Is Buddhism methodological solipsism? Is Buddhism similar to methodological solipsism, or is it something completely different?

How is the mind matter process described and explained according to the Buddhist teachings? How does it related to Cognitive Psychology? How is the next moment created from the current? What is the mechanism behind it? How does this process sustain its self? What are the variation with regard to this if any?

Ever since I was a child I was very look concious. I took pride from my looks and took shame from them as well. I'm at a point where my sense of worth is mainly derived from such an unstable, diminishing and limited resource and this inconsistency is causing me a lot of suffering. How to lose identification with my body?

**Here is my main question #1** What is the difference between sutta defn. of Brahmacariya and 1) brahmin Brahmacariya predating Buddhism and 2) celibacy and chastity? defn.: celibacy the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations. What is the difference between celibacy and abstinence? Although many people use “celibacy” and “abstinence” interchangeably, there is a difference between the two terms. Abstinence usually refers to the decision not to have penetrative sex. ... Celibacy is a vow to remain abstinent over an extended period of time. defn.: chastity the state or practice of refraining from extramarital, or especially from all, sexual intercourse. What is an example of chastity? The definition of chastity is a quality held by someone pure, modest or celibate. A virgin is an example of chastity. Faithful married couples are examples of chastity. ... The boy's friends laughed at him when he took a chastity pledge and promised to not have sex. Note that ‘brahmacariya’ goes much farther than ordinary defn. of ‘chastity’ and ‘celibacy’ **Here is my main question #2** Not even having a thought of lust is the EBT definition of brahmacariya, avoiding sex and any kind of physical or mental sexual activity. Ordinary defintions of ‘celibacy’ and ‘chastity’ tend to use physical activity to determine status. EBT buddhism focuses on the mental causes that can preempt physical manifestations of lust, kāma 💘💃‍. (sutta refs?) I think there's a sutta (or two) in AN that answers both questions, where the Buddha criticizes Brahmans of his time not living up to brahmacariya. PED definition: : Brahmacariya (neuter) [brahma + cariya] a term (not in the strictly Buddhist sense) for observance of vows of holiness, particularly of chastity: good and moral living (brahmaṃ cariyaṃ brahmāṇaṃ vā cariyaṃ = brahmacariyaṃ Pj I 151); especially in Buddhist sense the moral life, holy life, religious life, as way to end suffering, Vin I 12, 19, renouncing the world, study of the Dhamma D I 84, 155; II 106; III 122f., 211; M I 77, 147, 193, 205, 426, 463, 492, 514; II 38; III 36, 116; S I 38, 43, 87, 105, 154, 209; II 24, 29, 120, 219, 278, 284 (°pariyosāna); III 83, 189; IV 51, 104, 110, 126, 136f., 163, 253, V 7f., 15f., 26f., 54f., 233, 262, 272, 352; A I 50, 168, 225; II 26, 44, 185; III 250, 346; IV 311; V 18, 71, 136; Snp 267, 274 (vas-uttama), 566, 655, 1128; Thag 1027, 1079; It 28, 48, 78, 111; Dhp 155, 156, 312; Ja III 396; IV 52; Pv II 913; Dhp-a IV 42 (vasuttamaṃ); Vibh-a 504. — brahmacariyaṃ vussati to live the religious life A I 115 (cf. °ṃ vusitaṃ in formula under Arahant II A); °assa kevalin wholly given up to a good life A I 162; °ṃ santānetuṃ to continue the good life A III 90; Dhp-a I 119; komāra° the religious training of a well-bred youth A III 224; Snp 289. — abrahmacariya unchastity, an immoral life, sinful living M I 514; D I 4; Snp 396; Pj I 26;

In the words of Buddha, the world in which we are living is generated as the following: > From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. > From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. > From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form... And, additionally, the following loop is also expounded: > "From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From > consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form..." The full understanding (awakening) of this knowledge is given through the eight jhanas (particularly the last four Arupa Jhanas;) which relates to what was said precedingly as follows: From the complete transcending of each following states, the bhikku enters & remains in the dimension of: - Infinite space - Infinite consciousness - Nothingness, then at last - Neither-Perception-Nor-Nonperception. My question will be about the last two. What are they exactly, the Sphere of Nothingness and the Sphere of Neither-Perception-Nor-Nonperception? How can they be transcended, and what for?

I would like a clarification regarding the terms Yoniso Manasikāra and Sammā sati with Sampajaññā. Is the meaning of these two: 1. the same, 2. totally different, 3. somewhat similar with certain differences, or, 4. are they used in different situations with contextual differences in meaning?

