I wanted to know how it is that Avalokiteshvara answered Shariputra in the Heart Sutra. I thought Avalokiteshvara was a cosmic being representing the compassion of all Buddhas. As such he would not be a person who found himself in the Buddha's presence as He delivered his Dhamma discourses, right? So, does Avalokiteshvara speak through the power of the Buddha or is just that Avalokiteshvara's compassion is "part" of the Buddha since he is indeed fully enlightened? Who is it that answers Shariputra? Is the one abiding in the Prajnaparimita Gotama Buddha? I don't really understand.

Someone said that Anicca/Anatta/Dukkha are not Dhamma, it is a pannati or concept. To clear my doubt I ask : Is Anicca/Anatta/Dukkha a Dhamma or not ?

What is Dhamma ? Dhamma is all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. Dhamma also means different realities. Dhamma also means nature of things. Take for example body , it is made up of parts. Dhamma is the body and it is made up of six senses and other body parts like heart , kidney, intestines etc . Each part can be called a Dhamma. However I read someone saying that Dhamma can not be made up of other Dhammas. My question is : Can a Dhamma be made up of other Dhammas ?

This question arises from a [comment]( https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49452/is-emptiness-empty-of-dhammas?noredirect=1#comment79502_49452) in a [related post](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49452/is-emptiness-empty-of-dhammas) . 1. Is there any mention in the sutras on the Buddha speaking of sunyata as a dhamma? How is sunyata defined? As a phenomena by itself or is it an idea, a concept, a perception, a realization, etc? 2. Is emptiness a characteristic of the Deathless i.e. the Unconditioned as alluded in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3836/are-there-different-types-of-emptiness-%c5%9a%c5%abnyat%c4%81/3863#3863) ? Thank you.

In this forum, while discussing emptiness as supreme truth, I came across following comment which may be relevant from Mahayana point of view: > "The realisation that things are not as how they appear in cultivated through emptiness of self (anatta) and emptiness of all phenomena." Poster says emptiness is empty of self and all phenomena (meaning "all Dhammas"), which translates to "All Dhammas are empty of all Dhammas". My questions are: 1. Are Dhammas empty of Dhammas? 2. Is emptiness empty of unconditioned or is emptiness empty of unborn, uncreated and unoriginated? I think Dhammas can not be empty of Dhammas. It is like body is empty of body and there is nothing to be discarded. In my opinion Dhammas can only be empty of self. What is your opinion?

Two days ago I rescued a wounded dove, it probably got bit by a cat or being shot by a gun. It laid on my front door and ants were eating it like hundreds of them, the eyes were still moving so I picked it up and cleaned it, the wound as well. I fed it for 2 days, gave it a shelter and everything. Looks like it's going well and it's going to recover eventhough I don't know if it's internally broken or not. But this morning my aunt told me it's a baby bird (which is not) I got confused so I tried to put it under the nests around my house and I went back to sleep, at the moment I started to realize the sun is going to come that way and in my mind I thought, it's ok I got my alarm at 10am which would probably not be too hot? and then I fell asleep. I woke up again and saw the sun is burning hot I ran out of my house to pick it up, it died, overheated. I have OCD for overthinking and I feel really guilty that I might really go to hell for this, I'm not entirely Buddhism but my parents are so I tend to believe in karma, especially for animals abuse. I understand that I had good intention to save it but I killed it in the end because of my laziness? careless? stupidity? I don't know what it was, I could've moved it when I realized it but I chose to sleep instead, thinking it would be ok. Am I right that I might just go to hell 50% for this?

I read the following in the internet: > Sheng-yen renders the following teaching of Mañjuśrī, for entering > samādhi naturally through transcendent wisdom: > > > Contemplate the five skandhas as originally empty and quiescent, > non-arising, non-perishing, equal, without differentiation. Constantly > thus practicing, day or night, whether sitting, walking, standing or > lying down, finally one reaches an inconceivable state without any > obstruction or form. This is the Samadhi of One Act. > >[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manjushri) What is meant, here, by the five skandhas (five components of life) as: 1. empty? 2. non-arising? 3. non-perishing? 4. equal, without differentiation?

