What exactly is svabhāva in Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka? It is translated as inherent nature or inherent existence or inherent substance. But what does that **really** mean? Does it carry the same meaning as being unconditioned? If yes, then Nirvana and the Buddha's Dharma, being unconditioned, must have svabhāva. But they don't, according to Madhyamaka. Why does a chair or a photon or empty space or concepts or the Dharma (teachings) or Nirvana have no svabhāva? From the Wikipedia article on Madhyamaka, it sounds like something that is unconditioned has svabhāva. But that's not right according to Madhyamaka. > Nagarjuna's critique of the notion of own-nature > argues that **anything which arises according to conditions, as all > phenomena do, can have no inherent nature, for what is depends on what > conditions it.** Moreover, if there is nothing with own-nature, there > can be nothing with 'other-nature' (para-bhava), i.e. something which > is dependent for its existence and nature on something else which has > own-nature. Furthermore, if there is neither own-nature nor > other-nature, there cannot be anything with a true, substantial > existent nature (bhava). If there is no true existent, then there can > be no non-existent (abhava).

Can the Buddhist lay person join the army of their own country? What is the Buddhist view on this? Is defending defenceless and protecting weak by joining to the military not allowed in Buddhism? And, what's the karmic (karma) difference of - non-military person hurting (in fighting) someone else vs - military person hurting (in fighting) someone else? So, if joining the army is not an option, **how should they defend their country?**

From the sutta below, why would form (and the other aggregates) not lead to affliction, if it were self? Why would it be the case that form (and the other aggregates) could be compelled to change according to will, if it were to be self?   > “Mendicants, form is not-self. > *“Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, anattā.* > > For if form were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could > compel form: > *Rūpañca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṁ rūpaṁ > ābādhāya saṁvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe:* > > ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ > *‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti.* > > But because form is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t > compel form: > *Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ anattā, tasmā rūpaṁ > ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe:* > > ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ > *‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti.* > > Feeling is not-self … > > Perception is not-self … > > Choices are not-self … > > Consciousness is not-self. For if consciousness were self, it wouldn’t > lead to affliction. And you could compel consciousness: ‘May my > consciousness be like this! May it not be like that!’ But because > consciousness is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t > compel consciousness: ‘May my consciousness be like this! May it not > be like that!’ > Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (SN 22.59)

This arose from [a comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/50712/how-did-the-original-mental-event-arise-according-to-dharmak%c4%abrtis-argument-for#comment84533_50721) that the Buddhist position on the beginning of such unanswerables is that they are beginningless. Incidentally, in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/24173/understanding-beginningless/24175#24175) , it was pointed out that the Pali terms “without discoverable” and “without knowable” were used to indicate that there were no definitive answers instead. My questions are as below: 1. Was this beginningless position a later creation and posited as a response to the question on how it all started? Any reference, if any, is appreciated. 2. Could this position be the result of a desire to defend why the Buddha did not give definitive answers and instead ended up in a pickle too (as pointed out by the linked answer above)? Whether it is *beginningless* or *without discoverable/knowable beginning*, the fact is there is **no definitive answers**. Thus, the same criticism would be leveraged against Buddhism. Some may argue that since Buddhism is not strictly a religion or ideology, such criticisms are irrelevant. However, as a Buddhist, I can’t help but wonder if there is a tenable/reasonable argument that I can adopt when pressed on these matters by outsiders?

If nirvana cannot be described then is it good? Isn't 'good' a description of something, even when it isn't real or objective etc.. I would personally answer in terms of suchness, so anything in those/Mahayana terms would be great.

In this following context, how should I take the bold and italic sentence? Should I take it as: 'it is no longer known more important than all.'? Should I take its concept meaning as: 'the matter is known nothing rather than all changing.'? Context: > Till recently scientists believed in an indivisible and indestructible > atom. “For sufficient reasons physicists have reduced this atom to a > series of events. For equally good reasons psychologists find that > mind has not the identity of a single continuing thing but is a series > of occurrences bound together by certain intimate relations. The > question of immortality, therefore, has become the question whether > these intimate relations exist between occurrences connected with a > living body and other occurrences which take place after that body is > dead.” > > As C. E. M. Joad says in The Meaning of Life, “matter has since > disintegrated under our very eyes. It is no longer solid; it is no > longer enduring; it is no longer determined by compulsive causal laws; > ***and more important than all, it is no longer known.*** The so-called atoms, it seems, are both ‘divisible and destructible.” The > electrons and protons that compose atoms ‘can meet and annihilate one > another while their persistence, such as it is, is rather that of a > wave lacking fixed boundaries, and in process of continual change both > as regards shape and position than that of a thing.” Source: P. 59 Buddhism in a Nutshell by Narada Thera

