I have constant chronic pain. Would really like to be rid of it. Is this considered a negative desire in Buddhism? I remember in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the Buddha stated that the second Noble Truth is "craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming." I guess I interpreted the craving for non-becoming to apply to my desire for my pain to be gone.

I am interested in skillful handling of sexual desire, as I have come to see sexuality as a great source of distraction from the Dhamma. I am aware of the Buddhist technique of contemplating the deterioration of the physical human body, and understand that the Buddha teaches discernment of thoughts, as well as other more physical measures like pressing your tongue against the roof of your mouth. Recently I have come across advice outside of Buddhism, and am uncertain about whether Buddhism supports this, or something like this. Modern spiritual spaces have a concept of transforming or redirecting sexual energy. It doesn't have a fixed definition, but advocates generally describe that sexual energy is a "life force" that can either be wasted through sexual acts or put to "creative or intellectual use". I am not interested in creative or intellectual endeavors here, instead in skillful handling of sensuality. Does Buddhism have an analogue of this new age teaching? Are monks aware of a transformable property of sexual desire?

In academic discussions of early Buddhism, the Pāli Nikāyas are often regarded as the oldest extant records of the Buddha’s teachings. Studying the Pāli Canon, one often encounters detailed dialogues between the Buddha and various individuals (e.g., monks, brahmins, kings, and wanderers). These exchanges are frequently presented with specific narrative settings, named interlocutors, and structured philosophical arguments. The key question is how scholars and informed practitioners evaluate their historical reliability: To what extent can these dialogues be read as records of real conversations, and to what extent should they be read as later literary compositions shaped for doctrinal clarity or pedagogical purposes? Take for instance, how in certain suttas, the Buddha is depicted engaging in dialogue with various Brahmins identified with well-known Vedic lineages or names such as Vāseṭṭha (cf. Vasistha), Bhāradvāja (cf. Bharadvaja), and Assalāyana (cf. Asvalayana). These figures are significant because their names correspond to ancient ṛṣi lineages that, within the Brahmanical tradition itself, are often placed many centuries if not millennia prior to the historical Buddha. This raises a historical-critical problem: Are the individuals named in these suttas intended to be the same as the ancient Vedic sages, or are these names better understood as referring to later Brahmins belonging to those gotras (lineages) rather than the original figures themselves? if these names refer to the same figures as those of the Vedic tradition, then the dialogues appear chronologically implausible. On the other hand, if they refer to later Brahmins bearing inherited lineage names (gotras), then the issue may be resolved differently. Broadly, How do scholars in Buddhist Studies assess the historical reliability of narrative exchanges in the Pāli Suttas, especially when they involve figures whose identities may be symbolic, anachronistic, or traditionally mythologized?

What is this text called Path to Freedom? Is it the Visuddhimagga? What does it really say about mudita? What is real definition of mudita according to the Pali Canon and its traditional commentaries? From the essay Mudita is not “sympathetic joy” , authored by Bodhipaksa : > The third of the Brahmaviharas, after lovingkindness and compassion, > is *mudita*. *Mudita* is usually translated as sympathetic or empathetic > joy, and is described as “feeling happy because others are happy.” > > This is an interpretation I profoundly disagree with. > > A first century text called the Path to Freedom describes the > cultivation of mudita like this: > > > When one sees or hears that some person’s qualities are esteemed by > > others, and that he is at peace and is joyful, one thinks thus: > > “Sadhu! Sadhu! May he continue joyful for a long time!” > > (Sādhu, by the way, means something like “Yay!” or “Alright!” or > “Great!”) > > The records we have of the Buddha’s teachings don’t define mudita, and > the text above is the earliest I know of that gives us an indication > of what *mudita* is and how it’s to be cultivated. There are several > things that are significant here. > > - We’re asked to call to mind someone whose skillful qualities are developed to the point where others esteem them. Having *mudita* > involves recognizing what’s skillful. > - We’re not just being asked to call to mind someone who is happy, but someone who is happy (and at peace) *as a result of having those > skillful qualities*. So when we have *mudita* we see the connection > between skillful actions and their beneficial results. > - Appreciation is involved. We appreciate skillful qualities, and the peace and joy they bring, as being good things. > - Love is involved. Because we want what is good for them, we encourage this person’s future joy and happiness, by supporting, > rejoicing in, and encouraging their skillfulness. > - By valuing this other person’s skillfulness, and the peace and joy that come from it, we ourselves become joyful. So we’re cultivating a > state of appreciation that’s joyful. > > This all goes far, far beyond “being happy because someone is happy.” > That much more mundane experience is actually fraught with spiritual > difficulties, because a lot of the apparent happiness we see around us > arises on the basis of unskillful actions. We shouldn’t be glad that > someone is happy because they’ve just defrauded an old lady of her > life savings, for example. > > In summary, when we practice mudita we appreciate skillful attributes, > speech, and actions, and this brings joy. And so *mudita* is “joyful > appreciation.”

