I've heard a lot of questions like, "who is there to enlighten if there is no self?" Is that kind of question based on ignorance on the difference between Soul and Self? Or does Buddhism deny the existence of both Soul and Self? I think I understand Buddhists saying that 'Soul' doesn't exist. I understand the word *atman* meaning Soul in Vedic languages: and it is different from the concept of Self. While nobody can deny the fact that a person exists, the existence of a soul is not proven. Just curious about the concept of soul and self in Buddhism.

The vivid qualitative experience of a word (or called "quale" as a philosophical jargon, "private language" as a linguistic jargon) formed by each person is intrinsically different due to one's knowledge, environment, mood, past experience, etc, even same person may form completely different private language's words at different times for a same public language word. I once see reference here in Wikipeda , without elaboration, that the famous ancient Buddhist Yogacaraist Vasubandhu > uses the example of mass hallucinations (in Buddhist hell) to defend against those who would doubt that mental appearances can be shared. Can anyone elaborate any historical accounts/stories or speculative explanation about Vasubandhu's argument referenced above to argue for the possibility of mental appearances to be publicly sharable? If such sharing cannot be made exactly on the same common ground, then will there always be some confusion and difference between any two people no matter what cognitive level they achieved? As a side note, I know this is very similar to the *Problem of Other Minds* in modern social science where scholars and philosophers invented a term "intersubjectivity" defined here to objectify the existence of certain social common "thought communities" one unavoidably belongs to explain why people can **share** their private intrinsically different experiences. But I think this community-wise intersubjectivity is just like the sound of a chorus which can be entirely *reduced* to the superposition of individual sounds, thus seems not a necessary concept. Also per Buddhism's doctrine, the source of suffering is from *objectifying* private conscious experience and the following endless craving of such reified object, so I'm also interested in hearing any other different middle-way Madhyamaka-style explanations from Yogacara or any other Buddhist schools... Or does Buddhism never have an answer for such question as it belongs to papañca (conception proliferation) and thus effectively reject true possibility of *exact* mental appearances sharing like in the purely neutral and rational math-like ideal-forms realm?

How, if at all, does karma exist in the form and formless realms? Obviously, as humans in the desire realm , we can suffer misfortune, etc., due to our karma. But what about events in these other realms, either when in absorption or reborn there? Is being reborn there just one constant bliss?

I watch TV. As a Buddhist which TV channels should I watch?

Can someone provide a comprehensive explanation, on what the four great elements are and how they work and exist? I also have a special interest about the *"mobility-element"*, in the four great elements. I am interested in Theravada teachings.

Today during reference checking I arrived at this wiki page , where the famous ancient Prasangika buddhist Chandrakirti claimed "There is no chariot which depends on its parts"? But per the firmly established "dependent origination" Buddhism's key doctrine, every external phenomenon is conditioned and dependent on other dharmas. So we cannot say the arising of a composite is dependent on its parts? This sounds a little confusing and uncommon. For example, my car's battery is broken, until I fix it or change a new one, I cannot use the car any more as car. So for the car to have any relevance to me, I have to address even a very small part (battery), otherwise that car is essentially non-existent even at car's "conventional level". I certainly feel and experience a strong necessary karmic dependency here. Are there any historical accounts or conventional explanation for Chandrakirti's above claim or are there any special deep meanings here from Prasangika school of thought which emphasizes to establish a position of emptiness through showing the logical consequences of the incorrect position that the questioner already accepts as a common starting ground?

Karma and Sanskara seam to be very much related. How are they related and how are they different.

Further to my last question on reification , I want to know the specificity of the application. Gathering from the answers ; > ...reifications are overcome by questioning them. and > Start by watching yourself in the middle of daily situations, watching > your behavior and your mind, your state of mind, your emotions. See > how you react, how you get angry or irritated or scared etc. See what > situations and most importantly what thoughts trigger these reactions > these states in you. This paragraph talks about much higher-level mental formulations and emotions which I have overcome. I am much interested or dealing with reifications suggested in Honey cake sutta which this answer points to, Buddha says; > Mendicant, a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from > the proliferation of perceptions. If they don’t find anything worth > approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which > these arise, just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to > desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, the desire to be reborn, and > ignorance. Further Venerable Mahākaccāna explains this as; > Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting > of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you > feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think > about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from > which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the > proliferation of perceptions. ***This occurs with respect to sights known > by the eye in the past, future, and present***. Based on Mahākaccāna's explain, I want to ask, for an e.g. I see a Banana kept on a table, my eye-consciousness arises based on my eye and sight of banana, and contact is made and based on that a feeling arises. What I feel I perceive and what I perceive I think about. **In this sequence at what point do I have a choice to arrest the reification or perception? The moment I see the banana on the table may be within a fraction of seconds I perceive and get in the idea that its a palatable fruit, how can I question this idea that its a fruit and from my past memory I know I like its taste and I would like to eat it. This progress of events happen almost instantaneously. How much time do I have to question the model of my brain, which was trained way way back when I might have eaten the banana for the first time. How can I look at the banana as if I am looking at it for the first time and not recall from the model from my brain or form a new model?**

