A while ago I noticed that dispassion (viraga) toward arising thoughts can give great peace. It wasn't really a artificial dispassion, rather, it came naturally after contemplation. Now I'm wondering if it makes sense to actively nurture such dispassion toward not just thoughts but also emotions - like anxiety due to worries of personal outcome. Is this something that actually exists in buddhism? I only know of advice to just observe and be with emotion as they come and go, and never heard of the idea of having a certain view or stance or attitude toward emotion.

In this answer , a user writes: > The Buddhist scriptures attributed to the Buddha contain > contradictions, obvious frauds, obvious later-day insertions, etc., > therefore there can be no scriptural authority in Buddhism; apart from > what can be verified for oneself as being true & real that leads to > the ending of suffering. This raises the question:- How can one objectively determine which parts of the Buddhist scriptures, particularly the suttas are likely to be original teachings of the Buddha, and which may be later interpolations or corruptions? What criteria are used in this process? Are there scholarly or traditional methods that help identify interpolations, such as historical analysis, linguistic patterns, consistency with core teachings, or comparisons across early textual traditions? Additionally, how can we be sure that what some modern practitioners or scholars label as later additions were not already part of the original oral tradition? Why could some of these elements not be understood through reinterpretation rather than being dismissed outright? Are there critical editions of the suttas or major academic resources that address this issue? I am interested in perspectives based on traditional commentaries, scriptural analysis, and modern scholarship.

Even though the Pali Suttas appear devoid of the idea masculinity & femininity are results of past kamma, such ideas appear to remain fertile in worldly Buddhism. I read the following on the internet: > I think this is pretty obvious. Karma functions as a universal law and > our situation, the form we are born in is decided by karma. One of the > sexes is naturally more advantageous than the other, despite women > having an easier time in modern society, even just anatomically they > are less fortunate. **Then of course like the Buddha explained, women > are unable to shake their desire for sex, reproduction** and no Buddha > will be born in the form of a woman. Indicated males are more > advantageous. Also hence why there are more vinaya rules for women If the above is true and if desire for sex and reproduction is the cause of rebirth as a woman, what is the cause of rebirth as a man (including as men with multiple wives, as mentioned in SN 55.7)?

I read the following on the internet: > So beings are born into a sex due to their past actions and results. Which Pali suttas explain the above?

Is there such a chant, that deals with thinking in this manner? I have come to recognize that I can cease adding unskillful thinking, but right now, I feel like I need to remind myself that I have this conviction. Only through remembering, can I disidentify with unskillful thought patterns when they arise, "this is not me". So I was wondering if any such chant exists.

Over the years, I’ve lost friends and family connections, and I often find that people distance themselves from me for reasons I can’t understand. I try to build friendships, but others rarely accept my invitations or respond. Even those I’m on good terms with tend to keep their distance. I've stopped inviting people out to do things because of so much rejection. Even when they do accept, I can't seem to make connection with them. Sometimes, people that I know for long start turning against me, as in they actually become like enemies. Meanwhile I don't recall doing anything bad to them intentionally. This repeated pattern makes me feel that the world is against me, and since human connection is such a large part of life, I feel doomed. I’ve reflected deeply but haven’t found clarity. How can one overcome such a state? I'd like concrete things that I can do to measurably improve in this. (I know of metta, but I doubt it is much helpful in my case?). Thanks!

What are the actual suttas in which the Buddha described how to meditate? A list of all such suttas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I usually focus on breath at the stomach but recently decided to try at the nostrils as I read it's better and also that's what the Buddha taught. I have no problem feeling the breath going in as it feels cooler but 99% of the time I feel nothing breathing out. So I just try to focus my mind in that area even though there's no sensation bring felt. Is this OK or should I just stick to stomach?

[This answer on Reddit](https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/12flgq9/what_are_some_arguments_for_reincarnation_from_a/jfgry4f/) gave a basic outline of [Dharmakīrti's argument for rebirth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)#Metaphysical_arguments) in the form of a syllogism: 1. Matter and consciousness are metaphysically different, their characteristics and nature are different 2. An effect must be of the same nature as its substantial cause 3. Thus consciousness cannot arise from or be produced by matter (1, 2) 4. Conclusion: Therefore, there must have a been a consciousness prior to any person's conception which causes the first moment of consciousness in this life For the sake of the question, let's assume that you accept this line of argumentation. The question then becomes, how did the first mental event arise according to this framework? Of course, there is the idea that many immaterial intellects exist in the transcendent realms some of which stretch beyond iterations of the universe and many eons, but at the same time, for there to be so many creatures on just this planet with consciousness would implicate that billions upon billions, if not more, immaterial entities survived the past iteration(s) and eons and made it to this one, and also never achieved enlightenment during that time, which seems highly implausible. Perhaps the Yogacara idea of the store-house consciousness must be of use here, but it would be difficult to prove, I'm not too sure. If anyone knows more about Dharmakīrti's thinking with regards to this, please share your knowledge.