In DN 27 , the Buddha describes beings at the beginning of a world-cycle as:- > There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, this > cosmos expands. As the cosmos expands, sentient beings mostly pass > away from that host of radiant deities and come back to this > realm.**Here they are mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous**, > wandering in midair, steadily glorious, and they remain like that for > a very long time. These beings (often associated with the Ābhassara Brahmā realm) are said to precede differentiation into gross materiality, sexual distinction, and even external light sources such as the sun and moon, which only become apparent after their luminosity fades In standard early Buddhist analysis, individuation is typically explained in terms of distinct streams of aggregates conditioned by ignorance and craving. However, in this primordial phase, the narrative appears to precede the emergence of precisely those differentiating conditions tied to coarse embodiment and structured sensory fields. This seems to raise a problem about how plurality is being conceived in this passage. One possibility is that individuation is grounded in distinct streams of consciousness, even in the absence of coarse material support. But if that is the case, it is not immediately clear how this fits with standard formulations of dependent origination, where consciousness and name-and-form are mutually conditioning, and where the six sense bases play a central role in structuring experience. If the relevant differentiating structures have not yet arisen, in what sense can there already be numerically distinct continua? Another possibility is that “self-luminosity” (sayaṃ-pabhā) implies some form of self-manifestation that could ground individuation internally rather than externally. But this raises a further difficulty. If each being is self-manifesting in a way that secures its distinctness, doesn't this risk introducing a subtle form of intrinsic identity that would be difficult to reconcile with anattā?

Many scholastic systems of Buddhist thought seem to have develop highly sophisticated systems of epistemology and logic (e.g., pramāṇa theory in the works of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti), as well as dialectical reasoning in Madhyamaka (e.g., Nāgārjuna).The question which arises here is Can inferential cognition and logic ever give rise to liberating wisdom, or is liberation strictly dependent on non-conceptual perception? If ultimate truth is said to be beyond conceptual elaboration, how can logically mediated analysis contribute to its realization without remaining confined to the conventional level?

I read the following excerpt from a Hindi Book - Translation - > **Due to a lack of the concept of God and the soul (ātman) within the doctrine, certain > individuals rejected the original Dhamma.** Subhadra was among them, who > reportedly expressed satisfaction at the Buddha’s passing. > > Over time, these dissenters grew organized. Rejecting the original > Dhamma, they formed the Mahāsāṃghika sect, which was later transformed > into the Mahāyāna. This shift took place at Vaishali during the Second > Buddhist Council, roughly a century after the Buddha’s > Mahāparinirvāṇa. **Mahāyāna thus emerged from those opposed to the > original teaching, and its adherents systematically sidelined the > Buddha’s original mission.** By translating the Pali Canon into > Sanskrit, they rendered it inaccessible to the common people. In the > process, they undermined Pali literature, weakened the language > itself, and distorted the original Dhamma. > > **The Buddha explicitly taught that he was a human being and should not > be regarded as God, prophet, or divine messenger. Mahāyānists > overturned this entirely by deifying him and recasting an originally > non-theistic teacher into a theistic figure.** While the Buddha never > endorsed ritualism and worship, they institutionalized precisely those > practices in his name. > > In the 2nd century, a Brahmin named Nagarjuna embraced Mahāyāna and > monumentalized it. In the 3rd century, another Brahmin from Peshawar, > Asanga, adopted it and fused it with yogic doctrine. Though Mahāyāna > originated in Andhra Pradesh, it rapidly spread across Punjab, > Afghanistan, Central Asia, Tibet, China, Korea, Japan, Sikkim, Bhutan, > Taiwan, and Nepal , absorbing along the way idol worship, yogic > practices, and tantra. Śūnyavāda, which would later reappear in > Hinduism in form of Advaita Vedānta was Nagarjuna’s teaching. > > **Mahāyānists did not stop at deifying the Buddha; they freely > incorporated and continued the worship of Hindu deities such as > Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh (Shiva), Kartikeya, Chamunda, Ganesha, > Mahakala, and others.** They further incorportated the worship Hindu figures like the > Navagrahas, yakshas, gandharvas, and vidyādharas into their religious > framework. **In doing so, Mahāyāna became thoroughly entangled and enmeshed in a > dense web of theistic doctrines and miracle-centered beliefs.** ---------- Is this true ? Is there any support in Buddhist scholarship or early sources for the idea that Mahāyāna arose as a form of covert “rebellion” against the Buddha’s original teachings? Further, Are claims about intentional distortion of the Dhamma through systematic incorporation of external (e.g., Brahmanical) elements supported by evidence?

