How can we correlate Buddhist cosmology with astronomical cosmology? Basically I have following questions. 1. Moon is considered 51 yojan in height and 50 is the sun. Sun is self illuminated and heat is the outward. Inner is made of diamond. But with modern physics sun is extremely large star fueled by nuclear reactions. Moreover are stars and planets are small elements or are stars like sun as in astronomy? 2. Is Earth flat or sphere? 3. Where can you find the great Mahameru mountain? In science there's an opinion of center of the Galaxy. But it's an opinion and not a theoretical teaching. 4. Can a loka dathu have one moon and sun each or more? Sun and moon is rotating around great Mahameru Mountain. Then how can we correlate that with moon orbiting around earth and Earth orbiting around sun. 5. Is Jambudweepa mentioned is the entire earth or is a part of Earth? Where can we find the other 4 continents. Since there are lots of opinion based answers on internet, I would like if there is a more theoretical answer. Thank you all. May you all attain Nirvana. Theruvan Saranai.

How Buddhist theory of causality anticipates modern views of Einstein relativity.

I was just wondering how many different types of meditation techniques did Buddha teach? I know the below Anapana, Vipassana, Charnal Ground, Metta Bhavana, I am looking for a list of meditations for my research purpose.

Should every monastic unconditionally be considered a noble one, and treated as such, to abstain from bad kamma at the very least? or are lay people, and other monastics, free to use personal judgement based on the personal qualities, or lack thereof, of a given monastic? If the latter, then am I free to verbally express my concern/blame, without producing excessively bad kamma? For example due to not agreeing with the way the Dhamma is presented, or timing thereof, or not agreeing with the arrogant attitude of the monk, or pointing out flaws in the behavior/methods/views of that monk?

I sincerely want to practice Tibetan Buddhism. It is a tradition which places great emphasis on one's relationship with their teacher. This makes a lot of sense to me. I plan to visit a Karma Kagyu centre near me when the coronavirus pandemic and associated quarantine measures subside and it is open to the public again. Are there any "safe" preliminary practices I can do in the meanwhile given that I have not formally taken refuge, received any empowerment or explanation and all my knowledge comes from literature? I am particularly unsure about whether it is a good idea to practice mantra meditation and mandala offerings without a teacher's guidance and my current view is that it is not. For what it's worth I have been practicing breathing meditation and calm abiding (zazen) daily for a few months now as well as reading Buddhist texts and commentaries. But I don't feel like it has led to any non-intellectual understanding or insight yet.

At certain point of meditation,I feel like I can't breathe properly as in the beginning of meditation(lose of oxygen) and thus I stop meditating and try to get oxygen into my brain. I do no know why this is happening or how to overcome this condition. Is that not a correct way of meditating? Or what am I doing is wrong ?Or do I have to push through?

In the book, "Handbook for mankind" Buddhadhasa Bikkhu describes two types of concentration: - One "as a result of organized practice", which he refers to as vipassana-dhura, and is mentioned in post-tipitaka commentaries. - One that "come about naturally". In the text, there are no pali words given for the latter, and the only reference given is that it is described in the Tipitaka. My questions are, - Is there a name in pali for the latter type? - Are there specific descriptions of the second type of concentration somewhere in the tipitaka or elsewhere? (Please note that i'm not asking for the correctness, efficacy, or other evaluations of the statements above. This is primarily a reference request).

Will it helpful to do the opposite of not skillfull things without having deeper knowledge of that thing ? Ex: I asked a question on **Laziness**, [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/37264/how-come-enlightened-people-dont-have-any-laziness) . But didn't recived a satisfying answer. So,Can being aware on laziness and being not lazy help to understand laziness ? Some other similar topic : conceit

I just heard that enlightened people have zero laziness. How is it possible? What is "laziness" ? What is the connection between laziness and ego/desire? Edit: Also that monk said: "Laziness is caused by ignorance."

