Chinese often worship Ji Gong and I personally believe it's a misconception of Buddhism or something need to be revised by Buddhism teaching/new Sutta? Source of Ji Gong >  He was widely recognised by people as the incarnate of the Taming Dragon >Arhat (Chinese: 降龍羅漢; pinyin: Xiánglóng Luóhàn), one of the Eighteen Arhats. > > Xianglong Luohan (Chinese: 降龍羅漢), also known as the Taming Dragon > Arhat, is an arhat and one of the Eighteen Arhats in China.[1] His > Sanskrit name is Nantimitolo and origins are said to derive from a > Buddhist monk Mahakasyapa , the leader of the first Buddhism Council Meeting. 1) As far as I understand, one who enters nibbana would not be incarnated again ?  2) My curiosity is very high regarding the spiritual world. I just want to ask the Ji Gong during possession some questions. i.e. Question 1# above and some 4 Noble Of Truths doubts. True Arhat should be able to answer right? Is this action appropriate? Here is the sample of the possession that visitor can ask Arhat a question or attend Buddhism session.

If I take these definitive positions: 1. Mahayana teachings did originate from the Buddha and were taught to select disciples. (Whether in full or in part) And were then passed on selectively to various followers. 2. These teachings were, as tradition says, hidden in the Naga lands until the proper time for their dissemination arrived. 3. These texts/teachings began to appear around 1 BCE to the early part of the common era. Assuming all these religious accounts did happen as tradition states, is there a secular/academic/historical way of accounting for these events no matter how speculative? To be more specific, **what was so special about the early centuries of the common era (its culture, people, language, geo-political environment) that the Mahayana teachings had to be revealed at this particular point in time?** One of my initial thought was that the Buddha and his followers were living in a time were Prakrit wouldn't be the best language to use to disseminate Mahayana taught. It needed the developed Sanskrit of the early common era and Nagarjuna to reveal these "profound" teachings. But this may not be the case as per my exchange with Andrei. So I'm in the market for ideas...

At times when the mind is critical of not having achieved the samsaric goals, is there any consolation to have arrived at the Buddha dharma, especially from a non-Buddhist background? If so, how will the narrative go? How to find solace in the idea that, 'if not yet nirvana then at least a practicing Buddhist'?

I'm trying to understand if Sanksrit during 500 BCE to 1 CE is the same Sanskrit of 1 CE to 500 CE.

If one aspired to being a samma sambuddha, how would the Theravadan tradition advise them to proceed? I am familiar with some of the canonical references, (e.g., about getting a prediction from a Buddha) but what steps should one take that would advance that goal in this life? Thanks!

Is there a difference between *yatha bhuta* and *vipassana*? Or are they just synonyms?

There are six internal sense bases named eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. There are six external sense bases named visible form, sound, odour, taste, and mental objects. I have two parts in my question; 1. If we look at our own hand, leg, or any other conventional body part or if we touch and feel our own conventional body, do all these belong to the external sense bases? 2. If the answer is "yes" to the first part of the question, which form elements (rūpa) are included in internal?

In the cycle of paṭiccasamuppāda, if we start from avijjā, the next nidāna is that of saṅkhāra which in turn conditions the origin of viññāṇa, loosely termed as consciousness. This viññāṇa in turn conditions the appearance of nāmarūpa, followed by saḷāyatana, the six sense bases. This as all of us know is followed by phassa and then the rest of the twelve nidānas. Now my question is: what is the nature of this viññāṇa, this consciousness, that appears anterior to nāmarūpa, name and form, and, saḷāyatana, the six sense bases? As I understand this, the body and the mind as well as the six sense bases have not appeared as yet at this step of the cycle, and therefore, this viññāṇa cannot be said to be one of the six sense consciousnesses; then what is the content of this ‘primordial’ consciousness? Is it the saṅkhāra-generated bhavaṅga citta, or is it something else?

The term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent soul in living beings. If this is the case, then what exactly is being carried over from one life to the next in the cycle of reincarnation? And against which entity are Karma points being increased or decreased?

coming across such an distinction here: how, if, should such be understood in Dynamic context? Can deeds ever be an input phenomena?

