I read [somewhere](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/50955/why-is-there-no-attention-aggregate/51065#51065) that: > Attention is a product of/maintained by volition/intention (which is sankhara aggregate). I am puzzled by this as the following examples illustrate: 1. I am driving back from a party. I maybe drunk but is 100% focused on the road. Despite this, I find myself driving into a road divider. 2. I am really interested in heavenly beings. I tried to read up, research and find any materials on this subject. After years and decades of studying, I still do not find any devas around me. 3. I am studying for an important test tomorrow. I am aware of the test’s importance and trying hard to attend to my study but my mind keeps drifting to the Netflix show on TV. So, what is attention and how does it work?

> “‘All conditioned things are impermanent’ — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering.” -The Buddha, from [Dhammapada, verse 277](https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=277) > “Whatever has the nature of arising, all of it has the nature of ceasing.” -The Buddha, from [Kimsuka Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.204.wlsh.html) But why does something being conditioned mean that it has to be impermanent? And why does something having arisen mean that it has the "nature" of ceasing? Most scientists believe that this localized spacetime manifold in its current state had an origin 13.8 billion years ago. The current consensus among the scientific community regarding the future of this localized spacetime manifold is that it will simply continue to expand forever if we are to believe the current cosmological data. I wrote that as an example, but likewise, I can give other examples. Its not at all clear to me as to why something having arisen means that it can cease, and its not at all clear to me as to why something being conditioned means that it is impermanent. Of course, one could retort and say that the contents of the universe might change or that in this moment, that particle will be in a different position, but that means largely nothing because there is a difference between the microscopic and macroscopic things we observe from our point of view, which is why we distinguish between something like classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Even with this, many, e.g. Neoplatonists, would contest this notion and say that the Universal Intellect as they conceptualize it is conditioned and created as well as composite, but never changes and is eternal. All in all, its not at all clear to me what proof is given for the idea that *all* conditioned things are impermanent, and that *whatever* has the nature of arising, *all of it* has the nature of ceasing. Any help on explaining this would be appreciated.

Mental illness is not uncommon in modern society, from mild to severe illness. Depression, (generalized) anxiety disorder, panic disorder and schizophrenia, to name a few. Do people with (long-term) mental illness are "destined" to be reborn in one of lower realms or they're seen just illnesses rather than unwholesome states of mind? What is the cause of mental illness from Dhamma point of view?

In the suttas, we read about the noble ones (*ariya*) and the disciples of the noble ones (*ariyasavaka*). Who are the noble ones? Do they include only the four persons who are the stream enterers, once-returners, never-returners and arahants? Or do they also include the four persons trying to achieve stream entry, once-returnership, never-returnership and arahantship? Together, the eight form the noble sangha. Who are the disciples of the noble ones? Do they include the four persons trying to achieve stream entry, once-returnership, never-returnership and arahantship? Is there any overlap between the two? References from the Pali Canon on this is appreciated.

I have been practicing different kinds of meditation for a long time, mostly open meditation (somewhat like Vipassana). I recall that when I practiced compassion meditation, I experienced one of the worst periods of my life. Now, I began anew to practice a form of compassion in meditating on self-compassion, as I read about it. Yet, I wonder if this is not more unwholesome than not for me. 1) Is it possible for a person to be averse to compassion, or for whom compassion is a element of struggle and difficulty? 2) Is it perhaps easier for some people to meditate on emptiness or wisdom in order to indirectly generate compassion? Would such a possibility be less 'wholesome' than actual compassion meditation or even than compassionate acts? 3. Is it possible to forego compassion meditation completely and solely rely on compassionate action to develop this quality?

