I've been meditating for 1 hour, and I'm planning to extend it to 90 minutes. Will there be any significant change in my experience? Has anyone had a real experience with this? Follow up Why everyone asks to do twice , not once a day? In vipassana 10 days retreat they asked not to go beyond 60 mins as it will lead to different state. That's why I asked. Why it's getting more and more difficult if I am increasing duration?

When considering AN 9.5 says Dhamma is a "gift", is earning a secular living from Buddhism, such as teaching at a secular worldly university, immoral according to Buddhist Sutta & Vinaya principles?

I recently came across the following statement in a book I'm reading: "If consciousness in a sentient being disappears, there is no cognizer; if there is no cognizing, there is no manifestation; indeed, there is nothing but voidness, and true apperception is the negation of this voidness." I have encountered this "negation of voidness" before but never really grasped it. I hope someone else can throw some light on it. Thank you.

I wonder if Mahayanabhikkhus can perform a Theravadin ordination and have the ordination be recognized as valid by the Theravadin bhikkhusangha without doing dalhikamma? What if the theravadins do a dalhikamma for a monk who took theravadin ordination performed by mahayana monks? Can he get full acceptance in the Theravada then? If not, can a dalhikamma be performed for the Mahayana monks as to make them eligible to perform Theravadin ordinations or must they re-ordain as Theravadins? Finally, can a monk be considered to have full ordination in both mahayana and theravada?

In some Traditions - possibly Mahayana and/or Tibetan - Achala is translated as the immovable, which is sometimes depicted as a diety. This seems quite similar to, or the same as, equanimity (Upekkha), which is a term found in generous amounts throughout the Pali Cannon. In my personal understanding, a mind imbued with equanimity is a mind free from conditionality. Although karmic imprints still appear, one sees very quickly the nature of their deceptions. When they surface, they cannot get a foothold on anything. In Theravada, there are some references that indicate this: the Buddha and his chief disciples would sometimes call out, 'I see you Mara'. They were simply recognizing their own karmic imprints, (desires to think, say or do things that were unwholesome). Equanimity is when you are not moved by these inner sensations. They don't become actions (karmas). So, does Achala mean the same thing as equanimity (Upekkha)? If not, how are the two terms different?

In his book Breath by Breath Larry Rosenberg writes about meditating on the three kleshas directly i.e. meditating on craving, aversion and delusion. He is talking in the context of the Anapanasati Sutta . I can understand how one could recognise aspects their own hatred or craving. But how could someone recognise their own delusion in that moment of meditation? Specifically, I can see that anger would be very obvious and one would become very familiar with the burning, energetic, dominating quality of this. In the same way, one's own craving and desire could become recognisable - we are familiar with what wanting actually feels like. However what does delusion actually feel like. What bodily sensations are associated with it. What does the mental quality actually feel like. I can imagine looking back and with hindsight been able to see that at that point in time I was very deluded and thinking some very strange things. But how can the deluded mind see itself as deluded in that moment? How can we meditate on this? What does delusion feel like and how can we learn to recognise it?

Clearly Asperger's/Autism is not something that exists independently on its own as an entity, but it is made up of component simple experiential phenomena. What is such a view on Asperger's? What are its building components? What is it at the most fundamental level, as seen from Buddhist persepective?\ Thanks

This question is inspired by this online video : A lady asked a Rinpoche 3 questions, that translate to (a bit complicated logics here): > 1. Is Tulku's (Living Buddha)'s reincarnation process predetermined by his/her Karma(Karmaphala) or by Willpower(Praṇidhāna) ? > > Some explanations: Here she was actually asking, that by Buddhism doctrines, the *fact* that (bodhisattva) reincarnation will *happen* is result of Praṇidhāna, but is the *process* or *outcome* also determined by Praṇidhāna? Or like all other Sentients, that it is determined by Karmaphala? > > 2. If reincarnation is mainly determined by Karma, does a Tulku still have Karma? Why can bodhisattva still be affected and get life determined by > Karmaphala? Shouldn't a Tulku be already liberated from (Karma-driven) Saṃsāra or at least have already purified his/her Karma in his first life? > > 3. If reincarnation is mainly determined by Praṇidhāna, why would next-generation Tulku still need to be selected, to study his/her > knowledge before, to suffer from real-life setbacks? Why does his/her > Praṇidhāna determine his/her life to be so? In the video this Rinpoche said: > 1. He believes he is mainly affected by Karma, but many other greater Tulkus believe reincarnation is determined by Praṇidhāna. But he didn't explain why he or the others think so. > 2. Either by Karma or by Praṇidhāna, the setbacks that real-life Tulkus meet (*e.g. forgetting many knowledge after > reincarnation*) makes a Tulku more human-like, and that make people > believe in him/her because people think Tulku and theirselves are equal. I am confused on this too - shouldn't people believe in him/her more firmly if Tulku is more god-like? Like Jesus Christ revived and ascended, everyone saw this will believe in him. I also asked Deepseek R1, it says something similar like the Rinpoche said in the video, plus > Tulku can purify the Karma in their every new life in order to help achieve the Praṇidhāna will. I think here Deepseek indicates, every reincarnation brings new karma. after reincarnation and before Karma is fully purified, a Tulku is still predetermined by Karmaphala. Also I find a video from a much respected Taiwan Mahayana monk's view, Bodhisattva's reincarnation relies on both Praṇidhāna and Karmaphala . A Tulku is a Vajrayana Buddhist Lama who has taken the *bodhisattva vow*, but still different from Mahayana bodhisattva. I believe this is an open, speculatve, theoretical question. I want to listen what more others think about this question, and think about the above Rinpoche's explanation. Any view is welcomed.

