I'm looking for an online reference to **AA.i.254** mention at the bottom of this page : > No woman can become a Cakka-vatti (the reasons for this are given at AA.i.254). Either an English or Sinhala translation would be preferable

Will the action of praying to / worshipping gods for something be fruitful according to Buddhism? Is there any reference where a god (deva) has helped a person who has prayed to / asked help from the deva ? In Jainism, it is said that if the followers insist on praying to god, it's advised that they should pray (ask for help) only for the knowledge that leads to Nirvana. **Edit:** I asked this **NOT** because I wanted help from god or believed in god. I asked this because, Buddha said that there are heavenly beings (gods) with powers, but are themselves mortal too.. So, I just wanted to know, why Buddhists pray to those gods (I've seen many Buddhists praying to god, not all Buddhists). Is that even fruitful?

In a large number of religions, 'good' and 'bad' are defined by some all-powerful diety who either sends a representative or himself to tell us about what exactly they want us mortals to do. In Buddhism, instead an enlightened individual basically worked it all out. So the basic question is - why does that happen? What decided that killing (even if your intentions are good*1) will cause something negative ? What about the other actions? There is no 'final judge' to confirm or deny we've followed a particular path - so why does the universe (?) act this way? And what makes us sure that we're correct? *1 - It's an impression I got from reading some other answers, if I'm wrong on this please do correct me)

Since I have started reading Buddhist texts and trying to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, my life is happier and 'easier' **but why is this**? I believe it to be 'common sense' and the innate human nature that doing good is easier than doing bad but it can also be the reverse with certain conditions in this world. In a nutshell, I've taken the optimistic stance on this philosophical debate . To understand the context of my question, let me describe my thought process on trying to understand this: What if in our ultimate beginning (if there was one), we were all in an unconditioned state but then somehow became conditioned which lead to becoming (think of the story of Adam & Eve). Since this becoming, our ultimate objective is to return back to that unconditioned state and because we were in that unconditioned state, if one were to follow the Noble Eightfold path it would be innately/instinctively accepted to work. I believe those that follow the path and through practice accept it to be logical but also to be innately/instinctively accepted. (Since this is a Buddhist forum, *I believe users here can agree on this opinion*). **Question**: My question is based on the premise that the above is somewhat logical and in accordance with Buddhist teachings; if so is there any Buddhist literature that can elaborate on why it is ‘easier’ to follow the path or if its the total opposite. I believe ‘easier’ here can be subjective but I believe through my elementary understanding of Buddhist text, once you realize what is right in front of you; it is/can be easy. If my logic is incorrect or you see a confusion in my question, please show me the correct way with references to Buddhist literature as well.

Someone who likes to ask rhetorical questions on the internet once questioned whether it was appropriate to describe “consciousness” as a reification since in one sutta (MN 43) it is said that consciousness and wisdom/enlightenment were conjoined: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26807/if-consciousness-is-a-reification-how-does-a-buddha-attain-the-truth An apparent contradiction arises when looking at another question offered by the same person: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26367/why-did-the-lord-buddha-criticize-natthikav%C4%81da%E1%B9%83-moral-nihilism The OP seems to like the answer to the second question which stated: > “When … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises” of moral nihilism.” Could it be that this *“insisting on consciousness”* as an objective real thing leads to unethical behavior (moral nihilism) just as the Buddha warned and others concurred: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26814/13375

I read the following comment on the internet ([reference](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/82510/discussion-on-answer-by-dhammadhatu-if-buddhists-believe-that-life-is-just-suffe)) : > *By existing you are attached to this reality. If I die then I won't exist according to Buddhism. Therefore I won't be attached to reality. > How then does killing yourself not free yourself from attachment? How > can I possibly be attached to reality if I am dead? How was the Buddha > free from attachment if he wrote a book and made a religion? That > means that he was attached to reality. You can only be not attached to > reality if you don't exist.* Is the existence of life a form of attachment? Is the teaching of the Dhamma (of non-attachment) a form of attachment?

