> Nirvana is not extinction because mind (which, from the first, was the > only authentic component of the vanished beings) persists; it is not > heaven because no sentient being remains to enter it Can you explain it so that I'm sure it is right? In other words, expand on it, or append it, etc. You may use concepts like "one mind", "mindful", etc,, whatever you like.

The common sense-objects are light, sound, smells, tastes, touch, and ideas. The origin must be form. What is form? > The four great elements and the form derived from the four great > elements: this is called form. Thus we assume the sense-objects are derivatives of the four great elements, but what is more? Given the often anomalous classification of intellect as mind or consciousness, I even wonder if its counterpart, idea, is form at all. Is there further elucidation on the matter, like that of the Sankhya school?

I am a Hindu and I believe that Vishnu incarnated as Buddha in beginning period of Kaliyug and purpose of his incarnation was to avoid sufferings caused in society by misinterpretation of vedas. So,he rejected vedas. > Mahabharat shanti parva Chapter 348 > > Then at the beginning of Kali Yuga he took refuge in the tree of the > king of brahmins He lived in **the house of the king of righteousness > in fear of Magadha He was dressed in brown clothes, shaved and had > white teeth. I, the Buddha, the son of Shuddhodana, shall bewitch men. > The Sudras are enjoyed among the pure when I have attained Buddhahood. > All men will be enlightened and covered with saffron.** At times of Mahabharat ,Krishna told that Dwarka will drown and he will return as Buddha in Kaliyug. ***What I want to ask :Are there any Buddhist sects or subsects that believe that Hindu scriptures particularly the Vedas were true in original form and got interpolated .So,they need to follow new message and reject Vedas so they require change to Buddhism or Vedas were divinely inspired but got misinterpreted /interpolated or lost original form or any similar belief of divine revelation in Vedas .***

I read the following on the internet: > I believe the Buddha defined mind as a process (feeling, perceiving, > thinking, cognizing) that is initiated by craving (SN12:38), giving > rise to effects like pleasant/unpleasant/neutral sensation. This is > also the way we normally experience reality. What do we believe SN 12.38 is about?

I read the following on the internet: > Sunyata is absolute reality. Emptiness. There are also the 3 marks of > existence, suffering, impermanence and non self. This is ultimate > reality for a being in samsara. Are anicca, dukkha & anatta the marks of existence for a being in samsara?

I find that the five Skandhas can be very confusing at times, as the Western idea of mind and perception is very different to the Buddhist idea of mind and perception. On top of that, many explanations of the five Skandhas online seem vague and sometimes seem to be interpreted differently, depending on where you go. The first Skandha: **Form** --------------------------- Does this refer to physical form? Can we only know form through the sense organs? The second Skandha: **Sensation** --------------------------------- Are these just sensations from the sense organs? One description online describes sensation as follows: > ... it is the sensation experienced through the contact of eye with > visible form, ear with sound, nose with odor, tongue with taste, body > with tangible things, mind (manas) with ideas or thoughts. If this is the case, does emotion fall under sensation? The third Skandha: **Perception** --------------------------------- A description I found: >Samjna is the faculty that recognizes. Most of what we call thinking fits into the aggregate of samjna. > > The word "samjna" means "knowledge that puts together." It is the > capacity to conceptualize and recognize things by associating them > with other things. For example, we recognize shoes as shoes because we > associate them with our previous experience with shoes. My understanding is that the faculty to recognize is consciousness. However, consciousness is said to be a different Skandha. My understanding is that consciousness is that which perceives the world around it. More broadly, how is perception and consciousness different? The fourth Skandha: **Mental Formation** --------------------------------- A description I found: > This aggregate includes all mental factors except feeling and > perception, which are two of the possible fifty-two mental factors > noted in Buddhism. I'm assuming this is where emotions exist? Is happiness an emotion? Is loving-kindness an emotion? If not, were do they exist, in terms of the Skandhas? The fifth Skandha: **Consciousness** --------------------------------- A description I found: > Vijnana is a reaction that has one of the six faculties as its basis and one of the six corresponding phenomena as its object. For example, aural consciousness -- hearing -- has the ear as its basis and a sound as its object. Mental consciousness has the mind (manas) as its basis and an idea or thought as its object. If this is the case, then is consciousness that which *observes* sensations, mental formations, perception and form, or that which *experiences* sensation, perception, mental formations and form? Can the experience of sensation exist if we are not conscious of it? Are animals conscious? Maybe a more important question is: what is the difference between consciousness and self-awareness, in the Buddhist context? I realize there are a lot of questions here, so thank you to whoever takes the time out of their day to answer them. Have a good day! Comment: This is a very cogent, very important, even fundamental issue in the process of direct inquiry. The last question haunts me: what is the true definition of consciousness when referred to as a Buddhist skanda? Specifically, self reflexive awareness--for lack of a better term--seems fundamental, even unitary. Vedantic teachings inevitably lead to the direct discovery that "consciousness is all". Consider Turyia. The Tibetan term, Rigpa, seems to point to the same realization.

Numerous philosophical traditions and religious doctrines espouse disparate—and at times, mutually contradictory—conceptions regarding the nature of ‘absolute reality’ or ‘ultimate reality.’ Some schools of thought posit that the entirety of nature constitutes the fundamental substratum of existence, while others ascribe this foundational status to a particular transcendent and personal deity. Still others conceive of absolute reality as an amorphous, omnipresent consciousness that pervades all of existence. With regard to Buddhism, how is ‘absolute reality’ understood within its doctrinal framework? Does Buddhism, in any of its various philosophical interpretations, affirm the existence of an ontologically ultimate reality, or does it reject such a notion altogether?

