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?

Yesterday I was a guest at the home of my Buddhist friend, he cooked vegetables for me and some other drinks were there on table. I am fond of meat but there was no meat available. So, I asked him why he didn't cook meat, and he explained that he is Buddhist and that meat is prohibited in Buddhism. So, I want to know the reason behind this!

I don't want to consult any doctor about my obsession. I do not even want to speak about it to my family and friends. I wish to get an answer tailor-made for me about my obsession with getting dead-drunk and practicing self, the meditation. Please don't take it otherwise but a question to Buddha & his disciples. I am so fed up of the dependence of me on drugs. It happens, believe me (i have seen many others, too). Please provide/mark/show/point wordings of Buddha if he has said something near to this. If any modern Buddha is reading this than please share actual revert of you with example. I am standing at a dead-end (may be here's some way ahead but my thought isn't going beyond my confusion. My philosophy about buddhism says that it's a way of living that is worth living. I am practicing meditation in routine in early morning timings. The rest of the day i depend on drugs to stay connected to the will of mine to become a Buddha, it appears like a bridge that i can walk and i walk across it, everytime. *How is it possible to leave behind my obsession with drugs?* I want to quit my drugs. I wish to be free.

Will happen same with me the way I had build my bad Karma? e.g If I've stolen money then will I face same, will someone steal my money? Or do I've to pay more than that?

I'm very close to becoming a Buddhist, of some strand of Mahayana, but I am having some difficulties with the concept of Heaven(s) and Hell(s). I already know that some such as [Hakuin Ekaku](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3503/25543) of the Rinzai Japanese Zen Buddhism viewed Heaven(s) and Hell(s) as a state of mind. I've heard the same about the Madhyamaka school of Buddhist philosophy (e.g. Nagarjuna's views). This is a view that I can accept, but I don't think its common in Mahayana sects. Nevertheless, from what I've seen though I wasn't able to confirm, it seems that for many, if not most sects and schools of Mahayana Buddhism view Heaven(s) and Hell(s) as real and literal places. Therefore, my question is whether they're actually literal about how do we know that they're real if we are genuinely unable to verify that they exist, either logically or empirically via experimentation. Also, if you know of any Mahayana sects which view Heaven(s) and Hell(s) as psychological states of mind, do let me know please.

Imagine following situation: A person who thinks of themself as a good person, meaning they are mostly nice to people and act and think almost always morally. Said person is diagnosed with an illness that has no cure and is inevitably going to kill them in, say, a year. How would a Buddhist explain this? I already know about the four noble truths as well as the noble eightfold path. Also I know that one could explain it with the concept of rebirth. But I'd like a more in-depth explanation and I'm interested if there are other ways of explaining it or if I am wrong with the information I already have.

In the **Kammapatha sutta** **AN 3.164(A i 297)** a note concerning the meaning of a passage (written by the author of the page dedicated to the sutta it seems) makes me question, the sutta and note are stated as follows : > Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if one was carried off > and put down there, one is in hell. Which three? One destroys life > oneself, one incites others to destroy life, and one approves of > destroying life.**{1}** Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if > one was carried off and put down there, one is in hell. > Note > > > 1. one approves of destroying life: purchasing dead animals' flesh, in a context where other reasonable harmless choices are available, > cannot be carried out without approving their killing. https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/03/an03-164.html It appears the author of the page establishes a link between approving the killing of an animal with the purchase of meat. I would appreciate understanding more about this link being established. (As a personal background I had been a vegetarian for around 5 years but due to digestive issues decided to revert to the consumption (and therefore purchase) of meat which seem to be helping a lot). With mettā.

As to Buddhism killing is wrong and planning such things is also wrong. So what is the difference between the Karma of a person who killed someone and a person who only planned but never killed.

There are various verses in the Pali suttas that give the impression arahants not experience aging & death, as follows: > *Then, monks, being subject myself to aging... death... seeking the aging-less, deathless... unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I > reached the aging-less... deathless... unexcelled rest from the yoke: > Unbinding. MN 26* _______________________________ > *A sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would > be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not > dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? > It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled > where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of > construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' MN 140* _____________________________________________ > *21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead > already. Dhammapada* How or why do arahants not experience aging & death?

Maybe i misread this but i read again now that in buddhist view life span will become shorter and shorter until 10 year life span did i misunderstand somehthing ? it seems that the lifespan is getting bigger and not shorter

We all know what happens if someone kill a parent but does the same apply to killing a foster parent