**Are there Pali Sutta teachings or other Buddhist teachings that suggest:** - Anapanasati is an ideal practice for non-stream entrants (beginners) and it can lead them to stream entry? - Attainment of stream entry is a prerequisite for Anapanasati's proper or 'ideal' practice? - Other practices are prescribed as an ideal path for attaining stream entry, separate from Anapanasati?" Also, I assume that Satipatthana is a form of Anapanasati, is that true?

What's the core driver or mechanism behind the tendency of focusing on thoughts, or any particular thought? Why would a person in daily life be stuck in their head, thinking about things that aren't there? What makes a person do that, according to Buddhism?

Do I intend to do something if I also intend to stop myself from doing it? Suppose I intend to eat the hamburger, but also intend to stop myself doing so. Is that intent in the Buddhist sense?

I don't know much about Buddhism. Sorry if this is off-topic. Where I live, Buddhism is rather uncommon, but in recent years, Tibetan prayer flags have become more and more widespread. These ones were installed close to my workplace, and made me curious. For what I've learned, these are _lungdhar_ or _lung ta_, and the design involves the _lung ta_ horse in the center, as well as the "four mythical animals, tiger, snow lion, dragon and Garuda" in each corner. But there is one thing I have found little information about, and it involves the text. I've read they are supposed to be mantras, but I have a (composite) question about the meaning: **What exactly do they say?** Is the text always the same, or it varies from one to the other? If the latter is the case, **I'm particularly interested in this specific flag**. I believe they are written in Tibetan script, but Google translate wasn't able to tell the language or give a translation. I'm sorry for the low quality of the photo. I know I just cut the text, but I hope it's enough to identify at least some of the general meaning (if the text is different from flag to flag).

What are the teachings and books that are good for inspiring the sick and soon to be dying? If your brain is getting eaten away, what are the best practices for that? Anyone know of any doctors who would understand all this insight meditation stuff? Doctors often seem to me far too smart to be wise.

Does the Buddha explain anywhere why the mind is capable to be unskillful and cause suffering for itself in the first place? Specifically, why do we become attached, and why do we crave things? Does the Buddha ever acknowledge that these mechanisms can be helpful? Does he ever describe our ability to become attached or to crave things as mere design errors? Or are these things just left unjudged and taken as axiomatic starting points, without ever trying to describe their origin or their larger place in the world?

Can lying be the correct action in certain situations? Bhikkhu Bodhi gave an example of a situation where lying might be appropriate: In World War II some nice people would hide those oppressed by the Nazis. If Nazis come and ask these nice people if they are hiding Jewish people, would it be the appropriate action to tell the truth?

In my personal practice, I've come to see that the inner voice craving for external things can be acknowledged and contemplated on, and ultimately stilled. The result is that entanglement with the external world is minimized. I'm trying to be more mindful of this internal voice, and I'm trying to improve my contemplation, so I try to understand more things in Buddhism. One thing I do not understand, is the big importance attributed to dependent origination and the 12 Nidanas. I do not understand why the Buddha goes into such depth explaining sense organs and sense objects and contact, and the like. Contact of cocaine with nose causes a sensation that you can come to crave, thus resulting in suffering. I'd also say that I was relatively clear on things being interdependent. You get good grades if and only if you study well. Hoping someone can give me a hint to how I could gain any value from the 12 Nidanas.

In Madhyamaka and other Buddhist schools, emptiness (śūnyatā) is a central doctrine: all phenomena are said to lack inherent existence. But at the same time, many Buddhist traditions place significant emphasis on knowledge and valid cognition (pramāṇa), as developed in the epistemological works of Dignāga, Dharmakīrti, and their followers. This raises an important philosophical issue: if all phenomena including concepts, perceptions, and inferences too are ultimately empty, Would this not imply epistemological nihilism , where no knowledge of any sort of 'absolute truth' is possible? Are there specific texts or commentaries where Buddhist philosophers explicitly address the concern that asserting emptiness might undermine knowledge itself? I’m looking for explanations that clarify how Buddhism maintains a coherent epistemology without contradicting its central teaching of emptiness.

