Is the Eightfold Path exclusive to Buddhism? Buddha taught the **Noble** Eightfold Path. The way I understand, the eightfold path is a generic path not exclusive to Buddhism. However, the Noble Eightfold Path is exclusive to Buddhism. I was trying to convince many [in Dhamma Wheel](https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=38202) of this without much support. I would like to know the opinion of this learned Buddhist community.

Why is consciousness not discussed as internal and external in the Dhathu-vibhanga sutta (MN 140)? > "And what is the space property? **The space property may be either internal or external.** What is the internal space property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space property & the external space property are simply space property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and makes the space property fade from the mind. > > "**There remains only consciousness: pure & bright.** What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure. When sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of pleasure.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of pleasure that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure — ceases, is stilled.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. When sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain — ceases, is stilled.' > > https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

So I've been thinking about how in scripture, Buddha often refers to certain views as the "extremes". A famous example is the eternalists (eternal soul and afterlife) vs the annihilationists (no soul, no afterlife, pure materialists). The Buddha taught both of these as the two extremes and promotes a Middle Way. But is Buddha's own approach not a form of extermism? Consider the following: one extreme that I will call eliminationists (suffering is intrinsically bad and is to be completely eradicated - this is Buddha) vs masochists (suffering is to be sought out and maximized as much as humanly possible). The Middle Way here would be "We do not like suffering (though that does not make it bad or evil by itself), but it has important functions and is in some ways, simply inevitable as long as one is actively "alive" in any conceivable way, so we should seek to reasonably reduce unnecessary suffering as judged by us, but re-orienting the entire society for the sole goal of eliminating suffering can lead to other negatives and extreme behaviour". Why should we eliminate rather than lessen suffering? Isn't that one extreme (other being actively seeking out as much suffering as possible)? I can list many ways in which obsession with harm reduction can lead to a highly dysfunctional society and worsen conditions of many people. So why does the Buddha actively promote the Middle Way for other positions, but does not apply it for his own?

I have done Samatha and Vipassana for a few years. Now, I have lost interest in everything. Feel like I have no hope for anything. No desire. Isn't that what Vipassana about. Removing hope and desire? Can't even eat. What's wrong with me? Is this a result of Vipassana? Or laziness? I'm stuck where I am. Lots of past experiences are coming up and disturbing me. 🙏🙏🙏

This question is for experienced meditators. I’ve been practicing for a very long time, meditating often, yet I still notice my mind wandering all the time. I struggle to sit still. My mind is always trying to escape from this place to another. I’ve been recommended to simply watch the mental activity and wandering, but the mind wandering takes me away and I forget to observe. It feels straining to be in the moment. How should I approach it better?

According to the Buddha, what is samsara made of? 1. Karma? 2. All the Buddhist realms of existence? 3. Your moment by moment mind and body experiential arisings as they happen? 4. Isn't samsara what arises when you meditate satipatthana?

As per title. To be more specific: The rule, or the working way of Karma - is it part of the world and thus uniquely determined within the formation of our world? Or is the working way of Karma some superior rule higher than the formation of our world, that all worlds (we know Buddhism believe there are many parallel worlds in time and space) follow a same set of Karma rule? Take as an example, SA 527 , which says: > a novice monk stole monk's 7 fruits, so he was punished by Karma, that he fell into hell for many lives, and even if he reincarnate into a human after these sufferings, hot iron bullets will penetrate his body from time to time Is such karmaphala penalty for stealing monk's fruits (i.e. falling into hell and later becoming a human penetrated by bullets), - (a) the same or similar across all worlds, or - (b) unique of our world, or - (c) unique only to Sakyamuni Buddha's era in our world? There is a similar question but not well-answered either. ------------------- Note this question is not "is Karma part of materialistic world". Karma itself is obviously bound with sentients in this world, but I want to know whether the rule of Karma also bound to us.

Caucasian skin is peachy and sandy (due to having no pigmentation) while the great man's body in nibbana is, according to the 32 perfections of a great man , "his skin is the color of gold". White skin requires some pigmentation. Currently my journey with white skin represents the Trix rabbit's (1994 commercial) attempt to take his own cereal. All he gets is "silly rabbit Trix are for kids!" And the fact that some saints may have received such a miracle to change their skin color forever makes the pain that much more serious. And what should I do regarding the psychologist? I am visiting one to drain my emotions of this, and that might make my eternity as a yellow man all that much more permanent!

I remember reading offhand on a website a Zen Buddhist Koan that had not worrying as its theme, and one of the lines was "if you're about to go to Hell, don't worry". That's all I can remember of it. If anyone of you knows what I'm talking about, please share the name and text of this Koan. Thank you in advance.