I am looking at [Heaven of the 33](https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Heaven_of_the_Thirty-Three) , where it says: > second heaven of the desire realm, situated on the summit of Mount Meru and presided over by thirty-three gods of whom Indra is the chief. Looking it up on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%C4%81yastri%E1%B9%83%C5%9Ba) , we get a list of more gods. I have had spiritual experiences, and have thought a lot about the structure of the universe (from a scientific and spiritual perspective). But never have I gotten into so much detail as to say "out of heaven, there is a second heaven divided into 33 realms, where the gods of x realm regularly battle with the gods of y realm". That would be so much detail, like figuring out that the brain really is divided into X number of functions (visual processing, reason, auditory processing, language, etc.), which took decades of research (or, one could say, hundreds or even thousands of years of thinking). It would be even harder than that, you would either have to reason "well, if perfection exists, then different types of perfection would exist, namely at least 33 perfections, where the whole system of perfections is controlled by a force which has XYZ features, etc..". And delineate crazy amounts of detail. Not only would you have to mentally be able to delineate it, you probably first would have to also deeply experience it in a soul-resonating sort of way! You would have to experience the reality of these heavens, then mentally break it down, then convert it into speech. So how did they do this? How did they arrive at such detail (the 33 heavens in this specific case, or even generally speaking)?

Many suttas (SN 6.11; SN 21.11; MN 53; AN 11.10; DN 27) contain the following phase: > ‘The aristocrat is best of those people ‘khattiyo seṭṭho janetasmiṃ, > > who take clan as the standard. ye gottapaṭisārino; > > But one accomplished in knowledge and conduct vijjācaraṇasampanno, > > is best of gods and humans.’ so seṭṭho devamānuse’ti. Why is the aristocrat best of those people who take clan as the standard?

I was kindly asked to rework my question as the intent - which wasn‘t clear to me from the beginning, that is why I asked the question - wasn‘t clear enough. I have now re-edited the question and thank my teacher in the comments for this exercise. I understand that identification leads to suffering because we cling to states that are impermanent. Identification happens when we name things, feel part of them, label, or judge them. By doing so, we try to uphold a fleeting moment, which is impossible and leads to suffering. However, I am curious about how this applies to experiencing a moment, like feeling the air on your face. This might lead to labeling the experience as "nice," which doesn’t necessarily mean I want to cling to this state, though I might feel a brief disappointment when it's gone. Does labeling an experience intensify it, even though it might also lead to suffering by creating an attachment? Living in the "here-and-now" is easy during sensory experiences, but labeling these experiences as "good" or "bad" seems to pull us out of the present moment. Am I understanding correctly that labeling our experiences can both enhance and diminish our perception of them? How can we experience the present moment fully without falling into the trap of labeling and attachment?

In the context of the historical and doctrinal development of mindfulness, how did the concept of "sati" in early Buddhist texts evolve into the contemporary practice of mindfulness? What are the key teachings and scriptures within the Pāli Canon that highlight this evolution, and how have these ancient principles been adapted or transformed in modern psychological and therapeutic frameworks?

(1)I know 4 noble truth very well. then what is missing between me knowing 4 noble truth and an arhant/buddha knowing 4 noble truth. why his knowing is called bodhi? (2)By practice of anicca, dukha and anatta, I am building panna faculty in me. so why panna is not bodhi. and why bodhi is not a spiritual faculty like panna? (3)Is sambodhi and nibbana just one event . and two different way of narrating.? like nibbana is a state devoid of Rag/dos/Moh and knowing 4 noble truth in that state is Bodhi? (4)Does Bodhi comes under category of seeing(as in vipassana, vedana) or comes under knowing( as in sanna,panna,pajanati) (5) How to understand 7 factors of awakening in relation to bodhi? are they sequensial or simultaneous ? do we get bohdi after completing all of them or our bodhi keeps on getting stronger along with these factors getting stronger?

Upasaka Karl [mentioned in an answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/41486/19697) : >Relationships have a beginning. And because they have a beginning, they also have an end. Thoughtless endings, ghosting and worse, hurt both parties. It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping experience. We become each other's dismissable clickbait. Yet perhaps a thoughtless ending was matched by a thoughtless beginning. Perhaps we can consider and nurture relationships that matter. 1. Isn't it merely the case that personal relationships never really end, that some of the debts remain forever? That one actually stays bonded forever, even after ending of a relationship... 2. What are the valid reasons for ending a personal relationship? 3. How to end a relationship properly? 4. Which (as it were) "relationship" can't be ended, once gotten into? 5. What's the effect of denying being in a personal relationship and consuming outside of it, thinking "I am free" or "this is my right"? *[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades and relation-misuse but to escape toward]*

Most of the time I experience the situations that provoke my anger. I hate people. How to overcome this?how to let go anger?

