I read the following in the internet: > The Source of all life is Nirvana. Is this true? I also read the following on the internet: > Life involves suffering, dissatisfaction, and impermanence. This > suffering is inherent in birth, aging, illness, and death. If Nirvana is the Source of Life, is Nirvana the Source of Suffering?

India is the original land of Buddhism, but it is followed/practiced more outside its country of birth. Are there any reasons for this?

My Vijnana view from advaita Vedanta is deep and ingrained, it is false I know it but I need help to improve it because I read long time about conciousness the self I read much like these things like this : what about Consciousness. Have you ever experienced Consciousness without Being? For Consciousness to be known, it must be present. The reason we can say ‘I am,’ is because we know that ‘I am.’ And that which knows ‘I am’ is by definition, present, that is, being. I ceary now undertand that all these views are wrong. Honestly I knew it then to!. But had no other option. To my questions ... 1 ) When one experiences Nibbana is Nibbana experienced as in subject object relationship from the perspective of a subject or maybe there is no subject nor object during Nibbana like a state that transends that duality, In short what is happening in Nibbana what is the correct undertanding of what is happening. 2) Also more clarification needed regarding vinjana from my last question. Conciousness can be aware of itself you said, When I see something I (the mind) know what I am seeing. Isnt the knowing of what I am seeing " the knowing of what is seen and not conciousness conciousness of itself. Is conciousness conciousness of conciousness just the fact that there is the knowledge of what is happening, and is this not a thought and not conciousness conciousness of conciousness. Maybe I do not know because of my advaita even what conciousness conciousness of conciousness is so what is it. Isnt conciousness only an activity of cognizing with no cognizer. What am I missing. In which way would the conciousness of seeing imply conciousness conciousness of conciousness. 3) Also the experience of conciousness being concious of conciousness in advaita they say to experience this the same way you cannot take a step towards yourself beacuse you are already standning where you are the same way your attention cannot find conciousness as an object "relax your attention from all objects and that nothingness is conciousness awareness of itself" or ask yourself am I aware. (Do you agree that this relaxing your attention from all objects into a objectless-nothingness state is conciousness awareness of itself?), they say it seems like nothing from the point of view of the mind which knows only objects in subject object relationship while conciousness knowledge of itself is without subject or object. 4) They describe the state of relaxing our attention from all objects to come to the nothingness state as aware-being or the presence of that which is aware so they say awareness is knowing but it also IS it exists the knowledge of our own existence the knowledge I AM is conciousnessnes knowledge of itself "I know that I am" I know this is wrong view but please clarify why this nothingness state has nothing to do with how it is described. 5) When you said infinite conciousness in your last answer I suppose that doesnt include something metaphysical like infinite in space ?. 6) Also what struck me from your answer and is different from what I read and you said in the Jhana of infinite conciousness there are mental factors participating or enabling the infinite conciousness Jhana which shows this is not a blank state of nothingness , but a state you "built" up with intention,attention,perception etc am I right about this. This means if I or the mind is percieving this state I think that means that while I am percieving this state of infinitude of conciousness I am aware percieving the state of infintude of conciousnes (it is tricky because ifinitude to me indicates a infinite state where there is no mind or subject to know it) (I may be wrong) but as you described it (if I understood it) percieving this Jhana is something while we do it we know that we do it. Not like in advaita where when we relax attention from all objects and come to a nothingness we dont know anything about that state of nothingness in Buddhism this state seems to be something that during that state we are in it and percieve that state as an object to us as opposed to advaita which says there is no subject nor object when we relaxed attention from all objects and come to that state of nothingness. Huh this was not easy to understand for you if you have any questions about what I said please I understand it is complicated I am more than willing to clarify. please do not refer to me to other similar questions I saw other people having the similar question as I have but I couldnt find the satisfying answer. Once again thank you.

I wonder, in everyday life, when I feel really cold outside and I want to rush indoors for warmth, how these ascetics deal with it. I understand coldness is a part of reality and must ideally be experienced when it presents itself with a calm mind. I'm curious how ascetics, like the Buddha and his followers, manage this since they lived in the forests for extended periods without heating or modern amenities. How is it possible for them not to get sick or die from diseases and cold? More importantly, in the early stages of renunciation, how do they resist the urge to return to civilization? Sorry, if its a silly question, But I have wondered about it every day these months, without finding an answer yet. Thanks

When we offer something like food to a buddha statue (a buddha puja) the buddha statue has no benefit from it.. But we offer it (buddha puja) as a respect to buddha and gain merits.. so the buddha puja defines as giving with respect.. According to abhidhamma alobha cetasika, is the basic reason for giving ..like that I think saddha, is the basic reason for respect here.. if so what cetasika is the respect (or from what cetasikas the respect is made of?) in this occasion..

