Can someone precisely explain what is actually happening (and why) on this movie? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A-9pxBANek

What is the right way to understand (or apply) mirror wisdom? Is it buddha-nature, bodhisattva (ripe for awakening), or both? Is it cultivated, or does it spring up naturally with enlightenment? If it's a method, how can it be utilized to curb conceit? Is it a prerequisite for non-duality? Does it have a place in mindfulness meditation? EDIT: from what i understand it's one of five wisdom types. that's about all i know. that and wondering about the people across from me on the subway, when i think maybe this is when i should work with the mirroring... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_wisdoms

According to this law, every phenomenon owes its origin to another phenomenon prior to it. It may simply be expressed as “depending on this, this originates”. An example of Dependent Origination in nature is given below: There being clouds in the sky it rains. It having rained, the road becomes slippery. The road becoming slippery, a man falls down. The man having fallen down becomes injured. Here a shower of rain depends on the clouds in the sky. The road becoming slippery depends on the rain. The fall of the man depends on the road becoming slippery. The injury of the man depends upon his fall: Conversely: If there were no clouds in the sky, it would not have rained. Then the road would not have become slippery. Then the man would not have fallen. Then he would not have become injured. So this is understandable and clear to anyone. So can anyone explain (in simplified way)dependent origination step by step with practical examples?

Wikipedia's Kalpa(aeon) in Buddhism article says, > In another simple explanation, there are four different lengths of kalpas. A regular kalpa is approximately 16 million years long (16,798,000 years<a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKalpa_%2528aeon%2529%23Buddhism" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">[1] <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), and a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or about 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is roughly 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or around 1.28 trillion years. I just went through the Visuddhimagga, and could not find where or how that time in years is calculated. I was wondering how to calculate it. Please explain how it's calculated, with reference to scripture where Lord Buddha mentioned it, and/or where the calculation or the result of the calculation is described, perhaps in the Thripitaka or Visuddhimagga? --- <a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKalpa_%2528aeon%2529%23Buddhism" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">[1] <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> Wikipedia's reference is to a book: > Epstein, Ronald B.(2002). Buddhist Text Translation Society's Buddhism A to Z p. 204. Buddhist Text Translation Society. ISBN 0-88139-353-3, ISBN 978-0-88139-353-8. Perhaps that book may have a reference to where they found it, but I still haven't find that book.

I have read somewhere (possibly Dalai Lama) that certain sexual activity comes under sexual misconduct (like Oral, Anal ...). So my question is whether using breast for sexual activity is considered sexual misconduct.

I am trying to find sources of info of if the Buddha ever explained any reason why we as humans are afflicted by sexual desire. Conventionally we are animals so are innately afflicted with a predisposition towards reproduction, with sexual desire itself being enticed by physical pleasure. Just want to know if the Buddha explained this desire in any depth. Obviously this issue would have come up within the sangha.

Is it true that the Buddha will never be a woman? If so, why is this? To be specific, I am particularly asking whether or not the Buddha itself can be female. I am *not* asking whether a woman can become a Buddha in her future life.

> Nirvana is not extinction because mind (which, from the first, was the > only authentic component of the vanished beings) persists; it is not > heaven because no sentient being remains to enter it Can you explain it so that I'm sure it is right? In other words, expand on it, or append it, etc. You may use concepts like "one mind", "mindful", etc,, whatever you like.

The common sense-objects are light, sound, smells, tastes, touch, and ideas. The origin must be form. What is form? > The four great elements and the form derived from the four great > elements: this is called form. Thus we assume the sense-objects are derivatives of the four great elements, but what is more? Given the often anomalous classification of intellect as mind or consciousness, I even wonder if its counterpart, idea, is form at all. Is there further elucidation on the matter, like that of the Sankhya school?

I am a Hindu and I believe that Vishnu incarnated as Buddha in beginning period of Kaliyug and purpose of his incarnation was to avoid sufferings caused in society by misinterpretation of vedas. So,he rejected vedas. > Mahabharat shanti parva Chapter 348 > > Then at the beginning of Kali Yuga he took refuge in the tree of the > king of brahmins He lived in **the house of the king of righteousness > in fear of Magadha He was dressed in brown clothes, shaved and had > white teeth. I, the Buddha, the son of Shuddhodana, shall bewitch men. > The Sudras are enjoyed among the pure when I have attained Buddhahood. > All men will be enlightened and covered with saffron.** At times of Mahabharat ,Krishna told that Dwarka will drown and he will return as Buddha in Kaliyug. ***What I want to ask :Are there any Buddhist sects or subsects that believe that Hindu scriptures particularly the Vedas were true in original form and got interpolated .So,they need to follow new message and reject Vedas so they require change to Buddhism or Vedas were divinely inspired but got misinterpreted /interpolated or lost original form or any similar belief of divine revelation in Vedas .***

I read the following on the internet: > I believe the Buddha defined mind as a process (feeling, perceiving, > thinking, cognizing) that is initiated by craving (SN12:38), giving > rise to effects like pleasant/unpleasant/neutral sensation. This is > also the way we normally experience reality. What do we believe SN 12.38 is about?