There is one reality which is eternal and that is Nirvana. Nirvana had no beginning nor has an end yet it exists. Nirvana and the world are closely linked up. The one who is in the world can attain Nirvana. If we say world has a beginning then Nirvana predates that beginning. Only Nirvana existed and then world came into existence. Which means World came from Nirvana as world is not unconditioned and before world there was only Nirvana.Which means world must have come out from state of Nirvana. But that is impossible. Therefore can we at least conclude that cause or causes behind the world are without beginning? **update:** I knew Buddha has said that it is undeclared whether whether world is eternal or not ,but people in this forum and elsewhere have declared Nirvana to be eternal.If Nirvana is eternal and permanent then we can say something existed for an infinite time in the past. Clearly Nirvana provides an eternal timeline to discuss upon. for example : In the infinite time in the past when Nirvana was there did world exist or not? Now @ChrisW asked what did I mean by world ? By world I mean any reality in which experience of suffering can arise. So to rephrase my question : Was there any point in the past when there was no suffering at all or has the suffering existed forever like Nirvana ? I know the gravity of this question as Buddha chose not to answer it. I dare to take up the question in order to provide some new insight to my fellow Buddhist men who think in order to believe in Buddha or Dhamma or Sangha one doesn't need to blindly believe in Buddha or Dhamma or Sangha. I believe I will also ultimately conclude that one should left such questions undeclared but I would like give one last try based upon the conclusion we have made so far like Nirvana is eternal. Given the infinite timelime ,if Suffering (or the world ) had a beginning then what was before that beginning ? It was Nirvana. What was the cause of the suffering to arise at the beginning? Since Suffering is always conditioned and before beginning there was only Nirvana , clearly it means Nirvana was the cause of arising of suffering. But that is impossible. Because that would mean Nirvana is unstable, Nirvana is impermanent. Therefore conditioned suffering existed infinitely in the past independent of Nirvana. The cause of suffering (or the world) was impermanent but was/is a permanent feature of the world or existence or suffering which appears to be permanent. I can assure you that this question is not meant to lead you astray from the path but make us understand why we are not concluding what Buddha concluded, to know what is incorrect in our line of thinking.

I read the following comment on the internet: >*Buddhadasa, his health > failed him revealed he had no attainment in "Anapanasati", though > written 550 pages on it. He was just a Bhikkhu-scholar groomed by > Theosophical Society, his teaching contained poison.* Is there any evidence Buddhadasa was groomed by the Theosophical Society? Also, what evidence exists the health of Buddhadasa failed him to prevent Anapanasati? When he was in his final years, I saw he would sit very still crossed legged (although with back supported by chair) for up to 3 hours giving a talk. There was no visible evidence to most people in the audience he had physical discomfort (unlike the audience, who often sat in physical discomfort for at least 2 hours). In fact, at a time when it was said his passing was imminent, I saw him lose often consciousness when giving a (live translated) lecture when the translator would speak; then he would be woken up; and continue the talk exactly at the point he previously stopped. Most importantly, what errors did Buddhasasa make in his teachings about Anapanasati?

Is there a figure in Buddhism corresponding to the Christian notion of such? And what would that mean, practically?

It has been observed, all the egoic voices heard is same as the younger brother. When any positive resolution is made, for example, fasting on certain days, doing japa, abstaining from certain foods, going on pilgrimage & all positive things that will increase spirituality. This voice of younger brother is troubling since many years. Tried mindfulness, however this voice always triggers pain in the body, could see the soul very sad, as if any tantra is done. Please suggest any Buddhist way to get rid of these voices. **Edit**:Just wanted to add something more to this experience. It's not just voice sometimes, it is observed the body is overcome & actions of the body are controlled by another spirit(same as the younger brother). Kind of spooky, but it was observed many times.

It is said that Nirvana is unconditional i.e there are no conditions for it to happen. If so then why is Nirvana not happening now? Is my wish or suitability a condition for it happen?

