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 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?

As a layperson, I try to achieve sotapanna and do vipassana meditation for one month approximately. I like to hear song, so I leave it. But, I often sing and hum accidentally. I try to stop it but it's so difficult And second, I often speak loudly when there isn't anyone in the room. I try to stop it but it's so difficult

Why is the first *jhana* omitted from MN 125 ? How is this omission related to the context of that sutta? > As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, they enter and remain in the second absorption … > *So vitakkavicārānaṁ vūpasamā ajjhattaṁ sampasādanaṁ cetaso ekodibhāvaṁ avitakkaṁ avicāraṁ samādhijaṁ pītisukhaṁ dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ …* > > third absorption … > *tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ …* > > fourth absorption. > *catutthaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati.* > MN 125

In various suttas like SN 35.204 and AN 4.170 , we find that both tranquility (*samatha*) and insight (*vipassana*) must be developed in most cases, in order to make progress on the path towards complete liberation. > The swift pair of messengers stands for tranquility (*samatha*) and insight (*vipassana*) > SN 35.204 To me, it appears that *jhana* is needed to overcome the five hindrances ("quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, they enter and remain in the first absorption" - DN 10 ), without which, insight is not easily achievable. On the other hand, the *vipassana* contemplations of the Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) appear to be using *vitakka* and *vicara*. Is this right? We also read: > Sound is a thorn to the first absorption. Placing the mind and keeping > it connected are a thorn to the second absorption. Rapture is a thorn > to the third absorption. Breathing is a thorn to the fourth > absorption. > AN 10.72 So, it sounds to me like, just the first *jhana* is sufficient for *vipassana*, since *vitakka* and *vicara* are thorns to the second *jhana*. So, putting these together, the *vipassana* contemplations of MN 10 is best practised after entering and remaining in the first *jhana*. Is this right?

I'm aware that Buddhist monastic communities often wear robes that distinguish them and visibly mark them out as Buddhists. Do lay Buddhist ever do the same thing? Is there any jewellery or clothing that lay Buddhists wear to mark them out as Buddhists - a visible marker of their religion. This is obviously common in other religions e.g. crucifixes for Christians - but do Buddhists of any tradition have an equivalent?

Can devas in heavenly realms do good deeds and get a rebirth in other higher heavens and progress successively from one higher heaven to other? Preferably, from Mahayana Buddhist or Theravada Buddhist sermons of the Buddha.

I have issues with the exact meaning of vitakka/vicara. I'm familiar with the stock translation "initial and sustained application of attention" and the images of vitakka and vicara being like a gong with initial strike vs. resounding and the bee visiting a flower and than buzzing around. My meditation teacher mentioned that "vitakka and vicara have an aspect of 'fruit'". That makes a lot of sense to me, because otherwise they wouldn't be listed as jhana factors. So there have to be multiple layers of vitakka and vicara, probably depending on the level of concentration? I didn't find any good references for it, can you help me? In terms of meditation experience, I always assumed that there is just one v/v. How would you describe the difference between normal consciousness v/v and the improved version of v/v in access concentration or 1st jhana?

Why do we have to circulate in the circle of Samsara? What did we do wrong for this suffering?

Buddhist teachings say one must restrain the senses and cultivate equanimity but I struggle to find a balance between doing that and finding joy in life etc. Do I just notice joy arising and let go?

Is there any person who is widely believed to be enlightened by Buddhists, and who confirms that himself/herself?