I am asking this in reference to the aircraft that crashed in India. Is there anything like collective karma, like the alayavijnana (Collective Consciousness)? ( I should not say this, but...) Like, sometimes the entire community suffers, like the Jews in the Second World War. Or sometimes there is an earthquake, natural disasters...If the dependent origination is correct, then should there be a reason behind the mass suffering?

Does the Buddha ever instruct us to meditate for the sake of meditation's immediate and temporary benefits? If we see meditation as a car for gaining insights and understanding, but also as a tool for improving our focus or mood or (non)reactivity - does the Buddha ever explicitly urge us to meditate for the latter effects?

If there is no self in mental formations and volition, then who carries out mindfulness? I try to see that there is no self in things. Is it not therefore that I am? 'Being mindful you'll see that even the ambition to be mindful has no self' - who sees that?

Thoughts about mine and things should be in this way,about children ,husband and relatives,it's the personality view. That is developed in our own mind.so we inflicted our own wounds. So we were in our own prison. So when this thinking stops personality view has destroyed. Isn't it?

Is there a tradition within Buddhism of praying in an easterly direction? If there is what is the oldest known reference to it. Sorry for the simplicity of the question, but I am not a Buddhist.

As far as I understand it, according to the theory of momentariness (*Kshana- Bhanga*, or *kṣaṇa*) the cause does not exist in the effect. A perishes before B arises. It arises from nothing. Even if we take the Zero energy universe model, shunyata is seen as emptiness of emptiness, and the Zero energy universe is more akin to Nirguna brahman than Shunyata. Nothing arises from nothing. My question is -- even if we say that the cause creates the effect, with what material does it do so? For example, if A gives rise to B, where did B come from? Is it the same substance/thing as A in a different form? If not, how did B arise from A? Even if A exists after or until B arises, how can a new B arise from A (unless B is A in a different form like water turning into vapor or unless A divides its substance/material into different parts)? Things cannot arise ex nihilo can they? If we assume that things are created anew, that is actually ex nihilo (and is also a problem that many Theists have with their God creating things from nothing). In actuality new things cannot be created, we see one root substance being transmutated into different components and forms but the root substance remains the same. Things cannot infinitely divide themselves. A cannot divide itself to become B, because the material would become infinitely smaller. No new materials are created. From what would they be created by? Actually new things in actuality cannot arise from existent things, let alone when such existent things have already perished before their effect arises, as in the case of khshana-bhanga. In nature we just see one substance being transmutated into different forms but the root substance remains the same. I think that materialism makes more sense than the theory of momentariness for this reason? The theory of atoms perishing and then giving birth to new atoms makes no sense. Even if Atoms didn't perish until new atoms were created, this would still be impossible as new things cannot arise substantially or materially as there is only transmutation/transformation in nature.in materialism that would be eternal subatomic components.

If everything exists for an instant only, as with Sautrāntika Buddhism, then doesn't that mean everything dies at the exact same time it is born? Isn't that impossible? I am not asking for an analysis of the sutta pitaka, but to understand how anyone could hold those two positions. Did it ever come up in historical debate?

I can't remember, perhaps it was a dream, a vague recalling at best...where does Buddha ask ‘do you want to be a dumb animal?’ I’m not accusing Buddha of calling animals dumb, I’m assuming he thought some animals are dumb…like some person (animal), but that other animals are smart, like some person. Anyway, does he say this?

Is there a term or concept for 'feeling' like there's a "me", or for 'feeling' like something "belongs to myself"? Recently I was able to distinguish between two types of feelings, one where the feeling is just there and everything is fine, and another where a "me" is involved that "has" the feeling. The latter comes with a sensation, so I wonder if Buddhism has a notion of this sort of feeling that there's an identification or self that is involved.

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?

Psychedelic substances such as psilocybin or LSD often induce experiences described as "ego death," where the usual sense of self dissolves and a feeling of unity or boundlessness arises. Some interpret these states as glimpses of spiritual truth, potentially similar to Buddhist insights into anattā (non-self) or śūnyatā (emptiness). From a Buddhist perspective, are these chemically induced experiences considered valid insights into the nature of self and reality, or are they fundamentally different from the realizations attained through traditional Buddhist practice? Are there teachings or commentaries that address the nature or value of such experiences?

I am practicing Vipassana meditation and I want to know is it possible to practice samadhi/anapana and pragya/Vipassana without following Sila.

The Buddha advises that the middle way be taken. The discussion around the middle way sounds to me like a "it is not needed to be so krass" type view on asceticism. But is it still beneficial for enlightenment? Or does the Buddha actually mean to say that asceticism will hinder you from approaching stream entry?