1. ***Please someone know the Jataka (past lives of the Buddha) reference number of the Bodhisatta's aspiration for Buddhahood? As Sumedha in the city of Amaravatī?*** > The E. B. Cowell Jataka edition 2. ***Secondly how many Buddhas ago was it?*** 3. ***What was the Buddhas name?*** 4. ***Finally how many aeons was it between Buddha Gotama and that Buddha?*** > notes: > 1. "four asaṃkhyeya and a hundred thousand kalpas ago" (from memory) The second and third question may come from secondary sources.

I heard the New York Times, wrote recently: "truth is bad, truth is inconvenient!" William Shakespeare once wrote "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so". - when we stop thinking it's bliss! and "all the worlds a stage and all the men and women merely players", that our time on earth is just a play a show, in order to learn. Rumi wrote "beyond ideas of good and ideas of bad there is a field, I will meet you there." Buddha is quoted in the Dhammapada as saying, "rely on nothing, until you want nothing!" Are we all enlightened already, we just haven't realised it yet? As Ramana Maharshi has appeared to indicate. I heard a person recently state "forgiveness is one of the highest forms of love". Could truth and silence be higher?

I read the following on the internet: > The Truth of Suffering (Dukkha): Life involves suffering, > dissatisfaction, and impermanence. This suffering is inherent in > birth, aging, illness, and death. > > The Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (Nirodha): It is possible to end suffering by eliminating attachment, craving, and ignorance. If suffering is inherent in life, how can suffering be ended while being alive? Must I commit suicide to end suffering? Is committing suicide eliminating attachment, craving and ignorance? What exactly did the Buddha teach in this First Noble Truth?

Can buddism help those who just worship a few statutes and have a small book and keep seeing the god in people online. Would god give a job and wife and maybe back to mainline plans or different.

I was just meditating, and as I tried to see the breath more clearly, I noticed that there is this resistance again to doing that. When I tried to see that, it seemed to me that there was great pleasure above feeling and a comfortable feeling in the mind remaining as it is and not exerting itself to know the object in the present moment. The pleasurable feeling was very similar to the joy of laziness and comfort, or, for example, the comfort of a warm interior after coming in from the cold outside. I also noticed a tinge of sleepiness in it, although I just had eight hours of uninterrupted sleep. Have you noticed this previously? If yes, can you give details on what this is? This feeling is completely new to me, and I think it is an impediment in developing the mind. Thank you.

Quick question. How do we hear the sound of our own thought? I assume ear-consciousness but without the contact of internal-external bases ? Is this right?

I read the following on the internet: > Vipassana, the tranquil mind, is the core. > > When emotions arise, the tranquil mind observes and assesses before > the conscious is involved. > >The tranquil mind will recognise the burning heart and dualise > the self. When the self becomes two, the emotions don't rule the mind > and the mind doesn't rule the emotions. Is vipassana the tranquil mind? Does the tranquil mind observe before the arising of consciousness? What is meant by dualizing the self? How does the tranquil mind dualize the self? How does the dualized self stop emotions not ruling the mind?

So I was reading about jhana and nimitta in a book by Pa-Auk tawya sayadaw here page 41 if anyone wants to read. Where I come across this: > To balance faith with wisdom, and concentration with effort, is > praised by the wise. If, for instance, faith is strong and wisdom is > weak, a person will develop faith in, and respect for objects without > use and essence. For instance, he will develop faith in, and reverence > for objects revered and respected by religions outside orthodox > Buddhism, such as guardian spirits or protective deities. **If, on the > other hand, wisdom is strong and faith is weak, a person can become > quite crafty. Without meditating, he will spend his time simply > passing judgements. This is as difficult to cure as to cure a diseas > caused by an overdose of medicine.** If faith and wisdom are balanced, > however, a person will have faith in objects he should have faith in: > the Triple Gem, kamma, and its effects. He will believe that if he > meditates in accordance with The Buddha's instructions, he will be > able to attain the pañibhàga-nimitta, and jhàna Now I do experience with the latter, too much wisdom, not enough faith. I did and must have had some faith at the beginning of my study into Buddhism, though at that time I still had faith (believed) in god (creation/christian god) but now I "know" things that I no longer have faith in, because I know and understand them I have conformation rather than faith. Even kind of complicated concepts like "faith in" karma, I no longer have faith in because I understand and can see first hand karma manifest through cause and effect. Even the Buddhas enlightenment I have "seen" so to speak as I have seen the fruits of the path so my faith in these things have waned or dissipated. There has not been any sort of scepticism about the actual Buddhas teachings for a long time, I at least intellectually understand even the most complex concepts. I remember hearing a sutta about Buddha asking a student if they have faith in the Buddha and the student replied "no I do no longer have faith in the Buddha", to which the other members of the sangha were shocked, but the meaning of the sutta was that this person had gone beyond faith and understood the dhamma so no longer had any faith in what the Buddha taught, as he had seen himself. I cannot remember if this is a mahayana or theravada sutta, and I think the student was an arhant, meaning after arthantship one no longer has faith. Still the question is before arthantship, as I myself am not an arthant. **So the questions are:** how do we then gain or renew faith in order to balance wisdom? Is there a point where faith is no longer able to manifest in ones mind before arhantship so there is no way to balance wisdom with faith? and if so, how would we [then] actually be able to balance wisdom without faith?

