The Sabba Sutta (SN 35.23) (trans. Thanissaro) states: > The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & > sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, > intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who > would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if > questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, > would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. > Why? Because it lies beyond range." The commentary on this sutta by Thanissaro Bhikkhu states: > Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24 ) says that the "All" is > to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be > abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (*nirodha*), which is to be > realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be > done. > > Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to > limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to > the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse > shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and > feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana > would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another > point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest > of all dhammas (Iti 90 ), while the arahant has gone beyond even > dispassion (Sn 4.6 ; Sn 4.10 ). > > This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, > does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena > are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 > states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining > (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is > to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to objectify > the unobjectified — see the Introduction to MN 18 ). The range of > differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or > not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond > the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all > differentiation is allayed. On the other hand, Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in the book The Connected Discourses of the Buddha Vol II : > On first consideration, it would seem that the six internal and > external sense bases should be understood simply as the six sense > faculties and their objects, with the term *āyatana*, base, having the > sense of origin or source. Though many suttas lend support to this > supposition, the Theravada exegetical tradition, beginning already > from the Abhidhamma period, understands the six pairs of bases as a > complete scheme of classification capable of accommodating all the > factors of existence mentioned in the Nikayas. This conception of the > six bases probably originated from the Sabba Sutta (35:23) , in which > the Buddha says that the six pairs of bases are "the all" apart from > which nothing at all exists. To make the six bases capable of > literally incorporating everything, the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma > Pitaka defines the mind base (*manāyatana*) as including all classes > of consciousness, and the mental phenomena base (*dhammāyatana*) as > including the other three mental aggregates, subtle nonsensuous types > of form, and even the unconditioned element, Nibbāna (see Vibh 70-73). So, Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that Nibbana is not included in The All. Bhikkhu Bodhi says Nibbana is included in The All. Who is right? And why? What is also interesting is that Bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation would put all types of consciousness within the classification of the six sense bases.

So I notice that I have what I consider to be intense meditation experiences as a beginner. I still consider myself as a beginner because I am not following any guidelines or books or yoga practices. Plus I get scared and stop meditating for long periods of times because of Fear of the unknown. But in my meditations it's just me and music or me and crystals (mostly Amethyst). Today I was listening to a Theta Vibration YouTube video and began to notice I was going to deeper into meditation I started to have Rapid Eye Movement. I told myself that I should not fear this and as I did I got passed the eye movement. I then started to feel my hands in a specific position and my index fingers being bent upwards toward the ceiling (not uncomfortable) I then became more blissful and serene. But my main question is, "IS it normal to feel your hands and arms raise mere inches off the bed? (I lay down during my meditations, I notice laying down works best for me.) What is my body healing in order to be feeling what I experience as this type of levitation in my arms? I have felt this in my legs too another time. What is my body doing in this process? Thanks in advance for any answer. I'm not sure who to talk to about my experiences. Thanks, Alicia

Aside of the trap of self-overestimating, theoretical (abhidhamma in action): When one is asked a question and brings his person, his estimate, into play, is it possible to give an answer which is not biased, does not protect ones stand or ones disabilities at first place (i.e. minimum holding something back)? Is a person able to give a "objective" answer if the mind is caught by identification-views intentionally? Wouldn't such a person, in such a state not either give a non-biased answer certain unaware of certain "self-damaging" or be shameless? In cases of being aware and fearing "self-damaging" simply not answering? (May one not fear or be ashamed of skillful actions while trying to give an answer.)

