Looking at https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Five_skandhas , how is it possible that the feeling is derived out of the forms? If the forms don't have feeling themselves, how can feeling emerge from non-feeling basically? I would think the order is reversed, where first there are feelings, and the feelings create forms ("name" things, so to speak). So why does this say forms -> feelings instead of feelings -> forms?

I know this is not the place for this kind of questions. But I post this anyway. **I am seeking advice on Samatha meditation.** Time to time, I get strong urge to do Samatha meditation.(I'm not an expert on this). So, I start with a combination of Maithree, Anapanasati and Vipassana meditation to cut down five hindrances . At this level, I reach happy state. Then I switch to Kasina meditation. But I can't continue Kasina meditation enough time to reach any static Nimitta . That's because I lose urge to continue / neediness to reach Dhayana. Sometimes, - I feel full - I feel, can't hold any more fullness ( full pressure) - less neediness to continue . So, I feel one or multiple of above and then I can't continue the meditation. Like, I feel like I can't continue anymore. (but I want to). But through all this, I feel happy. (after Maithree and Vipassana meditation) So, questions are , - Why is this happening? - Why I lose urge? - Why sometimes feel full pressure? - How would I overcome this? ___ My own idea of the problem is, - maybe I didn't actually reduce the five hindrances evenly, maybe I reduced the 1,2 and 5, but I think, maybe I didn't reduce 3rd and 4th hindrances. (main point). - maybe my Vipassana is too much(for Samatha) and I lose carving(thanha) for Dhayana. (newly added this line). - maybe I don't have enough capacity. - maybe my methods are wrong. It could be one of above or something else. ___ Five hindrances > order is as in this article. 1. Sensory desire (kāmacchanda) 2. Ill-will (vyāpāda; also spelled byāpāda) 3. Sloth-and-torpor (thīna-middha) 4. Restlessness-and-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca) 5. Doubt (vicikiccha) **Thanks 🙏. ☸️.** **Any help is appreciated.**

**Do we feel because we perceive? Or do we perceive because we feel?** As per mahā-vedallasutta(MN43) > Yaṁ vedeti taṁ sañjānāti, yaṁ sañjānāti taṁ vijānāti. > so vedanā -> sañjānāti -> vijānāti But shouldn't this order be in reverse? Because first, we cognise (vijānāti), then recognise (sañjānāti) and then we feel, isn't it so? Goenka also confirms this sequence. vijānāti->sañjānāti->vedeti. Or is there a different between viññanā and vijānāti as well saññā and sañjānāti? Nibbedhikasutta(AN 6.63) says > Phassa is nidānasambhavo for vedanā/saññā/sankhārā. as if vedanā, saññā and sankhārā co-arise. but are they independent of each other? **Note**: (Adding comments of @blue_ego) consider this question as non sequential. When I say first it means second is dependent on first. Take any meditation practice. we just practice to change perception, and feeling changes accordingly. but vice versa is not true.

In Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara, there is a debate with the Charvakas (ancient materialists) about the existence or non-existence of past and future lives. In the commentary, Rinpoche compares and contrasts the Charvakas tenets with modern day scientists who would deny the conventional existence of past or future lives. Rinpoche accuses modern scientists with the phrase "divorcing the view and the action" and advises that this is a saying among masters to describe something considered very dangerous: As Rinpoche implies that this phrase is commonly used by masters to describe something very dangerous I am wondering if there are other examples of masters using this phrase and why it is considered so dangerous. Can anyone find Sutra/Treatise/Commentary/Anecdote of other masters using this phrase? I'm also wondering if it is appropriate to describe modern Secular Buddhists who also deny the conventional existence of past or future lives as holding the same view as modern scientists and subject to this same phrase? If so, why is this so dangerous and what is meant by "divorcing the view and the action?" What is the translation of this phrase in Pali, Sanskrit, or Tibetan to the extent that there are examples of masters using this phrase in a similar way in any of these languages?

In Buddhism it's mostly all about mind training. The mind is regarded as a skhanda/aggregate separate from the body. Also, feelings, consciousness and karmic conditions. Now I am in doubt, thinking that the body could produce the mind. If so, that would mean, that the Buddhist path is stripped of many implications, like that we are wandering in samsara since beginningless time. Could someone please provide some links or explanations which explain the Buddhist argumentation that body and mind are separate "entities"/ aggregates. Thank you.

> "And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering." > > -- Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, [MN 38](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html) There are many suttas in the canon where the Buddha admonishes monks, and the above is a notable example. The translations, at least to my eyes, come as particularly harsh: "worthless" (in Nanamoli/Bodhi, we read "misguided" instead of "worthless". I've also read "foolish" elsewhere) -- there was another reprimand from the Buddha, almost mean as I recall how I felt while reading it, but which I could not find again. I've constantly felt troubled with these passages. I also look with very suspicious eyes the dribbling with "The buddha was harsh for their own good" (unless, if it is the Buddha himself justifying his harsh words, not we trying to excuse him and spare the texts). I find it troubling specially in light of: - the very explicit *right speech* teachings, promoting the abandonment of harsh words. - the difficulty of reconcile harsh "formations" in a mind free of defilements. Are the other/older versions (say, chinese, pali and tibetan) of these passages evoking somewhat equivalent harsh emotions on a reader? Or is it a particularity of the english translations? (Or is it just me?) Otherwise, were these harsh reprimands ever discussed (in books, commentaries, etc)?

Good evening, everyone! I'm curious about the Buddhist worldview and would like answers to these sixteen worldview questions. I rely heavily on James W. Sire's worldview questions from his book *The Universe Next Door*. If anyone is interested and willing, I could also gather your answers to these questions over Zoom or Microsoft Teams. There would be no proselytizing on my end. I'm simply curious. Many thanks for considering my request! 1. What is prime reality? 2. What is the nature of external reality, i.e., the world around us? 3. Are there absolute truths? If so, what is its source? 4. What is Good, and does it have a source? 5. What is Evil, and does it have a source? 6. Where did the universe come from? 7. What is a human being? 8. Why or how is it possible to know anything at all? 9. What is the meaning of human history? 10. What is the human problem? 11. What is the purpose of life? 12. What is the significance of the integration of iconography within Buddhism? 13. How do we know what is right and wrong? 14. Are right and wrong, good and evil, absolute concepts? 15. What happens to a person at death? 16. Will the universe as we know it come to an end? If so, how and why?

Can one elaborate please more on this quote: > "In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena (or: phenomena that offer sustenance = the five aggregates), craving develops. > > "Now, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases." Upādāna Sutta SN 12.52 (S ii 84) How is this exactly done?

I recall reading the Buddhist scriptures say those who revile Noble Ones are reborn in hell. Does this also apply to an unenlightened (puthujjana) monk that reviles a Noble Layperson?

It has been my experience that Buddhism has set me from blind obedience when it comes to religious rules. I was free to think what was good spiritually and no one can tell me otherwise. Is this what sages go through?

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