Fame seems to be associated with e.g. the early zen cults that formed in china, and must have been essential to the life of buddhism, but in general I'd have thought it is frowned upon, though perhaps not with the same seriousness as infidelity and using alleged buddhist status to procure sex. Anyone have anything to add?

From MN 49 (trans. Sujato): > Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s > what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water, > fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming > radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the > Overlord, and the all. > > *Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ* ... The invisible consciousness (*viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ*) from MN 49 seems to be different from the sense consciousness described in MN 18 e.g. eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness etc. because it is not within the scope of sense experience, according to MN 49. It is also found in DN 11 . It is also translated as "consciousness without surface" (from here , trans. Thanissaro). Question 1: What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface described in MN 49 and DN 11? Is it a cosmic consciousness like the one found in Hinduism? I guess not. Question 2: This answer implies that this invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface is the re-linking consciousness (*patisandhi-viññana*) that connects one lifetime to the next. This also implies that the re-linking consciousness (*patisandhi-viññana*) which is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface (*viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ*) is the consciousness that descends into the womb causing materiality-mentality (*nāmarūpa*) to arise (from DN 15 ). Is this right? Question 3: Also, the description of "invisible, infinite and radiant all round" sounds very similar to the "luminous mind" (*pabhassara citta*) from AN 1.51-52 . The same word "*pabham*" (luminosity) or "*pabhassara*" (luminous) is used in both MN 49 and AN 1.51-52. How is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface related to the luminous mind?

I don't believe you can die when in absorption (at least if you are reborn), but tricycle says > The attitude of the mind at death is very important, Buddhists > believe. The less fear and aversion we experience at death, and the > more focus, calm, and equanimity we have, the more likely we will be > reborn in good circumstances. Which is why preparing the mind for > death through meditation is a core element of Buddhist practice. Is there a reference for claims of their sort? If so, then how do we cultivate the right attitude, and does it really matter at all, given that results are about our own karma, rather than what happens at the end of this life or even one more life.

Why people recommend to sit in meditation for 1 hour not 55 mins 59 mins or 61 mins .Is it something special for 60 mins ? Can I use binaural beats in headphone while meditating ?

I asked ChatGPT, *Is vedana a sanskhara?* Following is its answer: > In Buddhist philosophy, "vedanā" (feeling or sensation) is distinct > from "saṅkhāra" (mental formations or volitional activities), though > they are both components of the Five Aggregates (pañca-khandha) which > constitute a being. > > The Five Aggregates are: > 1. **Rūpa**: Form or physical body. > 2. **Vedanā**: Feeling or sensation (pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral experiences). > 3. **Saññā**: Perception or recognition. > 4. **Saṅkhāra**: Mental formations or volitional formations (includes all types of mental activities such as intentions, thoughts, desires, > and emotions). > 5. **Viññāṇa**: Consciousness. > > So, vedanā is not the same as saṅkhāra. Vedanā refers specifically to > the experiences of pleasure, pain, or neutrality, whereas saṅkhāra > encompasses a broader range of mental activities and processes, > including the volitional acts that condition future experiences and > actions. Do you agree with the answer?

According to my understanding Koṇḍañña was the first to understand the Buddha's teaching and reach enlightenment at the Deer's Park . The senior monk was held in high-esteem, then he retired to the Himalayas in his last years. Where is the story of his retirement found? I already searched the wikipedia , but it seems controversial. Was he the same one as Vimalakoṇḍañña - born to King Bimbisāra (wiki makes a relationship but I am doubtful)?

I'm facing a dilemma. There are 2 cats that often come nearby my house. One is the mother (who happened to come to my house even before I fed it) and the other a kitten that was born also nearby my house. I think the mother might have been abandoned by previous owner because she was comfy with humans. At first the mother was skinny and had infection. I helped her by feeding whenever she comes and buy medications from vets to treat her skin and cough. Now she's healthy. The kitten is also well fed because I helped it since it was a little. However because of my actions, both have a dependency towards me. Sometimes they ask for attention, which I give from time to time. On top of it, the mother cat keeps getting pregnant, which led to my neighbor who don't want their kids to play with kittens, throwing away the kittens. I think some of the kittens might have been dead too without me knowing it. I have very little control about this because the cats are always outside and anyone can do whatever they want. I don't bring them in or keeping them as a pet, because I don't think a Buddhist should keep pets. Which brings me to these questions: 1. Am I wrong for feeding these cats? my heart tells me to feed hungry animals if possible but of course not everyone sees strays as animals that need help. By feeding I also invite them to stay around my house (being more dependent on me and causing annoyance for the neighbor) 2. Am I wrong for thinking Buddhist aren't allowed to keep pets? 3. Since stray cats usually breed a lot. Should I neuter the mother cat? my hope is so that there will be no more kittens thrown away from their mother not long after birth, or to experience suffering. Is it wrong to neuter animals? Answers to these questions will help me decide on what to do next. Thank you. Namo Buddhaya.

