>In the SN 35.88 Punna Sutta, the Buddha asks Punna what he would do if the rough Sunaparanta people attack him and he says he will think "These Sunaparanta people are very civilized, in that they don't take my life with a sharp knife" and the Buddha said that was good. Is the Buddha not condoning lying here? Is this an example of some kind of mind conditioning lie? Is it a certain distinct practice in the Buddha's teaching? >The Buddha asks what would you think if they took your life with a sharp knife and Punna says "If they take my life with a sharp knife, I will think, 'There are disciples of the Blessed One who — horrified, humiliated, and disgusted by the body and by life — have sought for an assassin, but here I have met my assassin without searching for him.' It's ok with the Buddha for monks to seek assassins? That wouldn't be breaking the first precept if you consider the assassin as a weapon used for suicide? What is the Pali word for "sought"?

Hello again after 7 years. Since 2023Oct07, I've been reading about the Israel vs Palestine conflict and then the underlying Abrahamic religions involved Christianity, Judaism & Islam. During my reading, there's a particular Bible verse that caught my attention, namely Luke 4:24 'No prophet is accepted in his hometown. ' I soon realised that Christianity is the only major religion among both Abrahamic & Dharmic religions more popular outside than inside its birthplace... 1. Hinduism (& Sikhism & Jainism ?) - Most Indians are Hindu. India is the top in Hindu population (but top 2 in population by percentage . Similarly, India is the top in Sikh population but top 2 in population by percentage for Sikhism behind... Canada. Oh ok, a non-Asian country. Nice. Good for Sikhism.) 2. Islam - Most Saudis are Muslim. Saudi Arabia isn't the top in Muslim population. But if you consider the Middle East and North Africa as a whole, then MENA beats Indonesia I guess. 3. Judaism - Most Israelis are Jewish. Also Israel is the top country in Jewish population. (But if you consider ethnic Jews and even further the extended definitions of 'Jew' under the law of return for Israel, then Israel is 2nd to the US . Eh.) 4. Christianity - Few Israelis or ethnic Jews are Christian. Most Christians are gentile non-Israelis, actually gentile non-Asians. 5. Donald Trump (lol) - accepted more by Israelis than American Jews based on the 2024 exit polls. ...**Oh but wait there's 1 exception (so much for trying to this argument of uniqueness of Christianity to Jews, atheists & Muslims ... Well at least Christianity is the only religion more popular outside than inside Asia, birthplace of all 5 major religions...and again assuming you don't count extended definition of 'Jew'.)**... 6. Buddhism - Apparently, Buddhism 's birthplace was Nepal or somewhere in greater India . The **secular/natural** reasons are given in other answers such as. 1. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/46906/why-is-buddhism-popular-in-eastern-asia-compared-to-south-asia-where-it-originat 2. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3338/why-is-buddhism-followed-mainly-outside-of-india-when-it-originated-there 3. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/20848/what-was-the-reason-behind-the-fall-of-buddhism-in-india 4. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/25486/why-did-buddhism-declined-and-then-almost-extinguished-in-india 5. [Why is Buddhism more prevalent in East Asia than in South Asia where it originated from?](https://qr.ae/pYUKoB) 6. [Why do people associate Buddhism with China or Thailand but not with India where Buddha preached the majority of his life?](https://qr.ae/pYUKMX) # My question is now **religious/prophetic/scriptural/supernatural** reasons : 1. Were there any prophecies or something that Buddhism would be more popular outside than inside, similar to like how in Christianity, there are prophecies that speak of how the Messiah (Buddha?) would initially be rejected by his own people the Jews (Hindus? Indians? Idk). Eg Isaiah 49:6-7 , 29:10 , 53:8 2. Actually, in this regard, please also explain briefly (not necessarily in full detail. Just pertaining to prophecies or lack thereof) to me the relationship of Hinduism & Buddhism because I guess I'm implicitly assuming Jesus of Nazareth is analogous to Siddhartha Gautama like : | |Dharmic|Abrahamic| |:-|:-|:-| |Original religion|Hinduism|Judaism| |birthplace starts with letter 'i'|India/Greater India/South Asia|Israel/West Asia/Asia| |after WW2, has been at war w/ starts with the letter 'p'|Pakistan|Palestine| |whose religion is|Islam|Islam| |New religion w/ same birthplace|Buddhism|Christianity| |but more popular in|East Asia|Non-Asia| |Started by|Siddhartha Gautama|Jesus of Nazareth| |Title|Buddha, the Enlighted One|Messiah, the Anointed One| |The originals who believe|Bhagavata Sampradaya, Sat Vaishnavism, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, ISKCON|Messianic Judaism | Maybe there's no such 'prophecy' if it's not really that Gautama was Hindu trying to start a 'new religion' (sort of) like how Jesus was Jewish revolutionary or idk. Also, I read there's like a prophesised 'Kalki ' who in some denominations of Hinduism is a reincarnation of Buddha or Krishna (and is hopefully not Mohammed ). But idk are those Hindus who believe in Gautama like 'Messianic Jews', Jews who believe in Jesus? And anyway, if there's no prophecy, then, what, it's just some big coincidence and there are maybe only a few parallels in histories of how Christianity & Buddhism became more popular outside than inside their birthplaces? P.S. I haven't seen Saint Young Men , but I'm not quite a fan of Hikaru Nakamura . Lol.