I have seen images of Buddha in different mudras like karana mudra etc on the Internet. However I have not read about any mudras in suttas. My question is : Is there any Sutta which talks about mudras to practice ?

I came across [this article](http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2010/12/general-theory-of-conditionality.html) by a long time contributor of this forum. In particular, the article mentioned a definition of paticca samuppada (PS) in [Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary](https://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_p.htm) > 'dependent origination', is the doctrine of the conditionality of all physical and psychical phenomena, The article proceeded to attempt to position this as a general theory explaining the basis for all phenomena. **Qn 1:** Is there anything inherently wrong with generalizing dependent origination or PS into a theory of conditionality? FYI, there is a [post regarding the appropriateness of treating PS](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/44729/difference-between-the-scientific-law-of-causality-and-the-buddhist-law-of-condi) as a law of conditionality. Note that in science, a law is a description of a phenomena (that is scientifically proven) while the article mentioned above is attempting for a general theory of conditionality i.e. to explain the why. (Although the article mentioned principle but I think we can forget it; I don’t think there is anyway to prove it scientifically). My question is not on the appropriateness as a law but instead as a general theory. Reason for my uncertainty is as follows: 1) PS was taught by the Buddha in the context of explaining the arising of suffering. 2) In general, physical phenomena have a certain range of possible outcomes. For example, a sapling may or may not grow into a tree or a forecasted rain may or may not occur. In fact, probability is the way to describe the quantum world. But the way PS is explained traditionally, *When this exists, that comes to be. With the arising of this, that arises* indicates a certainty in outcome, therefore: **Qn 2:** How can the certainty alluded in PS be reconciled with the probabilities in outcomes we see in reality? Personally, I am neither for nor against this generalization of PS into a theory of conditionality. Thanks for sharing of any insights.

What is 'secular Buddhism', and what does it say about Nirvana?

I’m just curious if anyone has noticed what I am noticing. When I ejaculate, in that exact moment, there is a weird sensation in my head. This sensation is about half the duration of the orgasm, so about one second long. it feels like something is literally being drained from my head in that moment. Immediately, after this, I feel unclear and with slight brain fog - basically more delusion, I think. This brain fog takes about a day to get lifted. So I’m wondering what this is and is it just me or is there’s any mention of any energy related stuff in Buddhism related to it? Thanks for any answers.

The Cūḷa Suññata Sutta gives a progressive means of experiencing sunyata. The Bahiya Sutta (UD) tells of an interaction between Buddha and the Brahmin Bahiya - Buddha advises Bahiya to get right on the surface of things without any dwelling (bhava): *“And since for you, Bāhiya, in what is seen there will be only what is seen, in what is heard there will be only what is heard, in what is sensed there will be only what is sensed, in what is cognized there will be only what is cognized, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be with that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be with that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be in that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be in that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be here or hereafter or in between the two—just this is the end of suffering.”* Is the admonishment given to Bahiya a corollary to the **themeless concentration (signless immersion of the heart)** described in Cūḷa Suññata Sutta? If Bahiya has not realized sunyata can he adhere to Buddha's words?

If a person practices mindfulness and concentration with great success but doesn't care about Noble Eightfold Path, is there a possibility of creating so to say "Evil (or at least immoral) Buddha"? Were there any historical examples of such people?

I'm a Zen practicant and, as you may know, we recite the Heart Sutra of the Perfect Wisdom a lot. I really like this sutra, it is very meaningful. However something I never understood is: why is the Boddhisattva Avalokiteśvara present in the sutra? The sutra teaches about vacuity and originated dependence etc. And, as far as I am concerned, Avalokiteśvara is usually associated more with compassion. So why is *he* specifically in this sutra?

