Fire ceremonies are likely categorized as ‘rites and rituals’, but is/was the basic usage of fire for warmth prohibited by monastic rules?

In dependent origination , feelings arise due to contact. Craving results from feelings. Cessation of feeling is cessation of suffering. Suppose consciousness is devoid of feelings , that is ,no feelings arise, then , can we say cessation of feeling has been achieved?

In dependent origination name and form is described as follows : > “And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, > contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and > the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. > Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form. The name and form arises due to vinnana or consciousness. After name and form six senses arise. After six senses , contact arises. After contact , feelings arise. However in the definition of name and form , name involves contact and feelings as shown in the above quote. How can feeling and contact describe name and form when feeling and contact occur after name and form?

Sorry, I've just read Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) and feel a bit overwhelmed. As far as I understand, this is some sort of instruction on how to attain enlightenment. It teaches, that one has to develop the perfect mindfulness of the body, feelings and mind; to observe all the hindrances and be sure that they won't arise anymore; to develop the ending of the aggregates; to abandon the fetter of the senses; to develop all the awakening factors; to contemplate all the arising dharmas considering their relationships with the Four Noble Truths. Beats me, even if one devotes all their life to the perfection of all of these things, can they really perfect these? Attaining Nirvana seems to be really complicated, and there are many conflicting points (both within and between major schools) on what are more important objects of meditation & techniques out there.

In dependent origination , the word “ viññāṇa” arises and it is translated as consciousness. I am not satisfied and I guess some other members of this site are also not satisfied because then the dependent origination becomes: given volitional formations, consciousness arises. Isn’t volitional formation and ignorance itself due to consciousness? Therefore in order to understand “viññāṇa” I need to understand what is the Sanskrit root for the Pali word “ viññāṇa”? I looked up online Sanskrit dictionary, there is a word “vinn ” which means “understanding “. Do you think “vinn” is the root word for “ viññāṇa” ?

It makes no sense that a person would knowingly choose to be ignorant of what causes them suffering, yet people suffer for "their" ignorance anyway. How is a person supposed to "freely/willingly choose" insight/knowledge if that choice is dependent upon already having some insight/knowledge? Are the persons choices before choosing insight/knowledge completely at random? Do people not have any freedom or autonomy? I think this may be another unanswerable question.

I read the following on the internet by an independent (Australian) bhikkhu: > [Oppositional framing is cringe](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/oppositional-framing-is-cringe/31334) > > You know it when you see it. “Everyone else says that … but I say this”. > > Which is invariably meant to be expanded to, “All those mindless sheep incanting **orthodoxy** say that … but I—a courageous and innovative truth-teller—say this.” > > It’s the fundamental framing of every **conspiracy theory**, endlessly, tediously invoked every time someone says “**do the research**”. But it’s > also one of the most annoying cliches of academic writing, where for > purely rhetorical reasons pretty much every scholar feels the need to > define themselves by what they are against rather than by what they > are for. > > And you also see it all the **little Buddhist** **cult**ettes, which establish > an in-group defined by the rejection of “**the mainstream**”. By > definition, if you don’t agree with their stunning new breakthroughs > in understanding you’re just a sheep trapped in tradition. Dear god in > heaven, it’s so very cringe. It’s the rhetorical maturity of someone > forever trapped in a fifteens year-old’s bedroom, **Metallica** posters > duly blu-tacked to the walls. > > A man of wit and wisdom—namely **Twitter**’s **Sonny Bunch**—once said 5 that > it’s better to like something everyone hates than it is to hate > something everyone likes. He’s right. Why not try liking things? It’s > fun! Are there Pali Suttas that affirm or oppose the above viewpoint? If so, which ones?

There is a sphere of infinite space and there is sphere of infinite consciousness. It is easy to comprehend what is infinite space is but it is not clear what is meant by infinite consciousness? Does it mean infinite history of experience? Or does it mean infinite presence of sentient beings with consciousness?

I recently posted on the Islam site that we (Muslim) could consider Gautama Buddha as a prophet in our sense. I have originally put three different questions here; now I put two separately; under this title I leave the question of courtesy whether Buddhists would rather appreciate or oppose to it if I would call Gautama Buddha a prophet in the sense of Islam (not a prophet of Islam), knowing that the relation between both religions is not entirely peaceful (which I, personally, regret) Thank you for your feedback

I saw this scientific article -- [Learning to Accept Discomfort Could Help You Thrive](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-to-accept-discomfort-could-help-you-thrive/) -- on overcoming pain, discomfort and negative emotions. There is one part in the article which seems incredible: > painful exposed nerve in his tooth.....the dentist touched the tooth, my colleague felt bubbles of joy While I understand the notion of using equanimity to overcome difficulties in life, I am rather curious about its ability to overcome physical pain. Perhaps anyone who had practised equanimity in their meditation can share their experiences? Otherwise, any insights or theories on how this might work is equally appreciated, thanks!