I came across this contemplation in [DN 22](https://suttacentral.net/dn22/en/sujato#5.3) : > It’s as if there were a bag with openings at both ends, filled with various kinds of grains, such as fine rice, wheat, mung beans, peas, sesame, and ordinary rice. And a person with clear eyes were to open it and examine the contents: ‘These grains are fine rice, these are wheat, these are mung beans, these are peas, these are sesame, and these are ordinary rice.' > > And so they meditate observing an aspect of the body internally … What kind of wholesome qualities on the 8-fold noble path does contemplating the bodies of people like sacks of different grains of rice and wheat inspire? Like sinews, muscle tissue, synovial fluid, neural tissue, skeleton. Contemplating this rotten body as a sack of grains in a linen bag, just like one the Buddha would have seen being carried around when he was a child 3000 years ago in India? Picture this, young Buddha seeing someone on the street by his palace, carrying a sack of rice for cooking a meal for him, and seeing the cooks in the kitchen? Thanks. sukhi hontu

I've just started learning Buddhism, and currently investigating 6 realms of rebirth. What confuses me is that it seems different sources give inconsistent ordering of the realms. For example, in the book [Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction](https://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook/dp/B00BHXVWSS#:~:text=Buddhism%3A%20A%20Very%20Short%20Introduction%20introduces%20the%20reader%20to%20the,of%20Buddhism%20in%20daily%20life.&text=By%20considering%20how%20Buddhist%20thought,faced%20from%20a%20Buddhist%20perspective.) the 6 realms of rebirth is ordered (from highest to lowest) as follows: 1. Gods 2. Humans 3. Titans 4. Ghosts 5. Animals 6. Hell However, in wikipedia article of [Saṃsāra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra_(Buddhism)#Realms_of_rebirth) it presents the following order: 1. Gods 2. Human 3. Demi-god 4. Animal 5. Hungry ghost 6. Hell I also checked wikipedia for [六道](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%AD%E9%81%93#%E4%B8%89%E5%96%84%E9%81%93) and some other Chinese online articles (since I can read Chinese). It seems they prefer to order demi-god realm above human realm. So in summary, there seems to be inconsistency of relative ordering of two pairs of realms among various sources, namely the relative ordering between human realm and demi-god realm, and between animal realm and ghost realm. I'm wondering which is right? Is there a definitive ordering? Maybe different branches of Buddhism define them differently?

I hope this finds you well and happy. Over the last 25 years I have been trying to apply the instructions from the Buddha on how to study his teaching to keep it pure, found in the Pali Early Buddhist Texts. In my documents linked below, I try to resolve glaring inconsistencies in the Pali text, from the perspective that the Buddha is the unexcelled teacher and does not need help from disciples to teach. You will need a google account to view them: My comparison of up to 54 possible variations in the gradual Path (the Fourth Noble Truth) found in the Pali Texts: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acDIhERcjDfGYof2v45tqdXOipIh09_OYUfHwXWpVTY/edit?usp=sharing My theory of early and late Buddhist Teachings (covering all Four Noble Truths): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CE8ycGuHdOBI96wzOiZt2Da1QWHclb2BCR-b1BwZEGs/edit?usp=sharing I'd be interested to hear of other similar work, because I'd like to associate and discuss with people who show at least the easiest to recognise Fruit of Stream Entry, taking the Buddha as their only teacher. That is, I'm seeking the Noble Community. Bhikkhu Sujato et al's 2014 study: Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf only wants to present the case, there is NO evidence of **major** doctrinal change in the EBTs. I'm not interested in people preaching or 'soap boxing' to me, the standard interpretations of doctrines, which I would call dogma. I was a Theravada monk for 20 years. So I am very familiar with them. This pushing of dogma is usually done in the style: 'this is the truth style'/'the Buddha taught this' etc. I'm interested in authentic discussion where people apply the training for his disciples ascribed to the Buddha of 'do not say this is the truth' but rather 'I believe this is the truth', called 'safeguarding the truth' MN 95 and is expressing one's view as one's view, as it really is. I understand this to be an insight practice and found it eradicates arrogance. The difference might better be understood by the difference in: 'the world is flat' - pushed by some organisations and 'I believe the world is flat' - someone expressing their belief realistically. I appreciate facts such as, the Noble Eightfold Path appears x times in the EBTs, but not quoting scripture to push the standard view, as my research shows there are likely many corrupted ideas in the EBTs. For me, agreement with the large body of consistent words of the Buddha, is a higher standard than the number of times an idea occurs. best wishes Joe

As the title says, I am looking for sources from EBT or Theravada, from the actual words of the Buddha about the process of death. Including advice on what one should do when death is close. Assuming the person knows death is arriving imminently. (if that is a correct term)

