body expanded way beyond my body and I couldn't actually feel sensations in 'my' body. Also, I would feel an energetic force move through me, sometimes moving my body (head would raise, arms would move). It wasn't intentional, and felt natural, and resisting it (to maintain determination) felt like it was creating stress or tension. I'm home now and this energetic force feeling continues to pulsate in my body and gives me a swaying / rocking feeling. It makes me dizzy nauseous, and unable to focus. I try to remain objective and merely observe. But it has made day to day life impossible: I can't drive or walk. I'm not sure if I should continue to meditate, or take a break, or not go as deep into meditation. \ When we started vipassana in the retreat I was very able to narrow my focus precisely and feel every subtle sensation, now it feels like if I try I don't feel much, everything seems very light and airy. Trying to give as much info as possible. But also very dizzy writing this and having difficulty.

I recently read an introductory book on Tibetan Buddhism and am intrigued by Tantra & Kalachakra practice. I have been practicing meditation for the last 2-3 years, but not under the guidance of a guru. After struggling for 2-3 years, I have finally realized the need of a guru so that I can start practicing seriously. Next year, I have a 3-month vacation and I'm thinking about going to a monastery in India/Tibet (I live in India) where I can be initiated into tantric practice. **What are some places in India and Tibet where Tantra/Kalachakra initiation is possible?**

Similar to this question. I started vipassana with my roommate and we both meditated peacefully. But now that he left and I am alone, I have noticed lust in my mind that leads me to wrong websites and results in negative deeds.
 **I have tried to observe, but just could not control self**. I have read many related answers from my all time favourite [@Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/suminda-sirinath-s-dharmasena) , but regarding this topic, all answers sound very theoretical. 
May I know something powerful, though I know it will be difficult for me. Living with another person will stop my mind, but I think that is not a solution as thoughts can again come when I am alone.
**The real victory over lust should come when I am alone**. 

Kindly help, I really want to get rid of this.

I'm at the end of my rope mentally on this topic and I figured I try here. The question is based on another one I asked on the main philosophy thread: [Does Buddhism say that you are "everything"?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/136116/does-buddhism-say-that-you-are-everything/136136?noredirect=1#comment440151_136136) on Philosophy Stack Exchange. I don't know if you can read the medium article but the short version is that the guy says you don't exist/ nothing exists because nothing can exist in a void. That everything is dependent on something else and nothing has an independent existence. This leads him to then say everything is one, or something like that. I quoted the relevant segment in the thread. When I ask others I get various responses, like saying "everything is one" is a misunderstanding of the teachings, to saying that dependent arising doesn't mean nothing exists. I don't really get it. If you read the comments in the medium article I'm not sure they get it either. The whole thing has me seeing life as pointless, because if nothing exists then there is nothing to do. It's got me apathetic to myself, people, things, because none of it "Exists" and it's all one. I've met others who don't feel or think this way but I really don't know how else to look at it. I mean if "I" and others don't exist then it doesn't matter what happens to me or other people right? I just don't understand, I'd appreciate explanations in the simplest way you can put it if it's possible. I've been in and out of Buddhism for years and I just cannot grasp what the teachings say, let alone when others interpret it.

Given Buddhism’s long historical development across regions (e.g., Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna), what criteria can practitioners use to determine whether a particular belief or practice is: - grounded in early Buddhist doctrine, - a skillful means/expedient within a legitimate later tradition, or - primarily a cultural superstition layered onto Buddhism which is a deviation from the original teachings?

