What happens if no beings choose to act on one's bad karma? Does one then hallucinate one's bad karma? *( By this I mean i.e. is there experiencing of hallucinations (or illusions) alongside things such as real pain? ).* E.g. What would have happened to Moggallāna if no being chose to attack him?

Has there been a recent monastic ruling amongst Dharmaguptaka monks in China & Hong Kong with regards to a policy of denying ordination to laymen who have lived homosexual lifestyles prior to cultivating the aspiration to go forth?

When meditating on the breath, after a while the sensation of my eyes not being closed properly appeared. This then turns into vibrating, and my eyes feel like they are literally moving. I tried refocusing on the breath but this is a very difficult sensation to ignore. Does anyone have advice? Other sensations I feel are the opening of my eyes, if I do not pay attention to them. This sometimes happens, but mostly doesn't. This is also extremely distracting, as I feel like I should focus on keeping my eyes closed. Many thanks.

I read the discussion between Bhavaviveka and Buddhapalita, and there's a reference to "no cognition" (anupalabdhi) of emptiness, as liberative, though I forget which one of the two were supporting it. e.g. Garfield and Westerhoff in *Madhyamaka and Yogacara*: > The cognition of the ultimate nature of things—their all being empty > of intrinsic nature—is nonconceptual because, there being nothing to > cognize, no cognition arises. Or Eckel in *To See the Buddha*: And obviously the heart sutra includes (emphasis mine): > No suffering, no origination, > > no stopping, no path, *no cognition*, > > also no attainment with nothing to attain. ---------- Does anyone say that there is "no cognition" of *the present*, either at all times, or that only this "no cognition" has conventional validity? Or, can we have conventional knowledge of the present?

According to AN 5.73 (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu): > "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard > & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with > his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects > seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of > awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who > dwells in the Dhamma. Another translation of AN 5.73 by Bhikkhu Sujato: > Furthermore, a mendicant thinks about and considers the teaching in > their heart, examining it with the mind as they learned and memorized > it. They spend their days thinking about that teaching. But they > neglect retreat, and are not committed to internal serenity of heart. > That mendicant is called one who thinks a lot, not one who lives by > the teaching. Is Dhamma-thinking considered *yoniso manasikara* or wise attention or appropriate attention? Please explain your answer. If yes, then why is it not useful, without internal tranquility of awareness (*cetosamatham*)? If no, then what is needed to upgrade Dhamma-thinking to wise attention? What is it missing?

What is the difference between sex cults, and the tantric tradition? I understand that the latter has a lot of tradition and ritual behind it And while there is a strict monastic code, I imagine, in the tantric tradition, monks are encouraged to have sex with their disciples. Furthermore, any claims that there is a direct lineage all the way back to our Buddha, Shakyamuni, is as doubtful as it is in zen; these practices may be Indian, but aren't specifically his. I'm not saying that a power imbalance in a religious context of sexual activity needs to be abusive, but it can be. So why not here?

The fifth of the precepts is "I undertake the training to refrain from intoxicants." does smoking marijuana count as an intoxicant ?

According to this Buddhist glossary (quoted below), there are six types of people i.e. people with six types of nature or temperaments. Apparently, it comes from the Visuddhimagga. There is some information on the Buddhist personality types wikipedia page, but it doesn't have sufficient source citations. According to it, there are different recommended techniques for the different temperaments. Also, it claims this info is available in Visuddhimagga, Abhidhamma and Niddesa of KN. My questions: 1. Where can I find the references mentioned? (in Niddesa, Abhidhamma, Visuddhimagga) 2. What are the recommended techniques for the different temperaments? 3. Is this (#2) found in the scriptural sources? Please provide references. From this Buddhist glossary : > *carita* [*carita*] nature, temperament. *Carita* denotes the intrinsic > nature of a human being. The six types of temperament are: > > 1. greedy temperament [*rāga-carita*], > 2. hateful temperament [*doṣa-carita*], > 3. dull temperament [*moha-carita*], > 4. devout temperament [*śraddhā-carita*], > 5. intellectual temperament [*buddhi-carita*], > 6. discursive temperament [*vitarka-carita*]. > > The six temperaments are combined with one another. The speculative temperament (*dṛṣṭi carita*) is added to them. > > AS. I. 309. CMA. IX. 330-331. VM. III. 82-88.

