[This answer on Reddit](https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/12flgq9/what_are_some_arguments_for_reincarnation_from_a/jfgry4f/) gave a basic outline of [Dharmakīrti's argument for rebirth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)#Metaphysical_arguments) in the form of a syllogism: 1. Matter and consciousness are metaphysically different, their characteristics and nature are different 2. An effect must be of the same nature as its substantial cause 3. Thus consciousness cannot arise from or be produced by matter (1, 2) 4. Conclusion: Therefore, there must have a been a consciousness prior to any person's conception which causes the first moment of consciousness in this life For the sake of the question, let's assume that you accept this line of argumentation. The question then becomes, how did the first mental event arise according to this framework? Of course, there is the idea that many immaterial intellects exist in the transcendent realms some of which stretch beyond iterations of the universe and many eons, but at the same time, for there to be so many creatures on just this planet with consciousness would implicate that billions upon billions, if not more, immaterial entities survived the past iteration(s) and eons and made it to this one, and also never achieved enlightenment during that time, which seems highly implausible. Perhaps the Yogacara idea of the store-house consciousness must be of use here, but it would be difficult to prove, I'm not too sure. If anyone knows more about Dharmakīrti's thinking with regards to this, please share your knowledge.

Ānanda, the earth rests on water, the water rests on air, and the air rests on space. When a great wind blows, the water is stirred, which in turn causes the earth to shake—resulting in an earthquake **Is that scientifically accurate regarding how the Earth is *structured*? And *cause* for earthquake**

I’ve heard many people say that Buddhist texts refer to a flat Earth. Is it true that Buddhism considers the Earth to be flat? Please give an unbiased answer.

I feel curious about what it actually feels like when someone directly experiences anatta. How do practitioners describe that experience? Is it sudden or gradual? Does it come with a sense of liberation, fear, or something else entirely? I’m especially interested in how this experience is understood or explained within different traditions, like Theravāda or Zen, if there are differences. Please note I'm not looking for just theoretical explanations. I’d really appreciate if there are descriptions from those who lived and felt experience of realizing anatta.

A blogger writing under the name of 'Durga Bhakti Tāraṅgiṇī' has published an article in which Vajrayāna Buddhism is directly accused of outright plagiarising deities and theological concepts from the Śākta and Śaiva streams of Āgamic Hinduism. According to the author, Vajrayāna did not merely absorb superficial cultural elements. It is accused of deliberately lifting and distorting core elements of the Āgamic traditions. To quote directly from their article - > Vajrayāna, a later Buddhist sect was influenced by Śaivism and > Śaktism. Rather than influencing others, it stole many concepts from > Āgamic cultures. Ancient Buddhism didn't observe Āgamic culture. Upon > entering Eastern India, it became influenced by Āgamic sects ( > Ḍāmarika, Kāpālika, Śākta, Kaula, Śaiva). They started to worship > various Devatās and Devīs. Thereafter they tried to destroy real > Āgamic rituals, sculptures and concepts. Here are some evidences of > their destructions. And further: > **the concepts of Pañca Dhyānībuddhas (Vajrōcana, Akṣobhya, > Ratnasambhava, Amitābha and Amoghasiddhi) came from the five forms of > Sadāśiva (Īśāna, Sadyojāta, Tatpuruṣa, Aghōra and Vāmadeva). They > destroyed the Rudra Khaṇḍa of Śivaliṅga and made the idols of Pañca > Dhyānībuddhas on the Yonīpīṭha or Gaurīpaṭṭa**. The author includes the Bodhisattva Tārā in this purported list of deities involved in iconographic plagiarism. > Vajrayānī Buddhists worship a different iconography of Tārādevī. She > is green in color and she has two hands. Except her, they also worship > 21 forms of Goddess Tārā. But the ironic fact is, the Green Tārā > iconography was also stolen from Śākta Śāstras This line of argumentation, which is not without precedent in polemical literature, raises significant questions for those versed in the historical evolution of Vajrayāna doctrine and praxis. The article cites a number of scholars and textual references to support its thesis of ideological and artistic borrowing. I would respectfully request insight from those deeply familiar with the doctrinal, historical, and ritual development of Vajrayāna Buddhism and comparative theology to offer clarification or rebuttal to the above claims based on historical sources and textual references.

