I am looking for some books/textual references which describe in detail the meditative experiences of advanced practitioners of Buddhism, their experiences with Śūnyatā and the realisation of anatta. It can be the experiences of the Buddha, experiences of the Buddha's senior disciples, experiences of followers who lived during the Buddha's time, or experiences of contemporary Buddhists. Any help would be much appreciated.

In relation to a creator god, was the Buddha an atheist, theist or agnostic? Please provide answers with quotes from Buddhist scriptures.

The following are some arguments I came across from Advaita vedantists in some online forums against the buddhist view of the self. I am curious as to how Buddhists well versed into the philosophy would respond to them. **Buddhist Perspective on Self** > The Buddhist denial of Self is based on a misunderstanding of what > Advaita means by Atman. Atman is not a separate, individual entity but > the very essence of consciousness itself. The Buddha’s teaching of > No-Self (Anatta) was primarily aimed at refuting the notion of a > permanent, unchanging individual self, which Advaita also rejects. > > Advaita agrees that there is no permanent individual self, but asserts > that there is an underlying, unchanging consciousness (Brahman/Atman) > that is the substrate of all experience. This consciousness is not > separate from the world but is its very essence. > > The Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapada’s Karika demonstrate that waking, > dream, and deep sleep states all require a conscious witness that > persists through all states. This witness-consciousness is what > Advaita refers to as Atman. **Arguments Against Atman** > The Buddhist argument that the Self is a mental abstraction fails to > recognize the self-evident nature of consciousness. As Shankara points > out in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras, the existence of the Self > is self-evident and cannot be denied, for it is the very basis of all > denial. > > The Buddha’s reluctance to explicitly state “There is no self” can be > seen as an acknowledgment of the problematic nature of such a > statement. If there truly is no self, who is it that realizes this > truth? Who attains Nirvana? > > Advaita agrees that the idea of an individual, separate self leads to > suffering. However, it posits that the solution is not to deny the > Self altogether, but to realize one’s true nature as the universal > Self (Brahman). > > The Buddhist critique of “me” and “mine” is valid for the ego-self, > but not for the universal Self of Advaita. Realizing one’s true nature > as Brahman leads not to selfishness, but to universal love and > compassion, as seen in the lives of great Advaita sages. **Conditioned Genesis and Dependent Origination** > Advaita acknowledges the validity of Dependent Origination at the > empirical level (vyavaharika satya). However, it points out that the > very recognition of this interdependence requires a consciousness that > is not itself part of the causal chain. > > The 12-factor formula of paticca-samuppada is a brilliant analysis of > the cycle of samsara. However, Advaita asks: Who is aware of this > cycle? The awareness of the cycle cannot itself be part of the cycle. > > The Buddha’s rejection of soul-theories is understood in Advaita as a > rejection of limited concepts of self, not of consciousness itself. > The “correct approach” described in Buddhism of seeing things > objectively without mental projections is precisely what leads to the > Advaitic realization of non-dual awareness. > > In conclusion, while Buddhism provides valuable insights into the > nature of reality, Advaita Vedanta offers a more comprehensive > framework that accounts for both the changing phenomena and the > unchanging awareness that is their substrate. It is this unchanging, > ever-present consciousness that we call Brahman or Atman, the > realization of which leads to true and lasting freedom.

This question may seem a little new age. I am often discouraged in my life in general by the belief that I want more, nothing specific, but something is missing, perhaps a more meaningful life. Could this be attachment or thirst for an abstract idea? Can we be attached to the objects of the 6th consciousness? It's not obviously causing me to suffer physically or psychologically, perhaps in a subtle way, and it may be the suffering of change as it manifests to the 6th consciousness and its attachments. Any ideas? FTR I ***definitely don't blame*** - Buddhist - religion for that, even having had religious psychosis. It is just the mundane sense that my past is a disappointment and there's nothing I can do to shift my future into something better than that.

