In the Cūḷasuññatasutta (MN 121) , the Buddha discusses a meditative attainment characterized by “nothingness” which is then used as a predicate in an analysis of emptiness. > Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of > infinite space and the perception of the dimension of infinite > consciousness—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of > the dimension of nothingness. Their mind leaps forth, gains > confidence, settles down, and becomes decided in that perception of > the dimension of nothingness. They understand: ‘Here there is no > stress due to the perception of the dimension of infinite space or the > perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness. There is only > this modicum of stress, namely the oneness dependent on the perception > of the dimension of nothingness.’ They understand: ‘This field of > perception is empty of the perception of the dimension of infinite > space. It is empty of the perception of the dimension of infinite > consciousness. There is only this that is not emptiness, namely the > oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of nothingness.’ > And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what > remains they understand that it is present. That’s how emptiness > manifests in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure. I am interested in an investigation that addresses such issues as: **Ontological status of “nothingness”:** ---------------------------------------- Is the sphere of nothingness presented as a phenomenal object of experience, a negation of specified classes of objects (e.g., form, infinite space, infinite consciousness), or as a structural absence of cognitive content? Phenomenological description: ----------------------------- In the Cūḷasuññatasutta, the meditator attends to the dimension of nothingness. How is it possible for the mind to intentionally “perceive” something that is, by definition, an absence? Does the sutta imply a particular structure of consciousness that allows an absence to be an object of experience? Nothingness and self-reference ------------------------------ In perceiving nothingness, does the meditator’s mind retain any self-referential awareness, or is subjectivity suspended? How does the sutta articulate the boundaries of selfhood and cognitive agency in relation to the sphere of nothingness? Temporal and spatial character of nothingness --------------------------------------------- The sutta uses the term āyatana, often translated as “dimension” or “sphere.” Does this imply that this nothingness has a kind of temporal or spatial extension, or is it entirely devoid of such characteristics?

Daniel Brown, on p. 6 of *Pointing Out the Great Way*, says this (emphasis added)... > **The Pali word typically translated as “suffering” is dukkha, which > could also be rendered as “reactivity.”** For, as we experience events > unfolding in our stream of consciousness moment-by-moment, the > ordinary mind reacts based on ingrained habits. If the event is > experienced as pleasant, the mind habitually gravitates toward the > event. If it is experienced as unpleasant, the mind pushes it away. In > Buddhism these automatic reactive tendencies are referred to as > clinging and aversion, and lapses in the continuity of awareness are > called nonawareness, or ignorance. Together these “three poisons” mark > every moment of ordinary experience. They are habitual. They obscure > the mind’s natural condition from us and in so doing become the > fundamental cause of everyday unhappiness. In other words, Buddhism > defines everyday unhappiness in terms of a habitual dysfunction in the > way we process our experience. Seen in this way, it can be identified > and corrected, and the root of everyday unhappiness can be eradicated. **My question: Is there a *linguistic* or *philological* basis for translating "dukkha" as "reactivity"?** Or is Brown being a bit loose here, reflecting the dynamic that he explains -- reactivity underlies dukkha.

Do I intend to do something if I also intend to stop myself from doing it? Suppose I intend to eat the hamburger, but also intend to stop myself doing so. Is that intent in the Buddhist sense?

In Abhidharma (“abhi-” roughly means “meta-,” so Abhidharma can be understood as meta-dharma, or “one level above dharma”), there is a concept called kṣaṇabhaṅga, or “momentary decay.” It holds that all existence lasts only for a split second, and this includes human beings. A related term is ēkacitta, or “one unit of consciousness,” according to which consciousness arises in discrete units rather than as a continuous stream. Under this understanding, is it fair to say that each person dies and is reborn from one split second to the next?

Is metta contained in the compassion practices of Zen and if so, does that mean that compassion is loving kindness in Zen? How does Zen approach the Bramha Viharas in comparison to Theravada and Vajrayana?

