From Wikipedia on the Visuddhimagga and Siddhi: > Aṇimā: the ability to become smaller than the smallest, reducing one's > body to the size of an atom or even become invisible. > > Mahimā: the ability to become infinitely large, expanding one's body > to an infinitely large size. > > Laghimā: the ability to become weightless or lighter than air. > > Prāpti: the ability to instantaneously travel or be anywhere at will. > > Prākāmya: the ability to achieve or realize whatever one desires. > > Īśiṭva: the ability to control nature, individuals, organisms, etc. > Supremacy over nature and ability to force influence upon anyone. > > Vaśiṭva: the ability to control all material elements or natural > forces. > > Kāma-avasayitva (per Kṣemarāja and Vyasa): satisfaction, suppression > of desire, or (as Yatrakāmāvasāyitva) wishes coming true. - Is it possible for a modern Buddhist to believe in what sounds like fantasy or magical powers (Rddhi ) ? - Do any current day Buddhists practice these? - Are the eight classical Siddhis or Rddhi now rejected or reinterpreted ?

Sadly, Indo-Germanic languages aren't well transliterated following international standards (which are far from purposes, aside of productivity and cutting down to lowest). The romanization of Pali and Sanskrit romanization often follow a totally different standard -- it's good if Sri Lankan could follow more language conservation standards. Maybe someone likes to help with an alphabet list that gives Pali in Sri Lankan script -- a transliteration following the international standards for Pali-to-Roman and also international romanization of Sri Lanka script -- that western could also do an effort to have no hindrances. Be aware that SE-Asian isn't well supported by Google Translate, and so you can make much merits in Dhamma helping here personally to answer. There is a development by Brahman Vinodh: http://aksharamukha.appspot.com/converter Not sure how well it works for Sri Lankan script and Pali, since the Developer heads much toward Sanskrit and worldly standards -- I at least observe in other languages that it does not fail for Buddha-Dhamma yet -- but surely also happy to receive generosity for the good parts of the Undertaking. Not sure in how much Sri Lankan script deals well with special characters for loan words from Sanskrit and Pali aside the native language script. *[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange and stacks by for liberation from this bond]*

this is my first post I have researched what the buddhist sutra says about Homosexuality...I found Saddhama Smrty Uposttana sutra and Upasakasila sutra that said homosexuality is sexual misconduct and in the first sutra it even mention hell https://youtu.be/g7aikfMui2M So my question..I am not a homosexual but I am a hardcore fan of Kpop(korean music pop) since 7 years, and there is a lots of promotion and depiction of Homosexuality in concert, reality programs that are about the boy bands groups, that even fans create something called fan fiction and a lots of time it talks about sex and even rape among the boy bands..I dont read fanfiction because it's bad.. but I watch a boyband and they also do some homosexual acts..I have been turning blind eye but I was concerned what buddhism think about that..even there is a lots of fans who watch bl series(boy love aka homosexual story) such fans called Fujoshi( which is japanese words means spoiled girls, which they like to watch boy acts on boys) and I am also realized that I am also a fujoshi and I cant help was drown to watch such series( I didnt but felt like craving to watch it) and it's very popular in Buddhist countries..so I thought more buddhists should discuss this thing and its influence among the teenagers because the vast majority of fans are but I am adult..any way Should buddhist refrain from watching such media? I also wanted to know what Buddha think of celebrities and i know that in Talaputta sutta buddha said actors would go to hell( I am not sure if that also include singers) I am usually watch music videos and some shows by boy band i dont watch movies or series..but it appear like the buddha also think the one who watch entertainment is not good Any way...sorry for being long..i just need guidance regarding that..i am also follower of mahayana pureland buddhism but even pali sutta, i will still look to it Thanks

How is 'Chanda' (Intention) related to 'Tanha' (Desire) ? I often hear that Karma is determined by intention. I want to know how they are all related. What comes first? What gets abandoned in meditation and Nirvana? I know of a YouTuber who claims to have gotten Nirvana, but he said after some time he had to train himself to purposefully generate an intention to talk and explain things to other people. So did he also have a prior desire to help other people? How this three work for Enlightened people and seekers?

