I have read here argumentation for the continuity of mind, coming from a Geshe in Tibetan Buddhism. From what I have learnt it is asserted that: * Consciousness could not arise from matter (could not have matter as its ***substantial cause***). * It could not arise from nothing. * It could only arise from another moment of consciousness. Note: the definition of **"substantial cause"** above comes from Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika. Has anyone come across a Buddhist argument why something could not have nothing as its substantial cause? What faulty logical consequences would follow? More specifically, I have in mind a situation when due to a higher being's act/wish, something comes into being. What comes into being is not transformed from another previous entity, but emerges "from nothing" merely due to the higher's act/wish. I would like to understand whether there are logical contradictions that would follow from the asserting this to be possible.

Can a bodhisattva or lay Buddhist be too concerned with truth at the expense of compassion and altruism? **What is the relationship between truth and compassion?** e.g.. is the truth always compassionate, and if not, which is more important? Or, can we pursue the Buddha dharma out of a desire for the truth alone. etc.

So here is a quick "disclaimer": I know that the Buddha didn't answer metaphysical questions since it made no sense to him. He wanted to afaik limit/remove suffering as much as possible. Also I know that science isn't always right and is itself making up theories which more then often enough turn out to be false. Also I meditate a lot every day as in sitting meditation and all together mindfulness. Well now to my question: I somehow get scared of thinking how there was (according to science) a big bang and then I wonder what was before the big bang or where the space comes from that the universe takes up etc. I don't know why but especially these last days I'm drawn to think about it even though I know it doesn't help me in any way and even if I happen to know everything it won't change anything. Also another thing I think of is heat death. Which again I know is a story made up by science and then I ask myself is it really worth to do anything, live, help etc. anybody if in the ultimate end everything will be gone and does that maybe imply that all beings will reach paranirvana? And just like these questions seem metaphysical and paranormal I feel like the idea of rebirth and paranirvana is also somewhat scary to think about and is as well somewhat metaphysical. I wish I could give up all these unnecessary thoughts which cause suffering to me. Also I wish science wouldn't go as far as trying to explain everything. Do you have any thoughts on this?

What advice did the Buddha give to laypeople or monastics about taking care of a dying loved one or anyone dying in their deathbed?

I have a question. I like to draw, and recently think of selling my art (commisssion). But I mainly draw fanart (fanart of celebrities, movie characters, etc). My question is, in Buddhism, is selling our drawing of real life people (celebrities, famous people) considered wrong? As in 'using' their popularity for us to gain profit?

In psychology, there is a form of meditation called 'open-monitoring', which involves paying non-judgmental awareness to everything that arises in the present moment. I have heard, and read, that Buddhism typically advises one to have some experience with concentrative meditations before engaging in such open meditations. Is it necessary to have some experienced with focused attention in order to practice more objectless meditations? Is there a big difference between sitting on the cushion doing nothing, and practicing an open type of meditation? How is the concentration required?

I am keen on finding a teacher that is experienced in Samatha meditation. I have come to understand meditation as a skill to be practiced and developed over time. This practice is something I plan to take seriously and dedicate myself to, but have struggled to find local teachers. I am wondering if there are any known means of perhaps finding virtual teachers, or how those of you without access to a local sangha have taken this important step. In seeking out a teacher I do have concerns about being misguided by someone that is not themselves an advanced meditator. I do strive towards the path to stream entry and I worry that in my inexperience I may lack the discernment to know when a teaching is solid or not. Any advice in this regard would be much appreciated as well. It is worth noting that I am fond of the teachings of the Thai Forest Lineage but would not be closed off to welcoming teachings from other traditions :) Thank you!

I have seen the same monk in two different color robes and am wondering why. They were dark red and of course orange. Ihave also seen brown, but that was zen, and if any other colors have relevance i would like to hear about them as well. I practice Theravada if that helps with referencing or relevance issues.

I'd like to meditate on the breath to calm myself and diminish stress. Yet, when I meditate on the breath, I typically feel more stressed afterwards. How long should I practice this technique before seeing effects? How can I tell if it actually relaxes me?

It has been said that the reason the Buddha *did not answer* Vacchagotta was because the discussion was not about the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha, but rather about the illogical doctrine of Vacchagotta: > “Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?” > > “Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely, > if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ I would have been > siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. When > Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, if I > had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’ I would have > been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. > > When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely, if I had > answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ would that have helped give > rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?” > > “No, sir.” > > “When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, > if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’, > Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, > thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’” > > SN 44.10 It's also been said that the Buddha *did answer* the question about what happened to Pukkusāti *after* a cow killed him *even though* it was asked by ignorant monks who presumably were - just like Vacchagotta - not using the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha: > But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, a stray cow > took his life. > > Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one > side, and said to him, “Sir, the gentleman named Pukkusāti, who was > advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. **Where has he been > reborn in his next life?”** > > “Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the > teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending > of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously and will > become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.” > > MN 140 This seems inconsistent. Why is it that the Buddha *did not answer* Vacchagotta, but *did answer* the monks if both were premising their questions with ignorant understandings of the view of the self?