As far as I know, many practitioners in the mahayana tradition have claimed to reach buddhahood and nirvana, since Sakyamuni. Is this non-abiding in nirvana? It would explain how prominent Buddhists have in the past been identified with celestial bodhisattvas. If so, would they nevertheless have reached final nirvana, on death?

First, I'm new to this forum so I don't know how to title my post or even write content. Sorry if I confuse you. Also, I'm a Vietnamese person living in Vietnam, male 27. I'm currently living in a hired room in Ho Chi Minh City and my parents are living in my hometown that's 3 hours away. I really need help or suggestions. I'll tell you about my journey but it is very long. My journey will include both psychological and spiritual problems. I'll divide it into different parts. ***Disclaimer: I think my journey is pretty hard-core in terms of existential philosophies and I'm pretty ruined at this point. If you're sensitive to such topics, please consider skipping this post.*** -------- **Part 1: DPDR-like symptoms** Around the end of 2021, I started experiencing symptoms similar to DPDR. Everything felt dreamlike or like a video game. My parents and familiar people seemed like strangers, and I often went into autopilot mode, as if watching myself from the outside. Despite feeling weird all the time, I convinced myself I was just sick and tried to live normally - having good times, bad times, and even crushes to keep myself engaged in life. In July 2023, I saw a psychiatrist and was diagnosed with severe depression and anxiety. I also went to see a therapist but that didn’t help. No one seemed to recognize my symptoms, which may not be common in Vietnam. Eventually, at the end of 2023, I decided to tackle my symptoms rationally, which led me to existential questions. **Part 2: Existential crisis** I started questioning everything: Why am I here? What is this world? I struggled with solipsism, the idea that only my mind is certain to exist. I also resented being born without consent and found it absurd that people live without questioning their existence. I explored existentialism and absurdism, but the crisis was more than just thoughts - it was an overwhelming, unsettling feeling. I grew up in a culturally influenced Mahayana Buddhist environment, visiting pagodas and praying for salvation. Seeking answers in Buddhism, I found its doctrines contradictory and eventually gave up. **Part 3: A new approach to Buddhism** I kept living, but new questions emerged: Why do I prefer one thing over another? Why do I think certain thoughts? This led me to the Buddhist concept of non-self—the idea that we don’t have a fixed, controlling self; rather, our thoughts and decisions arise from interdependent conditions. I came to see humans as ever-changing combinations of matter and energy. The autopilot mode I felt before is indeed how I function - thoughts and actions in me arise interdependently on the current environment and internal information like memories. Realizing this brought me a deep sense of relief. My existential questions are no longer valid because existential questions usually evolve around the sense of self. For almost a year, I felt liberated and enthusiastically explored Buddhism. However, I struggled with how to perceive my parents. Understanding non-self dismantled their identities as my parents. Every interaction felt like I was just acting the role of a good son. Conventional and ultimate truths seemed irreconcilable. Love, relationships, and social constructs felt meaningless. I ultimately decided to care for my parents - not out of love for parents, but compassion for special people. **Part 4: Denial of existence** On New Year’s Day, I attended a 10-day Vipassana retreat led by Mr. Goenka, which involved complete silence. The meditation was difficult, but the discourses troubled me more - especially those about reincarnation. From my research and the book No Death, No Fear: Comforting Wisdom for Life by Thich Nhat Hanh, I thought that we would dissolve into different dimensions and reincarnation would not only happen after death, it's happening right now. However, he said that consciousness right before you die will decide how you will be reborn. At the retreat, I was still struggling with reconciling the two truths. One night, I broke down thinking about my mother - born into poverty, the only motivation of her life is me and my brother. I couldn't reduce her to mere energy and matter. She was through a lot not to be treated like that from her son - even though she's fine and having a decent life right now with my dad and us. She - just like a lot of other people - wouldn't feel so bad about herself, only I feel that way. By the third night, I began losing my sense of external reality. The lack of social interaction and strict schedule made me forget what the world outside looked like, especially at night. So that problem triggered thoughts in me: I thought about my mom, I thought about how I couldn't reconcile the two truths, and I had fears of my dying grandfather - mostly how haunting the scene of a funeral will look like and especially the haunting imagery of human decay. When you feel love for somebody, it hurts to see them die. I didn't see him as a self, the love died and the fear arose. I remember crying in the 3rd night really hard thinking I would return home with my parents, living with them as if they a fixed selves, diminishing the value of the ultimate truth, and apologizing to them for being a sick child with all the mentioned fears and vulnerabilities. I was feeling so haunted at night that I asked to leave on the 4th day. The teacher - not Mr. Goenka ofc - insisted on me staying for the Vipassana session (because the first three days were introduction, if you know). I stayed but couldn’t make it and left on the 6th day. **Part 5: Returning home** Back to my room, I was still haunted by all the old thoughts and even existential thoughts somehow: how do I view this life, non-self or self - because I still can't reconcile them, life is weird, everything is weird, mom still doesn't feel like mom but she is mom. Nights were the worst - daytime distractions kept thoughts at bay, but at night, everything resurfaced. During that time, life felt like a dream, nothing was clear, the world is real but it's not real at the same time, so are people and all their material and non-material products. Two weeks later, the Lunar New Year came, and I had to go back to my hometown for more than 1 week with my family and my dying grandfather. I was so confused that most of my mind was filled with haunting thoughts and fears. Two days before New Year's Eve, my grandfather died. Surprisingly, his death didn’t haunt me as much as I expected - his body was hidden in a closed coffin. But also, to my surprise, I was having a sense of self so strongly that I started to have existential questions. A lot of times, I woke up in confusion and a strong sense of overwhelming frustration: why I was born just to die, why everyone was born just to die, and how everyone doesn't ask these questions and just