One Mahayana Buddhist said, "we act as if each person has his or her own consciousness, sensation, and thoughts." > [Does everyone Mahayana Buddhist believe that he lives in a world in which all people have their own consciousness, sensations, and thoughts?](https://www.quora.com/Does-everyone-Mahayana-Buddhist-believe-that-he-lives-in-a-world-in-which-all-people-have-their-own-consciousness-sensations-and-thoughts) > > Following the Buddha, **we act as if each person each person has his or her own consciousness, sensation, and thoughts**. We encourage each person to become fully aware of his or her own sensations (both physical and emotional), impulses, feelings, and thoughts. This awareness, combined with diligent, common-sense effort to stop doing things that create suffering and do and improve thoughts, actions, and feelings that create healthy vitality, joyful works, and peace of mind in action and stillness lead to Awakening. > > But we do not engage in philosophical speculation or take philosophical stances. The question, as stated, is not accurate because it would imply that Mahayana Buddhism holds an individualist philosophy. > > We invite each and every individual to stop creating suffering and confusion, to cut off the roots of harm and evil. We do these efforts ourselves and share the work with others. We realize that, functionally, each person has awareness and makes choices. But we do not assert ideas about the meaning of words like, “person,” “people,” or “self.” This means that every Mahayana Buddhist believes that he lives in a world in which all people do not have consciousness, sensation and emotion and he thinks that all other people are just a projection of his mind, but he treats them as conscious sentient beings? Thank you.

Some yogis of India believe in transcendental state of mind. However I saw no such reference in the teachings of Buddha. So , what is difference between transcendental state of mind and Nirvana? (Assuming Nirvana is the Buddhist state of mind)

I've been really into the ethical and moral foundation of buddhism and stumbled onto the precepts. Would it be wrong of me to recite the bodhisattva precepts that I've found online that I identify with as a beginner to myself every morning?

There are mainly 3 western views: 1. Free Will is real & I believe in it. 2. Free Will is an illusion but I live my life assuming it is real because it is a healthy assumption. 3. A compatibilist that believes in degrees of freedom & determinism cannot harm the truth of future outcomes. My first thought would be none of these apply as they assume a self and the world works on the principles of dependent origination. Perhaps, I'm incorrect in my thinking or heading in the correct direction. It would be great to hear detailed and well-thought responses.

Reification is a way of conceptualization or objectification or mental modeling through which we form ideas, beliefs, and make an understanding of our surroundings. However, I saw a youtube video which explains that we have to overcome reification and/or social conditioning for spiritual enlightenment. But, the video does not explain the 'how'. So, my question is, how can we change/work-on **our perception** of the surrounding/ environment/society/beliefs, etc so that we see things as they are, like '***yathabhutam***'?

I am a layperson of protestant Christian background interested in buddhist thought and trying to clarify some of the basic concepts for myself. One of the stumbling blocks is understanding the motivation of a person to renounce the temptations of temporary happiness in this life, if the concept of anatta is true. If sacrificing family, children, wealth etc. only leads to another person being born maybe in some heavenly realm or in better circumstances of this world (with a lot of more things to renounce) without your consciousness, your memories, your "soul", what is the point? And do not use the easy explanation that the worldly happines pales in comparison of enlightment. A person not experiencing the enlightment in his/her lifetime would not know. --- (Edit to add) Thank you for the explanation. I just have one comment. I am not saying that I am not interested in enlightment, I am just confused about its attainability. I have understood - to put it bluntly - that the highway to enlightment is meditative life in a monastic community and the best that most laypeople can hope is a better rebirth. And that brings back my original question. Suppose that you are a layperson struggling with the limitations of everyday life. You resign to the fact that you cannot escape the committments that have been heaped upon you, you cannot invest much of your time to meditation and contemplation, and that at prsent the enlightment is an unreachable ideal. You do, however, your best to to pursue right conduct and hope that your chances are better in the next rebirth. However, the individual who is then reborn carrying the consequences of your karma, does not identify with you, does not have memories of your life, is not able to make logical conclusions of the consequences of your present actions, you in fact are a total stranger to him. In what sense are you then reborn. Or, in another way round. Suppose that I am tempted to actions that would ensure my temporary happiness but would load me with negative karma and would lead to a bad rebirth. If the person that is reborn carrying the negative consequences of my actions does not really identify him/herself with me and is for all practical purposes stranger to me, why should I care for a bad rebirth? Please, be patient. I am not making these questions for being flippant, but these are really difficult points in the buddhist doctrine for me to understand. (Edit to add) Thank you again for your answers. However, I think they somewhat miss my point. That is probably due to the fact that English is not my native tongue and expressing rather abstract ideas is a challenge for me. But I try to clarify my problem using myself as an example. I have had a relatively happy life and was born in good circumstances in an affluent country and got a good education. If the doctrine of rebirth is true, someone in the past accumulated some good karma that I inherited in my birth. I, however, do not have any information of that individual, I do not know his/her life, do not share his/her memories and experiences, and certainly do not have any feeling that I personally have lived his/her life and carry still in my present existence its consequnces. And the same holds true regarding the individual who will be born after my death experiencing the consequences of the karma I have accumulated. I do not have any real connection to that future person. And if after maybe one hundred future rebirths this chain of beings finally ends with an individual, who reaches the enlightment and enters the nirvana, it is certainly not me who finally obtains this achievment. So, it might be my duty to live in a way that some total stranger after my death might fare somewhat better than I. And if I am tempted to behave badly (and escape the temporal punishments) I might feel that there will be a future rebirth and a person suffering from my actions, but he/she does not know me, is not able to pinpoint the guilt to me and certainly does not feel that he/she is actually me and rightly suffering because because thr bad things I have done. Once again, this problem is related to the concept of the lack of a "soul" or "real self" that journeys through this samsara to enlightment, maybe through a thousand of rebirths. According to my understanding this "anatta" leads to a situation where the consequences of my actions are just heaped to some total stranger that is borne after my death, and it does not sound just. Of course it still might be true, but it sounds to me almost as dismal a doctrin as the Calvinistic predestination.