I read the following on the internet: > Sunyata is absolute reality. Emptiness. There are also the 3 marks of > existence, suffering, impermanence and non self. This is ultimate > reality for a being in samsara. Are anicca, dukkha & anatta the marks of existence for a being in samsara?

I find that the five Skandhas can be very confusing at times, as the Western idea of mind and perception is very different to the Buddhist idea of mind and perception. On top of that, many explanations of the five Skandhas online seem vague and sometimes seem to be interpreted differently, depending on where you go. The first Skandha: **Form** --------------------------- Does this refer to physical form? Can we only know form through the sense organs? The second Skandha: **Sensation** --------------------------------- Are these just sensations from the sense organs? One description online describes sensation as follows: > ... it is the sensation experienced through the contact of eye with > visible form, ear with sound, nose with odor, tongue with taste, body > with tangible things, mind (manas) with ideas or thoughts. If this is the case, does emotion fall under sensation? The third Skandha: **Perception** --------------------------------- A description I found: >Samjna is the faculty that recognizes. Most of what we call thinking fits into the aggregate of samjna. > > The word "samjna" means "knowledge that puts together." It is the > capacity to conceptualize and recognize things by associating them > with other things. For example, we recognize shoes as shoes because we > associate them with our previous experience with shoes. My understanding is that the faculty to recognize is consciousness. However, consciousness is said to be a different Skandha. My understanding is that consciousness is that which perceives the world around it. More broadly, how is perception and consciousness different? The fourth Skandha: **Mental Formation** --------------------------------- A description I found: > This aggregate includes all mental factors except feeling and > perception, which are two of the possible fifty-two mental factors > noted in Buddhism. I'm assuming this is where emotions exist? Is happiness an emotion? Is loving-kindness an emotion? If not, were do they exist, in terms of the Skandhas? The fifth Skandha: **Consciousness** --------------------------------- A description I found: > Vijnana is a reaction that has one of the six faculties as its basis and one of the six corresponding phenomena as its object. For example, aural consciousness -- hearing -- has the ear as its basis and a sound as its object. Mental consciousness has the mind (manas) as its basis and an idea or thought as its object. If this is the case, then is consciousness that which *observes* sensations, mental formations, perception and form, or that which *experiences* sensation, perception, mental formations and form? Can the experience of sensation exist if we are not conscious of it? Are animals conscious? Maybe a more important question is: what is the difference between consciousness and self-awareness, in the Buddhist context? I realize there are a lot of questions here, so thank you to whoever takes the time out of their day to answer them. Have a good day! Comment: This is a very cogent, very important, even fundamental issue in the process of direct inquiry. The last question haunts me: what is the true definition of consciousness when referred to as a Buddhist skanda? Specifically, self reflexive awareness--for lack of a better term--seems fundamental, even unitary. Vedantic teachings inevitably lead to the direct discovery that "consciousness is all". Consider Turyia. The Tibetan term, Rigpa, seems to point to the same realization.

Numerous philosophical traditions and religious doctrines espouse disparate—and at times, mutually contradictory—conceptions regarding the nature of ‘absolute reality’ or ‘ultimate reality.’ Some schools of thought posit that the entirety of nature constitutes the fundamental substratum of existence, while others ascribe this foundational status to a particular transcendent and personal deity. Still others conceive of absolute reality as an amorphous, omnipresent consciousness that pervades all of existence. With regard to Buddhism, how is ‘absolute reality’ understood within its doctrinal framework? Does Buddhism, in any of its various philosophical interpretations, affirm the existence of an ontologically ultimate reality, or does it reject such a notion altogether?