I read the following ideas on the internet by Mahayana faithful: > Namarupa means "name-form" - meaning "a concept of form", "an idea of > form" - referring to our subjective representations of external and > internal phenomena, as well as the most important Name-Form, our idea > of self. So in my understanding, every time we delineate [external!] objects, our ideas of objects keep getting more concrete. And then these ideas feed back into the delineation process, making delineation more precise but also more rigid and fixed. Thus these two - "the process of delineation" and "the collection of ideas" - support each other in their growth and development. And, in affirming the above idea and negating an alternate explanation, another Mahayana said: > But your understanding of consciousness and name-form is not Buddhist. > It's not even logically correct. Now, in the Pali suttas of SN 12.2 and MN 9, "nama-rupa" is described as follows: > And what are nama and rupa? > > Katamañca, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ? > > Feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention. > > Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro— > > This is called nama. > > idaṃ vuccati nāmaṃ. > > The four primary elements and form derived from the four primary > elements. > > Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ. > > This is called rupa. > > Idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ. In his translation of the Majjhima Nikaya in 1995, Bhikkhu Bodhi translated 'nama-rupa' as 'mentality-materiality' as follows: > When, friends, a noble disciple understands mentality-materiality, the > origin of mentality-materiality, the cessation of > mentality-materiality, and the way leading to the cessation of > mentality-materiality, in that way he is one of right view…and has > arrived at this true Dhamma. > > Feeling, perception, volition, contact, and attention—these are called > mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from > the four great elements—these are called materiality. > >MN 9 Also, in the Pali, the word "nimitta" is often found, to mean "theme" or "sign". For example, ideas such as "beautiful" are said to be a "nimitta". The Pali (MN 43) says such nimitta are produced by greed, hatred & delusion. Therefore, the impression is these nimitta are much more than mere "perception" ("sanna"). At least in the Pali, "nimitta" appear to be "mental formations" ("sankhara"). My questions are: 1. How does the Pali definition above about "feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention" describe the Mahayana idea of "a concept of form" and "an idea of form"? Particularly how do the Pali terms "contact", "intention" and "attention" operate as part of this Mahayana "a concept of form" and "an idea of form"? 2. How is the Mahayana "a concept of form" and "an idea of form" different to the Pali "nimitta"?

According to Buddhism, should one change oneself or change the world and why.

Trying to get useful and helpful information on this site is very difficult. Why do Buddhists have so many conflicting opinions? It's kind of ridiculous and just one more reason why I can never take religion seriously even though I appreciate some of the teachings that resonate with me. Some examples I've noticed- The western insight tradition emphasises acknowledging, turning toward, facing whatever is present so for example if anger arises one is to recognise it, investigate how it feels in the body etc but to not identify with it. The same goes for everything else, thought, sensations, emotions etc. But Ive noticed one school of thought with people on this site who say you must try to rid your mind of certain unskillful feelings and thoughts and try to replace them with skillful ones. These two ideas seem to conflict with each other. You can't face and turn towards and get rid of at the same time. I have to say it makes much more sense to me to acknowledge what is already present and notice how it goes away of its own accord because of anicca rather than forcing it. Another conflict I've noticed is the labeling, noting. Again the western insight tradition, Mahasi Sayadaw, yuttadhamma Bikhu emphasise the labeling. One teacher that took a retreat I went on has been practicing for over 40 years and still labels when walking etc. But then other people on here say you shouldn't. Yuttadhamma Bikhu says that by labelling you are replacing the thoughts etc with clear thought. So instead of being lost in proliferation you say to yourself in your mind "thinking thinking" and then you have replaced the thoughts. I have to say that this works. As soon as a thought is recognised and named its gone. So again not sure why some say it's not correct. It works for me so I will keep on doing it. In the end I believe spirituality is a personal journey and no one can really tell another what is right without it just becoming dogmatic.

What does this fetter really refer to? Is it clinging to rites & rituals and thinking that these practises by their own can lead to liberation OR does it refer to clinging to precepts? If it is the former, then most "rational" inclined people should have little to none of this fetter, no? If it's the latter, then it's NOT about blindly believing a precept, but questioning it and seeing for oneself that it's helpful. However, it appears to me that many rules in the vinyana are there to avoid social faux pax and unnecessary conflicts. If we take the not-eating-after-noon precept, we will see that the Buddha has reason for devising such precept; but do those reasons still hold true nowadays? I doubt it. So if most monks just follow rules and precepts because the Buddha said so (or they are deemed to be effective), then this is called Silabbata Parāmāsa?

Or is it just to maintain ones home, dwelling, without any fruits toward liberation? Given one is in debt, is it wise to seek advices by those in debts or wouln't it be smarter to ask those having left this state?