Was dependent-origination (Pratityasamutpada) revealed to Buddha with enlightenment? If not, when? AI says: > First Sermon: The first formal teaching of this doctrine occurred > during the Buddha's first sermon at Sarnath, shortly after his > enlightenment. This sermon is known as the Dhammacakkappavattana > Sutta, **where he introduced the Four Noble Truths and the concept of > dependent origination**. Okay, but there is only a brief reference to anything resembling dependent-arising in sn56.11 . > Bhikkhus, for however long the wisdom that sees in accordance with > reality - having three modes and twelve aspects - regarding these four > noble truths was not well purified in us,..- And what exactly "the three rounds, twelve aspects" means is still unclear. Does it refer to the Four Noble Truths? > The Buddha turned three times the Dharma wheel of the Four Noble > Truths. During the first turning for indication, the Buddha revealed, > “This is suffering; this is accumulation of afflictions; this is > cessation of suffering; this is the path.” During the second turning > for persuasion, He advised, “This is the suffering you should know; > this is the accumulation of afflictions you should destroy; this is > the cessation of suffering you should achieve; this is the path you > should take.” During the third turning for confirmation, He testified, > “This is the suffering I have known; this is the accumulation of > afflictions I have destroyed; this is the cessation of suffering I > have achieved; this is the path I have completed.” It's summary : > It is the path of understanding and practice, whereby the truth can > become known (sacca-ñāṇa), its function understood (kicca-ñāṇa), so > that its accomplishment may be realized (kata-ñāṇa). Another theory: > The three rounds refer to the three watches of night described in >Mahāsaccakasutta, and the twelve aspects are indeed the twelve links of > Pratityasamutpada.. Was DO developed logically, with effort, or was it a spontaneous arising of his enlightenment?

Please share methods to increase mindfulness. \ Mindfulness means simply an awareness of the objects and sense data that are present. So, for example, it is Tuesday, 1pm. What I have tried so far is to list things and sights that are nearby: - Is it light or dark? - Am I tired or not tired? - Am I walking or sitting? Is it simply raw observation, independent of cast or creed, simply seeing as it is? Thanks sukhi hontu

I'm reading Rob Burbea's book Seeing That Frees. The book is about ways of working with emptiness. In the book, he says that things lack inherent existence. I'm fairly sure this isn't the same as not being real. Is that right? Can things be real and lack inherent existence? I appreciate the real answer will be to meditate on this, but I find exploring such issues more intellectually to be helpful too.

I've been meditating for 1 hour, and I'm planning to extend it to 90 minutes. Will there be any significant change in my experience? Has anyone had a real experience with this? SHOULD I INCREASE TO 90 MINS? Follow up: Why does everyone say to do twice a day instead of once a day? In the [Vipassana 10 day retreat](https://www.dhamma.org/) , they said to not go beyond 60 mins as it will lead to different state. That's why I ask. Why is it getting more and more difficult as I am increasing the duration?

I was reading about Narcissistic Personality Disorder and related conditions like Borderline Personality Disorder . Some qualities seemed in direct opposition to what I've read in books by Thich Nhat Hanh. I was wondering if there were descriptions of Modern Psychological Narcissism in Buddhist works (as opposed to vanity in the Greek myth)? Is it closely tied to notions of Ego? For example, we are encouraged to cultivate Equanimity in Buddhism. BPD has erratic and extreme emotional shifts. Its sufferers have extremely dichotomous, dualistic thinking. Some notion of objectivity is encouraged in Buddhism, a realization that one is observing a phenomenon, and one may have thoughts, judgments, etc about the phenomenon, but this isn't really the thing being observed. People with NPD and the like may be considered extremely subjective, unmindful that they are having opinions and so failing to distinguish between the observation and the judgments. Envy is extremely common among narcissists. On the path to liberation, envy is one of the first emotions to disappear. Are there teachings of Buddhism that could be especially helpful for such people?

Is it a good idea to expose yourself to situations that trigger fear and anxiety and use meditation to get through it, or is the desire to overcome fear and anxiety "bad" because it's technically a desire? (And fear and anxiety are only temporary states anyway and should be recognized for being just that.) Would it even be possible to meditate through a triggering situation since one wouldn't be calm enough to see clearly in such a situation? To put it more simply: could meditation be used as a substitute for CBT? If not, does Buddhism encourage or discourage CBT?

> 'Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.' I'm not sure I like the adjective 'optional' because I think it's insensitive to tell someone who's been injured that their suffering is some switch to easily flip (I don't have an issue with the nouns). I think 'not' is better than 'optional'. Anyhoo, many Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT) texts seem to distinguish pain and suffering in other ways such as: - Psychology Today: The Dialectic of Pain: Synthesizing Acceptance and Change > Pain in life is inevitable, but suffering and misery are not. These can result from the way we respond to pain. The more we fight against it, the more likely we are to experience negative emotions, such as anger, hopelessness, and despair, and the harder it becomes to identify changes that can help. Like those Chinese finger-trap toys, the more forcefully we tug to release our index fingers, the more tightly ensnared they become. Calming down and taking stock of the situation opens the means to escape. - Wikipedia: Marsha M. Linehan (this quote has no source as of this writing) > Marsha M. Linehan (born May 5, 1943) is an American psychologist and author. She is the creator of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), a type of psychotherapy that combines behavioral science with Buddhist concepts like acceptance and mindfulness. - And so on.