What if i cant chaant on a regular basis ? I want to increase my number of hours and i don't understand how to do it ?

In this following context, how should I assume the concept of 'a perfect non-entity' Is it 'non-consciousness' or 'non-existence' or 'non- perception' or 'non- ego'? I think it refers to 'non-perception' according to this passage. But I'm not sure what should be taken here. let me know your idea. Thanks All. > When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so > long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. And > were all my perceptions removed by death, and could I neither think, > nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate after the dissolution of my > body, I Shou’d be entirely annihilated, nor do I conceive what is > farther requisite to make me a perfect non-entity Source: BUNDLE THEORY OF THE SELF: Unit 2: Metaphysics by David Hume

Based on the River Sutta below, I can definitely understand assuming the self to be the body. So, when the body becomes old, diseased and approaching death, one assumes that "I am" becoming old, diseased and approaching death. If his body dies, he ceases to exist. This makes him suffer. However, I need much better examples for the other four aggregates. For example, if one assumes the self to be perception, it could be like she assumes the beauty of her body to be her self. "I am this beautiful woman". So, if she loses her beauty due to ageing or disease or accident, then she would suffer. Is this assuming self to be perception (about the body) or is this assuming self to be the form? Or both? Or is this mental fabrications? Another case is let's say, there is a priest of a religion that is strongly based on the belief of God. So, this priest assumes his self to be the "God believer and servant of God". He often prays, "Oh God, may I never stray away from believing in you." Then what if one day, he discovers that God actually doesn't exist? So, does this make him suffer because he assumes his self to be his mental fabrication of "God believer and servant of God"? Is this right? Or how about another case of a renowned surgeon who assumes his self to be the "surgeon"? If one day, he gets Parkinson's disease (while he is still young and at the peak of his practice) that causes his hands to not be steady, then he cannot practise surgery anymore. This makes him suffer. This would be assuming the self to be the mental fabrication of "surgeon". Is this right? What about feeling? If a person loves to listen to music, then he assumes his self to be this "music lover", but if one day he loses his sense of hearing due to disease or accident, this causes him to suffer. Is this right? Consciousness may not be be too hard to understand. If one assumes his self to be the being that continuously is aware and senses the world around him, then idea of death and non-rebirth would cause him to suffer, because he thinks this would cause him to stop being aware of his surroundings. Is this right? But then again, assuming self to be mental fabrications can be reframed in this way: If one assumes that "I think, therefore I am ", so if anything could cause him to stop thinking as he does now, like death or coma or brain injury, then he suffers from worrying about that. Is this right? Or, perhaps, all these examples indeed fall into multiple categories simultaneously? Maybe I cannot easily isolate a case of assuming the self to be only one aggregate, and not the other? From the River Sutta (SN 22.93) : > At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, suppose there were a > river, flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift, > carrying everything with it, and — holding on to both banks — kasa > grasses, kusa grasses, reeds, birana grasses, & trees were growing. > Then a man swept away by the current would grab hold of the kasa > grasses, but they would tear away, and so from that cause he would > come to disaster. He would grab hold of the kusa grasses... the > reeds... the birana grasses... the trees, but they would tear away, > and so from that cause he would come to disaster. > > "In the same way, there is the case where an uninstructed, > run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not > well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men > of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — > assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing > form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. That form tears > away from him, and so from that cause he would come to disaster. > *(and the same applies to the other four aggregates - feeling, > perception, mental fabrications and consciousness)* The sutta goes on to say that the five aggregates are inconstant and impermanent, and should be seen with the right discernment: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' Seeing thus, the noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the five aggregates.

'Reification' is making something real, bringing something into being or making something concrete. The Pali suttas say about the relationship between consciousness and wisdom/enlightenment: > *Discernment (wisdom; panna) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the > other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one > discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. MN > 43* Is the Enlightenment or Wisdom of a Buddha a Reification?

When experience a cittarupa understand arise if no thoughts come regarding them self will disappears. What is that experience?

**On the matter of Vegetarianism** I am aware the Theravada canon states that Buddha allowed monks to consume meat on the basis that they did not see, hear, know or suspect have been slaughtered for them. However Mahayana Sutras state that the Buddha forbade eating meat for example in the lankavatara and Surangama sutras. Which position would be more authentic, and how do we know whether the Buddha taught Vegetarianism or not?

Gudo Wafu Nishijima (incidentally Brad Warner's teacher) the soto monk, claimed that sentient beings in pain are just in hell, and hell is a supposition. I take this to mean that pain occurs without rebirth, already in this life, andt hat we cannot know that we will suffer pain after death: so I'd conclude that rebirth that isn't painful. What I think I'm adding to his exact words is just that facts like suffering are all or nothing, nothing real is incomplete. That may seem crazy, but I like it. I'm highly skeptical that we need to experiecne more pain to experience the dharma. Even if sentient beings do (and do not!) experience the result of their evil acts. Is there any basis in the sutras? Not to my conclusion, but his claims about pain. I've read that zen teachers are often ambivalent on their students belief in rebirth, but I mean something more than that, that to experience the result of bad karma is either in this life or not what we usually mean by "painful".