Во время медитации очень сильное ощущение в макушке головы. Если направляю внимание на дыхание то ощущение усиливается, распространяется по всему мозгу, Ощущается именно внутри головы , наблюдаю дальше, направляю внимание на дыхание через это место с ощущением в макушке головы вниз по позвоночнику, это ощущение становится еще и пульсирующим как сердце и спускается вниз по During meditation there is a very strong sensation at the top of the head. If I direct my attention to my breathing, the sensation intensifies, spreads throughout the brain, I feel it inside my head, I observe further, I direct my attention to my breathing through this place with a feeling at the top of my head down the spine, this feeling also becomes pulsating like a heart and goes down the spine. позвончнику до ануса, иногда пульсирует и вызывает приятные ощущения, иногда сильно жгет как будто что-то горит неприятно (однажды даже выскочил Геморой но не реагировал на него просто наблюдал и он через неделю исчез), дышу и провожу внимание дальше перемещается ощущение в промежности. Наблюдаю дальше, дышу спокойно, ровно, наблюдаю дальше the spine to the anus, sometimes it pulsates and causes pleasant sensations, sometimes it burns strongly as if something was burning unpleasantly (once a Hemorrhoid even popped up but did not react to it, I just observed it and after a week it disappeared), I breathe and pay attention, then the sensation moves in the perineum. I continue to observe, I breathe calmly, evenly, I continue to observe the sensations in the perineum, the sensation за ощущениями в промежности, ощущение усиливается ( однажды так пульсировало что произошла эрекция, неожидал такого самопроизвольного действия от тело так как практиковал долгое время воздержание), перемещается в гениталии, тоже там усиливается, поднимается в низ живота и также усиливается иногда приятные сильные сексуальные ощущения иногда сильно жгет как будто горит, наблюдаю дальше, behind the sensations in the perineum, the sensation intensifies (once it throbbed so much that an erection occurred, I did not expect such a spontaneous action from the body since I had been practicing abstinence for a long time), moves to the genitals, also intensifies there, rises to the lower abdomen and sometimes pleasant strong sexual sensations also intensify it burns strongly, as if it’s on fire, I keep watching, поднимется в пупок и также останавливаться усиливается, перемещается выше в солнечное спляетине и так далее, в груди в горло и в области между глаз конечная станция и начинается новый круг. Все ли Иде как надо? На что нужно обращать внимания? Иногда с макушки поток не идет в низ по позвоночнику а как будто что сильно тянет вверху или как будто меня из тело вытягивает. Возникает переживание, наблюдаю за этим, rises to the navel and also stops, intensifies, moves higher into the solar patch and so on, in the chest to the throat and in the area between the eyes the final station and a new circle begins. Is everything as it should be for Ida? What should you pay attention to? Sometimes from the top of my head the flow does not go down the spine, but as if something is strongly pulling at the top or as if I am being pulled out of my body. An experience arises, I observe it, вытягивание останавливается и направляется за вниманием вниз по позвоночнику. После, подумал, может не стоит сопротивляться, будет что будет, тянет вверх и тянет ну и что , просто наблюдать что дальше. Понял что при появление ощущения в макушке, если направляю the stretching stops and is directed down the spine for attention. Afterwards, I thought, maybe it’s not worth resisting, whatever will happen, it pulls up and pulls, so what, just watch what happens next. I realized that when a sensation appears in the top of the head, if I direct внимание на пространство над головой, то начинает вытягивать снова вверх. Что это происходит, это нормально или нет? Присутствует немного паники по этому поводу. Помогите пожалуйста разобраться, правильно ли все идет в моей практики медитации? attention to the space above your head, then begins to pull up again. What is this happening, is it normal or not? There is a bit of panic about this. Please help me figure out if everything is going right in my meditation practice?