Abhinavagupta (fl. c. 975–1025 CE) was one of the foremost philosophers of Kashmir Śaivism , whose magnum opus Tantrāloka is widely regarded as the most comprehensive exposition of non‑dual Śaiva tantric thought. In the chapter of Tantrāloka dealing with causality , Abhinavagupta and the commentator Jayaratha mount a sustained critique of Buddhist theories of causality and dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), which they present as inadequate to account for real causal efficiency outside a unified conscious agent. Below are verbatim formulations from the Tantrāloka alongside an academic paper (based on Tantrāloka and Jayaratha’s commentary) mentioning Abhinavagupta’s key objections to the Buddhist theories of causality . ***Important disclaimer:-*** The paper contains a large volume of tightly argued material, textual citations, and sub-arguments. For the sake of clarity and length, I am summarising the main objections rather than citing every verse or passage. Any readers attempting to answer should ideally consult from Page 12 onwards of the said paper alongside the other provided citations alongside the text of Tantraloka from 9.10 to 9.37 for a thorough and accurate understanding of the opponent's objections. ---------- 1:- Causality and succession ---------------------------------------------- Abhinavagupta asserts that Buddhist theory causality is only succession of discrete events with no substantial connection, and therefore cannot explain real causal relations. Especially between phenomena independent of one another The direct Excerpt from the tantraloka 9.11-13 Jayaratha, the commentator, gives the example of Kṛttikā and Rohiṇī (the constellations Pleiades and Taurus): if mere succession were enough to establish causation, Kṛttikā would be the cause of Rohiṇī, since the latter always rises after the former. Yet despite this regular sequence, there is no causal relationship between them.The Śaiva critique here seems to be that Buddhist theory relies too heavily on perceptual succession to define causation. 2: True causality requiring an agent and agency: ----------------------------------------------------- Abhinavagupta argues that because Buddhists emphasize momentary entities, they lack a real connection between cause and effect. Abhinavagupta claims that “the relation of cause and effect is really that of agent and agency” and that the ultimate cause is a conscious agent whose will underlies causation. Excerpt from Tantraloka 9.14-18 Further Jayaratha asks that surely succession and simultaneity are not character- istics in the nature of the things themselves; they are attributes of perception. But it is consciousness which establishes the succession and non-succession when it per- ceives that a cloth is after a pot. The things themselves are not endowed with succession or non-succession as something super added to their natures. So the Buddhists cannot avoid the fact that they are superimposing contradictory attributes upon a single entity even though they are trying to get away by introducing succession (TĀV 9.18). 3: Multiple causes and unity of effects ---------- The concept of complex causality (Sāmagrī ) is used by both Naiyāyikas and Buddhists in their discussions about causality. Abhinavagupta accepts the Buddhist notion of causal totality but maintains that Śiva, as consciousness, is the ultimate agent. While a pot is said to arise from an aggregate of causes (TĀ 9.30ab), this aggregate must form a unity. Without such unity, diverse causes would produce multiple effects. Jayaratha clarifies how This unity has to be grounded in a single, all-pervasive agent of cognition, which alone makes a single effect possible. Excerpt from Tantraloka 9.29-37 ---------- Questions based on the above - ========= 1. How does Buddhist dependent origination avoid collapsing causality into simple succession with no real dependence? How would Buddhists justify dependent origination so that true causal relations are distinguished from mere chronological succession? 2. How do Buddhists account for singular effects arising from multiple interdependent conditions without a unified causal agent or totality? 3. How would Buddhists respond to the claim that causal succession and simultaneity are merely perceptual constructs rather than objective causal relations? 4. How do Buddhist theories of dependent origination articulate “necessity” such that effects follow causes for reasons beyond mere adjacency? 5. How would a Buddhist articulate the concept of momentariness and dependent origination without collapsing into either metaphysical nihilism or affirmation of a first, self‑existent cause? What logic would show that conditionality implies neither absolute self nor random succession? 6. Specifically address whether the criticism shows a misunderstanding of pratītyasamutpāda or momentariness, and why. ----------

I read the following in the internet: > You are right, **punarbhāva** doesn't mean "rebirth"... except in all the > dictionaries, all the Pāli instruction books, all the grammars, all > the traditional literature, and all the modern commentarial > literature. LMAO. – Based on in the above, how did the Buddha have direct knowledge and vision "this is my last rebirth; now there’ll be no more future lives” (ayamantimā jāti, natthi dāni **punabbhavo**’”ti.)? If the question is not clear, some Buddhists assert punabbhavo & jati are mental states, therefore such Buddhists assert such mental states can be directly known to arise & cease, as for example, when SN 12.20 says: "*birth is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation*." But if punabbhavo means rebirth, how did the Buddha directly know this rebirth would end when craving ended? For example, when craving ends in a Buddha, the body keeps breathing, the cells of the body keep replicating, consciousness keeps arising at the six sense bases. Therefore, how did the Buddha directly know craving leads to reincarnation/rebirth? For example, if the hair of the head keeps growing after craving ends, how could the Buddha have been certain rebirth ends when craving ends?