I’m trying to find the truth behind religious movements, for so far possible of course. I admit, it’s with a selfish goal, but it’s important for me. I want to find my way in Life and try to understand things about Life. Alas I am a little skeptical about things. I’m trying to learn as much as possible from the main religions, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam (and of course I try to learn things about the Jewish faith and Hinduism). What they all have in common is the written sources are all written many years after that the “main person” – the Founder – is deceased. The gospels are written many years after the crucifixion of Jesus the Christ, the Pali Canon is written about two/three hundred years after Gautama the Buddha, and the Quran more than twenty years after Muhammad the Prophet. All texts seems to be composed by followers who decides which texts to be sacred and which text are had to left outside the canon. And all have in common that believers believe that they contain the thru words of the founder. After reading the Quran, also a composed book by followers, I decided that this book does not contain the words of a God or whatever Devine being. I contain so much threats to humans that I cannot believe that a divine creature is the source of this text. With the exceptional rude text that when you are a Muslim, and you think about changing to another believe, Allah will torture you forever by burning off your skin, let it grow again, and burn it again, etcetera. Next page there was written Allah is merciful. I cannot think of a better contradiction in one book itself. And there are so much other threads to otherwise-believers that I think this book should be forbidden. There are many rules maybe written down by his followers after his life to maintain the status quo. Jesus Christ on the other side amazes me with his Message of Love. But what about Paul and Peter, did they really wrote down the words of God? So many rules, rules never spoke out by Jesus. But written down by Paul and Peter. So I come to the Buddhism. I really understand that it is not a religion in the way of the two here above mentioned. I don’t know much about Buddhism but I think to understand that the concept of a God was not the foremost concern of Gautama the Buddha, since it was not possible to learn about this concept during Human Life. I also understand that he is not THE only Buddha. I think his original message had some complex elements for a layman, but was great with also still a simple one. I have the impression that after his life his followers made up many rules, rituals, maybe not with the origin of Gautama. Some will say that this is because the Shakyamuni Buddha is not the only Buddha. And he is not the foundation of the Buddhism movement, but it started before him. So I come to my question, after this long intro: the Buddhavamsa mentions about 29 Buddhas, including Maitreya. Twenty seven before Shakyamuni (Gautama) the Buddha. This raiser a few questions to me. I hope you can answer these as exact as possible. 1- If Gautama is not the first founder of Buddhism why where these Buddhas not worldly known to be in existence before his life? Why took it hundreds of years before they were mentioned in Holy Scripts? Now it seems to me that Buddhism followers made them up to declare and explain rules and things in their canon. Wrote down their names to upgrade the core of their faith. 2- Is the Buddhavamsa the first Holy Scripture where the Buddhas of the Past are all mentioned? 3- Who wrote this scripture? 4- So far as I understand (have read) Gautama mentions only six Buddhas during his life. How can persons than know the names of the other Buddhas after the death of Gautama without making this up? Because there is no record that he did mention them his self? 5- How can we ever know the name of the Buddhas who lived hundreds of thousand years before us? Like Dipankara Buddha and even the ones before? 6- Why did the Buddhas of the past not launch Buddhism as we know it, or their own version of it? I know I sound skeptical, but that is not the purpose. I try to make up if there is any sense in being a Buddhist. I want to follow only what the Devine Beings want to teach up (for so far they exist) and not to follow rules and stories made up by men. So I hope to learn from your answers. With kind regards, Johan

In the following excerpt from the book Yoga Sutras by Edwin Bryant, the author is arguing that the fundamental difference between Buddhist and Hindu philosophy is that Buddhists believe that when 'all the objects of consciousness are removed, consciousness vanishes' I think it is wrong. When we leave all the objects of consciousness and enter in the first *Jhnana* then we are not conscious of any - 'sense-object' but we are conscious nonetheless otherwise it will be like sleeping or unconscious. Also there is a plane of 'infinity of consciousness' which is the 3rd Jhnana so we are experiencing something that is infinite, so there is a human experience so consciousness is there. - So is the author right or wrong? - What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart from human brain? - Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings? (IMO even if that exists that does not contradict with *Annatta.*. So we have space for Idealism. **Small Edit:** I am trying to defend the position of 'monistic idealism' within the framework of Buddhism. Also, check this paper

It is generally held that there are four stages of enlightenment, namely, Soatapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami and Arahant. These stages are achieved by a practitioner as she/he gradually eradicates the ten fetters. I need the complete reference of these topics (four stages and ten fetters) in the first four Nikayas of the Pali canon. Can anyone help me?

What did Buddha mean when he told not to sacrifice? Does "sacrifice" mean the same thing as in the Jewish or Christian traditions? Btw: don't feel offended when I compares some things, I'm just wondering the differences.

After attaining Nirvana will I remember that I was once without Nirvana? If yes , as Buddha did, then isn't it true that my relationship with or possession of Nirvana had a beginning?

Many monks achieved various levels of perfections and some were extraordinary by human standards like passing through walls , walking on water, levitating in the sky, dying then arising etc... If Monks have compassion , which they have , then why don't they show us or show me the magic which they perfected? Because if they show me some real magic then my belief on the permanence of physical laws will vanish. Mostly I believe in the permanence of physical laws like no person can go through wall or that what will go up will come down or that if slapped I will be in pain...and so on... This belief in permanence of physical laws came into existence in my consciousness as given the exact causes exact similar things were happening since I took birth. Real Magic will break that belief. And once I my faith in the absoluteness of the laws of Universe is broken I will start questioning the reality. I will start asking what all in not permanent ? I will start wondering if Universe doesn't work by those laws then which laws ? Should I conclude there is no permanent law ? Desire for investigating will develop as desire of investigation is one the 7 factors of awakening. Therefore for the sake of humanity why don't Monks show magic and convert the lay people into Buddhism? In short ,why real magic is not a good illustration to make one realize the Truth of impermanence of all physical Truths.?