Just expanding on this answer is the Buddhist path one of 'selfless offering of oneself and efforts' or of 'inner kindness' i.e. kindness to oneself. Or is it both or neither. I've come across both themes and both seem right but to me they contradict. Of course Buddhist is about many other things including outer kindness (to all beings) but right now I'm interested in these two aspects. Many thanks as always

According to the traditional Buddhist dogma the fourth noble truth or eight-fold path is the way to attain Enlightenment then again some sects in Buddhism accept karma as a factor. Not knowing (gnosis) what your karma was in your previous life and how it affects your current life to attain Enlightenment makes you wonder about the illusory nature of karma or Buddhism itself. What's the view Buddhism has on your own chances to obtain Enlightenment? Is it because Enlightenment is just like truth and there are different degrees of Enlightenment? Is it because Enlightenment is like a path or direction you take in existence like a boat that heads west but the wind (karma) sometimes prevents you from moving forwards? Is it because Enlightenment is just like a riddle the Buddha plays to tell you about that characteristic of perception that makes you realize something that was always there but you were unaware of, or perhaps Enlightenment is the ultimate version of that? Or perhaps there is no Enlightenment and it's just the pursuit of it that gives us purpose in life and therefore less suffering (as long as we take the middle way of course...)? > "There is no spoon" The Matrix

I've been searching around forums for the maximum time that is productive to do a single meditation sit. There are lots of comments around over 20 minute mark for effectiveness and sitting for the hour is the most I've seen anyone say they sit. But what is the maximum that one should reasonably sit for before it becomes counter productive or at least diminishing returns set in? As a side note I remember Jack Kornfield relating that a retreatant of his declared that he was going to sit for as long as it took to get enlightened. He didn't get enlightened and the whole episode didn't go that well for that individual

Kalama Sutta is a key part of the Buddhist teaching that tells you to question everything, not to blindly follow any dogma or teacher. This is one of the features that make this religion/philosophy so special however this view seems to be contradictory in many Buddhist circles. Many monks and Buddhists shave their heads and wear mallahs to identify themselves more with the doctrine (ego and attachment) or perhaps to fit in better within the "Buddhist gang" as if this dogma was the ultimate truth and they may get offended when you "dare" to question their "faith" or their idolized masters. They rarely question the Sangha with psychology, existential philosophy, other religions and they seem to fall in love with it following this process of dependency by illusionment/attachment/joy and ultimately doubt disillusionment/detachment/sadness which is clearly explained in the Buddhist sutra itself. Osel Hita (a Spaniard who has appointed by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of lama Yeshe) quit Buddhism and complained about how much suffering he had to endure during his childhood nevertheless this is rarely debated within Buddhist circles. In some Buddhist countries children are indoctrinated in the dogma therefore they see it as truth and don't question it therefore it is used as a political tool for the masses. It is true that the Sangha may have saved some peoples lives and so has the army, Scientology and the Christian Church but this has to do with psychology, purpose in life and mental health and it doesn't make Buddhism any better. Meditation has been proven by the World Health Organization to be beneficial for mental health nevertheless you don't hear much from monks that you don't really need to be a Buddhist to meditate. Some features of the dogma such us Bardos , Rebirth or (reincarnation), Samsara or even Enlightenment have vague definitions or are impossible to double check because they are based of the subjective experiences of masters or monks and it's up to the practitioner to believe them or not and have the same credibility has "original sin, virgin birth, Heaven, etc." and even less than the Simulation Hypothesis . Some people left Buddhism because their views on the oneness of consciousness or karma were not compatible with the view shared by the particular sect (Zen, Chan, Tibetan, etc). Siddhārtha Gautama was a dissident of believes the vedas to attain enlightenment and escape the wheel so Samsara so was Jesus Christ , and Lao Tse and the main spiritual figures in human history. **Isn't Kalama Sutta encouraging you to do just that? Isn't Kalama Sutta telling you that it's better to be a free-thinker than a Buddhist, at least in some cases? Isn't it Buddhistic to go beyond Buddhism?** *This question is an adaptation of the Reptilian Conspiracy vs Buddhism question which was not accepted in this forum and Criticism on the Buddhism from Wikipedia and both articles here and here .* > “A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he > generally believes to be true.“ Demosthenes 384-322 BC > > “Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want > their illusions destroyed.” Friedrich Nietzsche > > “You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not > based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe” Carl > Sagan > > “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at > least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” ― > René Descartes > > “My religion is based on truth and non-violence. Truth is my God. > Non-violence is the means of realising Him.“ Mahatma Gandhi > > John 8:32 “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you > free.” > > “There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not > going all the way, and not starting.” Buddha? (or not...doesn't > matter)

Where should we go for the rest what is the rest ? In mundane life living is so tough , facing sorrow , troubles and need to struggle for achieve something physical things and we get hurt because craving. As I'm doing myself I'm feeling nothing and restless because craving and got nothing after craving and everything is over . So where to focus , what is aim of one Buddhist. I never practice and now I don't understand from where to start, not feeling to start.