*Sorry; part of this question is described in Chinese, as I cannot find their Pali or Sanskrit script; even if I can, I can't read them.* The Saddharmapundarika Sutra (法华经) quoted Buddha (Sakyamuni himself) once said about "Saddharma Vipralopa (末法)", the Ending Era in which Buddhism would become unpopular and weak (转复微末，谓末法时). Later commentary scripts claimed Buddha said "there is 500 years of correct Buddism, 1000 years of similar Buddhism and 3000 years of Ending Buddhism after my nirvana" (然佛所说，我灭度后，正法五百年，像法一千年，末法三千年). This saying is believed to be real but also there are different interpretation. Some source said Samyuktagama (杂阿含经) mentioned Ending Era (Saddharma Vipralopa) much earlier, but I didn't find. Based on the idea that Buddha said "500+1000 years after his nirvana, it is the Ending Era", the Mahayana Jingtu faction (净土宗) and 净土-influenced Tiantai faction (天台宗) thus believe we are now in the Ending Era of Buddhism, and developed a full system of getting liberated in this current era. These are, however, not accepted by Zen faction (禅宗), another major Mahayana faction in China. Zen believe the Ending Era is real but it is not that bad and the timetable is not referring to real time. > 末世众生愚痴钝根，不解如来三大阿僧祇秘密之说，遂言成佛尘劫未期，岂不疑误行人退菩提道。 I want to know, are these 3 creeds (below) also accepted in other factions of Buddhism, especially different factions of Theravada out of Sinosphere? Or, are these thoughts denied or left intentionally not to discuss? 1. There is an Ending Era of Buddhism after Buddha's nirvana. 2. The Ending Era is very bad, Buddhism becomes unpopular and wrong, and people are too stupid to get nirvana by themselves. 3. We are currently in this Ending Era. --------------- I think maybe some faction may deny the idea of Ending Era; for example, another translated book named "Ekottara Āgama (增壹阿含经)" said the Buddhism after Buddha will last forever and gain billions of believers. > 佛告阿难曰。我灭度之后。法当久存......东方弟子无数亿千。南方弟子无数亿千。是故。阿难。当建此意。我释迦文佛寿命极长。所以然者。肉身虽取灭度。法身存在。此是其义。当念奉行。 Maybe some of them is fake, wrong, or intepreted mistakenly. I don't know, and don't want to discuss which is correct and which is wrong, they are all ancient and said to be translated from India. My question is only, is there any other faction believe "it's the Ending Era now, the End is nigh!".

I read something on reddit that made me think that the author confuses between Nibbana (extinguishment, liberation) and saññāvedayitanirodha (cessation of perception and feeling), thinking that they refer to the same thing. I quoted some of the suttas below that led them to this view. Questions: 1. What is the difference between the two? 2. Are they the same? If they are the same, then when the Buddha returns to the normal waking and talking state, he would lose his Nibbana wouldn't he? 3. What is the difference between the bliss or pleasure of Nibbana in the waking and talking state, compared to the bliss or pleasure of saññāvedayitanirodha? Are they the same or completely different? 4. Is saññāvedayitanirodha needed for attaining arahantship? Can one attain arahantship without ever reaching it? 5. Is it possible that one could attain saññāvedayitanirodha, without attaining Nibbana? They used these sutta quotes to support their assumption that Nibbana and saññāvedayitanirodha are the same: > They understand: ‘There is this, there is what is worse than this, > there is what is better than this, and there is an escape beyond the > scope of perception.’ > MN 7 > When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend > Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it (Nibbana), > since nothing is felt?” > > “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely > what’s blissful about it. > AN 9.34 > “One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The > cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is > nibbāna.’ Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises > and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another > perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the > cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ On that occasion, friend, I was > percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’” > AN 10.7 > There are those who would say that this is the highest pleasure and > happiness that sentient beings experience. But I don’t grant them > that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure that is finer > than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when a mendicant, going > totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, > enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is > a pleasure that is finer than that. > MN 59

When Buddhist texts mention "realms of rebirth", it sounds like you are only living in those realms and not actually becoming one of the inhabitants. Like for example being reborn into the Deva realm, you reborn and live there but aren't reborn as a Deva. Could somebody help me?

I tried to find the answer and looked into theses questions on the site https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5979/the-third-precept-and-prostitution https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9307/buddhist-attitude-towards-prostitution-and-non-procreative-sexual-activity https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1367/how-is-sexual-misconduct-explained-in-regards-to-the-five-precepts But I couldn't find the exact answer. So hope this is not a duplicate. The explanation I have heard regarding the third precept is for men to avoid having sex with certain types (20 types) of women. So my understanding is that a married man going to a prostitute doesn't break the third precept. Please explain if this is correct or not.

Many teachers (Osho) have asked to do vigorous exercise before vipassana , IS it advisable and OK ?

I read somewhere that the Buddha said: 'if there were a desire stronger than sexual desire, there would be no possibility of Englightenment'. I'm looking for this specific reference, please don't send related quotes, which I have read in other related questions.