The Mrgendra Agama, A Saivite Hindu Agama text, in a certain chapter pertaining to the refutation of Rival schools makes the following criticism of the Buddhist position - > **cidyavañjakasya karmādeḥ kṣaṇikatvānmuhurmuhuḥ| vyajyate jāyamāneva > kṣaṇike matā paraiḥ|| 24** > > Due to the functions and operations of those instruments which help > for the manifestation of consciousness, cit (knowledge) appears to be > momentary, since those functions are of fractional duration. Not > knowing this, the Saugatas say that consciousness is momentary. > > **tadasatkarmaṇo bhogādātītānubhavasmṛteḥ| sthitirinanvaye nāśe na > smṛternāpi karmaṇaḥ|| 25||** > > **vināśa lakṣaṇopaiti na muktāvapyupaplavaḥ| na cāstyanubhavaḥ kaścit > bhāvāvasthā varaṃ tataḥ|| 26||** > > This view of momentariness is untenable. If consciousness itself is > momentary, the experience of meritorious and sinful effects and the > remembrance of previous experiences cannot occur. Because > consciousness which occurs at one moment perishes at the next moment > itself. How could the effect of karmas done by one man be experienced > by another man? > > Or, how could the experience attained by one man be > remembered by another man? Because of the ascertained occurrence of > the karmic effects and remembrance, it is to be deduced that the self > is essentially eternal; not momentary. > > There is another defect in the > concept of momentariness of the self. Can the occurrence of > uninterrupted continuity of momentary-self be considered as > liberation? Or, can the pacified and stilled state of consciousness > itself after knowing the object, just like the extinguished beam of a > lamp, be considered as the state of liberation? If it is the case of > former, then, even in the state of liberation, the continuity of the > momentary self frequently gets destroyed. If it is the case of latter, > then, there is no experience of bliss in the extinguished state of the > self. Therefore, when compared to this kind of blissless liberation, > "to be enmeshed in the transmigratory phenomena" is more preferable; > more superior. ~ Mrgendra Agama, Vidya Pada, 2.24-26 How would a Buddhist respond to this critique philosophically?

Things like sex or alcohol or drugs gives us pleasure because it shuts the conscious mind . But when doing meditation does we get happiness because of shutting of conscious mind / no thought ? I mean what's the difference between the two ?

What is the simplest way to think of and give expression to Dhamma for practical purposes for meditators? What exactly is Dukkha?

French philosopher René Descartes is famous for saying "*Je pense, donc je suis.*" (I think, therefore I am.). Is this in fact the exact opposite of the concept of the Buddha nature, with something like "I am. But unfortunately I can think." being the more appropriate idea? --- Descartes seems to be saying that because he can think he is aware that he exists. My (possibly mistaken) impression of Buddha nature is that everything exists, but thinking about one's own existence can disrupt or interfere with that existence.

The following Tibetan Buddhist (thangka) painting is a version of a visual representation of the 9 Stages (~11 stages) of Samatha meditation. Who is the *original* artist who painted it? It would have been painted about a millennium ago or so.

I live with my mother in her house. There have been a mouse for a few months, living in the ceiling of my bedroom, and since a few weeks, it has been a nuisance for it scratches something, day and night, to the point of preventing me to sleep, even when wearing ear plugs. The mouse does not seem to understand that it is not alone in the house and that it causes distress. I remember that There were mice long before and the rat poison was successful, until another mouse set in. They always find their way in, and always end up breeding and making a noisy mess. I cannot access the ''thermal material'' which is between the ceiling of my bedroom and the attic, because the attic has been covered up by some thermal blanket to better protect the house thermally. I do not wish to kill the mouse with some rat poison per se. but I also fear that the mouse could chew some wires, electrical and telephonic, which pass above the ceiling and causing damage to the house. I also fear that the mouse breeds leading to even more mice, especially if I end up killing them. There are cats in the neighbourhood, and it is not clear to whom they belong, but they clearly did not catch the mouse thus far. I cannot get a cat myself, since there is no place and no means to sustain having a cat. I do not know the path to the garden that the mouse takes to leave the house, because there are plants and small trees preventing me to watch the ground and weed. Is there another solution than killing it in disposing some rat poison, in order to stop the noises and be assured that the house will not be damaged ?

Some drugs, like ecstasy, help build empathy and help our mind see things from a different point of view. What about if meditation is the obsolete ways to see enlightment and perhaps drugs are the easier ways?

I know it's discouraged for Buddhists to intoxicate their body, but were there any known cases of monks using psychedelic drugs intentionally in the past?

I have head psychedelic drugs described as a gateway that can lead people to Buddhism, and to very powerful meditation practice. I have also heard the drugs were frowned upon by ancient Buddhist teachings. What do you know about the ancient and modern Buddhist attitudes toward these drugs?