In this answer there is a quote from The Buddhist Monastic Code 1 - The Patimokkha Rules Translated and Explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, which reads in part > only when one is possessed by non-human beings In that book there are several references to being possessed by spirits or non-human beings, such as this from page 44. >State of mind. The bhikkhu must be in his right mind. Any statement he makes while insane, delirious with pain, or possessed by spirits does not count. My question is, **who or what is doing the possessing**? Is there a belief in Buddhism that some being (a hungry ghost or something else?) would actually take over the mind of a human? Is that type of cross realm interaction possible? How literally is possession by spirits to be understood? Thank you.

According to dependent origination , ignorance is at the root of suffering. What are the various ways in which we can get rid of ignorance?

Where are the 70 verses of Nagarjuna from? Is it from Mulamukhyamakakarika or elsewhere? Is it a reconstruction of other works or original?

I read the following in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/49852/254) : > Snp 5 is a great example in usage that proves kāya in meditation > context is rūpa-kāya by default. > > https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/10/kn-snp-5-buddha-knew-about-ambiguities.html [Snp 5.7](https://suttacentral.net/snp5.7/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) says, per Sujato translation: > “As a flame tossed by a gust of wind,” > > “Accī yathā vātavegena khittā, > > replied the Buddha, > > (upasīvāti bhagavā) > > “comes to an end beyond reckoning; > > Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ; > > so too, a sage freed from mental **phenomena** > > Evaṁ munī nāma**kāyā** vimutto, > > comes to an end beyond reckoning.” > > Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ”. > > I ask the Sakyan about knowledge for them; > > Ñāṇaṁ sakkānupucchāmi, > > how should one like that be guided?” > > kathaṁ neyyo tathāvidho”. [Snp 5.15](https://suttacentral.net/snp5.15/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) says, per Sujato translation: > said Venerable Posāla [to the Buddha], > >(iccāyasmā posālo) > >Consider one who perceives the disappearance of **form**, > > Vibhūta**rūpa**saññissa, > > who has entirely given up **the body**, > > sabba**kāya**ppahāyino; > > and who **sees nothing** at all > > Ajjhattañca bahiddhā ca, > > internally and externally. > > **natthi** kiñcīti **passato**; > >......... > >“Viññāṇaṭṭhitiyo sabbā, > >said the Buddha, > >(posālāti bhagavā) > > “all the planes of consciousness. > > Abhijānaṁ tathāgato; > > And he knows this one who remains, > > Tiṭṭhantamenaṁ jānāti, > > committed to that as their final goal. > > Vimuttaṁ tapparāyaṇaṁ. > > Understanding that desire for rebirth [**coming to be**] > > **Ākiñcaññasambhavaṁ** ñatvā, > > **in the dimension of nothingness** is a fetter, > > Nandī saṁyojanaṁ iti; Where/how do Snp 5.7 & 15 prove kāya in meditation context is rūpa-kāya by default?

Namaste! Speaking of Theravada Buddhism, I've seen some authors conflating what we know now as Theravada with the whole Sthavira Nikaya / Sravakayana. So they would say that extinct Sravakayana schools like Sarvastivada - Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Vatsiputriya - Pudgalavada are a part of the Theravada Buddhism itself. But I honestly doubt this is the case. I think what we call as Theravada Buddhism nowadays (or perhaps we can call it "Tamraparniya") is the only remaining sect of Vibhajjavada (which itself is one of many sects of Sthavira Nikaya / Sravakayana). Its doctrines was only codified by Buddhaghosa during 5th century CE. Even before 12th century, Buddhism in Sri Lanka wasn't even uniform. We had Mahavihara monastery where the orthodox Sravakayanins were centered, then we had Abhyagiri monastery where the Mahayanins were centered. If I remember correctly, it was during 12th century, a Sri Lankan king unified Buddhism in Sri Lanka with the Mahavihara monastery as the lead of Sri Lankan Buddhism, and then its teachings spread to the Southeast Asian nations (i.e Myanmar, Thailand,etc.). Would it be correct & safe to say that Theravada Buddhism (as we know today) actually originated from Anuradhapura Maha Viharaya in Sri Lanka? Thank you!

The pali phrase "Kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā" is found in many suttas. Bhikkhu Sujato translates this as "when their body broke up, after death" Bhikkhu Bodhi translates this as "with the breakup of the body, after death" Bhikkhu Suddhāso translates this as "When there is separation from the body after death, following the completion of this life" In another translation of Bhikkhu Sujato we see "Kāyassa bhedā" specifically translated again as "body breaks up" We also see this phrase "Kāyassa bhedā" alongside "jīvitapariyādānā" which I believe means termination of life. Are these correct translations referencing the breakup of the body? Does the body refer to the aggregates? Is this referring to the biological death of the body? If not, what is the proper translation?

Disciples of the noble ones are supposed to take the Buddha as the role of the Father, and Dhamma as Mother. When a disciple attains full liberation, completes the path to self-enlightenment, becomes a Buddha/Tathagata, does he become his own Father and his own word becomes his own Mother? Specially: did Gotama Sakyamuni take himself as Father and his own speech as Mother? and would all of his arahants be expected to do the same, or keep the Boddhisatta and his Word as Father-Mother? Also maybe, how about the disciples committed to the (Mahayana) bodhisattva vows?