What does a Buddhist practitioner, based on the 8 fold path, and deepening practice contemplate to become a sotāpanna (a stream-enterer)?

In Hindu cosmology, time is divided into four Yugas (Satya, Treta, Dvapara, Kali), with Satya Yuga, the first epoch described as a kind of utopian golden age and Kali Yuga as an age of decline and moral degradation—the one we are said to be living in now. My question is: - Does Buddhism have a similar concept of cyclical ages, especially a notion of a "golden age" vs. an "age of decline"? - If so, how is this described in Buddhist texts?

The doctrine of anattā denies any soul or self, yet the suttas mention beings like petas, yakkhas which are supposed to be Ghosts and spirits. If there is no soul, what is said to persist as a ghost or spirit?

Is there an ultimate self according to zen masters such as Dogen? I think that in the scholastic tradition of the mahayana, that is not the standard interpretation of the sutras etc.. I guess I mean what I am all along, rather than something "fixed". The snake was merely a rope all along, rather than nothing whatsoever or nothing more than the illusion of a snake/myself.

I am curious whether Buddhist divination is known (like ancient Greek say) to produce "orphic" predictions, ones that are liable to be misunderstood because they are cleverly ambiguous. I believe I have found an example (in China in 328 AD) but I would like to know if this a general thing that has been discussed (like in the case of Ancient Greece).

While reading through the Buddhist suttas, I came across the detailed descriptions of the eight emancipations. These passages were deeply intriguing, but they also gave rise to some questions in my mind which I decided to ask before which let me cite the concerned passages - > “Ānanda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight? > > “**Possessed of form, one sees forms.** This is the first > emancipation. > > “**Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally.** > This is the second emancipation. > > “**One is intent only on the beautiful.** This is the third > emancipation. > > “**With the complete transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, > with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding > perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ one > enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space**. This > is the fourth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.** This is > the fifth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of nothingness.** This is the sixth > emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception.** This is the seventh emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation > of perception and feeling.** This is the eighth emancipation. > > “**Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward > order, in reverse order, in forward and reverse order**, when he > attains them and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he > wants, and for as long as he wants, when through the ending of > effluents he enters and remains in the effluent-free release of > awareness and release of discernment, having directly known it and > realized it for himself in the here and now, **he is said to be a monk > released in both ways. And as for another release in both ways, higher > or more sublime than this, there is none.”** ~ DN 15 Questions- 1. Why is “nothingness” (6th) distinguished from “neither perception nor non-perception” (7th), given that both involve retreating from mental activity? Or from the 8th which involves total cessation of perception and feeling? 2. What kind of experience is “neither perception nor non-perception”? Is it a liminal state — and if so, how does one know they have entered it? Can a mind in this state be said to ‘experience’ anything at all? 3. In discussions with scholars from eternalist backgrounds, such as vedanta a common challenge raised is that the Buddhist teachings on the eight emancipations seem to imply the existence of a continuous or eternal subject since someone appears to be progressing through these subtle states of consciousness. If there is no eternal soul or self in Buddhism, then who is it that experiences and moves through these emancipations? How would a Buddhist respond to this objection? 4. What is the significance of being able to enter and exit these states at will, as emphasized in the sutta? 5. Is the progression through these states ultimately teaching that liberation is not something to be gained, but everything to be let go including perception, feeling, identity, and knowing?

How would one explain when Buddha said in Mahānidāna Sutta, that "rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso" and "nāmakāye paṭighasamphasso". The meaning of this?

Please don't move this to the Philosophy stack unless absolutely necessary. My personal belief in an afterlife is based on: 1. Being indefinite about "what is now?" 2. I assume that "my death" is semantically precise in some way, it's clear what we all mean by that 3. Linking these two, in terms of the impossibility of vague identity. Some people might object to my version of time or death, so while I am more interested in understanding 'vague identity', I cannot yet get started rhetorically. What's going on here? Which of these moves are allowed in the language game?

In saccapabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:

1. Jāti is "khandhānaṃ patubhāvo" and "āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho".
2. Khandhānaṃ patubhāvo included viññāṇa-khandha.
1. Viññāṇa-khandha is viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda.
2. Rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda is rūpa-khandha.
3. Nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda is vedanā-, saññā-, saṇkhāra-khandha (cetana, phassa, manasikāra; see: sammādiṭṭhisuttaṃ).
3. Those nāma- and rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda are piyarūpa/sātarūpa.
1. 60 piyarūpa/sātarūpa: 6 outer āyatana, 6 āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda, and 42 nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda (6 vedana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 saññā-khandha, 6x5 saṇkhāra-khandha [phassa-paṭiccasamuppāda, cetanā-paṭiccasamuppāda, vitakka, vicāra, taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda]).

So jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is viññāna-paṭiccasamuppāda. The difference is: Jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is 5 khandha. So jāti is a conclusion of viññāna, nāma+rūpa, āyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna and bhavā-paṭiccasamuppāda. But viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is an explanation of jhāti. So sacca-pabba is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa Is Jāti And Paṭisandhi", right?

Is it consistent to identify as a Buddhist while setting aside belief in supernatural elements described in the Pali canon such as devas , asuras , heavenly and hellish worlds, petas (ghosts), reincarnation etc.? Could one still be regarded as a follower of the Buddha if one adopts the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the cultivation of insight, but considers devas, ghosts, hell realms and rebirth as allegorical or as cultural elements of ancient India rather than literal truths? Have there been respected teachers or schools that legitimized such a pragmatic or symbolic interpretation, and are there canonical sources that suggest the path can be followed to its end without subscribing to a literal acceptance of devas, ghosts, or rebirth? Or would such a position necessarily be viewed as heretical or heterodox within the Buddhist fold?

I've been going down a rabbit hole trying to understand the core logic of the early Buddhist path from a materialistic/agnostic standpoint, and I've arrived at a conclusion that feels both insightful and perhaps overly simplistic. I wanted to lay out my line of reasoning and see what you all think. My line of thought goes like this: The Goal is Nibbāna: The ultimate goal is the cessation of dukkha (suffering/dissatisfaction) and the end of the cycle of rebirth. Nibbāna and Annihilation: From an outside, secular perspective, Parinibbāna (the final Nibbāna after an enlightened being's death) looks like annihilation. The impermanent aggregation that an atheist/agnostic perceives as the "self" is gone and does not reappear. This taps into our deepest primal fear. The Doctrinal Solution is Anattā: The Buddha's core teaching to resolve this is Anattā (Not-Self). The argument is that it can't be annihilation because there was no permanent, solid "self" to be annihilated in the first place. What we are is an impermanent "congregation" of processes. The Training is Realizing Anattā: The entire meditative training, at its core, is about deconstructing our own experience to see this truth for ourselves—to move from intellectually accepting Anattā to directly realizing it. The Paradox for Both Believers and Atheists This creates an interesting situation. For a person who believes in rebirth, the ultimate goal of non-rebirth can seem frightening. Their instinct is often to desire a better rebirth, not an end to existence altogether. Conversely, for an atheist who already believes there is nothing after death, it might seem like they've already achieved the Buddhist goal of "no rebirth." However, the crucial distinction is psychological. The atheist may still fear the end of their existence out of instinct, while an enlightened person would meet that same end with equanimity. Therefore, for both the believer afraid of cessation and the non-believer afraid of their own mortality, the Buddhist meditative training serves as a tool to become psychologically at peace with the end of the process we call a "self." This leads me to my core idea: Is the entire project of Early Buddhism (and practices like the Thai Forest tradition) essentially just psychological engineering designed to solve the problem of death anxiety? It feels like the fear of personal annihilation is the "final boss" of human suffering, and the doctrine of Anattā is the specific weapon designed to defeat it. By training the mind to see through the illusion of the very "self" we're afraid of losing, the therapy is complete, and the fear is uprooted. I realize this might be a reductionist take. I'm curious how this framing sits with you all. Is this a fair, if incomplete, way to look at the central mechanism of the path? Or does putting too much emphasis on the "death" aspect miss the point entirely? Looking forward to your thoughts.