I had noticed something that seemed to me a contradiction. I would be grateful if someone could resolve for me this contradiction . To attain the state of pari-nirvana you need to liberate yourself from the lie of being a separate part of the universe, then the pari-nirvana through this prism seems to be an egoistic thing since you exit yourself from the samsara but you leave the other existences in samsara.Which seem the epitome of egoism But the bodhisattva return to the world for helping the other existences which seem more altruistic and by this way more close to pari-nirvana. Therefore we get that going to pari-nirvana is in a certain sense a contradiction with being liberated from the lies ... I hope I am being clear... Thanks in advance !

The Fourier transform describes how to transform between cyclic and non cyclic. Did Nāgārjuna describe this already several centuries before Fourier as described in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19-20 ? A full translation to western terms is >25:19–20 >न संसारस्य निर्वाणात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं >na saṁsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ >There is nothing whatsoever of the cyclic distinguishing (it) from the non cyclic. >ननिर्वाणस्य संसारात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं। १९ >na nirvāṇasya saṁsārāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ| 19 >There is nothing whatsoever of the non cyclic distinguishing it from the cyclic. निर्वाणस्य च या कोटिः।कोटिः। संसरणस्य च >nirvāṇasya ca yā koṭiḥ koṭiḥ saṁsaraṇasya ca >(That?) is the limit which is the limit of the non cyclic and the limit of the cyclic; >न तयोर् अन्तरं किंचित् सुसूक्ष्मम् अपि विद्यते। २० >na tayor antaraṁ kiñcit susūkśmam api vidyate| 20 >Even a very subtle interval is not found of (between) them.

**Namo Buddhaya** In the sutta of Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor SN 42.2 The Buddha, to the demand of the actor presenting his wrong view wishing to know what Lord Buddha thought of, answers > Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that. And then proceeds, after the third demand of the actor, on presenting why his beliefs were wrong views. I thus wonder, why wouldn't the Buddha wish to show the way to someone clearly mired in wrong view the right path to practice at his first request ? Why would he ask him not to ask him again ? Especially considering that the actor actually goes and takes refuge for life after his understanding of his wrong views. With metta.

In daily Life, I always trying to focus on single good thought so no space for bad. When I did something, I tend to analyse it wether it is good or bad. It is deep most of the time because I am trying to follow five precepts. It seems like I am doing nothing wrong. So I trying to understand deeper clingings (klesha) that are not visible to outside. Most of the time, I am stuck in a loop. But, I recently realize that I'm living in a different world. I am far away from the real world. I was trying to improve samadhi but it weaken the sati. Trying to have a single thought feels heavy to mind. Focus on environment feels calm/less heavy/simple. So How am I improve the situation? I think I have some kind of fear of doing something wrong. Focusing on something good prevent coming wrong thoughts to mind. I heard these kind of advices from monks. But this prevent having sati. Should I have a general idea of good/bad deeds and stop trying to have a single thought always so I can be aware about the environment (have sati)? Have a specific time for a day to reflect about deeds did during the day. Are there any sutta which contrast sati and samadhi?

I am completely new to all this (buddhism, meditation etc...) but I really want to begin somewhere I found this guy called Stephen Procter who has this free guided meditation program (52 guided meditations, 1 each week) that he says will guide you to the completion of the Satipatthana Sutta. What actually is that sutta about? what will it teach me. Is it for real deal enlightenment (or just new age hippy dippy stuff)? What sort of meditations would this be about (I suuuck at visualization, which is why I am not trying out tantric practices even tho I like the sound of them) And why is there all these other methods then? all these other suttas, and then stuff like Vajrayana buddhism. I don't get it, I just want something clear cut that can at the very least give me a very solid foundation. Can I do this Sattipathana program if im physically unhealthy? (all the Hinduism yogas seem to require superman level health before you can even think about doing anything with the mind)

What does the one taste of the dharmadhatu really mean? I know no language beside this English, and would be interested in any philosophical, literary, or religious answer on what "taste" means there, so I can best grasp what is being said.

I have a research and I need to know all the names of angels in different religions and their actions, and since I am an Arab, my sources are not enough and I need the names of the angels in Buddhism

I read the following on the internet: > One perceives 'the world' through the senses - however the senses > themselves are in the world (lokasmiṃ). That does not imply the world > is a state of mind, but that the mind is in the world. Also: > Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and > **conceive the world** is called the world in the training of the noble > one. (Yena kho, āvuso, lokasmiṃ lokasaññī hoti **lokamānī**) And through what in the world do you perceive the world and > conceive the world? Through the eye in the world you perceive the > world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body … > mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. - SN > 35.116 Can "the world" only be "perceiving the world" (lokasaññī) without "conceiving the world" (lokamānī)?

Middle length suttas often include following descriptions of wrong views (MN 44, MN 109, MN131, MN 138): > regards material form as self, or self as possessed of material form, > or material form as in self, or self as in material form. (similar descriptions are given for feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness. To limit the scope, I'd like to focus on the material part for now, and see whether I understand those insightful categories (as I have a feeling that this slips through the words). For the sake of simplicity I interpret: regards material form as self is basically I am a collection of atoms, self as possessed of material form: this is hard for me to understand, maybe as eager to have many houses and fat bank account?, material form as in self: I can be only certain about things that are taking place in my head? self as in material form: hard to understand.

