According to Abhidhamma exegetical texts, meditation of the 4 types of sense-sphere functionally inoperative-indeterminate cittas associated with wisdom (paññā) leads to knowledge of purity (vodāna), issuing in the supramundane Path-cittas of Once-returner (Sakadāgāmi) and Non-returner (Anāgāmi). What about the other 4 types of sense-sphere functional-indeterminate cittas that are dissociated from wisdom (paññā)? Since these four types of cittas are not conjoined with wisdom (paññā), do they still lead to the concentrative stage of purification (vodāna)? And to Nibbana? If those four types of citta do not lead to purification (vodāna) and subsequent Nibbana, and neither do they also generate rebirth kamma-deposits, then when the living Arahatta person dies, where will be the destiny? Will that person be born again as a living Arahat? or does he become an achiever of only Arahatta’s Path but not of fruition? Any help to shed light on this is very much appreciated.

Just the header really! A friend is very self reflective, builds herself up into a tempest thinking about her situation (not terrible, but below where she is comfortable being, I guess).

1. Do the suttas make any mention of a halo around the Buddha's head, or was it a later addition through the cultural influence of other religions? I recall mentions of a golden aura around the Buddha visible from a distance that attracted his first followers to him. 2. Since the halo is a symbol common to most world religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism), is this a generally encountered spiritual attainment like the six higher knowledges ? Are there records of any arhats getting a halo? Some background that I was able to dig up: > Tibetan Buddhism uses haloes and aureoles of many types, drawing from both Indian and Chinese traditions, extensively in statues and Thangka paintings of Buddhist saints such as Milarepa and Padmasambhava and deities. Different coloured haloes have specific meanings: orange for monks, green for the Buddha and other more elevated beings > [...] > Theravada Buddhism and Jainism did not use the halo for many centuries, but later adopted it, though less thoroughly than other religious groups. **source**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(religious_iconography)

Are the four characteristics -- production, abiding, change and destruction -- empty, conceptual constructions? Does this make production etc., perhaps even impermanence, an illusion, especially according to hua-yen Buddhism [as that's where I've seen these four characteristic enumerated]? ---------- I do not think this is a mere "metaphysical" question in the pejorative, because it may say something about birth and death: whether or not samsara -- karmic conditioning -- and so nirvana -- its termination -- are empty of essence; what the nature of first and third noble truths are.

A bit of background. In my mid-20s, I spent a lot of time (cumulative 1 year) in different monasteries in Thailand, Myanmar and Nepal. I understand experientially the importance of consistent and regular practice. I am now 33, have a decent tech job. I am very conflicted between a lay married life and celibate life of serious practice. Anybody have the same dilemma? How did you solve it?

Here is a part of [DN 23](https://suttacentral.net/dn23/en/sujato) : > “Even though Master Kassapa says this, still I think that there’s no afterlife.” > > “Can you prove it?” > > “I can.” > > “How, exactly, chieftain?” > > “Suppose they were to arrest a bandit, a criminal and present him to me, saying, ‘Sir, this is a bandit, a criminal. Punish him as you will.’ I say to them, ‘Well then, sirs, place this man in a pot while he’s still alive. Close up the mouth, bind it up with damp leather, and seal it with a thick coat of damp clay. Then lift it up on a stove and light the fire.’ They agree, and do what I ask. When we know that that man has passed away, we lift down the pot and break it open, uncover the mouth, and slowly peek inside, thinking, ‘Hopefully we’ll see his soul escaping.’ But we don’t see his soul escaping. This is how I prove that there’s no afterlife.” (Payasi argues there is no soul so no afterlife.) However, Kassapa, one of the principal disciples of Gautama Buddha, argues there is a soul. He further says in DN 23: > “Well then, chieftain, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. Do you recall ever having a midday nap and seeing delightful parks, woods, meadows, and lotus ponds in a dream?” > > “I do, sir.” > > “At that time were you guarded by hunchbacks, dwarves, midgets, and younglings?” > > “I was.” > > “But did they see your soul entering or leaving?” > > “No, they did not.” > > “So if they couldn’t even see your soul entering or leaving while you were still alive, how could you see the soul of a dead man? By this method, too, it ought to be proven that there is an afterlife, there are beings reborn spontaneously, and there is a fruit or result of good and bad deeds.” In the above Sutta DN 23, Kassapa proves that there is a soul. Kassapa, who directly got knowledge from Buddha argues there is a soul and that is what travels to the afterlife. But we who have never seen or been taught by Buddha say there is no soul. We are furthermore down in a timeline than Kassapa. Knowledge might have changed and we must have interpreted something very simple in a complicated way. Why do we say there is no soul, while the direct disciple of Buddha says there is in fact a soul that goes to the afterlife. Remember that Kassapa was the third most liked disciple of Buddha after Sariputta and Ananda. I think today we have completely changed our point of view. There is also not any sutta where Buddha says no soul. But he says, this is not-self. The things in the physical world are not-self. Like feeling is not self, perception is not-self and all things that are created in the body are not-self. What's your point of view on the soul? How can you argue with Kassapa who has seen and learned Suttas direct from Buddha?

As titled. I wonder if there are other methods of development outlined elsewhere?