I read something on reddit that made me think that the author confuses between Nibbana (extinguishment, liberation) and saññāvedayitanirodha (cessation of perception and feeling), thinking that they refer to the same thing. I quoted some of the suttas below that led them to this view. Questions: 1. What is the difference between the two? 2. Are they the same? If they are the same, then when the Buddha returns to the normal waking and talking state, he would lose his Nibbana wouldn't he? 3. What is the difference between the bliss or pleasure of Nibbana in the waking and talking state, compared to the bliss or pleasure of saññāvedayitanirodha? Are they the same or completely different? 4. Is saññāvedayitanirodha needed for attaining arahantship? Can one attain arahantship without ever reaching it? 5. Is it possible that one could attain saññāvedayitanirodha, without attaining Nibbana? They used these sutta quotes to support their assumption that Nibbana and saññāvedayitanirodha are the same: > They understand: ‘There is this, there is what is worse than this, > there is what is better than this, and there is an escape beyond the > scope of perception.’ > MN 7 > When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend > Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it (Nibbana), > since nothing is felt?” > > “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely > what’s blissful about it. > AN 9.34 > “One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The > cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is > nibbāna.’ Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises > and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another > perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the > cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ On that occasion, friend, I was > percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’” > AN 10.7 > There are those who would say that this is the highest pleasure and > happiness that sentient beings experience. But I don’t grant them > that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure that is finer > than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when a mendicant, going > totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, > enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is > a pleasure that is finer than that. > MN 59

When Buddhist texts mention "realms of rebirth", it sounds like you are only living in those realms and not actually becoming one of the inhabitants. Like for example being reborn into the Deva realm, you reborn and live there but aren't reborn as a Deva. Could somebody help me?

I tried to find the answer and looked into theses questions on the site https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5979/the-third-precept-and-prostitution https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9307/buddhist-attitude-towards-prostitution-and-non-procreative-sexual-activity https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1367/how-is-sexual-misconduct-explained-in-regards-to-the-five-precepts But I couldn't find the exact answer. So hope this is not a duplicate. The explanation I have heard regarding the third precept is for men to avoid having sex with certain types (20 types) of women. So my understanding is that a married man going to a prostitute doesn't break the third precept. Please explain if this is correct or not.

Many teachers (Osho) have asked to do vigorous exercise before vipassana , IS it advisable and OK ?

I read somewhere that the Buddha said: 'if there were a desire stronger than sexual desire, there would be no possibility of Englightenment'. I'm looking for this specific reference, please don't send related quotes, which I have read in other related questions.

I often see the first noble truth (*duḥkha*) stated as "life is suffering". I have yet to come across a passage in a Buddhist text which phrases it like this - mostly they don't talk about "life" in this sense. So where does the idea that "*life is suffering*" come from? There's been some discussion about the definition and translation of the word "*dukkha*" also. Is there a definitive definition?

I was wondering if for example an obsession or craving that someone has for attaining Nirvana would be considered something unwholesome. On one hand it seems to me like it would, since that person would be reinforcing the habit of craving, but on the other hand how else could they actually achieve the goal? Like for example how could they decide to become a monk and devote themselves fully to the practice etc. I don't think the Buddha would have left his palace if he wasn't motivated by *some* sort of craving, at least in the beginning.

When asking around, I've never heard anyone agree that a young, healthy person should end their life by suicide. But I also don't know what reason there is for that consensus. Did Buddha teach anything regarding what makes life worth living?

One word in Pali Canon seems to be especially challenging for translators to convey. This word is "*papañca*" (e.g. MN18 , DN21 , Sn 4.11 , AN4.173 ). Some attempts at translating *papañca* include "exaggeration", "proliferation ", "association ", "conceptualization ", "objectification ", and "reification ". What is *papañca* and what is it's significance in Buddhism? How is it used in Pali Canon and what is it's referent in real life? How is *papañca* (*prapañca* in Sanskrit) explained by Mahayana philosophers such as Nagarjuna, Asanga, and Tsongkhapa?

Are there consequences for actions that are made Are there rewards for the actions that are made

Which scriptures describe the jhanas of Buddhism?

Although my reality is confined to sensory experience, I believe that there are beings that exist in the subtle realm beyond. But how did *asuras* get there? Wasn't heaven only for the good, *sukhumataraṁ*? And without them, what battle could take shape? Is it just dormant tendencies [fantasies] that pop-up there? Any account of *asura* in jhana? Also, does the Hermetic text, 'As above, so below', register within Buddhist circles? From Sakka's Questions comes this: > ‘When a Realized One arises in the world, perfected and fully > awakened, the heavenly hosts swell, while the titan hosts dwindle.’ > ‘yadā tathāgatā loke uppajjanti arahanto sammāsambuddhā, dibbā kāyā > paripūrenti, hāyanti asurakāyā’ti. From Dialogues of the Buddha Vol 2.

I've watched on t.v that a monk had dreamt that Lama told him a lady will come to monastery and will request him let her with them when this was only for monks though he going to let her with them and teach Dhamma. Next day it happens what he had dreamt about; first he disagreed but later on he remembered his dream last night he had and then she became nun. So does dreams making sense ? I had one on full moon day that I'm crying next Buddha's statue in vihara saying give me power and peace.