live on. Why was I born and now I'm forced to live a life of suffering - or dukkha? Why was I born and now I'm forced to do this, to take care of my grandparents or my parents when they're old, to make a funeral for them? It's even worse when I think of non-self: I'm not me but I can't resist this strong feeling of frustration and suppression, and how everyone doesn't see that they're non-self and just live like they have a self. Life started to feel so strange, so absurd, everything felt weird. **Part 6: Trying to move on** Returning to Ho Chi Minh City, I struggled to function. I tried going out for spaces and to see how life goes on. Some days I woke up feeling absurd about life, and some days I just rushed to work because I couldn't sleep the previous night. The scariest moment wasn’t falling asleep - it was waking up, not knowing what feelings I’d wake up to. Life still feels vague and nightmare-like. Especially, sometimes when I caught myself wanting to do something, even when it was just dinner, I was like: that's not me, I don't actively want to eat, so why would I eat? Even when I caught myself in autopilot mode, instead of understanding it like when I just discovered non-self, now I hated it, like I wanted full control over what I do. Even when I said something, I felt like what I spoke just slipped out of my mouth without my permission. From observing my mind, I started to have moments of denying everything that arose in my mind. Maybe because I feared that just observing phenomena in me, I wouldn't take life seriously and would hurt people: like when I say something to follow Right Speech, who speaks now that we know about non-self, or do we just observe any words slip out of mouth as well? It all felt really frustrating because nothing seemed to solve the absurdity of my existence and this whole universe. I was even looking for answers if non-self implied determinism. Like I was looking for an answer that when I knew it, everything would just be logical and no-one really suffers. **Part 7: Slowing reconnecting with life** Just yesterday, I had a very strong moment of frustration when I just woke up from a short nap, like "Why do I wake up again, in this life, in this body, especially with all these questions and crisis"? Right at that moment, I started to get myself together, thinking I'd fight all the fears of meditation I'd had since the Vipassana course and sit down to face my thoughts. After a short while, I realized that even if life is deterministic and the feeling of control I'm having is an illusion, life still goes on. I’d have to start to live despite them all. I started to slowly pick myself up, cleaning my room that had been left messy since these thoughts got intense, taking a good bath, and listening to a famous Vietnamese monk’s discourse as I found his voice was really calming and his speeches were advocating living life to the fullest. I didn’t always agree with everything he said, but he was a big help. Life was still feeling really vague, but now dream-like, not nightmare-like. I told myself I'm here anyway so the best thing to do now is to live, I should not care so much about the vagueness of the world and live with love and compassion, and I should take advantage of my feet, my hands, my eyes and my consciousness to enjoy life and love people. I also found that the deliberation of non-self to emptiness and the two truths is just interpretations of Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha actually wanted us to focus how to live and even discouraged useless discussion on the concepts. I also learn a Mahayana interpretation of emptiness that helped reconcile the two truths: Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Both truths are one and because I tried to eliminate the conventional truth, I was stuck. Slowing myself down really helped slow the racing thoughts I've had for a long time. **Part 7: Today’s feelings** This morning I woke up to the feeling of absurdity again, but I soon got myself together, started listening to the monk again, and went back to my hometown. I told myself that I shouldn't hope to view my parents properly, that I may still feel confused but I should fight that and live with love. Just like I thought, the moment I saw them, I had a feeling like "Who is this? Who is this combo of energies and matter? Why do I have to take care of them? I don't feel the connection between us". They still feel very vague and strange to me. I really don't know how to describe it to you, but it still feels like a dream. Maybe I know about non-self so I keep breaking them down till nothing is meaningful anymore. And the worst part is, I feel like the denial of existence is still strong in me: both mine and others'. I occasionally see my thoughts and think: this is not me, it's weird that I have them and I shouldn't be enslaved to them, I see me speaking and think: this is not me speaking. I keep doing that until nothing is left, but the sense of self is still so strong that I have a feeling of conflict in me. Or sometimes, I don’t deny, I freak out. I understand that my reactions are caused by a lot of past actions and my own nature: the human memories, the human senses, the human brain, and all the human conditional and genetic reactions. And I freak out because I am a human. And with other people or the world, I keep being confused about how my understanding of non-self breaks them down into emptiness of self while they’re still interacting with me. It's like sometimes I when I want to have a drink, I realize my body just automatically moves to the exact place of the water. When I just had DPDR, I just thought that I was sick and in autopilot mode. After knowing non-self, I know it's because of a lot of things in me that create the movement. However, it freaks me out. Or when I'm talking with my mom, my mouth just automatically replies with relevant things. I used to think it's just DPDR, but now I think it's because I'm non-self. However, the fact that I'm not in control of my words freaks me out because if I just let the words slip out of my mouth without control, life both feels really weird and vague and I don't know what this body will do anymore. -------- I understand that everything arises dependently, even the way I act, even the language I speak. But it still feels a lot like I don't know what life is. Life still feels very vague and I still find myself questioning a lot of things in life - or actually everything in life, like why I am here as a human, who are these people that I subliminally call parents, why a practice of culture is created and if it's just created out of ignorance. I can tell myself to just accept that they are there, but it still feels like I'm method-acting in life, especially to my parents, who it feels wrong to method-act to. Every time I live life vaguely, it feels like I might hurt myself and people by not being present. But every time I try to connect with life, the lack of control freaks me out. If you reach here, I’m really grateful that you spent time. I’m in deep confusion and hope to find help. Thank you so much.