Before I asked 'how can I hear my thinking? ' Now I'm wondering if I'm forced to hear my thinking? AN6.63 says: > And what is the result of perceptions? > > *Katamo ca, bhikkhave, saññānaṁ vipāko?* > > Communication is the result of perception, I say. > > *Vohāravepakkaṁ, bhikkhave, saññaṁ vadāmi. Variant: Vohāravepakkaṁ → vohāravepakkāhaṁ (bj, sya-all, pts1ed) | saññaṁ → saññā (sya-all, > pts1ed)* > > You communicate something in whatever manner you perceive it, saying > ‘That’s what I perceived.’ > > *Yathā yathā naṁ sañjānāti tathā tathā voharati, evaṁ saññī ahosinti. Variant: ahosinti → ahosīti (mr)* > > This is called the result of perceptions. > > *Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, saññānaṁ vipāko.* Is the result of perception *vaci-sankara*?

In SN3:8 ([Mallikā Sutta](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN3_8.html)) , when asked by King Pasenadi if there is anyone dearer to her than herself, Queen Mallika answered: > “No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?” Likewise, the King answered that he saw himself to be of utmost importance. When the Buddha was informed of this conversation, he affirmed that such is the case with *all beings*. In our modern society, self-centredness (hereby termed as selfishness) has gotten a bad reputation while altruism (selfless concern for others) is widely celebrated. Therefore, I find it interesting and strange that the Buddha did not disapprove of the selfishness as expressed in the above sutra but only stressed that we should restrain from hurting others just as we would not want ourselves to be hurt i.e. [norm of reciprocity](https://www.thebehavioralscientist.com/glossary/reciprocity) . Seeing that selfishness has a tendency to result in [self-obsession as evident in this definition](https://www.berkeleywellbeing.com/selfishness.html) : > the state of being very focused on one’s own needs and well-being with a correspondingly decreased focus on the needs and well-being of others Thus, my questions as below. 1. Why didn’t the Buddha disapprove of selfishness? 2. Isn’t selfishness a cause for people to hurt/harm others either intentionally/consciously or unintentionally/unconsciously. 3. Why didn’t the Buddha encourage his followers to “love thy neighbour as thyself”? Wouldn’t it help reduce self-obsession and potential problems in relationship due to selfish behaviour? 4. Could this be one possible cause for the philosophical difference between Theravada and Mahayana? Whereas the former is neutral on selfishness, the latter encourages compassion and pursuing enlightenment for the benefit of all beings.

When we see with an eye of Dhamma , we realise that that which has a beginning must have an end because birth is conditional. (I am using Bhikkhu Sujata’s translation of SN 35.74 ) If we reverse the Truth then is it true that that which has an end must have had a beginning? PS: To clarify , I share an example, suppose a candle light is put off then can we conclude that sometime in the past the candle was lit? It was not always burning.

Equivalently, is there any Buddhism with room for accepting a person who subsequently chooses to return to material drives as having, in any valid sense, "been enlightened"?

Is doing 10 min meditation 6 times same as doing 1 hour meditation? Or is doing 30 mins 4 times same as 2 hour meditation ? Thanks for answer can i go more than 1 hr say 90 mins?

> "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than > feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In > fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... > Elsewhere than consciousness?" > > "No, lord." > > "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without > consciousness?" > > "No, lord." > > "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to > declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative > man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is > described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata > exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not > exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" > > "No, lord." > > "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only suffering that I describe, and the cessation of suffering." Based on the above, who is it that is really suffering? And who is I?

What Buddhist distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"? I view "mindfulness" as a purposeful application of awareness. However, I am at a loss for a clear distinction between awareness and consciousness.