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.

In 2008 I was in a near accident were I was inspired to go to a book store and ask the employee to pick me out an inspiring book. I was very pleased as I began to read and shortly I began to feel light and vibrations enter my body. I began to give my things away and buy people things,thus it felt like I was in a state of bliss. There was no judging no trying to achieve anything. Now I was a happy person before but this felt holy . I began to walk the streets and ask if I could pray for/with them. Then an inner voice told me to do things like one instance I was told to follow the sun and I'd know where to go. Well it was a church and I began to cry and went into the church were a man was sitting. I put my hand on his knee and he startled and said this man is aa saint. It scared me. I wasn't eating and placed in a hospital. I'm forced to take medicine I hate and am miserable. What now....I can't go back in time,plus I remember praying to take on others pain. Plz help.so much more happened as well

Philosophers of mind, such as David Chalmers, now recognize three general approaches to the question – what is consciousness? 1. **Materialism** - Materialism is the view that the mind is what the brain does. This is often stated as the mind is caused by the brain. The brain is the physical substance, while the mind or consciousness is a process that emerges from the brain. 2. **Dualism** - Dualism is the position that consciousness is something separate from the brain and not entirely caused by it. It may be a separate property of the universe (property dualism) or be something beyond the confines of our material universe. Whatever it is, it does not reduce to the firing of neurons in the brain, which cannot, in the opinion of dualists, explain subjective experience. 3. **Idealism** - The third position, the one is idealism – the claim that consciousness is all there is and the physical universe, including the brain, is a manifestation of consciousness. Explaining the position, Bernardo Kastrup uses the metaphor of a river, where the flowing water is consciousness. The material world is like a whirlpool in the stream – the whirlpool has a definite existence in time and space, you can point to it and say, “there it is,” but it is comprised entirely of the stuff of consciousness. Which position is the most closely aligned with Buddhist schools?

What's the benefit (ānisaṁso) of renunciation? As in, for example, "*... he gave a progressive discourse, that is, a talk on giving, behaving, and heaven; he revealed the drawback, degradation, and defilement of sensuality and the benefit of renunciation...*". I would say it's less excitement, a more serene and settled heart, a clearer mind, a better, more refined satisfaction. What do you think?

(pali + english, derived from b. Sujato trans.) http://lucid24.org/an/an07/an07-v05/index.html#s64 (b. thanissaro eng. trans) https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN7_60.html The passage in question: > “And further, an enemy wishes of an enemy, ‘O, may this person not > profit!’ Why is that? An enemy is not pleased with an enemy’s profits. > Now, when a person is angry—overcome with anger, oppressed with > anger—then even when he suffers a loss, he thinks, ‘I’ve gained a > profit’; and even when he gains a profit, he thinks, ‘I’ve suffered a > loss.’ When he has grabbed hold of these ideas that work in mutual > opposition (to the truth), they lead to his long-term suffering & > loss, all because he is overcome with anger. This is the third thing > pleasing to an enemy, bringing about an enemy’s aim, that comes to a > man or woman who is angry. b.bodhi has: > (3) “Again, an enemy wishes for an enemy: ‘May he not succeed!’ For > what reason? An enemy does not delight in the success of an enemy. > When an angry person is overcome and oppressed by anger, if he > gets what is harmful, he thinks: ‘I have gotten what is beneficial,’ > and if he gets what is beneficial, he thinks: ‘I have gotten what is > harmful.’ When, overcome by anger, he gets these things that are > diametrically opposed, they lead to his harm and suffering for a long > time. This is the third thing gratifying and advantageous to an enemy > that comes upon an angry man or woman. In the other 7 cases in the sutta, specifics are given so it's clear what the person who wants the enemy to suffer, how their anger sabotages their desire and tends to get the opposite result. In the case # 3 above however, it's not clear what the Buddha had in mind for specific examples. I can think of some hypothetical situations that would meet that criteria, but they would just be guesses. Anyone think they know exactly what is meant here?

My mother and I have slight issues because she is nagging and controlling (and I impatient). Despite that I love her very much, and I can't stand the idea that she will pass away in a few years; and she will suffer during death and later in a lower rebirth. I start crying every time this comes to my mind. In the moment I feel like leaving my job to go live with her and serve her (*I live in a far foreign country so I see her once a year or so*). Further I think of accepting it as part of life, but nothing comes to mind. I wonder, how is it even possible to be okay with this? Is there no other way but to endure great suffering when it inevitably happens? I wonder how other people deal with this? Do they all go through intense pain or somehow skillfully avoid it (especially buddhist master's who are not affected by this at all)? No matter how many books I read on Buddhism, I find no solutions to this question. Please educate me, as I think it is one of the most important questions of many people's lives.