In [this comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51562/was-the-buddha-neutral-on-self-centredness-or-selfishness#comment84938_51575) it was pointed out as per [AN 4:95](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_95.html) that one who practises solely for one’s benefits is better than one who practises solely for others’ benefits. While the best of the 4 types of individuals is those who practise for theirs and others’ benefits. It seems strange that a selfless and altruistic intention is seen as lower and less refined than a selfish one by the Buddha. This [answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28527/if-you-cannot-can-save-others-then-why-is-your-practice-more-worthy-than-anythin/28658#28658) proposed possible reasons why type 3 (solely for oneself) is better than type 2 (solely for others). In short, by practising for oneself, the individual indirectly confer protection to others as well as to oneself. But won’t the same effect be achieved with type 2? Is this right or is there something else? By logical extension from the above, if one is practising for oneself and others there should be additional benefits as this type is the best of all according to the Buddha. Are there additional advantages and what are they? The last question is somewhat related to [an earlier post](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51562/was-the-buddha-neutral-on-self-centredness-or-selfishness) . If intentions are not to be judged on the basis of selfishness versus selflessness, what is the proper Buddhist criteria for deciding if an intention is noble/refine versus ignoble/base? Any insight is much appreciated.

How do I interpret the term "realm" (*idha* ) in AN 10.63 ? It says one who has "seven rebirths at most" will conclude their path in "this realm". So, what is "this realm"? And what does this mean? Meanwhile "one who is extinguished between one life and the next" will conclude their path after "leaving this realm behind" (*idha vihāya *). What does this mean? > “Mendicants, all those who have come to a conclusion about me are > accomplished in view. Of those who are accomplished in view, five > conclude their path in this realm, and five conclude their path after > leaving this realm behind. > > Which five conclude their path in this realm? > > The one who has seven rebirths at most, the one who goes from family > to family, the one-seeder, the once returner, and the one who is > perfected in this very life. These five conclude their path in this > realm. > > Which five conclude their path after leaving this realm behind? > > The one who is extinguished between one life and the next, the one who > is extinguished upon landing, the one who is extinguished without > extra effort, the one who is extinguished with extra effort, and the > one who heads upstream, going to the Akaniṭṭha realm. These five > conclude their path after leaving this realm behind. > > All those who have come to a conclusion about me are accomplished in > view. Of those who are accomplished in view, these five conclude their > path in this realm, and these five conclude their path after leaving > this realm behind.” > AN 10.63 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

I believe that a soul exists due to my religious background, and my religious scriptures say that those who shall not have faith(in existence of soul and few other things) will face extreme sadness in the afterlife. I have many sufferings in life, including emotional, physical, etc., and I have been facing this by constantly telling myself that I will enjoy the afterlife, but now I am doubtful of any kind of afterlife at all. So, I decided to follow the teachings of Buddha, as they do not require faith in something that is not knowable to stop suffering. I do not want to convert to Buddhism, as I am a little sure but doubtful about what my scripture says about the afterlife is somewhat true, and it will create a problem in my family. ***Main question: If one believes in atman/self and also believes that the teaching of Buddha will end suffering (except for the teaching of no self). Will Buddhist teachings to end suffering be good for this type of person? Are there sets of Buddhist practices to end suffering that I can follow even after believing in a soul/self, or do I require to abandon my belief in the existence of a soul? Also, what are the Buddhist practices to end suffering in which one cannot do till he does not believe in the absence of self?*** Request :Answer in simple terms as I have very basic knowledge about Buddhism and please avoid commenting on my faith.

>In the SN 35.88 Punna Sutta, the Buddha asks Punna what he would do if the rough Sunaparanta people attack him and he says he will think "These Sunaparanta people are very civilized, in that they don't take my life with a sharp knife" and the Buddha said that was good. Is the Buddha not condoning lying here? Is this an example of some kind of mind conditioning lie? Is it a certain distinct practice in the Buddha's teaching? >The Buddha asks what would you think if they took your life with a sharp knife and Punna says "If they take my life with a sharp knife, I will think, 'There are disciples of the Blessed One who — horrified, humiliated, and disgusted by the body and by life — have sought for an assassin, but here I have met my assassin without searching for him.' It's ok with the Buddha for monks to seek assassins? That wouldn't be breaking the first precept if you consider the assassin as a weapon used for suicide? What is the Pali word for "sought"?