Sallatha Sutta says: "Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched with a feeling of pain, does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. **So he feels one pain: physical, but not mental.** But according to SN 41.6 With Kāmabhū (On the Cessation of Perception & Feeling) : > Perceptions & feelings are mental; Do you think the use of the physical-mental dichotomy is misleading for those familiar with SN41.6? Or make us think about anything in particular? It just seems like if you cross the two discourses the problem arises...

What would be the Buddhist take on dealing with coming from a dysfunctional family which included physical violence and neglect? It has left me feeling a chronic sense of abandonment, unimportant, low self worth, lack of trust in people or ability to make new friends etc and at times a strong desire of unbecoming. I'm 56 now and started practising insight in my 40s but I still have so much baggage and no real insight into anatta. Im a recluse now and feel like a very hurt lonely person. I get intellectually that there is no solid thing behind all these thoughts and hurt from my past but it still feels very real and very strong and I continue to live as such and act in self protective and defensive ways. Practising has brought me some peace and calm but that's about all. I can't say I feel much joy or happiness in my life. I do practice metta but it just feels forced and fake tbh. I have this very strong urge to isolate myself more and more. I don't like this world or most of the people in it.

I am looking for some book recommendations on scholarly reconstructions of the Early Buddhist Teachings/Texts and the teachings of the original Buddha. E.g. some scholars say that kamma didn't have a major role in early Buddhism, or they say that some other things that are considered a part of Buddhism didn't exist back then or weren't taught by the original Buddha. So I'm looking for a book that talks about this and tries to reconstruct the teachings of the original Buddha in the most authentic way.

Obviously, Buddhists often applaud silence, but what about not talking to someone in a relationship, which is often associated with passive aggression and abuse. What about a silence that ends up destroying someone?

Are there instances in the Pali Canon of the Buddha offering teaching without being asked to? I know he often decided the topic of his discourses himself, and also often seems to have started the discourses spontaneously. These seem to have been cases where the audience (Buddhist monks) can be seen to have been more or less expecting a teaching from him at some point, after all they had chosen to become monks and remained in his presence. I think this also goes for his first discourse with the group he used to practice asceticism with, since he knew very well that they were desperately looking for the kind of thing that he had discovered. Instead, I'm asking for examples of him basically seeing or hearing of a person who isn't a monk, or at least a Buddhist monk, and deciding to offer them teaching. Or even more specifically, I'm interested in whether or not that ever seems to have happened, and how common it seems to have been compared to the usual pattern of people coming to him asking questions.

Does the Buddha suggest how the laity should relate to their own death? Is there anything about e.g. it being a more extreme version of the suffering we experience day-to-day, that it can possibly end up as something better, etc.?

In Buddhism, there are a few realms that exist. Does each realm have the same life expectancy, or does it vary from realm to realm?

Is karma a virtue ethics? I know that some people link the path to virtues such as wisdom or charity, but what about the theory of karma in general? I am asking because I wondered whether unvirtuous actions that are not easily explained in terms of violations of the precepts (e.g.) are bad karma. e.g. the virtue of good will and benevolence is often said to be "wholesome" in intent; I definitely don't think it's for monastics only, but that wholesomeness means good (karma) > In the Pāli Canon, the term metta appears in many texts such as the > Kakacupama Sutta and Karaniya Metta Sutta. Other canonical materials, > such as in the Paṭisambhidāmagga, elaborate on it as a practice. Yet > other canonical sources, such as the Abhidhamma, underline the key > role of benevolence in the development of wholesome karma for better > rebirths likewise, the converse > Greed (lobha) is a root of unwholesome karma; Hatred (dosa) is a root > of unwholesome karma; Delusion (moha) is a root of unwholesome karma There is a difference between non attachment or elimination of the poisons, and not being ruled by them; isn't that difference that of religion and virtue?