Which pali sutta is this? I think it's in MN somewhere. The Buddha says monks missing out on pleasures of lay life and the pleasures of holy life. The idea being that their practice is such that they're not getting jhana (pleasures of holy life), and they're deprived of the pleasures of the lay life (food, sex, etc), so they're just suffering.

> The Story of the Son of Mahadhana > Neither living the chaste life nor gaining wealth in their youth, they waste away like old herons in a dried-up lake depleted of fish. > Neither living the chaste life nor gaining wealth in their youth, they lie around, misfired from the bow, sighing over old times. I imagined "gaining wealth in their youth" would mean spiritual wealth, after all a lot of materially rich old people I know do **sigh** at old age, because material pleasures are often best enjoyed in youth. Yet, the back story seems to indicate the Buddha did mean material wealth, which is odd. Granted, being rich and old is better than poor and old, still, old age to the unwise is great suffering. Of course, Buddhism doesn't *ab initio* criticize wealth, or beauty. They are said to accrue as a result of good deeds, and are desirable as long as they don't interfere in bettering one's virtues and mind. Still, it's not a perfectly flawless argument to equate pious virtue and shrewdness in wealth. Billionaires could even make a case of being equal to Arhats, more or less, as I currently understand this verse. This is made all the more odd on account of the Buddha's own rejection of wealth and kingdom. Can someone shed more light? Are there two sets of guidelines that the Buddha advocated? One for those enmeshed in Samsara, and another for those gone forth? > The Story of the Son of Mahadhana > While residing at the Migadaya wood, the Buddha uttered Verses (155) and (156) of this book, with reference to the son of Mahadhana, a rich man from Baranasi. > The son of Mahadhana did not study while he was young; when he came of age he married the daughter of a rich man, who, like him, also had no education. When the parents on both sides died, they inherited eighty crores from each side and so were very rich. But both of them were ignorant and knew only how to spend money and not how to keep it or to make it grow. They just ate and drank and had a good time, squandering their money. When they had spent all, they sold their fields and gardens and finally their house. Thus, they became very poor and helpless; and because they did not know how to earn a living they had to go begging. One day, the Buddha saw the rich man's son leaning against a wall of the monastery, taking the leftovers given him by the samaneras; seeing him, the Buddha smiled. > The Venerable Ananda asked the Buddha why he smiled, and the Buddha replied, "Ananda, look at this son of a very rich man; he had lived a useless life, an aimless life of pleasure. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the first stage of his life he would have been a top-ranking rich man; or if he had become a bhikkhu, he could have been an arahat, and his wife could have been an anagami. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the second stage of his life he would have been a second rank rich man, or if he had become a bhikkhu he could have been an anagami, and his wife could have been a sakadagami. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the third stage of his life he would have been a third rank rich man, or if he had become a bhikkhu he could have been a sakadagami, and his wife could have been a sotapanna. However, because he had done nothing in all the three stages of his life he had lost all his worldly riches, he had also lost all opportunities of attaining any of the Maggas and Phalas." I'd like to contrast this with another verse from the Dhammapada which is an emphatic put down of worldly gains. > **Dhammapada Verse 178 ** > Anathapindikaputtakala Vatthu > *Pathabya ekarajjena saggassa gamanena va sabbalokadhipacce na sotapattiphalam varam.* > Verse 178: Far better than sovereignty over the earth, or far better than going to the abodes of the devas, or far better than ruling supreme over the entire universe, is (the attainment of) Sotapatti Fruition.

Is it true that at stream-entry there is a profound decrease in the intensity of suffering perceived in samsara? If I'm not wrong, the Buddha does use the metaphor of a small clod of earth, as tiny as that can be picked up on a fingernail, to portray the amount of suffering one perceives after stream-entry, compared to the intense suffering, equivalent to the whole of earth, that a worldling feels in samsara?

In this text SN 56.46 Andhakara Sutta: Darkness, the Buddha seems to say, in my opinion, that life is much more stressful than black holes. And I think life is an anomaly in this universe just like black holes, stars, time, quantum entanglement and such. But are there any other things he has mentioned that are outlandish and we are unable to comprehend by using juxtapositions as always? Or did he just ignore them completely as they were not important? Sorry if my question is not clear. I always have a hard time interpreting what's in my head to words.

I found following movie "Zen of Yamada Mumon Roshi" - [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2vF0dGNGmA&t=285) - after meditation, student go to master and at 4:45 the student start screaming on master. Then master takes breath and start talking (I don't understand what) Can someone explain me in details - what actually is happened there?