Ānanda, the earth rests on water, the water rests on air, and the air rests on space. When a great wind blows, the water is stirred, which in turn causes the earth to shake—resulting in an earthquake **Is that scientifically accurate regarding how the Earth is *structured*? And *cause* for earthquake**

I’ve heard many people say that Buddhist texts refer to a flat Earth. Is it true that Buddhism considers the Earth to be flat? Please give an unbiased answer.

I feel curious about what it actually feels like when someone directly experiences anatta. How do practitioners describe that experience? Is it sudden or gradual? Does it come with a sense of liberation, fear, or something else entirely? I’m especially interested in how this experience is understood or explained within different traditions, like Theravāda or Zen, if there are differences. Please note I'm not looking for just theoretical explanations. I’d really appreciate if there are descriptions from those who lived and felt experience of realizing anatta.

A blogger writing under the name of 'Durga Bhakti Tāraṅgiṇī' has published an article in which Vajrayāna Buddhism is directly accused of outright plagiarising deities and theological concepts from the Śākta and Śaiva streams of Āgamic Hinduism. According to the author, Vajrayāna did not merely absorb superficial cultural elements. It is accused of deliberately lifting and distorting core elements of the Āgamic traditions. To quote directly from their article - > Vajrayāna, a later Buddhist sect was influenced by Śaivism and > Śaktism. Rather than influencing others, it stole many concepts from > Āgamic cultures. Ancient Buddhism didn't observe Āgamic culture. Upon > entering Eastern India, it became influenced by Āgamic sects ( > Ḍāmarika, Kāpālika, Śākta, Kaula, Śaiva). They started to worship > various Devatās and Devīs. Thereafter they tried to destroy real > Āgamic rituals, sculptures and concepts. Here are some evidences of > their destructions. And further: > **the concepts of Pañca Dhyānībuddhas (Vajrōcana, Akṣobhya, > Ratnasambhava, Amitābha and Amoghasiddhi) came from the five forms of > Sadāśiva (Īśāna, Sadyojāta, Tatpuruṣa, Aghōra and Vāmadeva). They > destroyed the Rudra Khaṇḍa of Śivaliṅga and made the idols of Pañca > Dhyānībuddhas on the Yonīpīṭha or Gaurīpaṭṭa**. The author includes the Bodhisattva Tārā in this purported list of deities involved in iconographic plagiarism. > Vajrayānī Buddhists worship a different iconography of Tārādevī. She > is green in color and she has two hands. Except her, they also worship > 21 forms of Goddess Tārā. But the ironic fact is, the Green Tārā > iconography was also stolen from Śākta Śāstras This line of argumentation, which is not without precedent in polemical literature, raises significant questions for those versed in the historical evolution of Vajrayāna doctrine and praxis. The article cites a number of scholars and textual references to support its thesis of ideological and artistic borrowing. I would respectfully request insight from those deeply familiar with the doctrinal, historical, and ritual development of Vajrayāna Buddhism and comparative theology to offer clarification or rebuttal to the above claims based on historical sources and textual references.

Am I right that Gauthama Budda did not teach to worship the Hindu Gods? Did he teach not to worship them? Maybe my questions sound stupid to a Buddhist but I am practising Islam and do not know very much about Buddhism. Peace be with you, and thank you for you help.

In SN 44.9, the wanderer Vacchagotta declares: > So I was simply befuddled. I was uncertain: How is the teaching of > Gotama the contemplative to be understood? Then, later, the befuddled Vacchagotta asks the Buddha: > And at the moment when a being (satto) sets this body (kāyaṁ) aside > and is not yet reborn (anupapanno) in another body, what do you > designate as its sustenance (upādānasmiṁ) then? The Buddha replies: > Vaccha, when a being (satto) sets this body aside and is not yet > reborn (anupapanno) in another body, I designate it as > craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance (upādānaṁ) at that time. Is SN 44.9 a supramundane ([lokuttara](https://suttacentral.net/define/lokuttara?lang=en)) sutta?