I was reading Wikipedia about the extinction of Buddhism in Afghanistan, which said the Mongols ended Buddhism in Afghanistan. I found this difficult to believe because reputedly, many Mongols, including at times asserting Genghis Khan himself, were Tibetan Buddhists. I found a webpage by HHDL's friend [Alexander Berzin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Berzin_(scholar)) , which says: > Five years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, in 637, the Arabs > defeated the Persian Sassanids and founded the Umayyad Caliphate in > 661. It ruled over Iran and much of the Middle East. In 663, they attacked Bactria, which the Turki Shahis had taken from the Western > Turks by this time. The Umayyad forces captured the area around Balkh, > including Nava Vihara Monastery, causing the Turki Shahis to retreat > to the Kabul Valley. > > The Arabs allowed followers of non-Muslim religions in the lands they conquered to keep their faiths if they submitted peacefully and paid a poll tax (Ar. jizya). Although some Buddhists in Bactria and even an abbot of Nava Vihara converted to Islam, **most Buddhists in the region accepted this dhimmi status as loyal non-Muslim protected subjects within an Islamic state. Nava Vihara remained open and functioning. The Han Chinese pilgrim Yijing (I-ching) visited Nava Vihara in the 680s and reported it flourishing as a Sarvastivada center of study**. > > An Umayyad Iranian author, al-Kermani, wrote a detailed account of Nava Vihara at the beginning of the **8th century**, preserved in the 10th-century work Book of Lands (Ar. Kitab al-Buldan) by al-Hamadhani. He described it in terms readily understandable to Muslims by drawing the analogy with the Kaaba in Mecca, the holiest site of Islam. He explained that the main temple had a stone cube in the center, draped with cloth, and that devotees circumambulated it and made prostration, as is the case with the Kaaba. The stone cube referred to the platform on which a stupa stood, as was the custom in Bactrian temples. The cloth that draped it was in accordance with the Iranian custom for showing veneration, applied equally to Buddha statues as well as to stupas. **Al-Kermani’s description indicates an open and respectful attitude by the Umayyad Arabs in trying to understand the non-Muslim religions, such as Buddhism, that they encountered in their newly conquered territories**. > > In 1215, Chinggis Khan, the founder of the Mongol Empire, conquered Afghanistan from the Ghurids. As was his policy elsewhere, Chinggis destroyed those who opposed his takeover and devastated their lands. It is unclear how the vestiges of Buddhism still left in Afghanistan fared at this time. Chinggis was tolerant of all religions, so long as its leaders prayed for his long life and military success. > > After Chinggis’ death in 1227 and the division of his empire among his > heirs, his son Chagatai inherited the rule of Sogdia and Afghanistan > and established the Chagatai Khaganate. In 1258, Hulegu, a grandson of > Chinggis, conquered Iran and overthrew the Abbasid Caliphate in > Baghdad. He established the Ilkhanate and soon invited to his court in > northwestern Iran Buddhist monks from Tibet, Kashmir, and Ladakh. The > Ilkhanate was more powerful than the Chagatai Khaganate and, at first, > it dominated its cousins there. Since the Buddhist monks had to pass > through Afghanistan on their way to Iran, they undoubtedly received > official support on their way. > > According to some scholars, the Tibetan monks who came to Iran were > most likely from the Drikung (Drigung) Kagyu School and Hulegu’s > reason for inviting them may have been political. In 1260, his cousin > Khubilai (Kublai) Khan, the Mongol ruler of northern China, declared > himself Grand Khan of all the Mongols. Khubilai supported the Sakya > Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and gave its leaders nominal suzerainty > over Tibet. Prior to this, the Drikung Kagyu leaders had been in > political ascendance in Tibet. Khubilai’s main rival was another > cousin, Khaidu, who ruled East Turkistan and supported the Drikung > Kagyu line. Hulegu may have been wishing to align himself with Khaidu > in this power struggle. > > Some speculate that the reason for Khubilai and Khaidu’s turning to > Tibetan Buddhism was to gain the supernatural backing of Mahakala, the > Buddhist protector practiced by both the Sakya and Kagyu traditions. > Mahakala had been the protector of the Tanguts, who had ruled the > territory between Tibet and Mongolia. After all, their grandfather, > Chinggis Khan, had been killed in battle by the Tanguts, who must have > received