the unborn , is described by Buddha: > The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, fabricated > of aging & death, a nest of illnesses, perishing, come-into-being > through nourishment and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for > delight. **The escape from that is calm, permanent, a sphere beyond > conjecture, unborn, unproduced, the sorrowless, stainless state, the > cessation of stressful qualities, stilling-of-fabrications bliss.** Doesn't this describe nirvna? Can the description infer us to a true-self (*atta*), not-self (*anatta*), or anything else other than what is listed? Can you infer emptiness? As I was saying to other, losing with a self is so bad, I couldn't justify calling this so-called unborn a self, and it wouldn't be me or mine unfortunately. Regardless, this text says permanent, and what is the harm in selfing this permanence? What is the harm? What was permanent is no longer mine? It doesn't say 'end of defilements', 'end of existence', but perhaps you can infer that. How do you infer it?

In examining the Buddhist doctrine of 'Nirvana,' a scholarly critique emerges. Does Nirvana, often portrayed as the ultimate goal, withstand rigorous scrutiny? Can it be dissected as a concrete destination, or is it a nebulous concept, resistant to precise definition? This critical inquiry prompts an exploration into the interpretive challenges, potential inconsistencies, and scholarly debates surrounding the elusive notion of Nirvana within Buddhist philosophy.

I'm looking to get a tattoo and have these word written in Pali. Can you help me with how to write this in Pali script?

When being mindful in Mahasi walking meditation, should the meditator walk very slowly in order to get time enough to fit the noting in? What should the meditator's attitude be if they skip a mantra note? Should one strain hard to get the prechosen mantra note right? How should one approach mistakes? What kind of concentration is needed? Is it enough to just be mindful with superficial concentration or must a high degree of concentration be developed? With momentary concentration, can the meditator get stuck to an object like with non-momentary concentration? What would right-concentration be with this kind of walking meditation practice?

In how far does one take part on skilfull or unskilfull undertaking? In how far does one receives the fruits of good or bad actions by means of getting involved by toughts, signs and deeds, by assosiation with tendencies and certain objectives and aims? Are there even disadvantages, benefits, for one if just seeming for others to be near of certain undertakings? And how should common-kamma here be understood? *(Note that question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)*

As a young Buddhist, I was taught to respect members of the order and venerate the Sangha. Recently, I was told that the word Sangha only refers to the Noble Sangha (i.e. Ariya-sangha not Sammuti-sangha) in a [comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51150/what-is-the-history-of-mindfulness#comment83988_51154) . > the word Sangha refers to the Noble Sangha My question is whether veneration should or should not be accorded by default to the Sangha (both conventional and Noble Sangha) or should it be reserved only to the Noble ones (i.e. [the eight noble beings](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/50179/who-are-the-noble-ones-and-who-are-their-disciples/50187#50187)) . Why and why not? (A side note: I find [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/37194/should-any-monastic-be-considered-a-noble-one/37198#37198) by the ex-forumer @Yeshe Tenley to be a good read).

*Coming from a closed, probably ill-intended and insulting [question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23210/did-the-buddha-narcistically-judge-people-unfairly-with-self-conceit) , or not, but anyway it's root is actually good to investigate:* How comes that praising oneself is unskillful but the teacher of it does? There are many places in the teachings, where the Buddha speaks in "glorification" of the "Buddha". >`(Mv.I.6.7) Upaka the Ājīvaka saw the Blessed One traveling on the road between Gayā and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing him said to him, “Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?” >(Mv.I.6.8 ) When this was said, the Blessed One replied to Upaka the Ājīvaka in verses: >`“All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering.` >`All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? [=Dhp 353]` >`I have no teacher, and one like me can’t be found. In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart.` >`For I am an arahant in the world; I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I,` >`To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma I go to the city of the Kasis. In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the Deathless.”` >(Mv.I.6.9) “From your claims, my friend, you deserve to be an infinite conqueror.” >`“Conquerors are those like me who have reached fermentations’ end. I’ve conquered evil qualities, and so, Upaka, I’m a conqueror.”` >When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and—shaking his head, taking a side-road—he left.` ([The Discussion of the Group of Five](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,8043.msg13286.html#msg13286)) As this sample shows, such can lead to not benefical situation for one, thinking "how arrogant". Lowering others, praising oneself... yet teaching that such is not good... Broad believe is that the Dhamma teaches generally not so speak about ones good qualities and skills, which seems to be paradox when facing such and lead possible to questions like: >Was his mind defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)? **So what is that all about with this paradox?** **How to explain that his disciples propably blame all others in certain ways and prais just the Buddha and his Dhamma, and his disciples with whole heart?** Just a "[Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi) , or how should this statement be understood in a Dhammic way, so to posible do not react foolish like Upaka the Ājīvaka did? *[[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]*

Bhikkhu Sujato's translation of AN 4.171 says: > Mendicants, there are four kinds of reincarnation. Cattārome, > bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābhā. > > What four? Katame cattāro? > > There is a reincarnation where one’s own intention is effective, not > that of others. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ > attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā kamati, no parasañcetanā. > > There is a **reincarnation where the intention of others is effective**, > not one’s own. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ > **attabhāvapaṭilābhe parasañcetanā kamati**, no attasañcetanā. > > There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions > are effective. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ > attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā ca kamati parasañcetanā ca. > > There is a reincarnation where neither one’s own nor others’ > intentions are effective. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ > attabhāvapaṭilābhe nevattasañcetanā kamati, no parasañcetanā. > > These are the four kinds of reincarnation.” Ime kho, bhikkhave, > cattāro attabhāvapaṭilābhā”ti. What is "*reincarnation where the intention of others is effective*"?