In the early Buddhist cosmological framework, the “formless realms” (arūpa-lokā) namely the spheres of infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, and neither-perception-nor-non-perception are frequently described as planes of rebirth accessible through mastery of the corresponding immaterial attainments (arūpa-samāpatti). However, the precise ontological status of beings reborn in these realms remains ambiguous. ---------- **1. What constitutes the “individual” in the arūpa realms?** If rūpa is entirely absent, are such beings to be understood purely in terms of residual viññāṇa (consciousness), or as configurations of the remaining aggregates (vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra, viññāṇa)? **2. How should we interpret the apparent continuity of identity in these realms?** Do the Nikāyas support a model of minimal subjectivity (e.g., “bare consciousness”), or do they resist any substantialist reading even at this level?

In discussions pertaining to early Buddhist doctrine, One often encounters the Pāli term punabbhava (Skt. punarbhava) within the suttas which is frequently translated as "rebirth" or "reincarnation". ( E.g natthi dāni punabbhavo’ti. ~ SN 56.11) Both English terms however carry significant metaphysical baggage, particularly implying notions of a persisting entity (atta/ātman) which the Nikāyas explicitly problematize. Modern scholarship and traditional exegetes appear divided on its interpretation. Some interpret punabbhava in line with conventional “rebirth” models, emphasizing continuity in future lives without identity.Still others suggest that punabbhava refers less to post-mortem destiny and more to moment-to-moment existential re-arising conditioned by craving. Questions for consideration:- 1. Are there any passages in the Nikāyas where punabbhava unambiguously requires a literal multi-life rebirth interpretation? 2. Conversely, are there contexts where reading it as an ongoing psychological/existential process (rather than post-mortem rebirth) better fits the textual evidence? 3. In the context of paṭicca-samuppāda, is punabbhava better understood temporally (across lifetimes) or phenomenologically (moment-to-moment arising)? 4. How do the commentaries ( e.g Aṭṭhakathā) interpret punabbhava, and should their readings be privileged in determining its meaning? 5. Is the ambiguity in punabbhava best understood as a deliberate feature of early Buddhist discourse, allowing both cosmological and phenomenological interpretations?

As a lay person, I’d like to find resources online to practice phowa because of a lack of masters I can meet in person where I live. Are there any good resources on the internet to achieve phowa? And has anyone here done the phowa practice?

In Temiya's previous life he was in hell for 80,000 years. There are 8 levels of hell. Each level was 20 times as long. There are 20 antara kalpas in hell for every asenkya kalpa. And what do you call 100,000 mahakalpas?

Say a person has *calcified his heart due to ego* and is devoid of any spiritual merit and has blinded his eyes of knowledge due to MAHAMOH. As per theory of karma he is bound to go to Lokantrika hell and therefore it is a state of eternal misery right?

Suppose a being has been corrupted completely that is it 1. Lacks buddhi 2. Inner conscience is dead 3. Has calcified heart of ego 4. No spiritual vision (complete blindness) The fault is that it willfully rejcted dharma and wilfully closing eyes to truth due to mahamoh (In simpler terms it has become soulless) Is this soul eternally damned in Buddhist philosophy as well as considered in western religions of Christianity, Islam and even in Hinduism as TAMO YOGYA coz the nature of soul has become fit for darkness

I don't think anyone that answered my questions about dharma or provided textual teaching about the dharma had any attachment to my wellbeing at all, and merely just "dropped pearls among the swine", as a christian would say. It is said that the Buddha did not want to teach Buddhism at all. I wonder if this is the way to go. I wonder if I should let go of my attachment to anyone's wellbeing. For example, my downstairs single mother neighbor drunk yells at her 9 year old child a lot, with severely slurred speech. I am attached to the emotional wellbeing of the child, and it makes me suffer to witness the yelling. Should I let go of this attachment?

Hello Beautiful People, I have a quick question. After years of meditating with a mixture of Mahasi and Goenka style, I would like to ask the following. Very often when I sit to mediate, it is a matter of seconds to experience a subtle sense of pleasure and/or spaciousness. But more interestingly, is that after meditating a bit more there comes a feeling that my eyes want to move upwards, almost like if they want to see behind my head/brain. The first times this eye movement happened, years ago, there was fear in me because this was unusual and unexpected - it was even a bit painful. But after letting this movement happen, I realized that the traditional lights, pleasure, and spaciousness became more present. Sometimes this leads to a very focalized pleasure spot at the top of my head and sometimes to the feeling that a very strong and interesting sense of pleasure would come from that spot (like if there is a cascade of pleasure emanating from the top of my head). The eye movement I am describing is not like REM. It is rather slow and it is directed upwards. So, I guess my question is: what is this eye movement thing? Is it described anywhere? Is it a Jhana thing? Is it a symptom of any stage of the path? Thanks!