supernatural help. It is unlikely that the Mongol leaders, > including Hulegu, chose Tibetan Buddhism because of its deep > philosophical teachings. > > After the death of Hulegu in 1266, the Chagatai Khaganate became more > indepen­dent of the Ilkhans and formed a direct alliance with Khaidu > in his struggle against Khubilai Khan. **Meanwhile, the line of Hulegu’s > successors alternated in their support of Tibetan Buddhism and Islam**, > apparently also for political expediency. **Hulegu’s son Abagha > continued his father’s support of Tibetan Buddhism. Abagha’s brother > Takudar, however, who succeeded him in 1282, converted to Islam to > help gain local support** when he invaded and conquered Egypt. Abagha’s > son **Arghun** defeated his uncle and became Ilkhan in 1284. He **made > Buddhism the state religion of Iran** and founded several monasteries > there. When Arghun died in 1291, his brother Gaihatu became the > Ilkhan. Tibetan monks had given Gaihatu the Tibetan name Rinchen > Dorje, but he was a degenerate drunkard and hardly a credit to the > Buddhist faith. He introduced paper money to Iran from China, which > caused economic disaster. > > Gaihatu died in 1295, one year after the death of Khubilai Khan. > **Arghun’s son Ghazan succeeded to the throne. He reinstated Islam as > the official religion of the Ilkhanate and des­troyed the new Buddhist > monasteries there**. Some scholars assert that Ghazan Khan’s reversal of > his father’s religious policy was to distance himself from his uncle’s > reforms and beliefs, and to assert his independence from Mongol China. > > Despite ordering the destruction of Buddhist monasteries, it seems that the Ghazan Khan did not wish to destroy everything associated with Buddhism. For example, he commissioned Rashid al-Din to write Universal History (Ar. Jami’ al-Tawarikh), with versions both in Persian and Arabic. In its section on the history of the cultures of the people conquered by the Mongols, **Rashid al-Din included The Life and Teachings of Buddha**. To assist the historian in his research, Ghazan Khan invited to his court Bakshi Kamalashri, a Buddhist monk from Kashmir. Like the earlier work by al-Kermani, Rashid’s work presented Buddhism in terms that Muslims could easily understand, such as **calling Buddha a Prophet**, the deva gods as angels, and Mara as the Devil. > > Rashid al-Din reported that in his day, **eleven Buddhist texts in Arabic translation were circulating in Iran**. These included Mahayana texts such as The Sutra on the Array of the Pure Land of Bliss (Skt. Sukhavativyuha Sutra, concerning Amitabha’s Pure Land), The Sutra on the Array Like a Woven Basket (Skt. Karandavyuha Sutra, concerning Avalokiteshvara, the embodiment of compassion) and An Exposition on Maitreya (Skt. Maitreyavyakarana, concerning Maitreya, the future Buddha and embodiment of love). These texts were undoubtedly among those translated under the patronage of the Abbasid caliphs at the House of Knowledge in Baghdad starting in the 8th century. > > Rashid al-Din finished his history in 1305, during the reign of Ghazan’s successor Oljaitu. It seems that Buddhist monks were still present in Iran, however, at least until Oljaitu’s death in **1316**, since **monks unsuccessfully tried to win the Mongol ruler back to Buddhism**. Thus, at least up until then, Buddhist monks still passed back and forth through Afghanistan and thus might still have been welcomed at the Chagatai court. > > In 1321, the Chagatai Empire split into two. The Western Chagatai Khaganate included Sogdia and Af­ghanistan. From the start, its khans converted to Islam. The Ilkhanate in Iran fragmented and fell apart in 1336. After this, there is no indication of the **continuing presence of Buddhism in Afghanistan. It had lasted there nearly nineteen hundred years**. Nevertheless, knowledge of Buddhism did not die out. Timur (Tamerlaine) conquered the Western Chagatai Khaganate in 1364 and the small successor states of the Ilkhanate in 1385. Timur’s son and successor, Shah Rukh, commissioned the historian, Hafiz-i Abru, to write in Persian A Collection of Histories (Ar. Majma’ al-Tawarikh). Completed in **1425** in Shahrukh’s capital, Herat, Afghanistan, the history **contained an account of Buddhism** modeled after Rashid al-Din’s work a century earlier > > [History of Buddhism in Afghanistan Dr. Alexander Berzin ](https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/history-culture/buddhism-in-central-asia/history-of-buddhism-in-afghanistan) In the Pali Suttas or Bhikkhu Vinaya, did the Buddha ever warn of dangers of royal benefaction that could bring Buddhism into peril and destruction?