Sujato's translation of MN 72, similar to other translations of MN 72, says: > That’s why a Realized One is freed with the ending, fading away, > cessation, giving up, and letting go of all conceiving, all churning, > and all I-making, mine-making, or underlying tendency to conceit, I > say.” > > Tasmā tathāgato sabbamaññitānaṁ sabbamathitānaṁ > sabbaahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayānaṁ khayā virāgā nirodhā cāgā > paṭinissaggā anupādā vimuttoti vadāmī”ti. > > “But worthy Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where > are they reborn?” > > “Evaṁ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṁ 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**”. > > “Well then, are they both reborn and not reborn?” > > “Tena hi, bho gotama, upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatī”ti? > > “‘They’re both reborn and not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” > > “Upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”. > > “Well then, are they neither reborn nor not reborn?” > > “Tena hi, bho gotama, neva upapajjati na na upapajjatī”ti? > > “‘They’re neither reborn nor not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” > > “Neva upapajjati na na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”. > > [MN 72](https://suttacentral.net/mn72/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) Why are Arahants not 'not reborn'?

Am I right that Gauthama Budda did not teach to worship the Hindu Gods? Did he teach not to worship them? Maybe my questions sound stupid to a Buddhist but I am practising Islam and do not know very much about Buddhism. Peace be with you, and thank you for you help.

I can devote 7 hours to ( meditation + sleep ) per day . Should I do 5 hour sleep and 2 hour mediation(1 hour twice) **or** 6 hours of sleep and 1 hour of meditation ?please give reason . will 2 hours increase my productivity (please tell from your own experience, not any bookish knowledge ) Will meditating twice will give me **twice** more benefit than meditating once ?

In SN 44.9, the wanderer Vacchagotta declares: > So I was simply befuddled. I was uncertain: How is the teaching of > Gotama the contemplative to be understood? Then, later, the befuddled Vacchagotta asks the Buddha: > And at the moment when a being (satto) sets this body (kāyaṁ) aside > and is not yet reborn (anupapanno) in another body, what do you > designate as its sustenance (upādānasmiṁ) then? The Buddha replies: > Vaccha, when a being (satto) sets this body aside and is not yet > reborn (anupapanno) in another body, I designate it as > craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance (upādānaṁ) at that time. Is SN 44.9 a supramundane ([lokuttara](https://suttacentral.net/define/lokuttara?lang=en)) sutta?