relying on Guru Rinpoche is nothing but a skillful means for realizing and empowering ourselves with the phenomena of our own pure, joyful, and powerful perceptions and experiences, which arise from our own peaceful and open Buddha nature that we all have inherited. If we believe, then Guru Rinpoche will always be with us. He is not an individual person of a particular time or place. He is (or represents) the Buddha, the Buddha nature and its expression. In other words, he is the true nature of the universe and the pure character or expression of that universe. Whenever we allow our mind to connect with our inner truth, that truth will always be there to be reached, and then the manifestations or expressions arisen from that truth will always arise as pure and divine manifestations or appearances. If we let ourselves be inspired and see that very ultimate peace and truth, which we all have, through the support of and/or as Guru Rinpoche, we will realize and become Guru Rinpoche and his qualities and expressions. Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche wrote: In the case of deity meditation, it is the mind consciousness that creates the body of the deity. It is thus a mentally created body, and thus, so to speak, unreal. When, however, the karmic imprints of this visualization get stored in the all-base and become more clear and more stable, it is actually possible to meet the deity one day, or Guru Rinpoche, for example, face to face! This is the result of deity meditation with in-front visualization. [From Everyday Consciousness and Primordial Awareness, p. 39] Kunga Rinpoche, wrote in "Drinking the Mountain Stream": The deities of the tantric vehicle's extensive pantheon, the male and female personifications of psychic processes as "herukas" and "dakinis", are **"produced" by the yogin through the practice of controlled visualization until their reality overshadows that of the superficial apparent world.**When the yogin is able to visualize his own personal deity to the point where the visualization seems to have a life of its own, and when he's able to see the his environment as divine, he then practices the "divine pride" of direct identification of his own body and mind with those of his personal deity. all these quotations from masters indicate that dakinis,herukas and even guru rinpoche are not existant in the sence of having a mindstream and cognition and actually existing in some heaven.Rather they are appearances or creations of the individual's(Yogi or yidam practicioner) mind. but obviousely there are purelands as many people have visions of amitabha etc picking them up to go there etc Dawa Drolma had visitation to the pureland of avalokiteshvara guided by Tara.are these then just appearances of her own mind?like Nimittas?

I have been having questions from time to time about my practise. I do the cushion practise once a day in the morning for half an hour and try to follow the five precepts through the day. A lot of times through the day I have questions that make me feel like I need to discuss this with someone who is more experienced than I am. How does one "find a teacher" that can help me customise path & methods for a better practise? *I live in a city called Bombay, in India.* Any help and/or insight appreciated. *PS: I have had the privilege of learning through a 10-day SN Goenka Vipassana Retreat once.* :) -With Love & Chai.

There seems to be two prominant websites/translations for learning the suttas: 1. accesstoinsight.org 2. suttacentral.net As I was going through DN15 I see that the translations of important words differ in the two, may be in certain context even change the meaning. So which one is the good translation to follow, read and learn the suttas?

Please provide references from the Pali suttas on nimitta. Are they mentioned in the context of jhana? In the article below, it is mentioned that nimitta is found in the Anapanasati Sutta , but I couldn't find it. Is it there? In the article "Stepping Towards Enlightenment ", Ajahn Brahm wrote about nimitta: > THE NINTH STEP OF the *Anapanasati Sutta* describes a very important > creature that comes to visit the still, silent mind—a *nimitta*. Pali > for “sign,” a *nimitta* is a reflection of the mind. This step is called > *citta-patisamvedi*, “experiencing the mind,” and is achieved when one > lets go of the body, thought, and the five senses (including awareness > of the breath) so completely that only a beautiful mental sign, a > *nimitta*, remains. This pure mental object is a real object in the > landscape of the mind, and when it appears for the first time it is > extremely strange. For most meditators this mental joy, is perceived > as a beautiful light. But it is not a light. The eyes are closed, and > the sight consciousness has long been turned off. Other meditators > choose to describe this first appearance of mind in terms of a > physical sensation such as intense tranquility or ecstasy. It is > perceived as a light or a feeling because this imperfect description > is the best that perception can offer.