Ok well I got the leather jacket years before I started to follow Buddhism. Would it be alright to still have the coat, or do I have to give it to a friend, or someone else?

**This is NOT a duplicate question**. Have seen other similar questions but their questions were very different from what I am about to ask. The modern Cosmology is clear. 13.8 billion years ago, the Universe started to form, then 4.5 billion years ago the Earth was formed, then 3 billion years ago primitive forms of life was created, then 200,000 years ago early humans came to existence, and finally we have modern human civilizations about 5000 years ago. This is in sharp contrast to Buddha's claims of having past lives hundreds of thousands of years ago, millions of years ago, billions of years ago, trillions of years ago, etc when there was either no life or no humans. Buddha already lived close to the formation of human civilization, he couldn't have possibly lived so many lives given in vivid details in Jataka tales and other scriptures when there were no human civilizations or humans to begin with. So, how do Buddhists deal with this? Do they deny science? Do they think that millions of years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, there was Buddha? Do they think when the Universe wasn't even formed trillions of years ago, Buddha lived a life? If you guys accept Science, does that mean Buddha lied all along? Did he just make up those stories to attract more followers?

Im too anxious,in the past my brother play football he kicked the ball to Guanyin statue i don't know he is intent or not did he committed shedding the blood of Buddha sin? the statue did not break

How old were each (or several) of the Buddha's students when they became arhats? I know Buddha was 35. I researched so far by Googling it and also by looking into Sariputra's life and also trying to infer based on what station in life that arhat was at. My question comes from the thought, "Hey, if a 37 year old can become an arhat, maybe I can too!" As a way to motivate and inspire myself.

A little context to describe what I am looking for and why I am looking for it: It is my strong intuition that "suffering" is a label that we give to a phenomenon that, upon deeper inspection, we discover to be an "inner conflict" between (1) a part of us that craves a particular sensory experience (kāma) and (2) a part of us which desires to see things as they actually are (yathabhutañanadassana) and that the resolution of these inner conflicts by relinquishing sense-desires in favor of clear seeing is the means by which suffering is ended and that the āsava are the biases which keep us clinging to sense-desires until we are strong enough to relinquish them and that each resolution of an inner conflict of this nature results in a destruction of the āsava (asavakkhaye ñana) and that each such destruction brings us closer and closer to full awakening wherein all āsava have been removed inner conflicts no longer go unresolved because avijjā (the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths) has been destroyed i.e. we no longer respond to dukkha (the arrow in the heart who purpose is to alert us to that the map of the world we have constructed has made a misprediction that should be corrected) by ignoring evidence that our views are compelling us to make bad decisions in favor of clinging to sense-desires. and that this works because the sensory motor wherein all āsava have been removed inner conflicts no longer go unresolved because avijjā (the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths) has been destroyed i.e. we no longer respond to dukkha (this discomfort of misprediction) by ignoring evidence that our views are compelling us to make bad decisions. brain evolved because it enabled beings to respond to sensory experience with moves in the world that improved the probability of gene survival i.e. the trait of making accurate predictions (saṅkhāra) originally served the master of the zero-sum game of gene-survival (aka "Māra) but the zero-sum game intensified competition which created selection pressure for ever more accurate predictions leading to the point where clinging to the original gene-survival compulsions actually become an impediment to clear seeing and that the choice to relinquish this impediment in favor the welfare of all living beings was the choice the Buddha made when he renounced Māra and attained nibbana. Although everything is a hypothesis, and all hypotheses should be considered impermanent (sabbe saṅkhāra annicā), and all hypothesis are subject to the discomfort of misprediction (sabbe saṅkhāra dukkha), I have a very high degree of certainty that this hypothesis is correct. Nevertheless, the "fly in the ointment" is the uncomfortable truth that I am not familiar with a Pali term to represent the concept of an "inner conflict" between these 2 parts. My best guess is that (1) I am attributing an incorrect meaning to a term that I already know which represents this concept or (2) The term was removed from the canon by the same forces who removed the 4 resolves (adhiṭṭhāna: sacca, pañǹa, cāga, upasama; which described how to actually resolve the unresolved conflict). I'm hoping that (1) is true and that someone here can point me in the right direction.

Usually Sati is translated as Mindfulness, but according to the Wikipedia entry, Mindfulness is described as follows: >Mindfulness is the psychological process of bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment, which can be developed through the practice of meditation and other training. The term "mindfulness" is a translation of the Pali term sati, which is a significant element of Buddhist traditions. According to suttacentral's entry, Sati is defined as memory, recognition, consciousness, intentness of mind, wakefulness of mind etc. My question is then, is it a mistake to call Sati Mindfulness, since Minsfulness means awareness. Now Sati is always used with his close companion sampajañña, which in turn makes the attention always directed to moral attitudes etc., whereas "mainstream mindfulness" just observes inner and outer phenomena with an open, curious and beginners mind. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness https://suttacentral.net/search?query=sati