Buddha used to teach always follow middle path. Don't you think life is not middle . For example he slept for only 2 hours and many others story which is extreme in some sense.

I gave money to the monk and some layman of monastery via internet because I didn't know that it's prohibited. Will I get demerit? Should I ask money back to redirect them in the right way? Thank you.

Is perception discriminative thinking? I got the term from the lankavatara sutra, but I think it appears in zen a bit, and I wondered if it means only one type of consciousness, perhaps the 6th or 7th, and if not whether perception itself does not occur during enlightenment?

I have a two-part question. One is related to personal practice and the other is scriptural or theoretical. I'll lay down a concise personal background for the sake of clarity. I am an irregular practitioner of Vipassana. I have finished 3 Vipassana retreats (Goenka tradition). I try to meditate for 2 hours a day most days. I also attempt walking and sleeping meditation as much as I can at times when I'm not formally meditating. **Question 1** It had been difficult for me to establish equanimity in body scanning since i was getting distracted too often. So I allowed myself to indulge in just doing anapana sati (samatha meditation). While I thought I was just doing anapana sati, I probably unconsciously was doing insight meditation too by using the nostrils as the object (I'm not sure if that's what it is, please correct me if I'm wrong). I would try to attain equanimity towards the sensations within my nostrils. My breath would increase pace when i would fail to get the sensation. I would then try to slow it down to natural pace which is super subtle, by attempting to be equanimous about the CURRENT sensations and eliminating all cravings. When i would succeed, the breathing would become too subtle, too short, too sharp and too fast to notice and yet I'd be effortlessly noticing it without affecting the pace of the breath. At this point I would experience the below mentioned state. I'm not sure if this state is the first jhana or not but it's the most significant experience I've had as of yet while formally meditating. It has following characteristics: 1. a feeling that breathing (the area of nostrils) is the handle through which the instrument of my whole body is being held with 2. a uniform sense of numbness throughout the body 3. a steady awareness of the non-uniform subtle sensations on the body yet simultaneously uniform and unbroken sense of equanimity towards all of the sensations 4. the feeling of "MY body" being retracted/sinking within the objective body as if the ME is far away from the surface of the body 5. a mild pleasure arising from the realization of the momentary freedom from surface sensations Note: I've experienced this state multiple times but usually when it occurs, i get taken by surprise and either get too excited about it or anxious about the possibility of it ending, in both cases it actually does end up terminating the state. **Q: Is this any of the rupa jhanas or am I just experiencing normal precursor stages before entering the first jhana?** **Question 2** I've been obsessively delving into Buddhist literature through various PDFs, forums such as this and meditation related subreddits as of late. I haven't formally studied the canon. So please forgive my ignorance. I read somewhere (I don't recall where) that if one progresses through the arupa Jhanas (Samadhi) without making any progress in the insight (Panna) then after death, the citta is reborn in the formless realm (arupa loka) and has to stay there for a long, long time until the pleasant sankharas run out after which one returns to the material realm whence one can continue the journey towards liberation through insight practice.   **Q: is it true that too much progress in Samadhi and little progress in Panna can lead to rebirth in arupa/deva/brahma loka which would actually delay the progress towards liberation? if it's true, then how farther would it be safe to progress in jhanas to secure rebirth in human realm so that one can keep working towards nibbana?**   Thank you for your patience! Much metta!

I am attracted to the idea of meditating upon the mind as a path to liberation, as I understand is emphasized in mahamudra. However, I dislike the idea of guru yoga, or meditating in reverence or worship towards living or recently deceased individuals, like the 16th Karmapa. Holding another person up on such a pedestal rubs me the wrong way, and I do not know if I can honestly practice guru yoga. (I wouldn’t mind meditating upon the Buddha. I understand you are supposed to imagine the guru as the Buddha, but I do not want to do that either.) Do you have any recommendations on what to do? Are there other schools that offer meditation upon the mind, but do not have such emphasis on the guru aspect? Similarly, I am discouraged by having to do so many prostrations, but this is not as discouraging as guru yoga.