I don't know whether this is allowed here but I don't know where to ask this question. I am someone who examines world religions and the more I read about Buddha, I feel like he was simply another cult-leader. My main objections are the following: 1. Buddha said advanced meditation practitioners acquire supernatural abilities called Iddhis, like going through walls, teleportation, etc. something that even Theravada school admits. Now, the Randi prize is still open, if such powers are possible, let any of the thousands of Buddhist monks worldwide show the ability. I know Buddha said not to get attached to the powers, but if it is true it should be at least demonstratable. Also, Buddha himself didn't show any powers on several occasions when those powers would have been necessary. 2. Buddha preached non-violence to the point where even self defense is not allowed - he told monks to let robbers kill them but not retaliate. This is ridiculous and will definitely lead to the fall of any society if followed. Even Buddha himself didn't follow it - when Devdutta tried to kill him, he made his leg rock solid which hurt Devdutta and he died (an act of self-defense). He also rebuked wars but called kings who used to plunder and have harems as 'righteous'. He also failed to stop wars or support any form of defensive wars. Not very enlightened eh? 3. Buddha laid a lot of stress on donating to the Sangha. The politics of Sangha almost shows that it was like any other cult. Also, for the sake of royal patronage, Buddha seems to have been very diplomatic with kings. Other cults like Jains used to call out Buddhists for enjoying luxurious lives. 4. Buddha's memory of previous lives is strange - if reincarnation is not real, then it automatically makes all these claims a lie - which means Buddha was a liar. Now, one way to establish that his recollections were lies is how he claims of lives millions, billions or even trillions of years ago. Now, unless cyclical Universe is true, lives trillions of years ago can't be true. Lives around 13 billion years ago also cannot be true since the Universe was very early to host life in any form. Millions of years ago, there were no humans on this planet (unless we assume he was talking about lives in alien planets). Altogether, I find Buddha to be just another cult leader and a liar. Given this, all his flowery philosophies of compassion, mercy, non-violence, seems impractical and hollow. What are your response as Buddhists?

Udāna 8.1 describes what appears to be a radically transcendent “dimension” — one beyond the elements, the formless attainments, and even beyond movement, time, and dualistic perception. It is characterized entirely by negation, culminating in the phrase: "just this is the end of stress/suffering."- > There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; > neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, > I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither > passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support > (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress. Have any advanced practitioners, past or present, claimed to have directly realized this dimension? If so: - How was the realization described? Was it marked by total cessation, a kind of knowing without content, or something altogether ineffable? - Was there awareness during the experience? Or did it resemble the cessation of perception and feeling (nirodha-samāpatti), with no consciousness during and only retrospective insight after? - How was the transition into and out of this dimension understood? Did it feel like a gradual absorption, a sudden drop, or a shift beyond all experience? - Did practitioners interpret it as a momentary event or as the uncovering of a timeless truth? In other words, is this dimension entered, or is it recognized as always already the case? - What changed after the experience? Were there shifts in perception, identity, or sense of reality that aligned with the description of “no coming, no going” and “no this world or another world”? ---------- I understand that language may fall short in describing such a realization, but I’m curious whether any teachings or testimonies exist that give practical or phenomenological insight into what this “dimension” might entail — and whether realization is framed as a momentary insight or an ongoing mode of liberation.

In the teaching of dependent origination, ignorance is presented as the initial condition from which the entire cycle of birth, suffering, and death unfolds. This raises a subtle but profound question: why is ignorance placed at the very beginning of this chain? Does this imply an absolute beginning in time, or is it pointing to a structural relationship in how suffering arises? In exploring this question, it may also be worth considering whether ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge, or if it refers to a deeper mis-perception of reality that underlies all conditioned experience. Clarification on how early Buddhist texts and later traditions understand this foundational role of ignorance would be appreciated.

I am seeking concise recommendations for studying Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka from beginner to advanced levels. The resources should cover its core philosophy, methods of reasoning, epistemology, and distinctions from other Madhyamaka views, ideally forming a clear progression for systematic study.

A few posts have been widely circulating on social media citing the following quotes from the Mahayana buddhist Lalitavistara sutra allegedly claiming gautama buddha to be the incarnation of the God Vishnu > Translation of the devanagari in the 2nd image - Your son is handsome, > endowed with brilliance, possessed of the 32 auspicious marks, and > filled with the power of Narayan (Vishnu). > > ~ Lalita Vistara, Janmaparivarta 66 Are the Above Quotes really mentioned in the Text? Are the corresponding interpretations correct? If yes, do Mahayana Buddhists really accept the conception of Buddha being an Avatar of Vishnu?