I read the following comment on the internet: > *A corpse has lost its life-force, hence a corpse, dead. A meditator has attainment would be free from disease, for the vibrant > internal-breath kept one healthy.* Are there any suttas that distinguish between the life force and the breathing?

I read the following on the internet: > The principle of dependent origination is held to be the law of > conventional reality - as such it is a generalized law. What words of the Buddha are there to support or, otherwise, refute this claim?

When I empty out intentions and relax in meditation, what is this force that moves my body in complex patterns? For example, when I let go for a bit I start walking and making circles and doing movements with my hands (mudras), and even martial arts type of moves with intricacy and intelligence. There is a force making me doing it and I feel my body following energies like a magnet. So the questions are: 1) why does it happen? 2) what am I suppose to do with it? 3) is this like wu wei of taoism or Tibetan Buddhist Shamans channeling spirits?

As far as I'm aware, most forms of Vajrayana Buddhism (which is really only Tibetan and Shingon I think) are based on the Mahayana (Chinese?) canon and accept their sutras generally. Is there any form of Vajrayana which is based on the Pali canon?

At first glance both of them might seem like 2 fundamentally diametrical opposites. Nietzsche believed that a fundamental truth of life was that "the strong always oppress the weak", and that morality is simply another means through which this is achieved (Christian morality vs the nobility). Throughout his books, he heavily critizes the idea, that an objective truth and morality exists. He therefore rejects the absolute value of morality and comes up with the will of power, which ultimately guides all behaviour. The Ubermensch is the person who lets his behaviour be guided by the will of power and is not contstrained by morality, the idea of The Overman being the Nietzschean interpretation of Enlightenment, you could say. Ultimately, a striking similarity between them is the lack of objective morals - according to buddhism, what is deemed good or not is relative to whether it brings an individual towards enlightenment or not, meaning that it rejects the idea of objective morality (corect me if im wrong). I think that both philosophies perceive morality in an utilitarian perspective, not an objective one. They both make the individual want to strive towards enlightenment, the means through which it's achieved being subjective and relative to each individual.

When I meditate after about 45 minutes I start to get this strong urge to finish and open my eyes. I use a timer and after a while I start to feel time dragging and wishing the bell would hurry up. I'm struggling to stay mindful when this happens as the feeling is so strong that it overwhelms and I end up finishing the sit. Any advise anyone can offer please? Ive tried not using a timer which helps but that's difficult as I cannot just sit indefinitely most of the time.

I was watching the old movie "Kung Fu" (1986) and there is a really interesting moment near the end where Caine is lectured by Master Po who speaks to the effect of the following: "Do not go in fear, fear is eternal darkness, but go instead with inner strength which is like a deep river into which all streams flow; it increases, always moving forwards and soon there is nothing that can stand in its way." It seems like an empty sentiment at first, but on reflection there is something in this statement that makes me think it must come from some long lived idea. Is this just a screen writer's fancy or some reference to an old Buddhist idea?

It is like if you leave a normal life and don't do evil. But still may end up in lower 3 realms if keep enjoying and finish your blessing. What does this mean? Does a layperson have to not enjoy at all in terms of 5 Sensual Pleasures like travelling, music, movies, food ? We don't know how much blessing we have and where we might be reborn. So please help out with this taking scenarios of a layperson and a monk in same situation.

In situations involving lies and/or violence, does Buddhism teach siding with the good against the bad, or does it teach neutrality i.e. staying outside the conflict and not taking sides? Specifically, If someone (knowingly or unknowingly) spreads lies or misinformation, should a Buddhist challenge them to defend the truth OR is it preferable to remain uninvolved (to avoid provoking a conflict)? If someone violently attacks someone else, does Buddhism teach fighting the aggressor and defending the victim, or does it teach staying out? Are there examples of such situations in the Pali Canon and later texts? I mean this question literally as written and am sincerely looking for answers - i.e. this is not a rhetorical question.

I've been attempting to follow Leigh Brasington's instructions about entering jhana. However, I never seem to be able to find a pleasant sensation. I mean I feel just kind of warm and comfortable in places and I feel occasional subtle vibration or tingle but not enough to maintain focus on. Anyone have any advice about this? And before you start to preach about how trying to enter jhanas will ensure you don't, I already know that. I'm just more looking for advise about why I can't seem to notice sensations much. Thanks

UPDATED Thank you very much for your answers! Due to the answers, the post has been updated and something added. Modern *brain-centered evolutionary reductionism* says that: Ego, personality and "free will" are just illusions, "optical effects". Culture: music, poetry etc; some romantic, delicate feelings are just by-products of evolution. Evolution has no "meaning", sense, "goal" etc. *** Instead of evolution, we can consider any process or explanation. The main thing is that all the concepts that were considered philosophical or important, special - received the simplest explanations. Good and evil, space-time, philosophy and morality - *all have no essential special nature.* I see a parallel here with Buddhism. *** Space-time, causality, all math and science have roots only and exactly inside the brain. The existence of an "external objective world" is only a hypothesis, a model. *** No one claims that *certainly there is no outward world*. *Nor* is it necessarily there. It is a model, a framework. Here I see no contradiction with @ChrisW answer *** Aside from the idea of reincarnation, is there any contradiction with Buddhism in these statements?

I read the following on the internet: > According to Anderson, a long recognized feature of the Theravada > canon is that it lacks an "overarching and comprehensive structure of > the path to nibbana." The sutras form a network or matrix, which have > to be taken together. What is this suppposed to mean?