I am a practicing Buddhist following the Thai forest tradition. I have ADHD and take extended-release methylphenidate (an ADHD stimulant every morning). I also meditate in the mornings. My question is whether it is proscribed in the Canon to meditate on ADHD medication. Clearly, these stimulants did not exist in the Buddha's time, but would the advice on something like methylphenidate be the same as the advice for caffeinated tea? I am able to progress further in my meditation when I take the medication before meditating, but is it hampering the progress in the mind to meditate on a mind affected by a stimulant? Please back up your answers with passages from the suttas if possible. Thank you.

When I am very angry or very fearful, my work efficiency work increases and I can concentrate more. But now that I have been practicing Vipassana for a couple of years, my fear and anger has diminished. I am worried whether this will hamper or worsen my work or not. Please guide me

I am from India and I want to convert to Buddhism. However, there are no Buddhist monasteries or temples near my home. Because of this, I am unsure about the proper process to formally convert. Is it necessary to visit a monastery and take initiation from a monk, or is there any way to convert online or virtually? I would really appreciate guidance on the correct and authentic way to become a Buddhist in this situation.

Hello Beautiful People, I have a quick question. After years of meditating with a mixture of Mahasi and Goenka style, I would like to ask the following. Very often when I sit to mediate, it is a matter of seconds to experience a subtle sense of pleasure and/or spaciousness. But more interestingly, is that after meditating a bit more there comes a feeling that my eyes want to move upwards, almost like if they want to see behind my head/brain. The first times this eye movement happened, years ago, there was fear in me because this was unusual and unexpected - it was even a bit painful. But after letting this movement happen, I realized that the traditional lights, pleasure, and spaciousness became more present. Sometimes this leads to a very focalized pleasure spot at the top of my head and sometimes to the feeling that a very strong and interesting sense of pleasure would come from that spot (like if there is a cascade of pleasure emanating from the top of my head). The eye movement I am describing is not like REM. It is rather slow and it is directed upwards. So, I guess my question is: what is this eye movement thing? Is it described anywhere? Is it a Jhana thing? Is it a symptom of any stage of the path? Thanks!

I asked this question on the Philosophy StackExchange, as some belief systems have deep belief that everything is on a spectrum of polarity/opposites: - [What philosophies don't say things boil down to polarities (opposites)?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/118562/what-philosophies-dont-say-things-boil-down-to-polarities-opposites) What does Buddhism say about polarities/opposites? Does everything have an opposite? If so, how? I have several examples in my linked question, of what I think cannot be polarities: > I have thought a little about this and it appears that there are not > just polarities, but at least 3 classes of property values: > > 1. [On-off values](https://gist.github.com/lancejpollard/aa3b2eb6d03c997c6c42c214bf8c6701) > (not opposites, but a single property like "itchy" or "spikey", which > can have "more" or "less" of an intensity. _There is no opposite to > itchy or spikey._ At least the way I look at things. If you say > "non-itchy" as an opposite, what does that even mean? Basically it > boils down to "no value" or "some value", of one property. > 2. [Opposite values](https://gist.github.com/lancejpollard/5cd76ba84a1773fcd9228565baeb3423) . > These are your typical "polarities" like hot/cold, bright/dim, > heavy/light, etc.. Each is a single property with a pair of values on > a spectrum, ranging from one side to the other. > 3. Multidimensional values. These are things like "color", which has at least red/blue/green (rgb, 3 values ranging from 0-255 on modern > computers), or hue/saturation/lightness (hsl). I think most > "properties" belong to this category TBH, but I can't think of many > more. In coding, these are "data models" or "types with attributes".