Do the Chinese Buddhists of all Chinese schools of Buddhism regard all people as potential Buddhas or just Buddhists? Do they believe that only the minds of Buddhists can come to enlightenment? What is the difference between their relationship to people whom they consider potential Buddhas from their relationship to ordinary people? Thanks everyone.

Lord Buddha said that we should practise Asubha sanna (perception of the non-beautiful). Does it mean that we have to let go Subha sanna (perception of the beautiful) completely ? Are there anything that is Subha in this world? As I know, The world is a Asubha thing. We can not find any subha thing in this world at all. So anything that is not related to the world is Subha. Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha help us to get rid of this world. That means they are Subha things. The conclusion is that we shouldn't have any Subha sanna towards anything other than Triple jems. Am I right?

Does samsara exist? Or does samsara not exists and it just looks to us that it exists, but in reality it is all the same "thing"? Here's the updated question, to make it clearer: **UPDATE** Nibanna is the cessation of all that is conditioned, i.e. samsara. As I understand it, when you attain Nibanna which is unconditioned, then you are out of samsara. Does this mean, that when you attain Nibanna, samsara: 1. does not exist but it exists for other beings in samsara? 2. does not exist, and neither it exists for the other beings in samsara, because Nibanna is unconditioned, so there is no samsara, and consequently there are no beings? Which one is it? 1 or 2?

I've been reading through the newest version of the code of conduct of the company I work for, and I've been weighing each rule against my Buddhist ethics, and it has brought up some interesting questions for me. One thing the code of conduct says is that if one witnesses something improper, and does not report it, that constitutes a violation. I think, for most serious offenses this is in line with the Buddha's teachings (for example, sexual harassment, violence, etc). But for certain other offenses, it's not very clear to me whether reporting them would be considered divisive speech, i.e. wrong speech. The Buddha defines unskillful verbal action, in part, thusly: > What he has heard here he tells there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he tells here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus breaking apart those who are united and stirring up strife between those who have broken apart, he loves factionalism, delights in factionalism, enjoys factionalism, speaks things that create factionalism. — [AN 10:165](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_165.html) So, two questions pertaining to two very concrete examples: 1. Suppose one witnesses corruption. If one reports it to the police, is that considered divisive speech? Could it be said that one is setting up the police against the perpetrator? 2. Suppose someone confides in one about a relationship in the workplace (not disallowed by the code of conduct, _unless_ it goes unreported). Could it be considered divisive speech if one reports the relationship to the company's ethics body?

I remember this phrase but I have not been able to locate it in the texts. I do not recall the correct words but it's something like this: *"Meditate/practice as if your hair is/were on fire"*. I have searched on Buddhism SE and on Google and found the phrase mentioned a couple of times but no solution to the origin of it. This article mentioned by Matthew says; > "Practice like your hair is on fire! > >A traditional aphorism, which probably goes back to Buddhism in India. Gelek Rinpoche makes it the theme of his recent article in Buddhadharma. And it shows up in the Zen tradition and elsewhere." And this article says: >Zazen makes waiting into a science. I'm intrigued by the Zen injunction "Sit as if your hair were on fire." Still no solution to the origin of the phrase. I'm looking for valid sources such as the *Theravadan, East Asian and Tibetan texts*. Thank you for your time.

Vasubandhu seems to make arguments [in this article](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vasubandhu/#DisSenObj) against the concept of atoms to prove all is appearance in consciousness. But doesn't this go against modern science,even if his arguments are logical? I mean modern science says that atoms exist.