Hello again after 7 years. Since 2023Oct07, I've been reading about the Israel vs Palestine conflict and then the underlying Abrahamic religions involved Christianity, Judaism & Islam. During my reading, there's a particular Bible verse that caught my attention, namely Luke 4:24 'No prophet is accepted in his hometown. ' I soon realised that Christianity is the only major religion among both Abrahamic & Dharmic religions more popular outside than inside its birthplace... 1. Hinduism (& Sikhism & Jainism ?) - Most Indians are Hindu. India is the top in Hindu population (but top 2 in population by percentage . Similarly, India is the top in Sikh population but top 2 in population by percentage for Sikhism behind... Canada. Oh ok, a non-Asian country. Nice. Good for Sikhism.) 2. Islam - Most Saudis are Muslim. Saudi Arabia isn't the top in Muslim population. But if you consider the Middle East and North Africa as a whole, then MENA beats Indonesia I guess. 3. Judaism - Most Israelis are Jewish. Also Israel is the top country in Jewish population. (But if you consider ethnic Jews and even further the extended definitions of 'Jew' under the law of return for Israel, then Israel is 2nd to the US . Eh.) 4. Christianity - Few Israelis or ethnic Jews are Christian. Most Christians are gentile non-Israelis, actually gentile non-Asians. 5. Donald Trump (lol) - accepted more by Israelis than American Jews based on the 2024 exit polls. ...**Oh but wait there's 1 exception (so much for trying to this argument of uniqueness of Christianity to Jews, atheists & Muslims ... Well at least Christianity is the only religion more popular outside than inside Asia, birthplace of all 5 major religions...and again assuming you don't count extended definition of 'Jew'.)**... 6. Buddhism - Apparently, Buddhism 's birthplace was Nepal or somewhere in greater India . The **secular/natural** reasons are given in other answers such as. 1. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/46906/why-is-buddhism-popular-in-eastern-asia-compared-to-south-asia-where-it-originat 2. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3338/why-is-buddhism-followed-mainly-outside-of-india-when-it-originated-there 3. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/20848/what-was-the-reason-behind-the-fall-of-buddhism-in-india 4. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/25486/why-did-buddhism-declined-and-then-almost-extinguished-in-india 5. [Why is Buddhism more prevalent in East Asia than in South Asia where it originated from?](https://qr.ae/pYUKoB) 6. [Why do people associate Buddhism with China or Thailand but not with India where Buddha preached the majority of his life?](https://qr.ae/pYUKMX) # My question is now **religious/prophetic/scriptural/supernatural** reasons : 1. Were there any prophecies or something that Buddhism would be more popular outside than inside, similar to like how in Christianity, there are prophecies that speak of how the Messiah (Buddha?) would initially be rejected by his own people the Jews (Hindus? Indians? Idk). Eg Isaiah 49:6-7 , 29:10 , 53:8 2. Actually, in this regard, please also explain briefly (not necessarily in full detail. Just pertaining to prophecies or lack thereof) to me the relationship of Hinduism & Buddhism because I guess I'm implicitly assuming Jesus of Nazareth is analogous to Siddhartha Gautama like : | |Dharmic|Abrahamic| |:-|:-|:-| |Original religion|Hinduism|Judaism| |birthplace starts with letter 'i'|India/Greater India/South Asia|Israel/West Asia/Asia| |after WW2, has been at war w/ starts with the letter 'p'|Pakistan|Palestine| |whose religion is|Islam|Islam| |New religion w/ same birthplace|Buddhism|Christianity| |but more popular in|East Asia|Non-Asia| |Started by|Siddhartha Gautama|Jesus of Nazareth| |Title|Buddha, the Enlighted One|Messiah, the Anointed One| |The originals who believe|Bhagavata Sampradaya, Sat Vaishnavism, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, ISKCON|Messianic Judaism | Maybe there's no such 'prophecy' if it's not really that Gautama was Hindu trying to start a 'new religion' (sort of) like how Jesus was Jewish revolutionary or idk. Also, I read there's like a prophesised 'Kalki ' who in some denominations of Hinduism is a reincarnation of Buddha or Krishna (and is hopefully not Mohammed ). But idk are those Hindus who believe in Gautama like 'Messianic Jews', Jews who believe in Jesus? And anyway, if there's no prophecy, then, what, it's just some big coincidence and there are maybe only a few parallels in histories of how Christianity & Buddhism became more popular outside than inside their birthplaces? P.S. I haven't seen Saint Young Men , but I'm not quite a fan of Hikaru Nakamura . Lol.