The Abhidhamma says: > 2.4. The Mutuality Tetrad > >PTS cs 246 > >With ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) process, also with a (volitional) process as condition there is ignorance, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, also with consciousness as condition: a (volitional) process, with consciousness as condition: mind and bodily form, also with mind and bodily form as condition: consciousness, with mind and bodily form as condition: the sixth sense sphere, also with the sixth sense sphere as condition: mind and bodily form, with the sixth sense sphere as condition: contact, also with contact as condition: the sixth sense sphere, with contact as condition: feeling, also with feeling as condition: contact, with feeling as condition: craving, also with craving as condition: feeling, with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: craving, **with attachment as condition: continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole mass of suffering**. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs246 Why does Abhidhamma exclude continuation (becoming), birth & death from its 'mutuality' above?

Title. Five aggregates kind of thing, nature of conciousness, perception etc

What should you do about someone who cannot be reasoned with about their behaviour. I say "this is hurting me, please talk with me about it" but they keep doing the same amoral behaviour. It isn't an evil behaviour, but it is destructive and scary. What is skillful and compassionate, in this context, for the laity? There's nothing I can do about how they behave, and I cannot escape them, so do I just go with it, allow myself to be mistreated? Does anything in the Buddhist canon talk about advice for destructive friends, e.g. what sort of friends to keep and what to do if a friend slips up, etc.?

Mahasi Sayadaw's approach isn't valid because it attempts to fill in the gaps with commentary from monastics that are supposed to be highly attained? Are there no gaps or vagueness in the Buddha's Tipitaka teachings? If there are gaps or vagueness withing the Buddha's Tipitaka scriptures, can an attempt to fill the gaps in the Buddha's teaching ever be done mindfully, with humility and respect? Also, if a spiritual teaching has gaps or is vague, can there be some kind of a good reason for it being that way?

What is the connection between time and impermanence ? Are they different terms for the same thing ? I heard this from philosopher, "*Nibbana is like a timeless space*".

I noticed some questioners on this site using the term "non-duality". What is non-duality in Buddhism? This is a well-known idea in Hinduism i.e. advaita. But does it exist in Buddhism? Is it an official term in Buddhism, or just a convenient Western philosophy terminology to describe a concept just like the terms "ontology" or "epistemology"? How is it used in Theravada and Mahayana? What are the Pali and Sanskrit terms for it? AN 10.29 seems to have the word "advayam" which Bhikkhu Sujato translates as "non-dual" but Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as "undivided". Not sure if this is related.

> "In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself. (Thanissaro) How should the fragment above be understood and practiced in detail, in particular, considering the last two alternatives: externally and internally/externally?

I am currently doing some emotional work, and in the process, I am recognizing that I have low self-worth and self-esteem. So, I am wondering, what are the roots of this? I mean, this clearly exists as a phenomena but not necessarily as an elementary phenomena or ground truth. So, from a Buddhist perspective, what is this phenomena ultimately made up of? It immediately comes to my mind that it is related to things feeling dualities like inferiority-superiority, hatred-love, aversion-craving, and somehow it is also related to confidence. So, what are your views on it and how to improve it for a person who has low self-worth?

In the [Lokavipatti Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html) the 8 worldly dharmas are pleasure, pain, fame, disgrace, blame, praise, and gain, and loss. The Buddha also says the noble ones experience all of those but don't rebel against the loss etc. and don't welcome the praise etc. In the [Sallatha Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html) , the Buddha says that noble ones experience physical pain but don't follow it with mental pain. This leads me to wonder: if noble ones don't have mental pain following physical pain, it would seem they don't experience loss, blame, and disgrace as mental pain either. But how do they experience it? Is it a physical pain? In psychology they say that a broken heart over a loss literally hurts the heart, i.e. those freakish cases where a person dies of grief when their wife dies. Does a noble one then feel physical pain when they are blamed, disgraced, hurt, or at a loss? Or perhaps everyone does but often run-of-the-mill people only notice the subsequent mental pain, whereas a noble one only feels the first half with no mental pain at all.

It happens at about 20 minutes every time lately... either in half lotus (a traditional position that I would like to honor), or with one leg laying in front of the other, or Indian style... doesn't matter, my left leg goes numb. Sitting up in a chair doesn't seem conducive to a meditative state, and laying down I just fall asleep. I'd really like to do some intensive and very long blocks of meditation (advice on this would be appreciated also) but I'm not sure how to approach this severe distraction and get past it.

I don't understand the formless jhanas. Does this meditator completely lose consciousness of form, or are they meditating on something formless and, apart from that, as before? I've read the abhidharmakosa bhashyam, of Vasubhadhu, and he says that a mediator of this sort will be later reborn into a realm without form, so that suggests that there are sentient beings without any of the sense consciousnesses. But I just find the idea impossible, to be honest. Interesting, one of those books says that some Buddhists claim that there is a residue of visual consciousnesses there. Can anyone describe to me what the formless jhana is like? I'm especially intrigued as to whether there is any sense of ***shade*** to it: if it seems darker or lighter than any given colour I've experienced.

In the book *The Meaning of Life from a Buddhist Perspective* links eight, nine, ten of dependent origination , *pratityasamutpada *, are mentioned as attachment, grasping, existence. I am accustomed to seeing eight, nine, ten, as craving (desire), clinging (attachment), becoming, respectively. What are the ramifications of the swap - if I might infer it that way? On a side note, along with the mentioning of the above, there is the mention of "multiple rounds of dependent-arising occurring simultaneously"