Recent exchange here got me thinking. Nagarjuna's karika, 1.3 (Batchelor) > Na hi svabhāvo bhāvānāṃ pratyayādiṣu vidyate > > Avidyamāne svabhāve parabhāvo na vidyate > > The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on. > >If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist. There is a venerable tradition of different interpretations of Nagarjuna, based on "the two truths". ***Can that phrase be read to mean*** **emptiness does not exist in non-emptiness: if and only if an own thing does not exist in non-emptiness then an other thing does not exist in emptiness** So the first phrase says that emptiness is empty in the sense that the absence of svabhava does not exist in things. After that, that whenever a self caused thing cannot be found, then there is no other empty thing. I don't think it's a normal interpretation? ---------- For the purposes of my philosophical question elsewhere (a neat argument for karma and rebirth) I have rendered 'empty' to mean 'analytic' and 'non-empty' to mean empirical. > *Definition of analytic. Of or relating to analysis or analytics > especially : separating something into component parts or constituent > elements.* >*Definition of empirical. Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.*

Can a lay person observe the ten precepts on uposatha days? I ask this because I want to observe the eight precepts on uposatha days and I don’t need to use money on those days anyway so I might as well observe the ten precepts instead of eight. So is it ok for me to observe the ten precepts or should the ten precepts be only observed by novices and nun?

I have been practicing Vipassana in S.N. Goenka's lineage for two years. I have read some of Mahasi's and Webu's Sayadaw writings as well. The biggest hindrance I've thus come across is Doubt. Every now and then I find myself full of questions regarding the technique, especifically about the way it works in pavimenting the path to liberation. I would like some pretty direct answers to questions as... 1. 'why noting and paying attention to the movement of the stomach helps creating understanding' or 2. 'how not reacting to sensations throught the body leads to insight' or 3. 'how restraint of the senses and mindfulness leads to liberation' 4. etc. I'm aware that I may have read satisfactory answers to those questions in the past. But I really would like to get something directand easy to come back to, instead of reading full long texts full of heavy explanations. Thanks.

Have you come accross anything that deals with stalking behavior in the texts? Looking for something where one is stalked by another but anything close to the theme is good enough.

Did buddha accepted Brahman. The supreme reality according to hindusim. Or any perfect Supreme God.

I don't mean disrespect to anyone else with this question, I'm asking on my own behalf as someone with neurological & psychological problems caused by a brain injury at a young age. I know all brain injuries etc are different too, and I guess this question also relates to neurodivergent people. My injury affects my memory, ability to concentrate, intrusive thoughts, emotional stability, ability to hear, and also makes it much more difficult to hold good posture for any length of time (15 mins is the best I can do after practicing for years)- having (or not having) these things are required to meditate properly, right? **Can someone with normal intelligence, but whose brain is injured, practice meditation effectively?** Or will I hit a "glass ceiling" where my missing function limits my ability to progress? I've seen some benefits from meditation in the long term, but I worry that only someone with a healthy brain can meditate "properly". **Did Buddha say anything about practicing while disabled?** metta

There has been a rich history of debate between Vedantists and Buddhists. One main method the Vedantist uses disprove every other sect which doesn't hold Vedas as true, is to first prove that Vedas are authorless, then say that authorless Vedas have to be 100% true because the defects of lies and incomplete knowledge cannot be there in authorless, and therefore that whatever in Vedas must be 100% true and any sect which goes against the Vedas must be false. These are the two steps 1. Apourusheyatva (Authorlessness) 2. Swayam Pramanya (Default Validity) I have heard that various Buddhist scholars like Dharmakirti etc have tried to refute the claim of authorlessness of Vedas and its validity. Supposedly one such argument is there in first chapter of Pramanavarttika, which I couldn't find. >The first chapter discusses the structure and types of formal inference and the apoha (exclusion) theory of meaning. Dan Arnold writes that apoha is: "the idea that concepts are more precise or determinate (more contentful) just to the extent that they exclude more from their purview; the scope of cat is narrower than that of mammal just insofar as the former additionally excludes from its range all mammals in the world that are not cats." In the latter half of this chapter, Dharmakīrti also mounts an attack on Brahmanism, the authority of the Vedas, Brahmins and their use of mantras, and the system of caste (see Eltschinger 2000). He also discusses the role of scripture, which he sees as fallible and yet important for their discussion of “radically inaccessible things” (atyantaparokṣa) such as karma. Dharmakirti critiques the Brahmins thus: > > "The unquestioned authority of the Vedas; the belief in a world-creator; the quest for purification through ritual bathing; the arrogant division into castes; the practice of mortification to atone for sin— these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men." So -- what were Buddhist arguments against Vedic validity because of its authorlessness? I'm interested in logical syllogism of Dharmakirti and the like -- in response to the authorlessness of Vedas. --- Edit -- My question is specific: Vedantists have given a syllogistic argument to prove that the Vedas are authorless, and many eminent scholars of Buddhism like Dharmakirti etc have tried to refute those syllogistic arguments by logic ... what are those arguments? Please don't answer this question in a general or a philosophical way.