I was reading Wikipedia about the extinction of Buddhism in Afghanistan, which said the Mongols ended Buddhism in Afghanistan. I found this difficult to believe because reputedly, many Mongols, including at times asserting Genghis Khan himself, were Tibetan Buddhists. I found a webpage by HHDL's friend [Alexander Berzin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Berzin_(scholar)) , which says: > Five years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, in 637, the Arabs > defeated the Persian Sassanids and founded the Umayyad Caliphate in > 661. It ruled over Iran and much of the Middle East. In 663, they attacked Bactria, which the Turki Shahis had taken from the Western > Turks by this time. The Umayyad forces captured the area around Balkh, > including Nava Vihara Monastery, causing the Turki Shahis to retreat > to the Kabul Valley. > > The Arabs allowed followers of non-Muslim religions in the lands they conquered to keep their faiths if they submitted peacefully and paid a poll tax (Ar. jizya). Although some Buddhists in Bactria and even an abbot of Nava Vihara converted to Islam, **most Buddhists in the region accepted this dhimmi status as loyal non-Muslim protected subjects within an Islamic state. Nava Vihara remained open and functioning. The Han Chinese pilgrim Yijing (I-ching) visited Nava Vihara in the 680s and reported it flourishing as a Sarvastivada center of study**. > > An Umayyad Iranian author, al-Kermani, wrote a detailed account of Nava Vihara at the beginning of the **8th century**, preserved in the 10th-century work Book of Lands (Ar. Kitab al-Buldan) by al-Hamadhani. He described it in terms readily understandable to Muslims by drawing the analogy with the Kaaba in Mecca, the holiest site of Islam. He explained that the main temple had a stone cube in the center, draped with cloth, and that devotees circumambulated it and made prostration, as is the case with the Kaaba. The stone cube referred to the platform on which a stupa stood, as was the custom in Bactrian temples. The cloth that draped it was in accordance with the Iranian custom for showing veneration, applied equally to Buddha statues as well as to stupas. **Al-Kermani’s description indicates an open and respectful attitude by the Umayyad Arabs in trying to understand the non-Muslim religions, such as Buddhism, that they encountered in their newly conquered territories**. > > In 1215, Chinggis Khan, the founder of the Mongol Empire, conquered Afghanistan from the Ghurids. As was his policy elsewhere, Chinggis destroyed those who opposed his takeover and devastated their lands. It is unclear how the vestiges of Buddhism still left in Afghanistan fared at this time. Chinggis was tolerant of all religions, so long as its leaders prayed for his long life and military success. > > After Chinggis’ death in 1227 and the division of his empire among his > heirs, his son Chagatai inherited the rule of Sogdia and Afghanistan > and established the Chagatai Khaganate. In 1258, Hulegu, a grandson of > Chinggis, conquered Iran and overthrew the Abbasid Caliphate in > Baghdad. He established the Ilkhanate and soon invited to his court in > northwestern Iran Buddhist monks from Tibet, Kashmir, and Ladakh. The > Ilkhanate was more powerful than the Chagatai Khaganate and, at first, > it dominated its cousins there. Since the Buddhist monks had to pass > through Afghanistan on their way to Iran, they undoubtedly received > official support on their way. > > According to some scholars, the Tibetan monks who came to Iran were > most likely from the Drikung (Drigung) Kagyu School and Hulegu’s > reason for inviting them may have been political. In 1260, his cousin > Khubilai (Kublai) Khan, the Mongol ruler of northern China, declared > himself Grand Khan of all the Mongols. Khubilai supported the Sakya > Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and gave its leaders nominal suzerainty > over Tibet. Prior to this, the Drikung Kagyu leaders had been in > political ascendance in Tibet. Khubilai’s main rival was another > cousin, Khaidu, who ruled East Turkistan and supported the Drikung > Kagyu line. Hulegu may have been wishing to align himself with Khaidu > in this power struggle. > > Some speculate that the reason for Khubilai and Khaidu’s turning to > Tibetan Buddhism was to gain the supernatural backing of Mahakala, the > Buddhist protector practiced by both the Sakya and Kagyu traditions. > Mahakala had been the protector of the Tanguts, who had ruled the > territory between Tibet and Mongolia. After all, their grandfather, > Chinggis Khan, had been killed in battle by the Tanguts, who must have > received