What is the meaning of "her way of turning her head" below? > By her smile and her looks, > > Her pride and her false modesty, > > **Her way of turning her head** or closing her eyes, > > Her fine words and her fits of anger and jealousy > > The provocativeness of her walk, > > > Woman drives a man mad. > > The net of lust is full: > > All men are caught in it. > > Whether she is seated, lying down, walking or standing, > > A glance, a lifting of the eyebrow is enough > > For the inexperienced fool > > To be completely intoxicated by her. Source: Maha Prajnaparamita Sastra , part 2.3 (Indifference toward women), written by Nagarjuna, and translated by Gelongma Karma Migme Chödrön.

When a person dies, s/he goes to heaven or hell based on present life karma and any past karmas. In Buddhism, if there is no soul, who is punished in hell and who enjoys in heaven? as there is no physical body to feel pain and pleasure. If that person has learnt the art of detachment, how can s/he suffer/enjoy in hell/heaven? Does different realms really exists and do we travel through them?

I apologize in advance if this question is not in the scope of this SE. Rather than read about the principles of Buddhism, I'd rather experience the practice of Buddhism through watching a movie. Is there a movie that shows a character learning about Buddhism demonstrating good and bad behaviors as the character learns? For example, something makes the character angry and the movie shows how the person reacts "in a Buddhist way" or reacts in a way that shows the outcome as it relates to Buddhist principles? Preferable to be in the English language and entertaining for adults.