If see the citta during meditation how it links to depend origin?is seeing the citta cause liberation as sotapanna?

> Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall > be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be > possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a > conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be > non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be > neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is > a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming > all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage > at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and > does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might > be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he > die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should > he yearn? > > MN 140 Also has: > Then the venerable Pukkusāti, having delighted and rejoiced in the > Blessed One’s words, rose from his seat, and after paying homage to > the Blessed One, keeping him on his right, he departed in order to > search for a bowl and robes. Then, while the venerable Pukkusāti was > searching for a bowl and robes, **a stray cow killed him.** > > Then a number of bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, and after paying > homage to him, they sat down at one side and told him: “Venerable sir, > the clansman Pukkusāti, who was given brief instruction by the Blessed > One, has died. **What is his destination? What is his future course?**” > > “Bhikkhus, the clansman Pukkusāti was wise. He practised in accordance > with the Dhamma and did not trouble me in the interpretation of the > Dhamma. With the destruction of the five lower fetters, **the clansman > Pukkusāti has reappeared spontaneously in the Pure Abodes** and will > attain final Nibbāna there without ever returning from that world.” And we have this alternative translation of the relevant passage from Bhikkhu Sujato: > "But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, **a stray cow > took his life.** > > Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one > side, and said to him, “Sir, the gentleman named Pukkusāti, who was > advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. **Where has he been > reborn in his next life?”** > > “Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the > teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending > of the five lower fetters, **he’s been reborn spontaneously** and will > become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.” What did the Buddha mean in MN 140 about what happened to clansman Pukkusāti **after** a cow killed him?

When I was watching some youtube video I heard Baphuon was converted into Buddhist temple. But It's hard for me to believe it. My question is why Buddhists would have to convert other religious places to their own. Here in India mostly shiva temples was Buddhist places. Conversely picture is different and even shiva concept is copied from Buddha. That's why I have asked. Please tell me if it is truth or false if anyone have studied this architecture.

If possible could someone provide me with references to sutras where the Buddha broaches such topics? In my previous question I asked about it generally and a kind user told me that information could be found in the second and third turnings of the Dharma wheel. Since I am fairly new to Buddhism, could you tell me where exactly to find answers to above question?

How do you understand the Ananda Sutta ? How do you place it in relation to the Atman or Anatta (An-atman) doctrine? SN 44.10 > Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, > exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly > greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he > asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?" > > When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. > > "Then is there no self?" > > A second time, the Blessed One was silent. > > Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left. > > Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda > said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer > when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?" > > "Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a > self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming > with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism > [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being > asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer > that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & > contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that > death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by > Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that > there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of > knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" > > "No, lord." > > "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no > self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered > Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used > to have now not exist?'"

What is the difference between the progress of "low intensive" meditators as opposed to "high intensive" meditators? By low intensive I mean like a meditator who has never been to a ten day intensive retreat and spreads sitting time over a longer period of time. By progress I mean Vipassana insight progress, Jhana progress or any other kind of meditation progress in any tradition.

I have a question. A man should attain enlightenment to liberate himself from cycle of rebirths and every other aspects. What if a **MAN** don't even care to try out to attain enlightenment. Will he be stuck in a cycle and no place to stop his process of rebirth until he attains enlightenment. Does he be a prisoner of this birth cycle. Is there no way for him to escape until he attains **Enlightenment**. What is the end of this birth cycle? I don't have in-depth knowledge in Buddhism or the question I ask. So please correct me if I am wrong.

I'm looking for a Sutta I read recently that has instructions (or a description) on a gradual exit of meditation/levels of concentration. It might talk about this in the context of Samādhi or Jhāna, I'm not sure. I recall it being somewhat similar to [SN 47:10](https://suttacentral.net/sn47.10/en/bodhi) in that it is more of a parallel description of concentration/absorption/mindfulness, rather than the usual formulas. I've skimmed through the Satipaṭṭhānasaṁyutta and the Jhānasaṁyutta, but there's just too many discourses. Not to mention the fact that the Sutta I'm looking for might not even be in the Saṁyutta Nikaya. Any pointers would be much appreciated.

At work, I try to be mindful, deliberate, and calm. I found with the help of meditation and being mindful makes me less distracted and less stressed at my work or whatever I do. But I also feel being mindful, deliberate and calm makes me slow, feels less involved at my work(though I feel focused) and less energetic. I used to be very active and fast at certain stuffs I do but now I dont feel like that if try to be mindful. How to overcome this? I want to be mindful and calm but I also want to be fast and involved at my work(or in other words highly active)?

Ana (Āna, Āṇā, incoming breath, inhale) & Apana (apāṇa, āpāna, outgoing breath, exhale), there is a moment between them. Or let's say the point switches from incoming breath to outgoing breath. I can't remember the terminology for this switching point. I believe it exists in the Pali language. Does anyone know it? Thank you.