The sutta DN 22 offers an extended description of craving, as follows: > "And where does this craving, when arising, arise? And where, when > dwelling, does it dwell? Whatever seems endearing and agreeable in > terms of the world: that is where this craving, when arising, arises. > That is where, when dwelling, it dwells. "And what seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world? > > The eye seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world. That is where > this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it > dwells. > > "The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect... > > "Forms... Sounds... Smells... Tastes... Tactile sensations... Ideas... > > "Eye-consciousness... Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... > Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... > Intellect-consciousness... > > "Eye-contact... Ear-contact... Nose-contact... Tongue-contact... > Body-contact... Intellect-contact... > > "Feeling born of eye-contact... Feeling born of ear-contact... Feeling > born of nose-contact... Feeling born of tongue-contact... Feeling born > of body-contact... Feeling born of intellect-contact... > > "Perception of forms... Perception of sounds... Perception of > smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... > Perception of ideas... > > "Intention for forms... Intention for sounds... Intention for > smells... Intention for tastes... Intention for tactile sensations... > Intention for ideas... > > "Craving for forms... Craving for sounds... Craving for smells... > Craving for tastes... Craving for tactile sensations... Craving for > ideas... > > "Thought directed at forms... Thought directed at sounds... Thought > directed at smells... Thought directed at tastes... Thought directed > at tactile sensations... Thought directed at ideas... > > "Evaluation of forms... Evaluation of sounds... Evaluation of > smells... Evaluation of tastes... Evaluation of tactile sensations... > Evaluation of ideas seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the > world. > > That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when > dwelling, it dwells. > > DN 22 In SN 44.9, there is a discussion with the chronically confused & bewildered wanderer Vaccagotta (more nuancedly translated by Thanissaro and Bhikkhu Bodhi below) as follows: > “Yasmiñca pana, bho gotama, samaye imañca kāyaṁ nikkhipati, satto ca aññataraṁ kāyaṁ anupapanno hoti, imassa pana bhavaṁ gotamo kiṁ upādānasmiṁ paññāpetī”ti? > > “Yasmiṁ kho, vaccha, samaye imañca kāyaṁ nikkhipati, satto ca aññataraṁ kāyaṁ anupapanno hoti, tamahaṁ taṇhūpādānaṁ vadāmi. Taṇhā hissa, vaccha, tasmiṁ samaye upādānaṁ hotī”ti. > > "And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet > reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?" > > "Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time." > > [Thanissaro](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.009.than.html) > > > Bhikkhu Bodhi In SN 44.9, what thing/phenomena exactly is sustained by craving?

I read the following on the internet: > Talking about semantics again. I guess you still didn't learn the > definition of the word. Paranibanna and death are synonymous. You are > just being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic... for no reason at > all. Please discuss this.

In traditional Buddhist texts, Solar and lunar eclipses are often seen as being caused by a demon named Rāhu who attempts to seize the sun or moon, as seen for example in the SN 2.9 and 2.10 where the Buddha speaks of Rāhu releasing the sun or moon after the Buddha’s intervention. This is pretty similar to the mythical explanation of eclipses found in Hindu puranas. Today in light of modern science, eclipses are understood as natural events governed by the movement and alignment of the earth, moon, and sun. There is no magical phenomenon behind it and no gods or demons involved. Is there room within Buddhist philosophy for integrating or accepting the astronomical explanation of eclipses, or would that be seen as rejecting scriptural authority?

What are some kind, wholesome, skillful, wise and helpful responses and views to the following various claims of body ownership: “The United States government claims 100% ownership over all your DNA and reproductive rights. This astonishing revelation has emerged from the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office claims the power to assign ownership of your DNA to private companies and universities who apply for patents on your genes. To date, more than 4,000 genes have been assigned ownership to corporations and universities by the U.S. patent office. Such an assignment of ownership proves that the government believes it owns 100% of all human genes -- you cannot transfer ownership of something unless you first own it yourself. To date, 20 percent of your genetic code is owned by someone else. About two-thirds of these patents belong to private companies, and one-third belong to universities. The company that owns the most patents is called Incyte, a drug company based in California which "owns" the patents on 2,000 human genes.” Via https://www.naturalnews.com/040400_gene_patents_genetic_slavery_human_DNA.html And from 2012 via http://anh-usa.org/fda-new-claim-body-is-a-drug/ : ...[The] FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states! We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-C™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells. The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Medical Clinic for two reasons: 1) Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!) 2)The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by the FDA. A similar principle applies across industries—whether it's medical treatments or consumer products like Miami Blinds , interstate movement and consumer behavior can directly impact regulatory oversight and market dynamics.” [note: full articles linked here link to source documents]

Aside from the Agganna Sutta, are there other Buddhist texts that discuss how the world or the universe came into existence?