Made a thread that was sorta related on here: Does Teleonomic Matter imply Subjectivity without Identity? Triggered again by this answer: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/78860/88743 and I was sorta triggered further when I read this comic: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 By the way I wouldn't recommend reading the comic, might not sleep tonight. But anyway, I've read Buddhism, attended some of the teachings from monks, and talked to Buddhists and the concept that always eluded me was no-self (attachment also but that's something else). I never really understood how it was supposed to be a good thing. That there is no enduring, unchanging essence that we can call me or "I", it's just a collection of causes and effects that is constantly in flux. It's "death" and "rebirth" in a metaphorical sense. To me it sounds like loosing so much that makes us human. No friends because there is no one you are friends with (even if you have friends), you aren't falling in love with someone because there is no "one" you are falling in love with. I can't really say "I like this" or "I wanna do this for a living" because that's not a permanent part of me, can't feel good or proud about myself when I achieve something because there is no one to feel that or celebrate, etc etc. Is it wrong to feel sad if my dog or dad dies because no "one" died? Am I even alive? It's something I try to avoid thinking about because when I listen to it and just view people as a collection of causes and aggregates I just stop caring about them, I can't really explain it. When I see myself like that my emotions just shut off for some reason. So with all that said I'm wondering how this is supposed to be beneficial for someone, let alone society (which I assume is the goal for Buddhism), because so far it's just hurt me and held me back from doing things in life rather than liberating me like they said. IMO Buddhism just feels like a religion that says everything I think and do is wrong, but I digress. I really need help with getting this because it's haunted me for years.

In 2008 I was in a near accident were I was inspired to go to a book store and ask the employee to pick me out an inspiring book. I was very pleased as I began to read and shortly I began to feel light and vibrations enter my body. I began to give my things away and buy people things,thus it felt like I was in a state of bliss. There was no judging no trying to achieve anything. Now I was a happy person before but this felt holy . I began to walk the streets and ask if I could pray for/with them. Then an inner voice told me to do things like one instance I was told to follow the sun and I'd know where to go. Well it was a church and I began to cry and went into the church were a man was sitting. I put my hand on his knee and he startled and said this man is aa saint. It scared me. I wasn't eating and placed in a hospital. I'm forced to take medicine I hate and am miserable. What now....I can't go back in time,plus I remember praying to take on others pain. Plz help.so much more happened as well

Philosophers of mind, such as David Chalmers, now recognize three general approaches to the question – what is consciousness? 1. **Materialism** - Materialism is the view that the mind is what the brain does. This is often stated as the mind is caused by the brain. The brain is the physical substance, while the mind or consciousness is a process that emerges from the brain. 2. **Dualism** - Dualism is the position that consciousness is something separate from the brain and not entirely caused by it. It may be a separate property of the universe (property dualism) or be something beyond the confines of our material universe. Whatever it is, it does not reduce to the firing of neurons in the brain, which cannot, in the opinion of dualists, explain subjective experience. 3. **Idealism** - The third position, the one is idealism – the claim that consciousness is all there is and the physical universe, including the brain, is a manifestation of consciousness. Explaining the position, Bernardo Kastrup uses the metaphor of a river, where the flowing water is consciousness. The material world is like a whirlpool in the stream – the whirlpool has a definite existence in time and space, you can point to it and say, “there it is,” but it is comprised entirely of the stuff of consciousness. Which position is the most closely aligned with Buddhist schools?

What's the benefit (ānisaṁso) of renunciation? As in, for example, "*... he gave a progressive discourse, that is, a talk on giving, behaving, and heaven; he revealed the drawback, degradation, and defilement of sensuality and the benefit of renunciation...*". I would say it's less excitement, a more serene and settled heart, a clearer mind, a better, more refined satisfaction. What do you think?