Most people interpret almost everything as Dhamma. And it is said that Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Given everything is Dhamma , isn't it true that he who sees me sees Dhamma?

Ajahn Brahm’s quite interesting position on "too much Dharma" and studying Abhidharma might be conveyed in this citation: > I think of our modern age is that too much Dhamma. So much Dhamma that > you get really confused. So, just keep it easy Four Noble Truths, > Eightfold Path. Keep it simple and if you keep it simple - it [is] > much, much, much easier. > >(…) > >That gets too much, it gets so much that > people get confused. So, that's reason why they don't get enlightened. > Keep it simple. > >(…) > >You can actually see that [in Abhidhamma] language - those concepts they didn't arise until a couple of centuries after the time of the Buddha. So, even the language shows you it's much > later. You know that's great relief you don't have to study all of > that very very difficult stuff. You have to be like a professor to > learn the Abhidharma sometimes. It's so complex. Keep it simple - Four > Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, meditate. That's all the Gunpowder you > need, so keep it going. > > [Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha -- YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIK3h-UMwaw) Not only Ajahn Brahm, but also Ajahn Sumedho seem to also reduce the Buddhist practise to bare minimum, to repeating “Let go” for the first number years of his practise, which is similar to general teachings of Zen/Chan and experiential Dzogchen approach as well. Given that obsession is clinging and clinging is suffering - then, truly, for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana, Dharma cannot be realised and experienced merely through reason. Thus, theoretically, sets of teachings might be double edged sword for own progression. There seems to be common ground in Mahayna with Ajahn Brahm’s claim. Quoting important piece that is a complementary reading to Heart Sutra, a Diamond Cutter sutra: > Moreover, Subhuti, when a bodhisattva practices generosity, he does > not rely on any object—any form, sound, smell, taste, tactile object, > or dharma—to practice generosity. That, Subhuti, is the spirit in > which a bodhisattva practices generosity, not relying on signs. Why? > If a bodhisattva practices generosity without relying on signs, the > happiness that results cannot be conceived of or measured. > >(…) > > In a place where there is something that can be distinguished by signs, in > that place there is deception. If you can see the signless nature of > signs, you can see the Tathagata. > > (...) > > Subhuti, a bodhisattva who still depends on notions to practice > generosity is like someone walking in the dark. She will not see > anything. But when a bodhisattva does not depend on notions to > practice generosity, she is like someone with good eyesight walking > under the bright light of the sun. She can see all shapes and colors We know that Buddha didn’t coin a great deal of technical terms and vocabulary that did arise as attempts of explanation. As such, many things were imputed to Buddha, according to many scholars. The extent of it I don’t dare to bring up as such is not a nature of this post. Yet, we can deduce that most of the practitioners that attained Arahantship in Buddha’s times had in majority followed practical and minimalistic Buddha’s advice. That is at least what Suttas depict intuitively, rather than operating in terse sets of lexical and intellectual frameworks. In conclusion, several questions arise: - What is the barrier and to what extent do we need to understand things by intellect? Is it not true that just Four Noble truths, a simple teaching, can alone lead us to liberation, quoting Ajahn Brahm? - Is such complexity and variety of modern Dharma why there aren’t more Arahants these times? Because of “Too much Dharma” ? Is this what really sets Buddhists apart from Enlightenment? Getting attached and clinging to ideas rather the simplicity of a “very simple teaching” of Four Noble Truths? - Should we all study, for example Abhidharma? Buddha did not - he sat down for 49 days under a Bodhi tree, without reading anything of sorts. So, maybe abandoning reliance on sings and concepts yields greater benefit to us? - Is it safe to say that a frustration of imbalance between our ideal, imagined, conceptual realisation causes suffering due to unmet expectations of the actual current experience? Is it then correct that we best incrementally broaden knowledge slowly, in tandem with progressive experience, because such balance leads to better sanity?

Does the concentration occurs during first jhana?or is it relates to the samadhi which involves in second jhana?What is actually one pointed of the mind means?