If there is afterlife and sentient beings revolving around life after life in 3 different realms, and there is cosmic law that liberates all living beings and actually is eager to do so, then beings must be given ability to observe and realize the truth about samsaric worlds. However all Buddhist text books(eg. DN16, 22) indicate that only after one reaches fourth jhana one is able to acquire special wisdom to penetrate the reality of revolve around. Moreover the 4th jhana is known very hard to reach unless so much of effort should be put on. I seriously doubt the theory of samsara. Can anyone point out any flaws in my understanding and show how samsara could be real?

As explained here Buddhism does no belong into pantheism because God can be interpreted no as oneness but a creation of the mind as the fourth aggregate explains (eg. "an invisible man who lives in the sky who is separated from you etc") that implies something separated from you. Nevertheless the third mark of existence "Anatta" tells you that there is no self that is to say the idea of you (ego) is illusory. Is is right from a Buddhistic point of view to say that you and me are the same because there is only **one consciousness** playing different minds(egos, personalities, psychologies, etc) and bodies of all sentient creatures at the same time. Eg. "the same driver driving all the cars at the same time in present, past and future"

In this article , it has mentioned that; >During the time of the Buddha there were two ways by which one could understand the Dhamma and realise the path to Nibbana. One is called “paratoghosa paccaya.” Hearing the true Dhamma from others who know it. The other is called “sammasati” or practice of meditation. Would anyone please give me reference from Pali canon or any other book for the above statement?

A while ago I attended a Tibetan Buddhist group. They were very nice but I just couldn't get on with the visualisation practices. I find it reasonably clear how mindfulness of breathing becomes an insight practice and metta bhavana. But I just couldn't see how an intricate visualisation practice would lead to an understanding of conditioned existence, suffering, no fixed self or any of it really. How do visualisation practices relate to insight? Additional detail - the practice involved the Buddha in a bright blue sky on a throne and I remember there were snow leopards under the throne and light was going out of the Buddha.

Supposed that respect, veneration and any kind of wisdom has gone missing; and that the Sangha has become a group of householder wearing robes; and the leaders of the Sasana are all but householders. In that case, should the Noble Sangha, the Savaka Sangha, let go of their heritage, like one with Sila would give up a book that has become a target of white ants? It's a serious question. While the Buddha did not allow his monks to give up Sangha heritage, generally he allowed it in case thieves and robbers would destroy things and harm in cases the monks would hold on it. Is that, the degeneration, actually the reason why such as householder movements became that popular? Spoken in numbers, there are about 99% of laypeople (incl. those in robes) who are engaged in depriving the Dhamma from the Sangha, making a livelihood from it; and somewhat 1% who dedicate their sacrifices toward the gems, and respect the recluses. I doubt that any at large had understood the meaning of "making the Dhamma your own", yet, with total confusion, running after it out of context. Should the Noble Sangha let them follow their inclinations which brings not only them long time suffering but for many? Resting simply in "Beings are heirs of their kamma..." or still share as much as compassion as possible to keep those able away from doing really grave wrong doings?

In Mudita meditation or Joy Meditation I am supposed to experience Joy for all beings. But I don't know which aspect of living beings is worth celebrating. My question is : How should I express Mudita or Joy for all beings? EDIT: To support my mental dilemma I quote Maiterya. > Just as there can be no pleasant fragrance in a cesspit There is no > joy among the five classes of beings. > > – Maitreya > > Uttaratantra Shastra, IV, 50

Does the noble eightfold path fits a lay life perfectly? Or is there any part of it that cannot be followed/accomplished by a lay buddhist? If that's the case, what part(s) doesn't have fit with lay life?