Would you kindly give your input on these Pali text quotes and comments? They are derived from "[Questions on the Five Skhandas](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9983/254) ", specifically [Dhammadhatu's answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/17584/254) regarding the common reference "Consciousness is All." Specifically, here are the comments and responses: > "Vedantic teachings inevitably lead to the direct discovery that "consciousness is all." One of your quotes: > "Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness"; that: "a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications ...would be impossible." I am familiar with both traditions but find the definitional- semantic Vedantic and Buddhist use of the term "consciousness' different at times, causing confusion among Advaita Vedanta and Buddhist students. May I quote [The Five Aggregates: A Study Guide by Thanissaro Bhikkhu?](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html) From their commentary, they appear to make contradictory statements. Ultimately, the text differentiates between the use of the term "consciousness' and "Awakening Awareness" or "the deathless". The text, referenced above, says: > He (The Buddha)... discovered a reality — the Deathless — that no words could describe. The author speculates that Buddha had to "stretch" the use of various words to help teach the tools necessary to investigate the kkhandas. Some issues I would love to hear input on: First, the intransience/impermanence of all "things". As the text illustrates: > "Form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy with regard to the five aggregates." What follows is commonly discovered to be inexplicable. Here is the revelation of--perhaps--another term which might be equivalent to both traditions: > "....If passion and delight are entirely eradicated, though, all clinging is entirely abandoned, the intentions that fabricate khandhas are dropped, and the mind totally released. The bricks of the pavement have turned into a runway, and the mind has taken off. Into what? The authors of the discourses seem unwilling to say, even to the extent of describing it as a state of existence, non-existence, neither, or both (§§49-51). As one of the discourses states, the freedom lying beyond the khandhas also lies beyond the realm to which language properly applies (§49; see also AN 4:173). There is also the very real practical problem that any preconceived notions of that freedom, if clung to as a perception-khandha, could easily act as an obstacle to its attainment. Still, there is also the possibility that, if properly used, such a perception-khandha might act as an aid on the path. So the discourses provide hints in the form of similes, referring to total freedom as: The unfashioned, the unbent, the fermentation-free, the true, the beyond, the subtle, the very-hard-to-see, the ageless, permanence, the undecaying, the featureless, non-elaboration, peace, the deathless, the exquisite, bliss, rest, the ending of craving, the wonderful, the marvelous, the secure, security, unbinding, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, release, attachment-free, the island, shelter, harbor, refuge, the ultimate. — SN 43.1-44 Other passages mention a consciousness in this freedom — "without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning (§54). In this it differs from the consciousness-khandha, which depends on the six sense spheres and can be described in such terms as near or far, past, present, or future. Consciousness without feature is thus the awareness of Awakening. And the freedom of this awareness carries over even when the awakened person returns to ordinary consciousness. As the Buddha said of himself: > "Freed, dissociated, & released from form,the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness… birth… aging… death… suffering & stress… defilement, the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness" (§56). Would you kindly give your input on these Pali text quotes and comments? 1. Impermanence-- so what is it that is described above as "permanent", "deathless"? 2. What is it that is referred to as "unfashioned", "exquisite", "bliss", "the ultimate"? 3. What is the semantic difference between what is referred to by some traditions as "consciousness" and Buddha's exquisite, permanent "awareness of Awakening"--"without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — "lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning (§54)" 4. If not consciousness, what is the correct term for "consciousness without feature" that Buddha refers to? 5)How do you describe this " this freedom that carries over even when the awakened person returns to ordinary consciousness?

I am trying to find Buddha's word about Five Niyamas in Sutta. Or does it exist only in commentaries?

Yogacara and Vasubandhu etc deny that matter exists by itself but rather that is comes from awareness and is merely a perception of the mind.what are the arguments Yogacarins make to prove their main thesis?

> the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not > there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said > that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is > to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of > Buddhist practice impossible. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that the skandhas can be identified as a self, as long as they aren't then taken to be in any way unchanged from moment to moment Encyclopedia of Buddhism, By Damien Keown, Charles S. Prebish - So I was wondering if that above silence means that any dharma can fulfill the role of that empirical self. ---------- An example would be: **Adam tastes the apple** Supposing this "taste" can be considered a kind of self, then if Adam sees smells touches feels nothing, just tastes the apple, there is "continuity" and he's *still Adam*. But as long as he does have other senses, and from moment to moment, the taste of apple doesn't make him who is he. I've never read any commentary which claims this is what the empirical self is in Buddhism, so would be really surprised that this ***counts*** as a categorical denial of substantial self .

Which of the five hindrances does '**comparison**' come under? I mean when the mind starts chattering, "***he is better than me, he succeeded where I failed, he got this and I got nothing, he got better of me***" etc etc. I don't have ill-will or hate or resentment towards the person, just plain comparison. And, how to get over this hindrance? I try to develop **mudita (empathic joy)** but does not find that enough. Any and all suggestions are welcome.

That's the question. Is there any advantage in being a lay Buddhist over being a Monk who has gone forth, that is in as far as following the Dhamma-Path to Nirvana is concerned?

Like all religions, there are different branches, traditions, whatever you want to call them. Why would you choose one over the others? Do you think one is right and the others are wrong? Does one fit with your lifestyle? I can see being born into one you might not have a choice. If they are all the same thing at heart, why have the differences? What if you choose the wrong one?

My question tag is similar to this one but I am asking a different question. I am reading DN15 the mahanidana sutta where the Buddha says; > Suppose there were totally and utterly no rebirth for anyone anywhere. > That is, there were no rebirth of sentient beings into their various > realms—of gods, fairies, spirits, creatures, humans, quadrupeds, > birds, or reptiles, each into their own realm. When there’s no rebirth > at all, with the cessation of rebirth, would old age and death still > be found? > "No, sir.” “That’s why this is the cause, source, origin, and > condition of old age and death, namely rebirth. ‘Continued existence > is a condition for rebirth’—that’s what I said. And this is a way to > understand how this is so. Suppose there were totally and utterly no > continued existence for anyone anywhere. That is, continued existence > in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, or the formless > realm. When there’s no continued existence at all, with the cessation > of continued existence, would rebirth still be found?” “No, sir.” Suppose in a hypothetical scenario in which all sentient beings which the Buddha mentions attain Nirvana and there is no rebirth here on planet Earth, wouldn't life as we know it vanish (Except for the trees)? If there is no life, there is no Dhamma and no Buddhism. In that case wouldn't lifeforms emerge and evolve all over again on Earth or on some other habitable planet as they came to being in present form and all cycle of samsara and suffering and birth of Buddha all over again leading to absurdity of the whole endevour? In that case wouldnt Buddhism be an effort to finish the sentient life and act against lifeforce as it is an effort to finish rebirth?