Definitions: - I want to emphasize the mind, the body doesn't ache, isn't sore, isn't itchy, nothing at all; that is the 'an lạc' of the body (bodily ease/well-being). - 'Thanh thản' (serenity) is when our mind doesn't ponder, isn't busy at all; that is 'thanh thản'. - 'Vô sự' (actionlessness/nothing-to-do) is doing nothing at all; the body also does nothing, and the mind also doesn't ponder, meaning it does nothing; that is 'vô sự'. It is normal, very normal like a normal person, yet doing nothing at all. That is: the head/mind doesn't work, and the hands and feet also don't work; that is 'vô sự'. As for the mind that doesn't ponder, doesn't worry about anything at all, that is 'thanh thản' (serenity). As for the body that doesn't ache, isn't sore, itchy, nothing at all, that is 'an lạc' (ease); it is normal. Just like right now, [if] our body has no aches or pains, that is the 'an lạc' of our body. That is the state right now; it's not anything strange or different. It is the normalcy of a normal human being. Therefore, once you recognize that normalcy, now you just need to use the method of Right Thinking (Như Lý Tác Ý), guide it [the mind]: > "A mind unshaken, serene, at ease, and free from involvement.” You just fear it [the mind] will move and ponder about this and that, so you remind it: ‘Mind immovable, serene, at ease, actionless,’ and then just sit relaxedly/idly like that. So, can I use "unshaken, serene, at ease, uninvolved" as a mindful reminder throughout my day to make my mind feel better?

Temporary blockage of sexual excitement, given knowledge that there's no permanent soul, body and mind consciousness are impermanent. Arising and cease. Sankhara and upadana were impermanent. Is this understanding wisdom? While doing walking meditation without hearing external sounds and thinking could follow the walking? Is this enough to balance the five spiritual faculties and free from rebirth in lower realms?

There is plenty of evidence in the Early Buddhist Texts common to both the major schools of Buddhism, that the Noble Eightfold Path was an accepted teaching, by the "Third" Buddhist Council at least, but it is only from the time of that Council that we have archeological evidence likely linking to this version of the Path. That is, by the likely supposition, that the 8 spoked wheel in Asokan pillars is representing this version of the Path, as the traditions hold. The eight spoked wheel has not been found in Earlier Buddhist art. Right View is known not to be Wisdom, from comparison of the Noble Eightfold Path with what can be called the Noble Tenfold Path, which differs only by having the extra two steps at the end: Right Insight and Right Liberation. Insight is known to be synonymous or at least directly related to Wisdom. Thus the 'Tenfold' Path fits perfectly the Three Trainings and one does not have to change the order either of the steps or the Three Trainings, as done by Bh. Dhammadinna [MN 44](https://suttacentral.net/mn44/) , which is followed by the commentator Bh. Buddhaghosa in his Visuddhimagga. The Three Trainings are accepted in both Mahayana and Theravada as a summary of the Path. The Noble Eightfold Path is only one of over 50 ways of presenting the Path in the Pali Early Buddhist Texts and there are only six others, which do not include the Training in Wisdom - [2025 path analysis lists (spreadsheet)](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pyv1FOOqmRhHil-FXT6ejuKlMUtSude-/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116204971514462608468&rtpof=true&sd=true) - [50+ Possible Variations of the Gradual Path In the Early Pāli Suttas](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acDIhERcjDfGYof2v45tqdXOipIh09_OYUfHwXWpVTY/edit?usp=sharing) The Buddha reportedly said he does not have a secret teaching, or the closed fist of a teacher ([DN16](https://suttacentral.net/dn16/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin#2.25.9)) and he only teaches what is necessary ([SN 56.31](https://suttacentral.net/sn56.31/)) . Therefore, the Three Trainings are all necessary and he would teach them to everyone. That is what we see in the other over 40 ways he taught the path, with all the Three Trainings, to lay people and mendicants (see links above). Therefore those 7 ways of presenting the Path, could not be from the Buddha. Early Buddhism, by the time of the 'Third' Council and still today in some Buddhist countries, only really teaches Ethics and Generosity as the practice of the layperson. We can see this was established by the 'Third' Council, as I have not found the Noble Eightfold Path, taught to any layperson in the Pali Early Buddhist Texts. Therefore it was taught to mendicants only, which supports the theory that the second and third training, had lost their relevance by the 'Third' council. Hoping for other clear evidence, not just closed minded claims, sectarian propaganda, or restating the point I already made that there would not much or no evidence before Asoka. The tradition teaches the Buddha taught in different ways, but these days we only hear of the Noble Eightfold Path. According to it's own records, the Pali tradition does not follow the instructions the Buddha gave for holding councils in order to keep his teaching pure (in DN 29). That is to recite in harmony *and* to compare phrase by phrase. The only example I have found of the Buddha doing this is in the Discourse on Mindfulness with Breathing, where he compares the 16 steps with the Four Foundations of Mindfulness and shows that following either teaching means you have followed the other and have walked the path (of both Calm and Insight). This shows these two teachings are yet another two ways he taught the whole Path. My theory is the Noble Eightfold Path was created after the Buddha passed away and likely close to the time of the Asokan Council, probably after which he made the edict mentioning specific texts. It seems to me that this was a time that the understanding of the Path had degraded, as there is no Wisdom training in the Noble Eightfold Path and I can't find a specific teaching of it to laypeople. So, even the second Samadhi training was thought to be for mendicants only. As I see the Path generally taught in Ethnic Buddhist circles, they are really only taught Ethics, equated with the 5 Precepts, which I see as the Third Fetter, and dana - generosity to support the mendicants, generally interpreted to be Sangha, the Third Refuge, instead of the noble ones in the four assemblies of monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen. Best wishes Joe