It is not necessarily but I wonder what would happen if monk will meditate in **"anechoic" chamber**? **The Orfield Labs room was recognized as the quietest in the world** If you stand in it for long enough, you start to hear your heartbeat. A ringing in your ears becomes deafening. When you move, your bones make a grinding noise. Eventually you lose your balance, because the absolute lack of reverberation sabotages your spatial awareness. [Here is link](https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/anechoic-chamber-worlds-quietest-room/index.html) >**There will be -20db silence in the room. So may we know how much db of silence (internally) is produced while mediating?** **So will monk be able to meditate in this room or he will suffer the effect of it?** **When we can hear heartbeat, bones grinding noise will he able to concentrate on breathing and could meditate without suffering?**

Alan mentions a handout for this class from which he's teaching the Lojong. Is there any way to acquire this hand out or; is there a text that goes along with this lojong portion of the class?

What happens to a cause after it has generated an effect? I don't think it can cease to really exist, as it never really existed in the first place. Does the effect somehow - metaphorically - crowd out the cause? Or is the effect sufficient - even necessary - for the cause not to appear? What is a good way of thinking about this?

When I meditate outside/outdoors, when my body becomes super relaxed, I notice my upper body starts to rock/sway forwards and backwards whenever anyone passes by, or when I am being observed from a distance. Sometimes, the rocking is fast, sometimes it is slow. Sometimes it is very soft and barely perceptible, sometimes it feels like one of those bobbers on the counter of a Chinese restaurant. It stops when the person/people go past, or observations stop. It also stops if I telephatically make a request for it to stop. And restarts if I ask it to continue (while the people are still walking by). Does anyone have any idea of what/why is happening? - {Edit for people who get triggered on the 'why' above in my former question: Has anyone else experienced anything like this, or know what is happening}? (Note: When I'm deep in trance, I do not consciously observe anything or anyone - my mind is still -, yet I'm aware of everyone and everything around me, almost like I'm everywhere at once. The only thing I examine, if I get so inclined, is myself).

I'm reading a Wikipedia article on Vajrayana Buddhism and it says: "In Tantric Buddhism, which originated in the Tibeto-Himalayan region, cannabis serves as an important part of a traditional ritual..." It cites a journal that I don't have access to, so I can't look too much deeper into the source. What's the historical background of this claim? Are there serious documents or Buddhist texts showing the use of cannabis or other drugs?

I've been trying to understand the descriptions of each of the Jhānas in various Suttas, and I don't get what's meant by an element in some descriptions of the fourth Jhāna. For example: > When one has attained the fourth jhāna, in-and-out breathing has been totally stilled. – SN 36:11 It seems to me that that passage is saying that the breath literally stops, but this seems physiologically impossible. So perhaps the correct interpretation is that _volitional_ in-and-out breathing ceases? Or is the passage, perhaps, referring to the _perception_ of in-and-out breathing? I've even gone so far as to look up the words in Pāli, but this has only added to my confusion, since they seem to translate as literally the cessation of breath. Is this, perhaps, a shortcoming of our understanding of Pāli? If this is to be taken literally, what is the scientific basis for this phenomenon? Is it perhaps a perceptual phenomenon, where the meditator merely perceives the breath as having stopped? Or, if this is indeed an error in interpretation, then how is it to be interpreted? I should clarify that I'm not seeking to troll, or challenge the tradition. I myself am a lay disciple of the Dhamma. I'm prepared to accept an answer one way or the other, but I really want to have a solid understanding. Thanks.