It seems to me that there is a popular and strong belief that if you reach enlightenment, and thus have [four immeasurables](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara "Brahmavihara - Wikipedia"), you can help a person without making them feel extra suffering or fighting back. This can be illustrated by the sutta [Aṅgulimāla](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E1%B9%85gulim%C4%81la "Aṅgulimāla - Wikipedia"). The Buddha can stop him easily and effortlessly. The premise here is that enlightenment = perfect knowledge, and/or four immeasurables = you and the others are truly the same, so that you can understand that person inside out. The equal sign = is more like implies that rather exactly means. However, realistically, I think this is impossible. There are situations that achieving enlightenment does not mean perfect knowledge. For example, you can reach enlightenment in a radioactive region. This is not loving-kindness yourself. Likewise, one can never claim to perfectly understand the inner state of the other person, especially without face-to-face conversation. What it seems to be true is that enlightenment = having no distortion, and/or four immeasurables = being able to vision a way to help the others getting out of their suffering. Perhaps this is just a matter of defining what enlightenment is. This is fine. But in this case, its necessary consequence is that no human can achieve this state (though can absolutely achieve [mindfulness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness "Mindfulness - Wikipedia") or practice eightfold path). Is this correct?

Harari (2011) claims: > Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known. From my limited understanding of Buddhism, the above seems false of Buddhism. I was hoping an expert on Buddhism could give a more definite explanation as to whether the above statement has any truth. (Restrict attention to the bit about Buddhism.)

When we consider attachment as something we want to stay present with, and aversion as something we try to push away, can we say there is a continuum present? More specifically, does reducing attachment simultaneously reduce aversion, and vice versa? I have diminished a lot of attachments lately, and I still dreadfully struggle to tackle aversive tasks and engage in effort. Are they completely unrelated? EDIT: Also, what is the best way to tackle aversion? Thank you.

As a beginner, after 3 months of quiet intensive meditation, i feel exhausted. And I understand that it’s linked to my relation with every type of duty during my life. Studying, working, relations or just simply living, where i feel “ have to do “ emotions, and being extreme with behaviours and self control. So i go out of energy. I really enjoy meditation and i am enthusiastic about it, also as a philosophy, trying to bring it to everyday life. But I feel that i control too much my self, with thoughts and actions, and it’s frustrating a lot. This is not a new thing but, being aware of it now makes it a strong obstacle. I feel a little bit lost. Maybe someone could share some similar experience and to how to deal with it.

According to accredited scholars like L.Brown, the bka’gyur is a collection of the *translation of the pronouncements*. Are the bk’gyur the words of the Buddha transcribed?

Consider someone is doing something (for instance eating). I can say that he is eating because of hunger, and his hunger is because his body needs energy. So, **every** action have **external** causes **only**. Can I do something by my own (without **external** causes)? I know that I can't do unwholesome things because of anatta. But I can say that I did something because of ignorance, and also that my action has an effect (karma). This post may not be a question. I'm looking for a way to clear my understanding. Kind regards.

What is the sutta where Buddha says about the order of merits as in for example "Observing the 5 precepts gives more merit than offering alms" and such.

I've started to meditate in recent days. After meditation, one day I feel happy and the other day I feel upset, angry and depressed. Also, at the end of the meditation I feel like I just woke up from sleep. Why is this happening to me? Is there any solution to overcome this issue?

I jog everyday and teach children how to play basketball. There are some insects on the path where I jog and on the basketball court, and I’m sure we unintentionally kill a few of them. We live in a place where there are lots of trees and forests so it would be difficult to get rid of bugs. Am I violating the first precep?

Does atheism in Buddhism mean you let a belief arise that God doesn't exist? Is this a skillful assumption? Why or why not? Was it right view for one to believe that the world wasn't round during the time when it seemed to everyone that the Earth was flat? Was a belief in a flat Earth a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

**QN 1:** What is connection between _thoughts_ and _habits_? **QN 2:** We (as a lay practitioner) are aware of our few habits like smoking but not all. _Example: Morning tea habit (feeling to have tea). Similarly checking mobile time to time, watching TV, doing prayers and other religious habits._ I was not aware of these habits from many years but now I'm aware of it. **Main QN:** Why is our mind always making new habits and gets trapped in habits? >Note: To clarify this question as it has been edited, you can check the original question asked by the user.

So according to Buddhism , the gods realm is part of the cycle of existence. What are the references of this , according to all buddhists canons?

In the introduction to Thich Nhat Hanh's Zen Keys, Philip Kapleau suggests there are times when one can or must rebel. > ... In this type of creativity ow intuitive wisdom and joy are naturally brought into play. > All this does not mean, of course, that attempts at bettering working conditions and making work more meaningful, such as we are witnessing today as a reaction against robot-like mechanization of the workplace, are worthless. But for a worker constantly to resent his work or his supeliors, for him to become sloppy and slothful in his working habits, for him to become embittered toward life-these attitudes do most harm to the worker himself and serve little to change his working conditions. When it's time to work one works, nothing held back; when it's time to make changes one makes changes; **when it's time to revolt one even revolts**. In Zen everything is in the doing, not in the contemplating. He doesn't elaborate. I found the line surprising. But Buddhists fight in Myanmar. Is it ever necessary to deviate from non violence?