If I'm getting this right it is/was customary to utter a poem shortly after realizing enlightenment. Are these verses and/or maybe stories and accounts surrounding these beings collected somewhere?

Does the doctrine of no soul is means that there is nothing permanent to continue? So is the teaching of reincarnation, rebirth misleading as there is a notion there is a continuity after death? Also death and birth is visible at the physical level, [but the rebirth process is not. What is the implication on this in the doctrine?]

In MN 44 is found an explanation of the terms 'kaya, vaci & citta sankhara' (which are terms also found in Anapanasati steps 4, 7 & 8 and in the 2nd nidana of Dependent Origination). Bhikkhu Thanissaro's translation is: > *Now, lady, what are fabrications (sankhara)?* > >*These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications (kaya sankhara), verbal fabrications (vaci sankhara) & mental > fabrications (citta sankhara).* > >*But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal > fabrications? What are mental fabrications?* > >*In-&-out breaths are > bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal > fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications.* > >*But > why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought > & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & feelings > mental fabrications?* > >*In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things > tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily > fabrications.* > >***Having first directed one's thoughts and made an > evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed > thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications.*** > >*Perceptions & feelings > are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why > perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications.* The explanation about the 'vaci sankhara' (which is bolded) clearly states thought is the **cause** of speech. If this is true, how can thought be the "verbal fabrication" when it is obvious that: (a) speech is the verbal fabrication and (b) thought is that which fabricates (or causes) the speech? Similarly, in MN 10, contemplating the 'citta' means observing to see whether the citta ('the mind-heart') has greed or not, hatred or not, delusion or not, etc. Therefore, how can perception & feeling be the "mental (citta) fabrication" when many suttas state it is feelings & perceptions that are the **cause** of mental states of greed, hatred & delusion (as shown below)? > *If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes > it or remains fastened to it, then one's lust-obsession gets > obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, > & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's > hatred-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of > neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is > present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback or escape > from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. MN > 148* In the English language, the term "fabrication" refers to something that is 'fabricated' (such as a 'building'). Therefore, should not the translation here of 'sankhara' mean something that fabricates (such as a 'builder')?

The term "non-emptiness" appears in the literature. For example from Chi-tsang (madhyamaka): > When the sutras speak of "the emptiness of visible form" this refers to its emptiness and lack of a true substantive nature; therefore it is called empty. It does not mean that conventional visible reality is empty (nothingness?). Since the substantive nature is an empty nothingness, therefore it is called empty. This is the real truth. The non-emptiness of conventional reality is called the worldly truth. I just mean the opposite of emptiness. Is non-emptiness empty, and in what way?