Buddha says > So you should train like this: ‘I will not tell a lie, even for a > joke.’ Tasmātiha te, rāhula, ‘hassāpi na musā bhaṇissāmī’ti Dhamma as taught by Buddha is not a lie therefore one should not say things which contradict Buddha. However Buddha in [MN 22](https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin) asks to give up Dhamma. > By understanding the simile of the raft, you will even give up the > teachings, let alone what is against the teachings. > > Kullūpamaṁ vo, bhikkhave, dhammaṁ desitaṁ, ājānantehi dhammāpi vo > pahātabbā pageva adhammā. What is meant by giving up the teachings ? For example- How do you give up the teaching that Sabbbe Dhamma Anatta? or Sabbe Sankhara Anicca? or Sabbe Sankhara Dukkha?

Sabbe Sankhara Anicca means all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. However , I was thinking whether any phenomena can be present everywhere even for a short span of time ? In other words I think , no conditioned phenomena can be ubiquitous because it will give a sense of temporary Self. One ubiquitous phenomena which comes to my mind is the presence of atom. Everything is made up of atoms except dark matter. Another ubiquitous phenomena is gravity. It seems to present everywhere.This is true for everything and everywhere. Is it true that no conditioned phenomena can be ubiquitous? And what will be the Pali or Sanskrit translation for “No conditioned phenomena can be ubiquitous.”? PS : I think Buddha didn’t say anything about it. However your thoughts are welcome. One reason I asked this question was because an ubiquitous phenomena gives at least a sense of temporary Self.

Three translations of Bhikkhu Sujato say: > But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where > are they reborn? > > Evaṃ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṃ upapajjatī ti? > > ‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha. > > “Upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”. > > Well then, are they not reborn? > > Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī ti? > > ‘**They’re not reborn**’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha. > > “Na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”. > >MN 72 ___________________________________________ > Seeing this, a learned noble disciple becomes disillusioned with form, > feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. > > Evaṃ passaṃ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmimpi nibbindati, > vedanāyapi nibbindati, saññāyapi nibbindati, saṅkhāresupi nibbindati, > viññāṇasmimpi nibbindati. > > Being disillusioned they become dispassionate. Being dispassionate > they’re freed. When freed, they know ‘it is freed’. > > Nibbindaṃ virajjati; virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṃ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṃ > hoti. > > They understand: ‘**Rebirth is ended**, the spiritual journey has been > completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to > any state of existence.’ > > ‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ, nāparaṃ > itthattāyā’ti pajānātī”ti. > >SN 22.59 ____________________________________________________ > **The sage at peace is not reborn**, does not grow old, and does not die. > They are not shaken, and do not yearn. > > Muni kho pana, bhikkhu, santo na jāyati, na jīyati, na mīyati, na > kuppati, na piheti. > > For they have nothing which would cause them to be reborn. Not being > reborn, how could they grow old? Not growing old, how could they die? > Not dying, how could they be shaken? Not shaking, for what could they > yearn? > > Tañhissa, bhikkhu, natthi yena jāyetha, ajāyamāno kiṃ jīyissati, > ajīyamāno kiṃ mīyissati, amīyamāno kiṃ kuppissati, akuppamāno kissa > pihessati? > >MN 140 Why does MN 72 say "not reborn" does not apply to the freed mind (*vimuttacitto*) but SN 22.59 and MN 140 say "rebirth is ended" and the arahant is "not reborn"?

It is widely understood across all Buddhist traditions that the Buddha often spoke of persons and used words like 'I' and 'person' and 'self' and this is not seen as problematic or contradictory to the doctrine of anatman. Just as it is said by the bhikkhuni Vajira: > “Just as, with an assemblage of parts, > The word ‘chariot’ is used, > So, when the aggregates exist, > There is the convention ‘a being.’ > > SN 5.10 It is also self-evident that the Buddha would associate a proper name with individual beings and use this name conventionally over time to identify specific individuals. This is also not controversial for any Buddhist tradition that I'm aware. However, there were times when "the self" was discussed in such a way that the Buddha would not answer such as the famous case of Vacchagotta. It is widely understood that the Buddha found Vacchagotta's questions or mindset about those questions as problematic. Specifically, he held that Vacchagotta was confused or had some invalid presuppositions about the self that directly violated or contradicted the doctrine of anatman. Vacchagotta held to the notion that the self necessarily was real and actual and the Buddha understood that Vacchagotta was incapable of understanding the truth so he was silent. There are some on this forum who hold that speaking of *the self in this life* - when it is merely for conventional communication - is fine and not in contradiction to anatman, but speaking of *the self in other lives* in the same continuity is strictly forbidden as always contradicting anatman and necessarily presupposing the self to be real and actual. Why insist that all discussions of future or past lives necessarily entails the presupposition of real and actual existence? In short, why is it that real and actual existence is only sometimes the basis for discussions in this life, but always the basis for discussions about past or future lives? Why do some hold so dearly that the Buddha could not be speaking of future lives in the very same conventional manner that the Buddha often used the word "I" to refer to himself in his present life... merely as a means of communicating the truth to worldly beings? Why is it that some believe we can speak faultlessly of persons in this life and identifying them across various points in time in this life, but we are foreclosed of speaking faultlessly of persons in next lives or in past lives? Consider the Yamaka Sutta: > “What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling, > perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as > the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.” “What do you think, friend Yamaka, do > you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, > without perception, without volitional formations, without > consciousness?”—“No, friend.” > > “But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and > actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I > understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose > taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of > the body and does not exist after death’?” > > SN 22.85 From this we can draw four conclusions: 1. It is not appropriate to regard the Tathagata as possessing or consisting of the aggregates taken together as real and actual 2. It is not appropriate to regard the Tathagata as not-possessing the aggregates or without them taken together as real and actual 3. The Tathagata is not to be regarded as real and actual 4. This is true both for future lives (the focus of Yamaka's question) as well as the present life If this is so, then it was entirely appropriate to refer to the Tathagata as existing in his present life, but not to do so with the presupposition that the Tathagata was 'real and actual', right? It was faultless to refer to the Tathagata as merely existing conventionally, right? If this is so, then why is it a fault to refer to the Tathagata as merely existing conventionally in a future life? Indeed, Yamaka was rebuked for denying this very thing, right?! With this question I'm interested in the perspective and answers from all the Buddhist traditions. NOTE: Some may see an apparent contradiction between SN 5.10 and SN 22.85 but it is cleared up by understanding the difference between 'convention' and 'real and actual'