There’s a new theory, which I saw many Vaiṣṇava groups propagating, of the 2 buddhas: Viṣṇu incarnate Ādi Buddha and the other being Śākyamuni of Buddhism, as two seperate personalities, based on the differences in Buddha stories from the Vaiṣṇava texts and Śākyamuni’s story in Buddhist texts. I have briefly talked about it in the addendum to this answer as well. They cite the details mentioned in the Bhāgvata Puruāṇa to claim that Viṣṇu-incarnate Buddha was a different person born centuries before the Gautama Buddha, gave teachings of compassion and leaving animal slaughter, then centuries later Siddhārtha came to bodh gaya, gained enlightenment there as the place had increased spiritual potency. To Quote from this article - > tatah kalau sampravritte sammohaya sura-dvisham > buddho namnanjana-sutah kikateshu bhavishyati > (srimad-bhagavatam 1.3.24) > > “Thereafter, in the twenty-first manvantara at the beginning of > Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as **Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, > in Kikata Pradesa (the province of present day Gaya-Bihar)**, just for the purpose > of deluding those who are envious of the faithful demigods.” As anyone can see that the stated birth place does not coincide with the Birth place of the historical Gautama Buddha. To supposedly reconcile this apparent contradiction, they cite the theory that the Vishnu incarnate buddha was a different person from Gautama buddha for which they cite the following proof- > Thus, Sugata Buddha and Sunyavadi (Sakyasimha) Buddha are not the same > person. Further evidence is found in Mr. H.T.Colebrooke’s Amarakosha, > published at Ramapura in 1807. It is written in Chapter 21, Page 178 > of Lalitavistara-grantha that Gautama Buddha performed penances at the > same place as the previous Buddha (Vishnu-avatara Buddha). Maybe it is > for this reason that in later ages he and Lord Buddha are considered > as being one: > > esha dharanimunde purvabuddhasanasthah > samartha dhanurgrihitva sunya nairatmavanaih > klesaripum nihatva drishtijalanca bhitva-siva > virajamsokam prapsyate bodhimagryam What's more to support this notion, they cite even a Buddhist text named Lankavatara-sutra - > There is an authentic Buddhist book, Lankavatara-sutra, in which > Ravana, the king of Lanka, prays to Jina’s son, the ancient Lord > Buddha, and to all the Buddhas and Buddhas’ sons who would appear in > the future, via this eulogy (stava): > > atha ravano lankadhipatih gathagiten anugayati sma > lankavatarasutram vaih purvabuddhanuvarnitam > smarami purvakaih buddhairjinaputra-puraskritaih > putrametannigadyate bhagavanapi bhashatam > bhavishyantyanapate kale buddha buddhasutasca ye > > Therefore, this source leaves no doubt that the ancient avatara-Buddha > and the modern Gautama Buddha are not the same person. Questions - 1. As I saw from the Answers of this question , there is indeed a conception of many Buddhas in the Buddhist literature. Does any of the buddhist literature mention any account one of the former buddhas taking birth in Present Day Gaya (Kikata-pradesa)? 2. Since it is Gaya alone where Gautama Buddha attained enlightenment, Does Gautama buddha mention any of the former buddhas taking birth in that place in any of his discourses? As the Buddha was omniscient, he would have certainly known about the former buddhas and if any of them had actually taken birth in kikata pradesa (aka present day Gaya).

I've become aware through sutta study that avijja (the fetter of ignorance) refers to ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. Is there a specific canonical sutta that says that avijja is ignorance of the anatta doctrine? I know inferentially if anatta is part of the Four Noble Truths, then that would follow, however sometimes the various connections are hard to hold in the mind at the same time. Thanks.

I was reading an article about *The Samaññaphala Sutta* and came across this line: *This [sutta] is placed in juxtaposition to the Buddhist view of the teachings of rival philosophical teachers of the time, showing how the Buddha — in contradistinction to the inflexible, party-line approach of his contemporaries — presented his teaching in a way that was pertinent and sensitive to the needs of his listeners.* Who were these "contemporaries" and what were they teaching?