I'm pretty new to Buddhism, so I'm not very knowledgeable about what's most commonly considered as the path towards enlightenment. I already have a pretty subjective idea of it - I have to unify my mind through rigorous and diligent meditation in order to create fruitful conditions in which insightful experiences would emerge from, subsequently leading into enlightenment.

Is meditation, at least meditation done right, good for mental distress, even that brought about by madness? On the one hand, some buddhist meditation teachers do focus on relaxation and mindfulness as therapy is in vogue. On the other hand, there is e.g. zen sickness, and it may not be obvious that even equanamity is actually long term stabalizing for states of distress. I'm especially interested in zazen in general.

Coming from [here, analysis of AN 8.30](https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/10/an-830-maybe-try-having-faith-in-buddha.html) . > Good, Anuruddha, very good. It’s good that you think these thoughts of a great person: Does good householder think that certain (all) people are capable to think such thoughts? So how then could certain delight in such thoughts? What then would one, seeing this, start to think for himself instead to try to make a dead dog walk? In what would he delight and sacrifices into himself? What does good householder here desire to think? Are thought of a great man only think-able for great or by everyone? What happens if a ordinary starts to give them public thoughts? And in the case thinking not possible for everybody here and now, what would be the prerequisite to get the point? What's the matter with proper attention and good association here? Could that be a way out?

I am sure of my ignorance and apologize. Is Buddhism effective? There are only 28 Buddha since the beginning of perception, right? What hope is there of ever awakening? I am very discouraged. Though depression is a big thing in my current incarnation. I will likely screw things up anyway.

By far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy, which almost all Hindus nowadays belong to, is the Vedanta school, which is based on an ancient Hindu work called the Brahma Sutras or Vedanta Sutras. The Brahma Sutras consist of a series of aphorisms which summarize and systematize the philosophical teachings of a set of Hindu scriptures called the Upanishads. They also spend some time defending the philosophy of the Upanishads against rival schools of Indian philosophy. In particular, here is what they say concerning Buddhism: > Topic-4: Refutation of Buddhist Realists > > 18. Even if the integration be supposed to arise from either of the causes, that will not be achieved. > 19. If it be argued that a combination becomes possible since (nescience and the rest) can be the causes of one another (in a > successive series), then we say, no, (for nescience etc.,) can each > merely be the cause of origin of another just succeeding. > 20. And because the earlier is negated when the later emerges, (therefore nescience and the rest cannot each be the cause of the next > in the series). > 21. (If it be contended that the effect arises) even when there is no cause, then your assertion (of causation) will be stultified; else (if > you contend that the entity of the earlier moment continues till the > entity of the later moment emerges), the cause and effect will exist > simultaneously. > 22. Neither pratisamkhya-nirodha (artificial annihilation) nor an apratisamkhya-nirodha (natural annihilation) is possible, for there > can be no cessation (either of the current or of the individuals > forming the current). > 23. And (the Buddhist view is untenable) owing to defect arising from either point of view. > 24. And (non-existence cannot be asserted) in the case of Akasa on account of the absence of (its) dissimilarity (with destruction). > 25. And (a permanent soul has to be admitted) because of the fact of remembrance (ie., memory). > 26. Something does not come out of nothing, for this does not accord with experience. > 27. And (if something can come out of nothing, then) on the same ground, success should come even to the indifferent people. > > Topic-5: Buddhist Idealism Refuted > > 28. (External objects are) not non-existent, for they are perceived. > 29. And because of the difference of nature (the waking state is) not (false) like dream etc. > 30. (Tendencies) can have no existence since (according to you) external things are not perceived. > 31. And (the ego-consciousness cannot be the abode), for it is momentary. > 32. Besides (this view stands condemned), it being untenable from every point of view. My question is, have any Buddhist thinkers responded to this critique of Buddhism? Note that I don't want answerers to try responding to the critique themselves (which might lead to too much speculation and arguments). I'm just interested in whether any published works have responded to it. By the way, the aphorisms of the Brahma Sutras are somewhat cryptic, so their meaning and justification are usually understood with the help of commentaries, like this one and this one . Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank You in Advance. EDIT: Here is a book about the Brahma Sutras' critique of the Vedanta school.

in the city where i live (Toronto, although this is an issue in many cities around the world), there are people dressed as monks soliciting others on the street for donations. In return, various good luck charms are offered. The fake monks speak little English, and will try to justify their begging with the claim that donations are for building a temple back home. Is there anything I can or should do about this? Are these fake monks giving Buddhism a bad name, or at least obscuring Buddhism's true message? Are the fake monks doing an ironic good by giving people the chance to practice generosity?

I've meditated for over ten years daily more than 2 hours a day plus I've done over a dozen long retreats. On the first couple of retreats I had quite cathartic experiences and felt a lot of joy. Since then I've felt not much at all. I don't feel any joy or rapture in my daily practice. Sometimes I feel calm but that's about it. I wonder if I'm doing something incorrectly? I pay homage to the Buddha and try to feel gratitude and I practice metta to start. I've also given up eating meat and practice self compassion.

Buddhism is often said to prescribe a middle way - avoiding ascetism on one hand, and avoiding indulging in sense pleasures on the other. What are some of the **arguments** that Buddhism offers against the efficacy of ascetism (denial of sense pleasures) to bring lasting happiness?