Are the heavens and hells in karamdhatu meant to be physical places? I was looking at the abhidharmakośa-bhāsya, and Vasabandhu lists 20 places: 8 hells; 6 heavens; pretas; animals; physical world; and the circle of wind (I'm fairly sure the last one is also a "place" -- sthana). You might think that these are all physical because e.g. animals live among us, but just as the desert is the place of some hell beings (not being included in the main hells, due to not being created through the "force of the actions of beings"), animals primarily live in the "Great Ocean". So I reckon that the heavens and hells are not physical, even-though rebirth there inlcludes all five skandhas, descriptions of suffering there refers to bodies, etc.. Am I right, and if so does that mean they lack the organs of the eye etc.? I am asking not because I want to underplay the suffering of hell beings etc. (avici *is* worse than the desert) but because I'm interested in whether suffering is different there insofar as bodhisattvas, when unmoved by their own suffering in hell, might be better off than they are with the vicissitudes of physical suffering in this human place.

Wikipedia defines [Mahāsamādhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasam%C4%81dhi) as follows: > Mahāsamādhi (the great and final samādhi) is the act of consciously > and intentionally leaving one's body. A realized yogi (male) or > yogini (female) who has attained the state of nirvikalpa samādhi, > will, at an appropriate time, consciously exit from their body. [...] This is not the same as the physical death that occurs for an unenlightened person. 1 A non-practitioner of Yoga would call this 'dying at will'. Is there a similar concept in Buddhism?

Schools that reject meditation entirely are excluded, for obvious reasons. Samatha/Vipassana, Calm/Insight, Stopping/Seeing are ubiquitous in all Sri Lankan, Indian, Tibetan, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Japanese Buddhism. Yet it becomes disfavored in the later dispensations of Pure Land Buddhism, even though the foundational teachers of Tien Tai cite it: > (Paul Swanson) "I recall that many years ago, at a time of youthful indiscretion, having a naïve and simplistic impression of the Mo-ho chih-kuan, a text which, from its title, implies that it is mainly about the meditational practice of “cessation and contemplation” (止 観, śamatha-vipaśyanā)." Why then is it later dropped? And why do most Buddhist teachers not know that everyone is doing it? So often it is insinuated that each school of practice has exclusivity, when it is literally inclusive to the extreme.

Recitals or chants such as Om Mani Padme Hum by monks have particular tones . Is there a difference in the ability or inability to chant in a same way for individuals that are not monastic?

I have a pair of antique statuettes which were made in Japan. I assume they are Buddhist saints or sages and I am hoping someone can identify who they represent:

It's said, someone wishing to become Lord Buddha, doesn't achieve Nirvana until he fulfill his Paramita and goes to last birth (in Theravada tradition). So, while he fulfill his Paramita, - does he consciously do that (avoiding the Nirvana)? (like stopping meditation mid session thinking I should stop now). or - it happens automatically (like, he loses the ability to achieve Nirvana while fulfilling Paramita)? (if, this is the method, that implies that he loses the ability to achieve Nirvana midway, because of a past life decision). or - the midway decision occur randomly and from like 100 beings who fulfil Paramita to achieve state of Lord Buddha, some give up or randomly achieve Nirvana as an Arahant and some give up or randomly achieve Nirvana as a Pacceka Buddha. And, others achieve state of Lord Buddha. So, **what is the process here?** Thanks 🙏.

I have wanted to ask someone who is not familiar with a Buddhist culture how they might interpret this street art, which is generating controversy in a predominantly Buddhist country.

I have two questions. First, I grew up Roman Catholic, but now in my mid twenties, I am beginning to notice that a lot of my beliefs and actions don't align with Christianity so I started reading other religious and way of life books, and for some reason, Buddhism or the way of life of the Buddha was calling my name. First question, if I am beginning on this path, which books would you recommend I read? That is, a book which has all the teachings of the Buddha / philosophies. Does Buddhism mean being aware of our consciousness, is life only present in our minds, is it a way for us to be truly happy by being one with the universe, or just be at peace with oneself? Secondly, I recently picked up a book called "The Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle and I am getting confused. It is asking us to observe our thoughts or be ever present in order to achieve consciousness. Is that even possible? Can our minds ever be so still to the point where no thought will arise for blocks at a time in order to be fully present? I mean I am always thinking even when I try to meditate which makes it hard for me to see that happening. How do you watch your thoughts by not thinking? Also by saying the power of now, does it mean when I go out, I should marvel at all the trees, smell the leaves, I don't know maybe talk to people as opposed to what? What does it mean to be truly present?