What are the rules or guidelines on how a Buddhist should engage with others who would like to discuss philosophies, beliefs, ideas, and practices of other religions or belief systems? - Are Buddhists allowed to discuss / engage in the ideas to some degree? Or is it shunned. - How does Buddhism incorporate ideas outside the main canon / system? _(Generally speaking)_ - Are certain topics to be never discussed? This would help me ask better questions to the Buddhism community in general, but also would serve as a gauge as to how to interact. Basically, what is acceptable conversation topics in the end.

In the early strata of the Pāli Canon,in discussions of dependent origination in the Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta and the Mahānidāna Sutta, consciousness or viññāṇa is repeatedly characterized as dependently arisen (paṭiccasamuppanna), specific to its object (e.g., cakkhuviññāṇa, sotaviññāṇa), and lacking any underlying unity apart from causal continuity. In contrast, Yogācāra sources such as the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra and systematic expositions in the Yogācārabhūmi-Śāstra systematize a layered model of consciousness introducing the concept of ālayavijñāna as a subliminal, foundational consciousness that serves as the repository of karmic seeds (bīja) and the basis for the arising of the six manifest cognitive consciousnesses. Though described as momentary and dependently arisen, it appears to function as a unifying and enduring āśraya (support) for saṃsāric continuity. The question, which then arises is that Do the Nikāyan materials when interpreted without later Theravāda Abhidhamma categories contain any conceptual space for a structurally analogous substrate, or is Yogācāra’s ālayavijñāna a divergent theoretical innovation? Further Does the mutual conditioning of viññāṇa and nāma-rūpa in DN 15 imply a recursive continuity that could support a proto-ālaya interpretation, or is this reading anachronistic?

In early Buddhist sources, Uddaka Rāmaputta is described as one of the teachers under whom Siddhartha Gautama studied before attaining enlightenment, immediately after his training with Āḷāra Kālāma. The Pāli Canon (e.g MN 26) and parallel Sanskrit sources suggest that Uddaka Rāmaputta taught a form of meditative attainment described as “āruppajhāna”, culminating in a state of “neither perception nor non-perception” (naivasaññānāsaññāyatana). Some Scholars such as Alexander Wynne have hypothesised his affilation with Upanishadic streams of thought by theorizing that Uddaka Rāmaputta’s highest meditative attainment, naivasaññānāsaññāyatana, is identical to the Upanishadic notion of turiya, as described in the Mandukya Upanishad’s “nā prajñam, nāprajñam” (vide. The origin of Buddhist meditation, Wynne 2007) > ****nāntaḥ-prajñam, **na bahiṣ prajñam, nobhayataḥ-prajñam na > prajnañā-ghanam, na prajñam, nāprajñam**; adṛṣtam, avyavahārayam, > agrāhyam, alakṣaṇam, acintyam, avyapadeśyam, ekātma-pratyaya-sāram, > prapañcopaśamam, śāntam, śivam, advaitam, caturtham manyante, sa ātmā, > sa vijñeyaḥ. || 7 ||**** > > That is known as the fourth quarter: **neither inward-turned nor > outward-turned consciousness, nor the two together; not an > indifferentiated mass of consciousness; neither knowing, nor > unknowing**; invisible, ineffable, intangible, devoid of > characteristics, inconceivable, indefinable, its sole essence being > the consciousness of its own Self; the coming to rest of all relative > existence; utterly quiet; peaceful; blissful: without a second: this > is the Ātman, the Self; this is to be realised. (7) (Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 7) While academic scholars like Wynne emphasize these philosophical affinities with Upanishadic thought, it still remains unclear how traditional Buddhist scholarship situates Uddaka. How do Pali texts and classical commentaries classify his meditative system and doctrinal orientation? Was he regarded as belonging to a specific sramanic or Brahmanical school, or is he primarily interpreted as a precursor within the Buddha’s own spiritual biography?