The sutta DN 22 offers an extended description of craving, as follows: > "And where does this craving, when arising, arise? And where, when > dwelling, does it dwell? Whatever seems endearing and agreeable in > terms of the world: that is where this craving, when arising, arises. > That is where, when dwelling, it dwells. "And what seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world? > > The eye seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world. That is where > this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it > dwells. > > "The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect... > > "Forms... Sounds... Smells... Tastes... Tactile sensations... Ideas... > > "Eye-consciousness... Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... > Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... > Intellect-consciousness... > > "Eye-contact... Ear-contact... Nose-contact... Tongue-contact... > Body-contact... Intellect-contact... > > "Feeling born of eye-contact... Feeling born of ear-contact... Feeling > born of nose-contact... Feeling born of tongue-contact... Feeling born > of body-contact... Feeling born of intellect-contact... > > "Perception of forms... Perception of sounds... Perception of > smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... > Perception of ideas... > > "Intention for forms... Intention for sounds... Intention for > smells... Intention for tastes... Intention for tactile sensations... > Intention for ideas... > > "Craving for forms... Craving for sounds... Craving for smells... > Craving for tastes... Craving for tactile sensations... Craving for > ideas... > > "Thought directed at forms... Thought directed at sounds... Thought > directed at smells... Thought directed at tastes... Thought directed > at tactile sensations... Thought directed at ideas... > > "Evaluation of forms... Evaluation of sounds... Evaluation of > smells... Evaluation of tastes... Evaluation of tactile sensations... > Evaluation of ideas seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the > world. > > That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when > dwelling, it dwells. > > DN 22 In SN 44.9, there is a discussion with the chronically confused & bewildered wanderer Vaccagotta (more nuancedly translated by Thanissaro and Bhikkhu Bodhi below) as follows: > “Yasmiñca pana, bho gotama, samaye imañca kāyaṁ nikkhipati, satto ca aññataraṁ kāyaṁ anupapanno hoti, imassa pana bhavaṁ gotamo kiṁ upādānasmiṁ paññāpetī”ti? > > “Yasmiṁ kho, vaccha, samaye imañca kāyaṁ nikkhipati, satto ca aññataraṁ kāyaṁ anupapanno hoti, tamahaṁ taṇhūpādānaṁ vadāmi. Taṇhā hissa, vaccha, tasmiṁ samaye upādānaṁ hotī”ti. > > "And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet > reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?" > > "Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time." > > [Thanissaro](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.009.than.html) > > > Bhikkhu Bodhi In SN 44.9, what thing/phenomena exactly is sustained by craving?

I read the following on the internet: > Talking about semantics again. I guess you still didn't learn the > definition of the word. Paranibanna and death are synonymous. You are > just being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic... for no reason at > all. Please discuss this.

In traditional Buddhist texts, Solar and lunar eclipses are often seen as being caused by a demon named Rāhu who attempts to seize the sun or moon, as seen for example in the SN 2.9 and 2.10 where the Buddha speaks of Rāhu releasing the sun or moon after the Buddha’s intervention. This is pretty similar to the mythical explanation of eclipses found in Hindu puranas. Today in light of modern science, eclipses are understood as natural events governed by the movement and alignment of the earth, moon, and sun. There is no magical phenomenon behind it and no gods or demons involved. Is there room within Buddhist philosophy for integrating or accepting the astronomical explanation of eclipses, or would that be seen as rejecting scriptural authority?

What are some kind, wholesome, skillful, wise and helpful responses and views to the following various claims of body ownership: “The United States government claims 100% ownership over all your DNA and reproductive rights. This astonishing revelation has emerged from the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office claims the power to assign ownership of your DNA to private companies and universities who apply for patents on your genes. To date, more than 4,000 genes have been assigned ownership to corporations and universities by the U.S. patent office. Such an assignment of ownership proves that the government believes it owns 100% of all human genes -- you cannot transfer ownership of something unless you first own it yourself. To date, 20 percent of your genetic code is owned by someone else. About two-thirds of these patents belong to private companies, and one-third belong to universities. The company that owns the most patents is called Incyte, a drug company based in California which "owns" the patents on 2,000 human genes.” Via https://www.naturalnews.com/040400_gene_patents_genetic_slavery_human_DNA.html And from 2012 via http://anh-usa.org/fda-new-claim-body-is-a-drug/ : ...[The] FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states! We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-C™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells. The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Medical Clinic for two reasons: 1) Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!) 2)The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by the FDA. A similar principle applies across industries—whether it's medical treatments or consumer products like Miami Blinds , interstate movement and consumer behavior can directly impact regulatory oversight and market dynamics.” [note: full articles linked here link to source documents]

Aside from the Agganna Sutta, are there other Buddhist texts that discuss how the world or the universe came into existence?