I'm soon getting my wisdom teeth removed. Like always, I don't plan on using any anesthesia for the procedure - the pain is probably going to be excruciating, like always. So how can I use it as a meditation object for doing insight meditation? The logic behind it would be that my mind would be entirely hyperfixated on a single sensation, distractions subsiding completely due to the lack of spontaneous mind moments caused by other sensations. Firstly I plan on investigating on how my mind reacts to pain, constantly self-reflecting on all the intricate mind mechanisms related to it. This would prove insightful in getting my mind to give up resistance to the pain, which is something that would be practically impossible for me to do at an intrinsic, fundamental level, but somewhat possible to accomplish at a concious level. Afterwards, I plan on investigating The Three Characteristics directly in the sensations I'm experiencing related to pain. This, for me, is the most confusing part of insight meditation. How exactly does one notice The Three Characteristics in sensations? How are you supposed to realize that everything is transient and ephemeral when the pain you're experiencing is excruciatingly constant? How are you supposed to meditate upon no-self and unsatisfactoriness? This question isn't limited to the context of the post. I'm genuinely confused about what they mean, and I would be deeply grateful to anyone who could answer my questions.

I recall regarding a sutta awhile back of an encounter between Buddha and some wandering ascetic (not Bahiya). in that, the ascetic might have been too old or whatever, and buddha discourages him and explains **his** grief if things didn't work out. note: i don't recall if it was an ascetic or old, just that it was an encounter with non-sangha person. any arhat saying something similar would suffice.

How should one say the nembutsu: "as if your life depended on it"? This is an English idiom, though I think it is quite literal. Would anyone agree, and if so who?

I'm a computer science student striving to uphold the principles of Buddhism, particularly the precept of "not taking which is not given." In my journey to learn coding, there are moments when I struggle to write code independently, leading me to seek help from platforms like Stack Overflow or Google. However, I often find myself copying and pasting code from these sources to solve my problems. While this helps me progress in my learning, I'm concerned about whether this practice aligns with ethical standards, especially considering the precept mentioned earlier. My question is: Does using code from online sources in this manner constitute a violation of ethical principles, particularly the concept of "not taking which is not given"? I understand the importance of integrity in academic and professional settings, but I'm also eager to learn and progress in my coding skills. How can I navigate this ethical dilemma while ensuring that I uphold virtuous principles in my coding practices? Any insights or guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Already in the dedicatory verses of the MMK, Nagarjuna tells us that there is no origination or cessation of any kind. There is no arising whatsoever. I understand that this absence of arisen things is identical to the doctrine of dependent origination. But if that's the case, what sense does it make to speak of an dependent origination if it has already been established that there are no things that have arisen? Doesn't dependent origination presuppose the existence of things to make any sense?

If the ultimate goal is to reach nibanna and no longer be reborn into the samsaric realm then why would any sane practicing Buddhist want to bring children here and put them through the endless lifetimes of suffering and struggle to reach nibanna??

In SN 35.93 quoted below, it reads intellect-consciousness arises in dependence on the intellect and ideas, but if this consciousness is also a thinking about the work of intellect on ideas then it in itself is an intellect. and if so we have to look for another consciousness which higher and the search continues ad-infinitum. This, of course, is not my own though it's a classic platonic thinkers response to Descartes's misguided saying Cogito ergo sum ( I think, therefore I am), quoted below is from Plotinos Ennead Book Nine explaining the relation of intellect and consciousness. ---------- SN 35.93 Dvaya Sutta: A Pair > "In dependence on the intellect & ideas, there arises > intellect-consciousness. The intellect is inconstant, changeable, of a > nature to become otherwise. Ideas are inconstant, changeable, of a > nature to become otherwise. Thus this pair is both wavering & > fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. ---------- *PLOTINOS: - SECOND ENNEAD, BOOK NINE.* > Though there be a difference between thinking, and thinking that one > thinks, these two nevertheless constitute a single intuitive > consciousness of its actualizations. It would be ridiculous to deny > such a consciousness to veritable Intelligence. It is, therefore, the > same Intelligence that thinks, and that thinks that it thinks. > Otherwise, there would be two principles, of which the one would have > thought, and the other consciousness of thought. The second would > doubtless differ from the first, but would not be the real thinking > principle. A mere logical distinction between thought and > consciousness of thought would not establish the (actual) differences > between two . Further, we shall have to > consider whether it be possible to conceive of an Intelligence which > would exclusively think, without any accompanying consciousness of its > thought. If we ourselves who are entirely devoted to practical > activity and discursive reason were in such a condition, we would, > even if otherwise considered sensible, be insane. But as true > Intelligence thinks itself in its thoughts, and as the > intelligible, far from being outside of Intelligence, is Intelligence > itself, Intelligence, by thinking, possesses itself, and necessarily > sees itself. When Intelligence sees itself, it does not see itself > as unintelligent, but as intelligent. Therefore in the first > actualization of thought, Intelligence has the thought and > consciousness of thought, two things that form but a single one; not > even logically is this a duality. If Intelligence always thinks what > it is, is there any reason to separate, even by a simple logical > distinction, thought from the consciousness of thought? The absurdity > of the doctrine we are controverting will be still more evident if we > suppose that a third intelligence is conscious that the second > intelligence is conscious of the thought of the first; we might thus > go on to infinity

Is there anything of value in any world? I feel incapable of conceiving of a world with a single valuable thing in. > there is no wisdom and there is no attainment whatsoever

I've heard and read it said many times about realising or having insight that mind states, thoughts, emotions etc "are not you because they arise and pass". Its always said as if its some kind of profound understanding but idk isn't it obvious they aren't you? They are happening to a sense of you. Noone actually thinks they are their thoughts. They think they are a brain having thoughts. What am I missing here?