supernatural help. It is unlikely that the Mongol leaders, > including Hulegu, chose Tibetan Buddhism because of its deep > philosophical teachings. > > After the death of Hulegu in 1266, the Chagatai Khaganate became more > indepen­dent of the Ilkhans and formed a direct alliance with Khaidu > in his struggle against Khubilai Khan. **Meanwhile, the line of Hulegu’s > successors alternated in their support of Tibetan Buddhism and Islam**, > apparently also for political expediency. **Hulegu’s son Abagha > continued his father’s support of Tibetan Buddhism. Abagha’s brother > Takudar, however, who succeeded him in 1282, converted to Islam to > help gain local support** when he invaded and conquered Egypt. Abagha’s > son **Arghun** defeated his uncle and became Ilkhan in 1284. He **made > Buddhism the state religion of Iran** and founded several monasteries > there. When Arghun died in 1291, his brother Gaihatu became the > Ilkhan. Tibetan monks had given Gaihatu the Tibetan name Rinchen > Dorje, but he was a degenerate drunkard and hardly a credit to the > Buddhist faith. He introduced paper money to Iran from China, which > caused economic disaster. > > Gaihatu died in 1295, one year after the death of Khubilai Khan. > **Arghun’s son Ghazan succeeded to the throne. He reinstated Islam as > the official religion of the Ilkhanate and des­troyed the new Buddhist > monasteries there**. Some scholars assert that Ghazan Khan’s reversal of > his father’s religious policy was to distance himself from his uncle’s > reforms and beliefs, and to assert his independence from Mongol China. > > Despite ordering the destruction of Buddhist monasteries, it seems that the Ghazan Khan did not wish to destroy everything associated with Buddhism. For example, he commissioned Rashid al-Din to write Universal History (Ar. Jami’ al-Tawarikh), with versions both in Persian and Arabic. In its section on the history of the cultures of the people conquered by the Mongols, **Rashid al-Din included The Life and Teachings of Buddha**. To assist the historian in his research, Ghazan Khan invited to his court Bakshi Kamalashri, a Buddhist monk from Kashmir. Like the earlier work by al-Kermani, Rashid’s work presented Buddhism in terms that Muslims could easily understand, such as **calling Buddha a Prophet**, the deva gods as angels, and Mara as the Devil. > > Rashid al-Din reported that in his day, **eleven Buddhist texts in Arabic translation were circulating in Iran**. These included Mahayana texts such as The Sutra on the Array of the Pure Land of Bliss (Skt. Sukhavativyuha Sutra, concerning Amitabha’s Pure Land), The Sutra on the Array Like a Woven Basket (Skt. Karandavyuha Sutra, concerning Avalokiteshvara, the embodiment of compassion) and An Exposition on Maitreya (Skt. Maitreyavyakarana, concerning Maitreya, the future Buddha and embodiment of love). These texts were undoubtedly among those translated under the patronage of the Abbasid caliphs at the House of Knowledge in Baghdad starting in the 8th century. > > Rashid al-Din finished his history in 1305, during the reign of Ghazan’s successor Oljaitu. It seems that Buddhist monks were still present in Iran, however, at least until Oljaitu’s death in **1316**, since **monks unsuccessfully tried to win the Mongol ruler back to Buddhism**. Thus, at least up until then, Buddhist monks still passed back and forth through Afghanistan and thus might still have been welcomed at the Chagatai court. > > In 1321, the Chagatai Empire split into two. The Western Chagatai Khaganate included Sogdia and Af­ghanistan. From the start, its khans converted to Islam. The Ilkhanate in Iran fragmented and fell apart in 1336. After this, there is no indication of the **continuing presence of Buddhism in Afghanistan. It had lasted there nearly nineteen hundred years**. Nevertheless, knowledge of Buddhism did not die out. Timur (Tamerlaine) conquered the Western Chagatai Khaganate in 1364 and the small successor states of the Ilkhanate in 1385. Timur’s son and successor, Shah Rukh, commissioned the historian, Hafiz-i Abru, to write in Persian A Collection of Histories (Ar. Majma’ al-Tawarikh). Completed in **1425** in Shahrukh’s capital, Herat, Afghanistan, the history **contained an account of Buddhism** modeled after Rashid al-Din’s work a century earlier > > [History of Buddhism in Afghanistan Dr. Alexander Berzin ](https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/history-culture/buddhism-in-central-asia/history-of-buddhism-in-afghanistan) In the Pali Suttas or Bhikkhu Vinaya, did the Buddha ever warn of dangers of royal benefaction that could bring Buddhism into peril and destruction?