(pali + english, derived from b. Sujato trans.) http://lucid24.org/an/an07/an07-v05/index.html#s64 (b. thanissaro eng. trans) https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN7_60.html The passage in question: > “And further, an enemy wishes of an enemy, ‘O, may this person not > profit!’ Why is that? An enemy is not pleased with an enemy’s profits. > Now, when a person is angry—overcome with anger, oppressed with > anger—then even when he suffers a loss, he thinks, ‘I’ve gained a > profit’; and even when he gains a profit, he thinks, ‘I’ve suffered a > loss.’ When he has grabbed hold of these ideas that work in mutual > opposition (to the truth), they lead to his long-term suffering & > loss, all because he is overcome with anger. This is the third thing > pleasing to an enemy, bringing about an enemy’s aim, that comes to a > man or woman who is angry. b.bodhi has: > (3) “Again, an enemy wishes for an enemy: ‘May he not succeed!’ For > what reason? An enemy does not delight in the success of an enemy. > When an angry person is overcome and oppressed by anger, if he > gets what is harmful, he thinks: ‘I have gotten what is beneficial,’ > and if he gets what is beneficial, he thinks: ‘I have gotten what is > harmful.’ When, overcome by anger, he gets these things that are > diametrically opposed, they lead to his harm and suffering for a long > time. This is the third thing gratifying and advantageous to an enemy > that comes upon an angry man or woman. In the other 7 cases in the sutta, specifics are given so it's clear what the person who wants the enemy to suffer, how their anger sabotages their desire and tends to get the opposite result. In the case # 3 above however, it's not clear what the Buddha had in mind for specific examples. I can think of some hypothetical situations that would meet that criteria, but they would just be guesses. Anyone think they know exactly what is meant here?

My mother and I have slight issues because she is nagging and controlling (and I impatient). Despite that I love her very much, and I can't stand the idea that she will pass away in a few years; and she will suffer during death and later in a lower rebirth. I start crying every time this comes to my mind. In the moment I feel like leaving my job to go live with her and serve her (*I live in a far foreign country so I see her once a year or so*). Further I think of accepting it as part of life, but nothing comes to mind. I wonder, how is it even possible to be okay with this? Is there no other way but to endure great suffering when it inevitably happens? I wonder how other people deal with this? Do they all go through intense pain or somehow skillfully avoid it (especially buddhist master's who are not affected by this at all)? No matter how many books I read on Buddhism, I find no solutions to this question. Please educate me, as I think it is one of the most important questions of many people's lives.

This quote is widely attributed to Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche: > The bad news is, you’re falling through the air, nothing to hang on > to, no parachute. The good news is, there’s no ground. Among the many instances on the web, the only pointer to an actual citation of Trungpa Rinpoche's work I can find is on page 239 of *Sacred Groundlessness: Deepening the Ethics of Mindfulness in the Midst of Global Crisis* by Lama Karma, chapter 13 of *Handbook of Ethical Foundations of Mindfulness*, edited by Stanley, Purser and Singh. That pageless citation, however, is to *The collected works of Chögyam Trungpa (Vol. 8)* and seems to be incorrect. I have that book in electronic form, and searches on numerous words and phrases from the quote (ground, parachute, news, etc) do not turn up the quote or anything close. That's the only work of Trungpa Rinpoche cited in that chapter. The only other of his work in the edited volume is his very popular *Cutting through Spiritual Materialism*, and the quote is not in that either. **My question -- Can anybody identify a work or teaching by Trungpa Rinpoche that contains that quote or something like it, or say with some assurance that he did not actually say or write it. And if it's not his, who did say it?**

Shedding Tears in Amazement of the Dhamma I am posting this because I've yet to post a question. I should note that I respect Ajahn Maha Bua a lot. In fact, both of my teachers were students of his. However, Ajahn Maha Bua is the most controversial figure in Buddhism. Regardless if he were an arahant, I can definitively say he is an inspiration to me, and a superb teacher. Where would I be if not for Luangta? Thoughts?

My first exposure to Buddhism was watching [Seven Years in Tibet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years_in_Tibet_%281997_film%29) in my German childhood. Most memorable were the following two scenes of Buddhist monks in orange robes. In the one scene, some monks were carefully making a large picture out of coloured sand in a room with large windows. Upon completion (after one year of labour), the monks would simply open the window to let the wind carry the picture away. In the other scene, monks were very carefully turning soil. Apparently the monks had to be especially careful not to harm any earthworms, because, according to their belief, **their mothers would be reincarnated as earthworms**. Needless to say, I found it very arbitrary at best that _mothers_ should be reincarnated as _earthworms_ and was troubled by this first impressions for the next decade or so. Unfortunately, I still haven't been able to solve this mystery. So my question is, as it has been for many years, is there any connection between _mothers_ and _earthworms_ in Buddhism?