Buddha says all sanskars are annicca. If harmony is a sanskar then disharmony is waiting to happen. Therefore my question is are we waiting for disaster to happen ?

>“Here, bhikkhus, some person has a confident mind. Having examined his mind with my mind, I know that if this person were to die at this time, as if carried there he would be placed in heaven. What is the reason for that? It is because his mind is confident. It is because of the mind’s confidence that some beings here, when the body perishes, are reborn after death in a good bourn, in a heavenly world.” > > [Iti 21](https://suttacentral.net/iti21/en/ireland) Why we must have a confident mind ? What is a confident mind according to the Lord Buddha ? What are the differences between confident and 1. Conceit 2. Clinging to a view

Can we make our daily activities as a meditation practise ? I'm not asking about being aware on what we are doing. When we do samatha meditation, we focused on the breath only. I'm asking, When we do day to day activities, focusing only what we supposed to do. This practise will give good materialstic achivements for sure. But, is this help to be enilightened ? Did Lord Buddha advice us to do something like this ? I lost interest to do day to day things. Because, the results gives from those are impermanant, useless in the long run (samsara). I'm looking for a way that help me to maintain the life while help me to be enlightened. **Edit:** We all have a certain level of focus when we do something. Is building a intense focus on something (materialstic things) a good practise ? Will it help me learn dhamma ?

Isn't **uncertainty** and **cause and effect** conflict each other ? Did Lord Buddha teach about uncertainty ? (Ven. Ajahn Brahma thero on uncertainty - [Life is a series of unexpected events](https://youtu.be/B30aqzhP5mc) ) **My understanding:** To the Buddha, life is not uncertain. Because Lord Buddha knew his and other people's past karma. He knew almost everything about the universe. So, He had ability to predict the future. But for us, We don't have that knowledge. So, Life is uncertain to us.

Buddha said he is Buddha. Did Buddha carried a false sense of self like you and me?

Why work on one thing at a time according to the buddhism ? Did Lord Buddha advise us to do that ? Are there any deep desires in multi-tasking ? (Like wanting to gain more in short amount of time) **Edit:** I mean by "doing one thing at a time" is working on 2 different subjects at the same time(Without finishing the first work) . Ex: practising samatha and vipassana together, learning maths and arts at the same time. **Edit:** Example for "not doing one thing at a time" : Started to write a book yesterday. Whithout finishing it, starting to write an another book today.

There are five precepts. 1. I don't kill living species. 2. I don't do sexual miaconduct. 3. ........ Similary, Are there any for mind ? Like, 1. I don't think ...... 2. .... We can think according to the five precepts , Not thinking about killing or harming others etc. However, are there any especially for mind ? Is "indriya samvara" some thing like that ? If it is, how to practise it ?