So far as I understand the terminology, there are two levels of knowledge: 1. "conceptual knowledge" like "man" and "woman" 2. "ultimate reality" like the five khandas The importance of understanding Anatta or Anatman (egolessness) as the "ultimate reality" is explained in Access to Insight article on Egolessness: - [The Three Basic Facts of Existence III. Egolessness (Anatta)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel202.html) Anatta contemplation is about a clear understanding of egolessness. Does this insight come from Dhammanupassana (contemplation on the teachings of the Buddha)? As an example of this question, how do these two fit together: - “There is no doer, but only the doing” - The yogi should just note “seeing, seeing”.

Cartels in Mexico force people to join and if they try to escape they kill them. Why don't people who achieve Nirvana care to make everyone in the world like them?

I am going for minor operation. Should I ask for anesthesia or do without it(seeing the unpleasant sensation equanimously) ? And when I have orgasm or very tasty food it's very difficult to see the sensation equanimously. What to do? Any tips to remain in equanimity in orgasm ?(too difficult!) Isn't anesthesia same as alcohol ? (numb your consciousness )

Sometimes the meditation is good and sometimes it is chaos. I follow the eightfold path as much as I can. I feel the progress is solely dependent on 'samma samadhi'. I dont have ill will or anger or hatred or sorrow anymore. Still I think progress in meditation is measure of how much one has progressed on the path of dhamma. But this is frustrating as I am not able to reach the elusive jhanas. How do I comfort myself that I am making progress each day on the path of dhamma?

The three kinds of suffering as mentioned in SN45.165 : > [1] Suffering caused by pain, > [2] suffering caused by the formations > suffering due to change. Does the EBT (and elsewhere) suggest, or give examples of a mixture, or juxtaposition of the three types of dukkha? Sallatha Sutta: The Arrow might fit the bill, but where else?

After a prolonged struggle with various eating disorders (atypical, anorexia, bulimia, BED) over nearly two years, as well as ongoing mood disorders and severe anxiety for the past three, I've found conventional self-guided Western CBT therapies, and even standalone meditation, largely ineffective for me. Significant barriers (financial, temporal, locational, cultural conditioning) limit my access to consistent professional therapy, and will likely remain in place for the foreseeable future. Believe me, I've tried. I'm looking for an alternative path, a fundamentally different framework than modern psychology, to address a deep-seated lack of purpose and unresolved trauma, ultimately seeking peace of mind. I've long been drawn to the exploration of Western neuroscience and cognitive science on Buddhism, specifically the tangible benefits of mindfulness meditation. My "hope" is to find a Buddhist school that aligns with, and ideally offers a practical experience similar to, approaches like MBSR, MBCT, and DBT, despite their fundamental differences from traditional Buddhism. This leads to my core questions: 1. **Influence of Buddhist Schools on Western Therapies:** How much influence do different Buddhist schools (e.g., Theravada, Zen, Pure Land, Tibetan) have on the development and practice of: * Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) * Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT) * Acceptance-Based Therapies (e.g., ACT) * Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) * Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) I understand that Western mindfulness, particularly MBSR/MBCT, is often linked to Theravada (Vipassanā, as seen in the Insight Meditation Society and "Mindfulness in Plain English"). However, I've also come across arguments for significant Zen Buddhist influence on Jon Kabat-Zinn's work, which resonates with the "non-dualistic" feel of modern mindfulness. 2. **Is it problematic to choose a Buddhist school based on these inspirations?** Given my past experiences and current limitations, is it a "wrong" approach to seek a Buddhist tradition that primarily contributed to, or feels practically similar to, these Western therapeutic modalities? My aim is not necessarily "enlightenment" in the traditional sense, but rather a path to alleviate suffering and cultivate inner peace, perhaps building positive karma for future lives (as a layperson, taking a stoic approach to the ultimate goal). 3. **Navigating Availability and Personal Preference:** I'm personally more attracted to Theravada's "down-to-earth" step-by-step Eightfold Path and emphasis on mindfulness, along with the sense of certainty from practices like one meal a day and abstinence from alcohol. However, in both my current city and home city, Mahayana denominations are more readily available (authentic Chan, Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village, and a modernized immigrant Pure Land school). I've visited the immigrant Pure Land and authentic Chan centers, but they simply don't "click" with me; they feel "weird" and I don't like them. I haven't had the opportunity to visit a Theravada temple for comparison. If I choose Theravada, I'd likely need to rely on online sanghas, which may not accommodate my timezone. Given my intention to remain a layperson and focus on personal practice for peace of mind and perhaps future karmic benefit, I'm unsure how crucial an in-person or online sangha is for my goals. Any insights on these points, particularly regarding the historical influences and the appropriateness of my approach to choosing a path, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

As i was told pinpotha is a traditional book used by sri lankan lay people. It is used to keep a track of all the good things they do. I made a digital version of pinpotha (epinpotha.lk ). Can someone explain me the real concept behind this.