Anything which is a result of combination can be called conditional. But is the opposite also true ? That is anything which is conditional must be a result of combination. For example - If there is a feeling then there must be a craving. This is a condition with no combination. However if you look closely feeling alone can not result in craving unless you are aware of the path leading to fulfilment of the feeling again. Therefore feeling with path awareness leads to cravings. Cravings result from combination of feelings and path awareness. Another example would be - If the weather is cloudy , it will rain. Cloud itself can not bring rain unless it reaches a specific density. Therefore cloud and density of cloud are a must for a rain.

Nobody has ever seen a circle. Yet we all say "that is a circle" and nod in agreement. But when we say that the top of a bottle is a circle, we see the bottle top, not really the circle. The recognition of a circle is impermanent. We are taught to recognize a circle in school and are given its name as "circle". Nobody has ever drawn a circle. We can only draw a rough form that is recognized as a "circle" but is actually not a circle. And it's not a circle because circles are made of points with no width, so a drawing of a circle can never be the circle we recognize. So then we ask, "What is a circle?" And in response comes the chorus, "A circle is a form". Except that the Buddha says: > [SN22.55:3.1](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.55/en/sujato#sn22.55:3.1) : They don’t truly understand form—which is impermanent—as impermanent. So if a circle is a form, it must be impermanent. But wait. How can this be? Beyond our deaths and the forgetting of the circle, others will be born who will be taught to recognize a circle as "circulo" or "Kreis" or whatever. And our children and their children will agree that these words define the same form. Is a circle a form and if so, how can we understand what the Buddha means when he says that form is impermanent?

This question concerns the proper understanding of AN 3.47:

“Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics. What three? Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.” AN 3.47

It might have been suggested in other questions that this sutta is referring only to non-composite sankharas. That is, for composite phenomena - like a chariot - that arising, ceasing, and enduring are not evident. Is this correct? Can the arising, enduring and ceasing of a chariot not be known because it is composite or made up of parts? If so, what would be a good example of a non-composite sankhara that this sutta *would* be applicable to? What non-composite conditioned phenomena can rightfully be said to arise, endure and cease? Does anyone have an example?

Nama, as in namarupa, the designation of 'feeling, perception, attention, intention & contact', why do they call these 'Nama'? Some clues or points to keep in mind; * intention (cetana) is kamma * six classes of intention are sankhara * sankhara fabricates the conditioned * contact has 6 sense media as cause * feeling, perception and sankhara are 'aggregates', are conjoined & are conjoined with 'consciousness' aggregate * 4 aggregates have objects * 3 aggregates always accompany consciousness * consciousness arises as one thing and ceases as another * same consciousness doesn't go from one life to another * consciousness is said to be inbetween two ends, 'form' on one end and 'name' on the other end * both 'the eye' and 'the form visible by the eye' are included under 'form [rupa]' * consciousness meeting rupa is a meeting of the three, is 'contact' * feeling is born of contact * feeling is requisite for craving * everything comes into being through attention * with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be * with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be * from sankhara as a requisite condition comes consciousness * sankhara has ignorance for cause * rupa isn't always generated as in arupajhana, formless perception attainment

How or what can you advise, or what might help, anyone who drinks too much, or who may want to stop drinking? Maybe based on experience and not only on Dhamma-theory (but an answer must include at least some Buddhist doctrine or practice or perspective).

There was a question on my mind lately, regarding ego. It is not paradox per se but I find it slightly paradoxical. Because people have such a strong ego, humanity has risen above the animal level. Our ego was main reason that we progressed, our desire to improve etc. If it wasn't for our ego, we would still be in caves, struggling and Buddhism would never exist. Isn't this paradoxical? Ego is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our ego?