So I've been Reading a bit of the Buddhist's boogeyman Shankara and I admit I am maybe biased in writing this(I am open to any refutation of my view,but I have not seen any adequate logical refutation of such),but I'd like to see a buddhist refutation or answer of this following viewpoint of mine based on a reading of Shankara's writings: the temporary momentary alaya vijnana in yogachara buddhism is the substratum of momentary impressions,desires and ideas wich give rise to the false perception of external objects in their system.ideas and impressions(vasana samskaras)give rise to the appearance of external objects,wich give rise to further ideas and impressions wich give rise to further objects of external perception.however how can this not be a infinite regress(the appearance of external objects give rise to impressions,impressions give rise to the appearance external objects)?if external objects' (even just initial in some starting point in the past,wich buddhism denies due to its adherance to pratityasamutpada)existance is altogether denied to possibly exist rather than the mere appearance of them,how can impressions and desires come about for such objects ''appearance''? and if there is no permanent substratum to the mind wherein impressions and desires can leave a mark or effect,how can anything be cognized externally(i.e how can vasana samskaras be configured or accumulated(with out wich it cant exist)without a permanent substratum? such latent impressions cannot exist in a fresh new substratum (i.e person )each moment,because neither desire would arise from the appearance of external objects nor the appearance of external objects from impressions' desire(and the Yogacarin must admit a certain illogical infinite regress even in the case of a assumed permanent substratum)? a new subtratum cannot have any impressions nor appearance of external objects to give impressions because the substratum,in this case the Alaya vijnana has no connection with its 'causal' substratum due to kshanabhanga. if there were no permanent substratum there would literally be no experience or consciousness it seems based on the above. only if a permanent substratum exists can such infinite regress of impression arising the appearance of external objects and vice versa even have any meaning(and even that is illogical as actual regressive infinites do not exist logically but I know that buddhism believes in infinite regression so I'm Granting you this.but such infinite regress would only 'make sence'within a permanent substratum). I don't See how the Buddhist Doctrine of alayavijnana does not fail,and how only a permanent self can explain the infinite regress of ideas leading to (the appearance of) external objects and vice versa(wich itself is illogical in my opinion,but I am granting you guys' this for the sake of argument only). if Kshanabhanga(wich is a Buddhist Tenet fundamental to buddhism) is Denied here,as some may Wish to do,and the substratums have a causal chain wich must be substantial;then how is this not a Permanent Self of the tirthikas for all intents and purposes? buddhism denies this,and all of buddhism except Jonang would all fail if this were admitted,but if this were the case we have a permanent cognizing substantial 'self'/'person' through all the 3 times. I don't see how the momentary alayavijnana is not a failure.

I have meditated off and on since childhood, before I knew what it was, and since my 30s I have been interested in the spiritual concepts of Buddhism. I had an experience in 2010 wherein I awoke from sleep but could not move, yet my eyes were open, not my physical eyes. I could see a pale ceiling but could not look around. I was aware of my cat half-lying on my stomach, and he was purring. My ears popped, and suddenly I could hear differently, acutely. I heard footsteps ascending my stairs and the swishing sound like that of a robe. I heard footsteps cross to the left side of the bed. I was frightened, and the hair stood up on end on my arms and head, but I deepened my breathing and relaxed. I immediately felt a type of massaging, but not on my physical body, more the ethereal body, and also a warmth. The light massaging moved from left leg and foot to right leg and foot to left rib area to right rib area, and then I heard movement toward my head. The light in front of my eyes suddenly brightened, and my sinus passages popped loudly. I felt gentle pressure like hands cradling under my neck, and this pressure began to lift my head and shoulders upward, and I knew that I was being assisted out of body. Then my alarm went off and awakened me. I sensed a vibrational peace which lasted several minutes. Since that time, I have had several OOB experiences, always as I go to sleep or am awakening from sleep, some frightening, which set me back for a few years. Recently, over the last 2 years, I have had several experiences after I fall asleep wherein I half awaken in that state again, and sometimes feel a presence near, but immediately I feel a very strong, pleasant, vibrational, almost humming flow of energy flowing from the base of my neck to the base of my spine and back again. I always fall back asleep easily. I don't know what is happening, and I have been trying to release any fear and simply let it be. I want to trust that this is some type of healing or spiritual progression process, but I feel that I have no guidance. Are there any Buddhist teachers who would be able to guide me through this? Any response or feedback would be extremely welcome!

How to respond appropriately to people that are significantly older than me if they demand respect because of their age yet are conceited (and typically also conceited about not being conceited)? Often old folks use their age to gain respect, and then build their authority on top of it to spread false teachings. How would a passionate person handle such situations, not wanting to offend against the Dhamma by insulting the older/elderly person, yet preventing them from getting away with conceit and/or false teaching? How would the Buddha have handled such situations? I think a lot of Christian folk use such coercive tactic to gain authority and following, so I think it’s a practical question in the western world.

Can a physical theory be fundamentally probabilistic (such as the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics) without contradicting pratitya samutpada? **Clarification** Pratitya samutpada is about how all things arise in dependence on conditions. If there is such a thing as a probabilistic event, then I would say there is some part of that event which does _not_ depend on conditions, only on chance, whatever that might mean.