Professor VV Gokhale in a paper titled "The Vedanta-Philosophy described by Bhavya in his Madhyamakahrdaya" (Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1958) discusses a work named mAdhyamakahridaya by Bhavya, a sixth century mAdhyamaka buddhist. In the discussion, He refers to a situation where the mahAyAna school is criticised as being similar to vedAnta in the said work. In reply, Apparently Bhavya says that whatever is good in the upaniShads has also been taught by the Buddha. To cite- > In one of the chapters of the **Madhyamakahridaya** dealing with the > hInayAna objections to mahAyAna, the hInayAna-buddhist criticises the > mahAyAna buddhist saying;- > > **न बुद्धोक्तिर्महायानं सूत्रान्तादावसंग्रहात् | मार्गान्तरोपदेषात् वा > यथा वेदान्तदर्शनम् ||** > > The mAhAyAna teaching was not spoken of by the Buddha, either because > it is not included in the sUtrAntas, or because like the vedAnta > darshana, it teaches heretic paths to salvation. > > To this attack, the mahAyAnist replies - > > **वेदान्ते च हि यत् सूक्तम् तत् सर्वं बुद्धभाषितम् | दृष्टान्तन्यूनता > तस्मात् संदिग्धं वा परीक्ष्यताम् ||** > > **Whatever is well said in the vedAnta (upaniShads) has been taught by > the Buddha.** The various examples cited by the hInayAna are faulty and > what is doubtful must be examined. Questions- 1. Is that a unanimous view among the Mahayana Buddhists that Buddha's teachings were inspired from vedanta? 2. How would adherents from other schools of buddhism view the statements of Bhavya?

Having learned and gained complete mastery from the two most famous teachers of his time, he decided to apply extreme austerities for some six years. With these skills acquired, driving a powerful concentration, he abandoned it all in favour of a skill he discovered when as a child at the Kings Plowing Ceremony, where he entered the first jhana [Dhyāna] quite effortlessly. Furthermore, added to this cache of tools, he prior added a powerful determination to not move from that spot, even if his blood should dry up, etc, etc. The subsequent release of this energy resulted in a spectacular display of meditative attainment. In the first watch of the night investigating Kamma with respect to successive past lives, revealing causal sequence. In the second watch of the night, investigating Kamma with respect to consequences of currently available choices. In the third watch of the night, the realisation of deliverance. Not much is said about the results of the third watch. It is a fairly common experience where insights coming from seeing a new possibility after examining two different phenomena with a common factor giving rise to a eureka moment. But what may have happened in this case, such a eureka event further resulting in a realisation that Dukkha had ceased? The Buddha's quest finally achieved. During the next eight weeks, the problem of describing a way of enabling others to achieve this result, though necessarily _not_ in the same way, given the death of the two teachers, plus avoiding austerities, plus the absence of psychic powers. In developing a tangible expression for the inexpressible, the Buddha further developed the right view, that Dukkha exists, arises and ceases according to conditions. Enabling the further development of the 'noble eightfold path'. According to tradition, all this happened in an instant, that is to say, the sequence happened very rapidly: the problem is to give it coherent expression. The result: the four noble truths.

The post here specifically refers to introducing Buddhism to a child as well as meditation and recitals. I want to introduce concepts such as "clinging", "letting go", "intent", "self", "no-self" and the like. Being surrounded by children under the age of 4, I observe that certain behaviors are starting to take root e.g. clinging. If a particular toy is lost or not available, the child senses a deep loss which results in emotional and physical distress. The kids also identify with themselves with the things they are surrounded by e.g. friends, physical objects, etc

I practice Vipassana meditation and am currently going through a period of anhedonia and I am trying to understand if my depression is a sankhara or if it is simply a result of my mind reacting and not being equanimous in my everyday life. While practicing Vipassana I don't have a problem following the instructions or have an overly difficult time practicing equanimity so it doesn't make sense that I would be able to cause that much suffering in my every day life because of my reactivity. But then if it's not my mind reacting to something it means it has simply arisen for whatever cause. I find it difficult to navigate the personal accountability of what one experiences (I caused my depression by not living a fulfilling life, not providing for my needs etc) and my depression simply being caused by the inescapable suffering of life and/or sankharas. Because then it does mean that we can control our well being by changing something outside of ourselves which contradicts the idea that we are 100% responsible for the pain we carry, but that's not true is it? We are hurt and traumatised by the world and relationships and while we then have responsibility to not generate more suffering for ourselves we didn't cause the harm that was done to us in the first place which would mean that certain pain and sadness that we carry does not come from us. I realise that ultimately, whether our suffering comes from a reaction, a sankhara or from wherever else the procedure of taking care of and approaching the suffering will be by the same technique according to Vipassana, namely through observing the sensations and by practicing equanimity. But is that enough? How do you know if you need to change things in your life to be able to be well? If you practice you might feel a sense of relief and a little more clarity but what if that's not enough to actually feel a sense of meaningfulness and a desire to take action, to do things? Hope this made sense, if anyone has any insight they'd like to share around this topic I'd be deeply appreciative, thank you.