Why, exactly, in technical detail, does consciousness "divide" into selves in Buddhism? Has this every been adequately answered by anyone in history, in any school of Buddhism? Don't need a complete analysis here as an answer necessarily, but looking for an intro to the depths of technical detail. By that I mean, how does it go from "base consciousness" (like ālaya-vijñāna in Yogācāra Buddhism), to self-consciousness basically? Step by step, break it down so one can see the inner workings :) If you'd just like to comment on the sources I can find this information in, please list where to find it. English translation ideally, ideally not 100's or 1000's of pages of reading. But maybe that doesn't exist yet :). _Hoping this can be boiled down to just a few short/brief paragraphs, or just a few concise pages of external reading._ I ask this question because was just trying to narrow down my understanding of the foundation of reality, the universe, the everything, writing: > There is only experience. > > Experience is a cause (to experience), and an effect (the experience), at the same time. It is difficult to imagine but if you think about what that would mean, that means there is no separation into two things (cause and effect), there is only one thing, the cause-effect flow. > > Experience is action and reaction, action and object, motion and form. Cause and effect. It is one unified thing, non-separable into parts or even befores and afters. > > Somehow though it subdivides into individual experiences. Experiences only aware of a relative portion of the whole, not the whole itself. _By "experience" I mean basically consciousness in traditional terminology. But I think experience is a better English word for it. It's all just words anyways, words aren't the actual thing obviously._ In Buddhism, this "subdivision" is also in places described as a defilement of pure consciousness, or ignorance, a temporary blotting out of the light like a cloud moving in front of the sun. Etc.. But WHY. WHY does experience subdivide, or become ignorant, or the underlying field of consciousness, the one flow, the One permanent thing? It must DO something to get there it seems. It must TURN AWAY perhaps. But why would it do that? No reason that I can think of yet. Maybe it's a locality thing, it just can't experience the whole thing? But why? Etc.. My rational brain is like: 1. "In the beginning" there was pure consciousness, undifferentiated, One continuous undivided experience. _I don't mean there was a beginning, I just mean conceptually there is a base state, sort of thing._ 2. Then it exploded into a plethora of ignorant selves, thinking they were each independent of the underlying field and everything else. 3. The selves go through cycles of life and death, rising into pleasure realms, falling into pain realms, for long periods of time. 4. Until eventually they realize their oneness, and find the middle path of peace, break the cycle, and I guess become "extinguished" experiences (nirvana/cessation), releasing that part of the base consciousness back to the field. _Obviously there is no beginning though, but this is just a mental exercise to model the system._ But so many questions in that. Main one here is: - Why does pure/base consciousness need to or have to or eventually evolve into semi-ignorant sub-consciousnesses, unaware of the whole? - And assuming consciousness is always in some sense "disturbed", a rippling pond by definition, always and forever, why do they say you can ever achieve "nirvana/cessation", the extinguished state, where you are back to the perfectly calm pond state? - Why couldn't the whole stay aware of the whole, why did it have to subdivide? Basically: - If the pond started in a perfectly calm state, why would it ever become disturbed? - Assuming it was disturbed for some reason (by it's nature somehow?), and spontaneously erupts into a plethora of selves, how can we say/model/imagine/know that those selves can eventually become extinguished back into pure calmness again? - And if they are capable of becoming pure calm in a disturbed pond, why wouldn't everything eventually evolve back into pure calm, and the whole system is extinguished? Basically trying to convey the blurry imagination I have in my head of this network of processes and evolutions.... - Selves spontaneously emerge because the pond can't stay calm (WHY? HOW? Step by step in technical detail?). - Yet disturbance can become calm again? In a physical pond, the calm pond is disturbed by something external like a piece of dirt, a rock, or the wind. Or something within like a jumping or swimming fish. But this metaphor of the pond breaks down, it is not totally accurate. In a physical pond, there are already objects like fish and birds and molecules, etc.. But in base consciousness, there is none of this yet. Just potential somehow. To summarize though, main focus on this question is: **Why does the pure undivided calm pond of consciousness divide into selves (disturbances in the underlying field)?** Please break it down for me, step by step somehow, in some technical detail. Many will say "because it did X" (it turned away, it started desiring, it forgot about the whole, etc..). Okay then, but _why_ did it start doing that even? What was the detailed technical process that led to those initial actions leading to the separation? It's like, I imagine this is the usual answer I read/see: 1. Base consciousness. 2. It decided to do X. 3. Result was ignorance, selves, etc.. I can reason about going from step 2 -> 3, but **how do you rationalize step 1 -> 2?** Put another way (if that helps): > What is the _technical mechanism_ by which primordial consciousness becomes _mistaken consciousness_? You might answer, "well it clings, creating the I". Okay, why does it cling then? _What is the in-between step there exactly, substeps?_ **There is a _missing link_ in the explanation.** In every text/thread I have seen so far, it goes from pure to impure, with no explanation of why or how this works. Once we are clinging, I get that the self forms and the illusion exists. But going from non-self to clinging, why. If this is never elaborated on in any text or anywhere, please just let me know. If you have _your own_ developed ideas on it, I would love to hear that as well too, either way.