They say perception and inference are valid ways of knowing. Can you explain the diagram:

In the Vitakkasanthana Sutta the Buddha gives 5 ways to help calm the heightened mind. In Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation the fourth method is described as > he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard > to those thoughts. Can some one unpack that a bit. How would I go about relaxing my thought-fabrication? Many Thanks

I’m a young man who has been experiencing much suffering. I’ve used the tools found in Buddhism to give myself foundational skills as traditional medical help wasn’t sufficient. I’ve been having rolling panic attacks where each panic attack fuels the next. I have associated panicking with food and can’t eat all that much. I practice diligently trying to calm my body and mind, but it seems to be only so powerful. The fear is much in the body, I’m fatigued and sick often. I’m seeking advice from those who have triumphed these challenges before who can inform me on what to do to free myself of this suffering.

I am reading about these in [Buddhist Cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology) , and am wondering if they are ordered together (hot and cold) into one sequential list, where it goes (from least severe to most severe): 1. top cold (slight pain) 2. bottom cold 3. top hot 4. bottom hot (pure pain) The cold seems like less pain than the hot, as you can easily experience chattering teeth, and even blisters, in normal routine life. Get down to frostbite and you don't really feel it because you are numb. But enter hot hell, and you immediately are killed and revived over and over again, all the way to pure pain. But maybe they don't move in a sequence as one, and are just two interwoven or separate progressions? How does it work exactly.

Is this a grave mistake in DN22 translation? It appears both Ven. Thanissaro and Bhante Sujato have made a grave translation error [in DN22](https://suttacentral.net/dn22/en/sujato?layout=linebyline#1.7) . > “Mendicants, the four kinds of mindfulness meditation are the path to convergence. They are in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize extinguishment. > > “Ekāyano ayaṃ, bhikkhave, maggo sattānaṃ visuddhiyā, sokaparidevānaṃ samatikkamāya dukkhadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamāya ñāyassa adhigamāya nibbānassa sacchikiriyāya, yadidaṃ cattāro satipaṭṭhānā. Ven. Vijithananda explain this in a different way. "Attangamaya" means not "make to and end of pain and sadness" but taking them as not I, me, or mine.

In the Upanisa Sutta it is said: > So, mendicants: ignorance is the vital condition for choices. Choices are the vital condition for consciousness. Consciousness is the vital condition for name and form… I’m not sure I understand the meaning of “choices” here and how ignorance causes choices to arise. Does this mean *poor* choices, or does it mean any choices at all? Without ignorance would there be no choosing? Also does “choices are the vital condition for consciousness” mean something like, once a baby realizes they can choose what to do, they develop a sense of self and consciousness?

> When that pleasant feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his *development of the body*. from MN 36 Maha-Saccaka Sutta translated by Thanissaro. Pleasant feeling (vedanā) is not limited to five senses, but can also be experienced by the mind. To understand the sutta, it seems important to understand what exactly is meant by *development of the body*. > When that painful feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his *development of the mind*. Here the Buddha makes a clear distinction here between 'development of the body' and 'development of the mind', and from MN 119 > [The Blessed One said:] "And how is mindfulness immersed in the *body > developed*, how is it pursued, so as to be of great fruit & great > benefit? **What did the Buddha mean by 'development of the body' versus 'development of the mind'?** Then, how does one develop the body?

There is incident where Mara is trying to get to Buddha even after he became enlightened. Finally Mara win him over by his death. With that knowledge is it correct to assume he had hunger feeling and sexual feelings too? **From [Parinibbana Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html)** > 42. There was a time, Ananda, when I dwelt at Uruvela, on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of the goatherds' banyan-tree, soon after my supreme Enlightenment. And Mara, the Evil One, approached me, saying: 'Now, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! Let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord. > 43. Then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by appropriate conduct and, having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma. > 44. I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until this holy life taught by me has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular, and widespread, until it is well proclaimed among gods and men. > 45. And again today, Ananda, at the Capala shrine, Mara, the Evil One, approached me, saying: 'Now, O Lord, bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples of the Blessed One — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding in the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; and when adverse opinions arise, they are now able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma. > And now, O Lord, this holy life taught by the Blessed One has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular and widespread, and it is well proclaimed among gods and men. Therefore, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! Let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord. > 46. And then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'Do not trouble yourself, Evil One. Before long the Parinibbana of the Tathagata will come about. Three months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away. > 47. And in this way, Ananda, today at the Capala shrine the Tathagata has renounced his will to live on.