What is the meaning of "her way of turning her head" below? > By her smile and her looks, > > Her pride and her false modesty, > > **Her way of turning her head** or closing her eyes, > > Her fine words and her fits of anger and jealousy > > The provocativeness of her walk, > > > Woman drives a man mad. > > The net of lust is full: > > All men are caught in it. > > Whether she is seated, lying down, walking or standing, > > A glance, a lifting of the eyebrow is enough > > For the inexperienced fool > > To be completely intoxicated by her. Source: Maha Prajnaparamita Sastra , part 2.3 (Indifference toward women), written by Nagarjuna, and translated by Gelongma Karma Migme Chödrön.

When a person dies, s/he goes to heaven or hell based on present life karma and any past karmas. In Buddhism, if there is no soul, who is punished in hell and who enjoys in heaven? as there is no physical body to feel pain and pleasure. If that person has learnt the art of detachment, how can s/he suffer/enjoy in hell/heaven? Does different realms really exists and do we travel through them?

I apologize in advance if this question is not in the scope of this SE. Rather than read about the principles of Buddhism, I'd rather experience the practice of Buddhism through watching a movie. Is there a movie that shows a character learning about Buddhism demonstrating good and bad behaviors as the character learns? For example, something makes the character angry and the movie shows how the person reacts "in a Buddhist way" or reacts in a way that shows the outcome as it relates to Buddhist principles? Preferable to be in the English language and entertaining for adults.

Made a thread that was sorta related on here: Does Teleonomic Matter imply Subjectivity without Identity? Triggered again by this answer: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/78860/88743 and I was sorta triggered further when I read this comic: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 By the way I wouldn't recommend reading the comic, might not sleep tonight. But anyway, I've read Buddhism, attended some of the teachings from monks, and talked to Buddhists and the concept that always eluded me was no-self (attachment also but that's something else). I never really understood how it was supposed to be a good thing. That there is no enduring, unchanging essence that we can call me or "I", it's just a collection of causes and effects that is constantly in flux. It's "death" and "rebirth" in a metaphorical sense. To me it sounds like loosing so much that makes us human. No friends because there is no one you are friends with (even if you have friends), you aren't falling in love with someone because there is no "one" you are falling in love with. I can't really say "I like this" or "I wanna do this for a living" because that's not a permanent part of me, can't feel good or proud about myself when I achieve something because there is no one to feel that or celebrate, etc etc. Is it wrong to feel sad if my dog or dad dies because no "one" died? Am I even alive? It's something I try to avoid thinking about because when I listen to it and just view people as a collection of causes and aggregates I just stop caring about them, I can't really explain it. When I see myself like that my emotions just shut off for some reason. So with all that said I'm wondering how this is supposed to be beneficial for someone, let alone society (which I assume is the goal for Buddhism), because so far it's just hurt me and held me back from doing things in life rather than liberating me like they said. IMO Buddhism just feels like a religion that says everything I think and do is wrong, but I digress. I really need help with getting this because it's haunted me for years.