There is a sutta AN or SN, I believe, I read months ago that discussed about a kingsman who wanted to give respect to the Buddha by bowing but couldn't because he would lose a good job, family, and reputation. He went to The Blessed One to pay respect but told him that, instead of bowing, when he rides on his horse and tips his hat, that is the sign that he is bowing to The Blessed One. He gives other like signs to hide the respect he wanted to give The Buddha by bowing. The Buddha's religious neighbors in town questioned The Buddha and were particular about the Blessed One's teachings and practice, and, thus, opposed anyone who followed The Buddha would be opposing the religious teachings of the land. The Buddha didn't complain. Like other suttas, there is a lot of repetition, but the main message is it doesn't matter how you do X action it's your intentions that count. I ask because in western culture bowing in respect to others isn't common. Shaking hands or eye to eye contact takes precedent. We may nod our heads when acknowledging a person equally (say walking pass each other) but not insofar out of hierarchy (spiritual, political, etc). To many it can be seen as an act of submission; but, in general, people usually "bow" to people closer to them than they would strangers. With that in mind, this sutta I can't find really caught my attention about The Buddha looking at intentions rather than requiring the practice of his teachings be congruent with the cultural norms in his day. -Specifically, I am looking for that particular sutta or one very close to it. Any of you familiar with this story?

According to Theravadic Buddhism there’s no self. Self is an emergent illusion of a collection of smaller entities ( citta, chaithasika etc), in the same way, the physical body is an emergent result of the 5 elements (āpo, thejo etc.). This is also somewhat coherent with modern scientific understanding, which explains mind/self is an emergent result of chemical reactions in the brain. Modern science is also on the path which states there is no free will, but rather responces and interactions to stimuli in a complex system. My main question here is, if there is no self in Buddhism, what is the meaning of the concept of taking the right-effort (viriya) to attain nirvana, as there’s no actual actor to exert an effort? Conscious action itself is an illusion and there was no control for an alleged self in the first place. There never was an actor, and there never were conscious actions. Everything was an emergent illusion. So why talk about exerting an effort to reach Nirvana?

There has been many questions on whether Gautama Buddha was casteist or not. The answer to that is, of course he was. Majjhima Nikaya > If, sometime or other, at the end of a long period, that fool comes back to the human state, it is into a low family that he is reborn - into a family of outcasts or hunters or bamboo-workers or cartwrights or scavengers - one that is poor with little to eat and drink, surviving with difficulty, where he scarcely finds food and clothing... AN 5.191 > In the past, brahman males mated only with brahman females and not with non-brahman females. At present, brahman males mate with brahman females and with non-brahman females. At present, male dogs mate only with female dogs and not with female non-dogs. This is the first ancient brahmanical tradition that is now observed among dogs but not among brahmans... Astasahasrika ch 25 > A Bodhisattva who trains thus is not reborn in the hells, nor among animals, nor in the realms of the Pretas, nor among the Asuras, nor in outlying districts [among barbarous populations], nor in the families of outcasts or fowlers, of hunters, fishermen or butchers, nor in the other low class families of that kind, in which one is addicted to low deeds It is pretty much established that yes, he was a casteist. Buddhism seems to regard him as Lord and often Infallible. Yet, most Buddhists doesn't seem to be too casteist. I am guessing the attitude towards caste changed. My question is, what changed this? Did you guys get influenced by Abrahamic religions or did you guys change by yourself? How do you separate yourselves from the stance that Gautama Buddha took? I asked Hindus how they are not casteist. Most of them responded they indeed believe in caste and justified it, while others simply said 'times are different'. When looked into Hindu history, we understand it was Abrahamic religions that made them change their stance. My question to you guys is what made Buddhists change? Or are Buddhists mostly secretly casteist too?