Does reality exist? Carlo Rovelli (a famous theoretical physicist) doesn't think so and he cites Nagarjuna as believing the same: > Rovelli has a different idea. **He says reality doesn’t exist.** The > reason physicists have been led astray by bonkers theories in the 100 > years since Helgoland is because they can’t bear the thought of not > being real. > > It was at this point — a third of the way through the book — that I > mimicked Heisenberg and took my first long, befuddled walk. Reality > doesn’t exist? What on earth does that mean? Rovelli’s favourite > example is a red chair. ‘Red’ doesn’t exist, for sure — everyone knows > that philosophical chestnut: it’s just the way our brains make sense > of light of a certain wavelength. But Rovelli also insists that > nothing else about the chair exists either — its weight, its shape — > except in its relationship to the person looking at it. And you can > keep banging away at this type of argument until you get to the level > of the atoms forming the chair. Insisting that anything about this red > chair needs to exist outside of relationships is metaphysical > neediness. > > Part of the fun of Rovelli’s book is that your immediate reaction to > his ideas — repugnance or delight — isn’t meaningless. Without > mathematics or experiment, by page 81 your thoughts are at the > frontier of quantum theory, and it’s time for your second > brain-cudgeling walk. If things exist only by virtue of their > interaction with other things, what happens to them between times? Do > they vanish? Do instants of time also not exist? Does it even make > sense to talk this way? Oh dear, oh dear. > > Rovelli devotes a precious chapter to the work of the second-century > **Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, who also insists there is no ultimate > layer of real things.** Emphasis mine. These ideas form the heart of his well regarded Relational Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and are discussed extensively in his new book Helgoland. Other questions on this forum have asked whether physical reality exists, but the highest rated answers have mostly danced around the question. They argue that it is our "attitude" about such questions that is relevant... In other places, the assertion is that this question is one of the "thickets" or is somehow unanswerable or is somehow not amenable to logic. I find all of these quite flaccid in the face of this prominent theoretical physicist coming out quite explicitly saying that our current best known laws of the universe (properly interpreted) indicate that reality itself doesn't exist and that the unwillingness to acknowledge this by other physicists is "metaphysical neediness!" He is arguing that we can talk about this meaningfully and use our reason to arrive at this conclusion with mathematics, logic and empiricism. I'd also say that it is quite obvious **the answer to this question has vast soteriological consequences that are very deeply relevant to Buddhism** and should not just be ignored or danced around. So, is he right?

Are these two words synonymous? Is everything that exists, real? Is everything real, an existent? What is a proper relationship between the words "real" and "exists" in the context of Buddhist doctrine? What is a proper definition of "real" and of "exists" in the context of Buddhist doctrine? Are dreams real? Do they exist? Are illusions real? Do they exist? Are chairs real? Do they exist? Are persons real? Do they exist? Is the son of a barren woman real? Do they exist? Is there anything that is real, but does not exist? What do we *really* mean when we say something is real? Pun intended.

I was just wondering if it’s bad karma if you were just waiting for someone to die? For example, let’s say you asked your parents for permission to become a monk but they declined so you decided to wait until they leave this world before ordaining. Is it bad karma if you do this?