This quote is widely attributed to Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche: > The bad news is, you’re falling through the air, nothing to hang on > to, no parachute. The good news is, there’s no ground. Among the many instances on the web, the only pointer to an actual citation of Trungpa Rinpoche's work I can find is on page 239 of *Sacred Groundlessness: Deepening the Ethics of Mindfulness in the Midst of Global Crisis* by Lama Karma, chapter 13 of *Handbook of Ethical Foundations of Mindfulness*, edited by Stanley, Purser and Singh. That pageless citation, however, is to *The collected works of Chögyam Trungpa (Vol. 8)* and seems to be incorrect. I have that book in electronic form, and searches on numerous words and phrases from the quote (ground, parachute, news, etc) do not turn up the quote or anything close. That's the only work of Trungpa Rinpoche cited in that chapter. The only other of his work in the edited volume is his very popular *Cutting through Spiritual Materialism*, and the quote is not in that either. **My question -- Can anybody identify a work or teaching by Trungpa Rinpoche that contains that quote or something like it, or say with some assurance that he did not actually say or write it. And if it's not his, who did say it?**

Shedding Tears in Amazement of the Dhamma I am posting this because I've yet to post a question. I should note that I respect Ajahn Maha Bua a lot. In fact, both of my teachers were students of his. However, Ajahn Maha Bua is the most controversial figure in Buddhism. Regardless if he were an arahant, I can definitively say he is an inspiration to me, and a superb teacher. Where would I be if not for Luangta? Thoughts?

When I am very angry or very fearful my efficiency of work increases I can concentrate more .but now when I am practicing Vipassana for a couple of years my fear and anger is diminishing. I am worried whether my work will get hamper/bad or not. Please guide me

My first exposure to Buddhism was watching [Seven Years in Tibet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years_in_Tibet_%281997_film%29) in my German childhood. Most memorable were the following two scenes of Buddhist monks in orange robes. In the one scene, some monks were carefully making a large picture out of coloured sand in a room with large windows. Upon completion (after one year of labour), the monks would simply open the window to let the wind carry the picture away. In the other scene, monks were very carefully turning soil. Apparently the monks had to be especially careful not to harm any earthworms, because, according to their belief, **their mothers would be reincarnated as earthworms**. Needless to say, I found it very arbitrary at best that _mothers_ should be reincarnated as _earthworms_ and was troubled by this first impressions for the next decade or so. Unfortunately, I still haven't been able to solve this mystery. So my question is, as it has been for many years, is there any connection between _mothers_ and _earthworms_ in Buddhism?

Pretty much as the title suggests: does it harm to meditate before sleeping? For me if I meditate seriously my mind is swept over with awakeness. as a consequence when I go to sleep I remain awake for sometime and keep thinking useless thoughts. so it kind of hinders my sleep. Is there a good practice or should meditation before sleep be avoided?

I'm looking for Suttas or other texts that describe the triple gem (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha), preferably for laypeople. I'm mostly interested in Theravada Suttas, but also Mahayana Sutras, newer books, or other materials. Grateful for help!