Right intention is a good thing: can I intend to be an Arhat or Buddha? What if I believe I cannot be either, can I still intend it, have the intention to any of its unique qualities and skills etc.?

I'm new to studying Tibetan Buddhism. I'd like to ask how the Cittamatra doctrine is *practiced* in the Gelug school. I'm not referring to the hierarchy this school establishes of Yogacara as a preliminary step to studying Madhyamika Prasangika, but rather if some of the analyses presupposed by Cittamatra are *practiced yogically*; is it done this way, or is it more of a scholarly, theoretical study, to then assimilate it into a larger framework within Madhyamika? Thank you for your help.

I'm looking for some book(s) that are generally regarded as a good introduction to Buddhism. I know very little about Buddhism, having only read one book on it so far (*What Makes You Not a Buddhist* by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche ). I found the book entertaining, but I'm not sure it was the best introduction for someone completely ignorant on the matter. Are western takes on Buddhism - or at least books on Buddhism by western authors - a good way to start? Or should one jump right into books like the *Tibetan Book of the Dead* ? **What are some books generally regarded as good for a general introduction on Buddhism?**

How to learn dhamma as Māhāvihāra Theravāda Buddhists? How Māhāvihāra Theravāda Buddhists learn kammaṭhāna and dhamma for over 2600 years?

when a object made with **rupa kalapas** is given a force, heated or travelling at a constant speed, how do the next generations of the same rupa kalapas get those qualities(forces, heat, speed ,etc..)by their birth (at **uthpada**)..(is this happening due to a **pratyaya**, please be kind to mention it )

Recently, I was got cyberbullied by my schoolmate. yeah, I am not student. I'm depressed. I remove all contact and block them but I can't remove my anxiety and fear. Oh yeah, I feel that I am not sotapanna again because I was lying to those cyberbulliers. After lying, I am so anxiety.

How did different people with different philosophies and ideologies attain the same enlightenment or did they not? Buddha attained enlightenment and so did Adi Shankaracharya, but their philosophies are different (not to mention ramanujacharya, nagarjuna and many others). Or is it the case that we can never really know who attains enlightenment? Well I know that there is similarity between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta but at the core they are very different. How did they attain the same enlightenment knowing the real truth in two different ways? At least one of them is wrong. Well some say the truth can be interpreted in different ways but if advaita says self exists and buddhism denies it there is a big problem you can't make them compatible with one another.

I have been listening to audiobooks on Buddhism and Hinduism (Dhammapada, Bhagavad Gita, Heart Sutra, Upanishads, Rig Veda, etc.), and am stuck trying to imagine and/or understand how the infinite divine mind (the All, or whatever you want to call it, God, etc..), divides into individual life experiences which have "their own" perceptions and self-experience (atman), and are yet **impermanent**. And how this relates to the **permanent** [anatman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81) (non-self). The way my mind imagines it, there is a ball like a balloon filled with tiny points/particles like grains of sand. Each grain of sand is the self-experiencer, but are all part of the whole ball (and yet where this metaphor breaks down is the grains of sand are actually distinct from the ball, but in the All case, they are but tiny aspects of the all or something like that). In this sense, there is a finite number of grains of sand / selves, and no more and no less can be created. But in the All/anatman case, it seems to subdivide into an infinite number of experiences. So then it's like, afterlife/reincarnation. How does that work? When I die do I get subdivided into several lesser experiences (ranked according to evolution of spiritual development), or merged into a higher single experience composed of many other souls now integrated into one? Or how do more selves get created which have their own perceptions? Why can't we just magically create a self using some physics or biology experiments (which don't involve just having lifeforms reproduce)? Why can't we just "poof" and a new individual experiencer / soul is created out of a test tube of some sort of energy? All those questions boil down to the fact that I don't understand how the permanent anatman, the divine infinite all/perfection (or if I'm mixing up concepts, let me know), divides into individuals which can have their own conscious awareness (like humans), or at least have their own independent life. There is a "spark" there, where does it come from and how does it perceive itself as independent of the whole? How are more individual selves created? Is there a fixed number of them? This meme hits home the most, and yet I still don't get how individuals can have their "own" experience (at least from their own perspective), and how the infinite subdivides into these selves.

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. (Sutta pitaka , khuddaka nikaya , udana 8:3)

In my thought existence is so humongous; we are nothing as individual when compared with the whole. We are comparable to the grain of sand, floating in a river. The grain of sand has two options--struggle against the flow of river or float freely with joy-- it has freedom to choose. What is Buddha's way? I believe following the strict code of conduct, like the one in monasteries - abstain from natural desires of lust or greed, can't enjoy pleasure even if they are in your reach. It is the way of struggle. It's painful, If enlightenment wasn't there as fruit to be got after this self-torture, no one would even bother to become a monk. While the way of Zen -- which isn't independent from Buddhism -- is certainly of another kind, to go with the flow it's joyous ride. Out of them which way did Buddha preferred? Do modern Buddhists have any common opinion about it?

I am looking at [Rupakaya on the Rigpa Wiki](https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rupakaya) , and it says: > [It] refers to the two 'form kayas' of a buddha: nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya. It is said that the rupakaya arises from the accumulation of merit and the dharmakaya from the accumulation of wisdom. Using the term "body" confuses me, like the [Dharmakaya](https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Dharmakaya) , the "Absolute or Truth Body". How can truth have a body? Can you explain how this works in an intuitive way?