Relating to this question, I am curious if it is a usual experience of duhkha that even people in good health, wealth, external circumstances also experience. Does it have a defined name within the factors of duhkha (in theravada terminology) or is it just lumped together as duhkha?

While reading through the Buddhist suttas, I came across the detailed descriptions of the eight emancipations. These passages were deeply intriguing, but they also gave rise to some questions in my mind which I decided to ask before which let me cite the concerned passages - > “Ānanda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight? > > “**Possessed of form, one sees forms.** This is the first > emancipation. > > “**Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally.** > This is the second emancipation. > > “**One is intent only on the beautiful.** This is the third > emancipation. > > “**With the complete transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, > with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding > perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ one > enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space**. This > is the fourth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.** This is > the fifth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of nothingness.** This is the sixth > emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception.** This is the seventh emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation > of perception and feeling.** This is the eighth emancipation. > > “**Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward > order, in reverse order, in forward and reverse order**, when he > attains them and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he > wants, and for as long as he wants, when through the ending of > effluents he enters and remains in the effluent-free release of > awareness and release of discernment, having directly known it and > realized it for himself in the here and now, **he is said to be a monk > released in both ways. And as for another release in both ways, higher > or more sublime than this, there is none.”** ~ DN 15 Questions- 1. Why is “nothingness” (6th) distinguished from “neither perception nor non-perception” (7th), given that both involve retreating from mental activity? Or from the 8th which involves total cessation of perception and feeling? 2. What kind of experience is “neither perception nor non-perception”? Is it a liminal state — and if so, how does one know they have entered it? Can a mind in this state be said to ‘experience’ anything at all? 3. In discussions with scholars from eternalist backgrounds, such as vedanta a common challenge raised is that the Buddhist teachings on the eight emancipations seem to imply the existence of a continuous or eternal subject since someone appears to be progressing through these subtle states of consciousness. If there is no eternal soul or self in Buddhism, then who is it that experiences and moves through these emancipations? How would a Buddhist respond to this objection? 4. What is the significance of being able to enter and exit these states at will, as emphasized in the sutta? 5. Is the progression through these states ultimately teaching that liberation is not something to be gained, but everything to be let go including perception, feeling, identity, and knowing?

In Kd 6 , We come across the following:- > On one occasion a monk was possessed by a spirit. His teacher and > preceptor who were nursing him were not able to cure him. He then went > to a pigs’ slaughterhouse to eat raw meat and drink blood. As a > result, he became well. They told the Buddha. > > “For one who is possessed, I allow raw meat and raw blood.” I had never heard of this before. I only encountered it because a polemical blog quoted it in an attempt to criticize Buddhist scripture by highlighting passages that seem negative or problematic when taken at face value. Since their intent of quoting the above was obviously hostile I’d like to understand the background of these from those familiar with the Vinaya:- My questions are: 1. Is the translation accurate? Does the Pali genuinely say that the Buddha allowed raw meat and raw blood in such circumstances? 2. Is this passage considered authentic and canonical within mainstream Theravāda? 3. If both of the above are true, How is this interpreted by traditional Buddhists today? Is it taken literally, regarded as a narrowly defined medicinal or exceptional allowance, or understood in some other way? And if it is accepted, how is it justified within Buddhist ethics and discipline?

I’ve been reflecting on ***the slide*** of the practice—that threshold where the "Doer" or the "Agent" seems to fall away and you’re just left with the flow of the process. Suttas like **AN 11.2 (the Cetana Sutta)** describe this beautifully. They show the path as a series of mental qualities that "flow on and fill up" through dhammatā (natural law), without needing an act of will (cetanā) to push them along. It's one thing to know the "map" of these links intellectually, but I'm curious about the specific point where that knowledge flips into a direct "Aha!" moment—witnessing the mechanics run themselves. How do the Suttas (or the broader tradition) describe this shift from just knowing the mechanics (ñāṇa) to actually seeing them unfold (dassana)? Is there a specific term for that tipping point?