A number of people have become enlightened since Shakyamuni Buddha's realization of the truths. I'm curious as to who the latest person to have obtain enlightenment and become a Buddha is (as considered by the consensus of Buddhists)?

1. anicca: things only exist for a moment: I infer that every rebirth that occurs does so in a present moment. 2. dukkha: I am suffering: I infer that I am conclusively not in final nirvana. 3. anatta: there is no soul: I infer that I am nothing in addition to what is reborn. 4. ***we cannot fully establish when now occurs***. I think 1 and 4 mean that the time of rebirth is vague, because every rebirth occurs in the present and it's borderline when that is. **Assuming, then, that every rebirth has a vague truth value for occurring at some time, then all times have a vague truth value for being when some rebirth occurs, because if some time has a sharp truth value for being when some rebirth occurs (which must be the case if the conclusion if false) then some rebirth has a sharp truth value for occurring at some time (which cannot by the case if the assumption is true).** Given A. I have not at this time borderline realised final nirvana (see 2) B. I am borderline reborn at this time (see above) I might conclude: C. Not being reborn is not identical to final nirvana. Seeing as I am nothing in addition to what is reborn (see 3), I might conclude that ***final nirvana is nothing***. ---------- The section in bold is the part that I am most confused about: and I would especially want an answer that refutes its reasoning. The italics are my own asusmption and conclusion. Answering that 1-3 are poor descriptions of their terms would be unhelpful in this instance, but worth commenting about.

I saw many monks sit in the nets, what is the point of meditating in the forest if one cant handle the forest? Might as well just stay indoors imo. Did the ancient monks use nets? what do you think? I think it is kind of silly and is an attempt to have a pleasant experience.

Similar to "The Mind Illuminated" and "Core Teachings of the Buddha". Are there any books that offer a pragmatic and objective guide on vipassana meditation, rather than a "spiritual" one?

Why is Nanavira considered controversial? I've overheard conversations about Nanavira Thera, and people seem to be in three groups: 1) He's a heretic. 2) He's a genius sotapanna. 3) Nyana-who? But I've never heard why group 1 consider him to be a heretic. I know he claimed to be a stream-enterer in a letter after he committed suicide... Super controversial, but there has to be more to it than that?

I read the following on the internet: > The suttas describe many conditions in Indian society and the world in > general, but you won't find any teachings recommending monks or anyone > else practice bigotry, oppression and vanity. Did the Buddha describe caste as "bigotry, oppression and vanity"? Please provide examples from the "suttas"?

Is the thought of killing someone without actually killing him bad Karma? How powerful is it? I think it is certainly bad karma. But I am willing to know the Buddhist explanation of it with more detail. What will happen, if a person forcefully resit those thoughts when thoughts are arriving?

Once Nagarjuna has demonstrated the emptiness of all exaggerated existential positions, including the existence of the Dharma and the Buddha's doctrine, how does he then affirm the validity of the Dharma? Is it because the Dharma teaches nothing other than its own emptiness (as well as the emptiness of everything) and thus is conventionally affirmed as the supreme teaching? Why does the Dharma hold a privileged position?

New Kadampa Tradition is a prominent Buddhist movement in the UK with many centres and meditation classes. However I've always been confused about the relationship between them and Tibetan Buddhist. So moving on from this question - what is the relationship between the New Kadampa Tradition and the Tibetan schools? What lineage if any do they claim? Are they a minor school or a subset of another school? I heard somewhere that they had a disagreement with the Dalai Lamaso maybe they are linked with the Gelug school. However that might not be true - all kinds of things get reported about Buddhist organisations that can be classified as new religious movements, some of which are just sticks to beat them with.

Is being mindful of feelings in-and-of-themselves according to the triad of pleasant, unpleasant, neutral the Middle Way? Is is also auto-suggestion? Is it normalization of a distribution? Does it attempt to root out the extremes by placing us in the context of three categories? I really like the simplicity of Buddha’s model but what then about agony and ecstasy or rapture? I am happpy to do away with them, but I’m not sure how beyond lifestyle overhaul