While going across literature pertaining to buddhism, I came across the following write-up named '*Logical Criticism of Buddhist doctrines*' where the author has Criticized various aspects of Buddhist Philosophy. The question however is meant specifically towards the writer's criticism of the buddhist 'no-self' concept and defense of the soul theory. While Interested readers might look up chapter 17 (Page 303-326) , for brevity's sake I am summarizing the gist of their main points against the no-self concept and highlighting them for ease of reading. > **Just as one would not look for visual phenomena with one’s hearing > faculty or for auditory phenomena with one’s visual faculty, so it is > absurd to look for spiritual things (the soul, and its many acts of > consciousness, will and valuation) with one’s senses or by observing > mental phenomena**. Each kind of appearance has its appropriate organ(s) > of knowledge. For spiritual things, only intuition (or apperception) > is appropriate. > > > **To understand how the soul can exist apparently in midst of the body > and mind (i.e. of bodily and mental phenomena) and yet be invisible, > inaudible, etc. (i.e. non- phenomenal), just imagine a > three-dimensional space (see illustration below). Say that two > dimensions represent matter and mind and the third applies to spirit. > Obviously, the phenomena of mind will not be found in the matter > dimension, or vice versa**. Similarly, the soul cannot be found in the > dimensions of matter and/or mind, irrespective of how much you look > for it there. Why? Simply because its place is elsewhere – in the > spiritual dimension, which is perpendicular to the other two. > **The truth is that it is impossible to formulate a credible theory of > the human psyche without admitting the existence of a soul at its > center.** **Someone has to be suffering and wanting to escape from > suffering. A machine-like entity cannot suffer and cannot engage in > spiritual practices to overcome suffering. Spiritual practice means, > and can only mean, practice by a spiritual entity, i.e. a soul with > powers of cognition, volition and valuation**. These powers cannot be > equated electrical signals in the brain, or to events in the skandhas. > They are sui generis, very miraculous and mysterious things, not > reducible to mechanical processes. Cognition without consciousness by > a subject (a cognizing entity) is a contradiction in terms; volition > without a freely willing agent (an actor or doer) is a contradiction > in terms; valuation without someone at risk (who stands to gain or > lose something) is a contradiction in terms. This is not mere grammar; > it is logic. > > As already mentioned, **a soul is not an essence, but a core > (spiritual) entity. It therefore cannot be viewed as one of the five > skandhas, nor as the sum of those skandhas, as the Buddhists rightly > insist. It can, however, contrary to Buddhist dogma, be viewed as one > of the parts of the complete person, namely the spiritual part; but > more precisely, it should be viewed as the core entity, i.e. as the > specific part that exclusively gives the whole a personality, or > selfhood.** This is especially true if we start wondering where our soul > came from when we were born, whether it continues to exist after we > die, where it goes if it does endure, whether it is perishable, and so > forth. How would a buddhist respond to this critique of the no-self theory?

What arguments does buddhism have to hold that consciousness is dependently originated when majority of non-buddhist philosophies/theologies hold consciousness/soul to be immutable/unchanging, without any origin and independent of matter and external factors?

What is the meaning of delusion ? and how it is different from lust , passion or greed ? What is the meaning of non-delusion ? and how it is different from no lust , no passion or no greed? And finally , how to get rid of delusion ?

Is there any sutta in the Pali Canon which describes the supramundane view that Nibbana cannot be attained? I'm looking for a verse or quote from the Pali Canon which describes Nibbana as unattainable or unrelinquished based on the fact that is unconditioned. Ie, not from the ordinary conventional sense of attaining a possession or attainment of a goal, but rather from the supramundane where Nibbana is unconditioned. Does such a sutta, passage, or verse exist?

Is cessation of perception and feeling the Nibbana? > Furthermore, take a good person who, going totally beyond the > dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains > in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with > wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does > not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does > not identify through anything.” > [MN 113](https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujato)

I hope this finds you well and happy. I’m pretty sure I read it in the Pali Nikayas. It is probably one of the texts used as the basis of the idea of a ‘merit bank’ which I have found amongst ethnic Buddhists **especially**. It is the story of a person (prince/king?) who goes to the Buddha with a report of a repeated (?) nightmare, of people (monsters/ghosts/demons?) moaning and begging for food at his residence. The Buddha advises him that it’s because he didn’t share his own meritorious actions (puñña) with relatives (bandhu?) in the past. So, he should do so in the future to avoid this. best wishes Joe

If I am not mistaken, Tenzen Gyatzo HHDL is translated by Tupten Jinpa in quoting ‘another Amado Master’ as stating “Emptiness does not mean the absence of functionality”. Meaning, that although the phenomenon we experience in our ordinary human existence does not have inherent existence, but evolves in and out of existence, because of many causes and conditions (dependent origination), that does not imply that the reality that we experience is not real in the human sense. This insight is fundamentally important in the liberation from suffering, and in this context, the attainment of the direct experiential knowledge of emptiness is facilitated by syllogistic reasoning. This post was stated as a question because I wanted to earn reputation points in order to respond to another question on the nature of emptiness.

This is one of my main concerns. What did Buddha actually mean by 'kalpa'? I know Buddha said that the Earth will die by fire, and then all beings will be born in the Abhasara loka. I think this may refer to the sun expanding in the next 5 billion years, meaning the Earth could remain suitable for life for around 5 to 8 billion years (totally). So, how does this apply to the calculation of a kalpa? Did Buddha use extraordinary examples to teach how long this time period is? If not, what about the extremely long year examples? What are the types of kalpas? I need a trustworthy answer because this is one of the main arguments in Buddhism.