I often wonder myself if the buddhist teachings says that realms are mental states, realities based on external conditions or a combination of the two. Why is that? For example: > "There's the case, headman, where a certain teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who take life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell. All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' A disciple has faith in that teacher, and the thought occurs to him, 'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: "All those who take life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell." There are living beings that I have killed. I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell. > >SN 42.8 If realms are realities as I supposed before, then can someone be reborn in hell or even as an animal because of the feeling of guilty, even irrational guilty, while acting correctly in his life? For example someone who dies in agony or anger because he lives with a demanding and abusive person and becomes regretful about it? Or someone who suffer prejudices about his/her color, culture, religion, sexual orientation or appearance, with threats and phrases like "You'll be reborn in hell because of this or that", if that person holds onto those views, that could be the case? I also remember seeing somewhere, not sure if here, Quora or Reddit, about a case of a monk that did something very little like killing a gnat or a plant and because of his exaggerated fear, was reborn as a cobra. What about the opposite, that is, a mass murderer like Hitler or Stalin that firmly clings to the view that he's doing the right thing and because of that believes that he deserves a good destination, will his beliefs and thoughts overcome his deeds? Or the case of catholic inquisition with their brutal torture methods and other assertive means, if they believe that they're doing "God's work", or simply a psychopath that doesn't care about what he/she have done. Here's another passage: >"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell." > >SN 56.102-113 As everything is "suññatā", what is heaven or hell varies depending on context, culture, eras, individual, but I believe most of us will agree that being born in a place like Afghanistan, for example, would probably feel like hell, when our most basic needs aren't satisfied, living in a constant feeling of fear, angry and misery and it's not just me saying that, as we can see in , and . Let alone cases like Nigeria: People With Mental Health Conditions Chained, Abused. And I really want to be wrong when I think about even the remote possibility of being born on those conditions by accident, wrong view or thoughts. It's not like you're destined to suffering or pain living in places like these or destined to happiness living in Finland, but external conditions and environment definitely have an impact on our well-being. All of that is because the buddhist doctrine is the most down to earth one, with irrefutable teachings like impermanence, non-self, dissatisfaction and emptiness, that can be realized through logic and rational thinking even similar to that used in calculus and thus equip us with a more reliable and verifiable knowledge than the stoic logos, the christian god or the hindu brahma. So Siddarta at his time probably had struggled with the same questions and found his way to deal with them while maintaining peace of mind, he must knows what he's talking about, although I believe that as time passes and cultures changes, only the three marks of existence and four noble truths remains as a useful logic teachings. I don't consider myself a buddhist but even with it's secular approach, the philosophy there is undoubtful useful to our lives. I know I've been focusing too much on the negative side of life and world there, but if I can find a way out of these thoughts by logical and verifiable arguments, rather than just belief, I think it'll be worth it. I don't expect an absolute answer to this like a guarantee of a method of achieving good rebirths every time but at least some guidelines so that I can return to the common sense that situations like those I mentioned are rare and most of us fall in the intermediary, mediocre life situation, like phenomena in nature generally follows the mathematical normal distribution and that most of us will have the basic means to lead our life to something with the minimal dignity if we can do the very basic. That being said, I'm sorry for any mistakes or errors while making a question, as English is not my mother language and this is my first time using this site. Thanks in advance.

The Nibbedhika Sutta: Penetrative (translated by Ven. Thanissaro) states the following: >"And what is the result of feeling? One who feels a feeling produces a corresponding state of existence, on the side of merit or demerit. This is called the result of feeling. What does this mean? If a feeling is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neither pleasant nor unpleasant, then isn't additional input required to determine merit or demerit?

One of my physics professors implied that Buddhism is false because, unlike the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism claims a cyclical cosmology. He argued that since the universe is expanding and its expansion is speeding up, the universe cannot be cyclical. I was under the impression that the idea of a cyclical universe was carried over from Hinduism into Buddhism implicitly and that the Buddha never made any claims regarding cosmology. Did the Buddha suggest a cyclical universe?

I've heard a meditation teacher mention that samatha is less likely to be done wrong while using a visual object. I've also read about how mindfulness meditation may sometimes lead to negative effects in the practitioner. What is the type of meditation that is least likely to cause such possible negative effects, or to be practised incorrectly? Am I right in thinking compassion meditation is more accessible and less likely to cause harm?

In Mahasi Sayadaw's meditation instructions, he says "you will find the abdomen rising when you breathe in, and falling when you breathe out. *The rising should be noted mentally as 'rising', and the falling as `falling'* " but in Practice Insight Meditation it says "*never verbally repeat the words, rising, falling, and do not think of rising and falling as words*". This seems to imply that we shouldn't label rising and falling at all, either out loud, or mentally. But when we note distraction we are instructed to give them a one-word label. So this seems to me to be suggesting that we know rising and falling with direct awareness only, but we label distractions. But, equally, how does one note 'rising' and 'falling' without using the word, at least mentally? So my question is. What should we label (if anything) rising, falling, and distractions? Or just distractions? Or maybe everything should just be noted with direct awareness?

In Majjhima Nikaya 63 , the Buddha says >So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. **And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'** ... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me. >**"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life.** They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me. What is the opinion of Buddhism on Cosmology, which tries to deal with these questions (highlighted in bold above) about the cosmos? Is pursuing cosmology discouraged in Buddhism? (Cosmology, in this question, refers to the branch of Science and not metaphysical speculations about the universe. It is understood that Buddhism discourages idle speculations about the universe. But what about the pursuit of the science of cosmology?).