Pretty much as the title suggests: does it harm to meditate before sleeping? For me if I meditate seriously my mind is swept over with awakeness. as a consequence when I go to sleep I remain awake for sometime and keep thinking useless thoughts. so it kind of hinders my sleep. Is there a good practice or should meditation before sleep be avoided?

I'm looking for Suttas or other texts that describe the triple gem (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha), preferably for laypeople. I'm mostly interested in Theravada Suttas, but also Mahayana Sutras, newer books, or other materials. Grateful for help!

While going across literature pertaining to buddhism, I came across the following write-up named '*Logical Criticism of Buddhist doctrines*' where the author has Criticized various aspects of Buddhist Philosophy. The question however is meant specifically towards the writer's criticism of the buddhist 'no-self' concept and defense of the soul theory. While Interested readers might look up chapter 17 (Page 303-326) , for brevity's sake I am summarizing the gist of their main points against the no-self concept and highlighting them for ease of reading. > **Just as one would not look for visual phenomena with one’s hearing > faculty or for auditory phenomena with one’s visual faculty, so it is > absurd to look for spiritual things (the soul, and its many acts of > consciousness, will and valuation) with one’s senses or by observing > mental phenomena**. Each kind of appearance has its appropriate organ(s) > of knowledge. For spiritual things, only intuition (or apperception) > is appropriate. > > > **To understand how the soul can exist apparently in midst of the body > and mind (i.e. of bodily and mental phenomena) and yet be invisible, > inaudible, etc. (i.e. non- phenomenal), just imagine a > three-dimensional space (see illustration below). Say that two > dimensions represent matter and mind and the third applies to spirit. > Obviously, the phenomena of mind will not be found in the matter > dimension, or vice versa**. Similarly, the soul cannot be found in the > dimensions of matter and/or mind, irrespective of how much you look > for it there. Why? Simply because its place is elsewhere – in the > spiritual dimension, which is perpendicular to the other two. > **The truth is that it is impossible to formulate a credible theory of > the human psyche without admitting the existence of a soul at its > center.** **Someone has to be suffering and wanting to escape from > suffering. A machine-like entity cannot suffer and cannot engage in > spiritual practices to overcome suffering. Spiritual practice means, > and can only mean, practice by a spiritual entity, i.e. a soul with > powers of cognition, volition and valuation**. These powers cannot be > equated electrical signals in the brain, or to events in the skandhas. > They are sui generis, very miraculous and mysterious things, not > reducible to mechanical processes. Cognition without consciousness by > a subject (a cognizing entity) is a contradiction in terms; volition > without a freely willing agent (an actor or doer) is a contradiction > in terms; valuation without someone at risk (who stands to gain or > lose something) is a contradiction in terms. This is not mere grammar; > it is logic. > > As already mentioned, **a soul is not an essence, but a core > (spiritual) entity. It therefore cannot be viewed as one of the five > skandhas, nor as the sum of those skandhas, as the Buddhists rightly > insist. It can, however, contrary to Buddhist dogma, be viewed as one > of the parts of the complete person, namely the spiritual part; but > more precisely, it should be viewed as the core entity, i.e. as the > specific part that exclusively gives the whole a personality, or > selfhood.** This is especially true if we start wondering where our soul > came from when we were born, whether it continues to exist after we > die, where it goes if it does endure, whether it is perishable, and so > forth. How would a buddhist respond to this critique of the no-self theory?

What arguments does buddhism have to hold that consciousness is dependently originated when majority of non-buddhist philosophies/theologies hold consciousness/soul to be immutable/unchanging, without any origin and independent of matter and external factors?

What is the meaning of delusion ? and how it is different from lust , passion or greed ? What is the meaning of non-delusion ? and how it is different from no lust , no passion or no greed? And finally , how to get rid of delusion ?