In sleep, the 5 sense doors are closed. And in deep sleep the mind door is also closed. So technically it's nibbana. Isn't it?

Last year I was walking in the "Camino de Santiago", in Spain, where I met a guy who showed me a symbol engraved in the stone of a bridge. It was a Sun that reflected its rays on the sea. He told me that it was related to Nirvana and the path one has to follow. When I came back from the journey, I tried looking for this symbol on the internet, but didn't find anything about it. The most similar one I found it has been the Unalome symbol. But it seems that all its references are linked to the tatoos, and I didn't find any wikipedia page or Buddhist website talking about it. Back to my question, is the Unalome a Buddhist symbol? Is there a Buddhist symbol similar to the one I have described? I've found the real image, can be find here in google maps photo: https://maps.app.goo.gl/moymLNdJ3LjtrZBt6

I’m interested in understanding the religious and devotional practices that may have been part of Siddhartha Gautama's life before he undertook his renunciate life and became the Buddha. Specifically: Are there any historical or textual references indicating that Siddhartha Gautama himself, or members of his immediate family (such as his father Suddhodana, mother Māyā etc), participated in worship of deities or followed any theistic religious practices prior to his renunciation? If so, which deities were venerated, and are there any specific suttas, commentaries, or canonical sources that mention this? Additionally, was deity worship a common practice within the socio-religious environment of Kapilavastu at that time? I’m looking for references from early Buddhist texts (Pāli Canon, Āgamas, or later commentarial traditions if relevant) or scholarly interpretations that shed light on this aspect.

Posthumanist ideas often explore how moral concern might extend beyond just human beings, including the possibility of artificial intelligences or other non-human entities. While we haven’t created a conscious AI yet, the idea raises some interesting questions from a Buddhist perspective. Let's assume if we are able to create conscious AI, in some distant future Would a conscious AI be included in the scope of compassion and ethical responsibility that Buddhism teaches? Could an artificial being like this fit into existing Buddhist categories such as beings subject to karma? I’d be really interested to hear how different traditions or contemporary Buddhist thinkers might approach this, even if it's speculative.

Buddhism teaches that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā). This includes not only material objects but also the self, other beings, and even emotions and concepts. Yet, the cultivation of love , compassion, and empathy is central to the Buddhist path. Other philosophical or religious systems offer clear metaphysical grounds for love: - In Advaita Vedānta, love is said to naturally arise from the realization that all beings are ultimately the same Self (ātman). - In Bhakti traditions like Vaishnavism or even other theistic religions like Christianity, love is grounded in the belief that all beings are ' divine eternal souls', either a portion of God, or children of God. But Buddhism does not appear to endorse either of these metaphysical views. If everything is empty from a Buddhist perspective, wouldn’t that imply that emotions like love, compassion, and empathy are also empty and devoid of inherent existence? Then why should one love at all? How can these qualities be understood, justified, or cultivated within the framework of emptiness? Looking for answers grounded in Buddhist philosophy, ideally drawing from classical texts or traditional commentaries, to better understand how this seeming paradox is resolved.