The Avataṃsaka Sūtra describes a cosmos of infinite universes upon universes, mutually containing one another. I know this scripture is taught in Huayan, Chan, and Pure Land sects, but are there any other Buddhist sects that teach this? The Avatamsaka Sutra and these sects teach that infinite universes are connected to a jeweled flower garland or net, and universes reflect each other.

I kind of snuck up on the back door to meditation and mindfulness. It started with me reading "The Master and His Emissary " by Iain McGilChrist, about eight years ago while camping on the beach in Kauai. The book by the renowned psychiatrist talks about about how our brain is divided into two separate brains that talk to each other, but function differently. He tosses out some ideas about how left brain tends to dominate right brain, but right brain is the master and left brain is the emissary. Left brain thinks it's running the program, and discounts right brain, such that most of the modern people are running on purely left brain. A few months later a friend suddenly died, then my brother. I found myself deeply hurting and confused at a level I'd never experienced before. I had heard of mindfulness, and decided to give it a try. I found almost immediate relief from this psychological pain I was experiencing, and have been a mindfulness practitioner now for eight years. I was quick to see the correlation between McGilChrist's ideas and those of mindfulness, so I've always had this understanding when reading dharma literature, and I've read a lot. It seems to me that what meditation and enlightenment masters teach is essentially right brain/left brain asymmetry. We quiet the talkative left brain so that we can hear the wisdom of the right brain. So, am wondering if others see things this way as well?

It is generally accepted that Buddhist philosophy, as formalised in the texts of Dignana and Dharmakīrti, is resolutely nominalist in orientation. Briefly, this is because of the following characteristics: **Momentariness and Particularity**: Buddhist epistemology and metaphysics, especially as articulated by Dharmakīrti and his followers, emphasize the concept of "ksana" or momentary existence. Every phenomenon is unique and exists only for a moment, after which it ceases to be. This emphasis on the particularity and fleeting nature of phenomena aligns with a nominalist perspective, as there's no lasting, eternal substance or universal essence behind these phenomena. **Denial of Svabhāva**: Many Buddhist schools, particularly the Madhyamaka, deny the notion of "svabhāva" or inherent existence. Phenomena don't have an inherent, unchanging essence or nature. Instead, they exist interdependently. This challenges the idea that there are stable universals or abstract entities behind the individual particulars. **Use of Concepts and Designations**: While Buddhists accept the practical use of concepts and general terms, they often regard them as mere designations or conventions ("prajñapti") that do not correspond to any real, independent entity in the world. Words and concepts group diverse and ever-changing phenomena under convenient labels for the sake of communication and understanding, but these labels do not capture the ultimate nature of things. **Rejection of a Permanent Self**: At the core of Buddhist teachings is the doctrine of anātman or non-self. Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent, unchanging self or soul. This can be seen as a form of nominalism applied to personal identity, where the concept of a continuous, unified self is rejected in favor of a more fluid and contingent notion of identity. **Functionalism over Essentialism**: In the Dharmakīrti tradition and other Buddhist systems, the function (or causal efficacy) of an entity is more important than any alleged essence. What makes something what it is, is not some inherent essence but its functional role. **Apoha Logic:** The apoha theory avoids the commitment to universals. Instead of saying that all cows share a universal essence of "cow-ness," the apoha approach posits that our concept of "cow" merely excludes everything that isn't a cow. This approach sidesteps the metaphysical commitment to a universal essence shared among individual cows. However, as a long-time student of both Buddhist and Western philosophy, the (heretical?) idea has occurred to me that there is a clear example of a universal right at the centre of the Buddhist tradition. And that is the Buddha! Why? Because, as is well known, Sakyamuni himself was not the only Buddha - there were Buddhas before him, and there will be future Buddhas, such as Maitreya. Something similar can be said of the bodhisattvas, who are exemplifications of a type or form. So in this case, Sakyamuni himself was one instantiation or particular instance of the Universal Buddha. As I admit, it's an heretical suggestion, as Buddhist logic will never admit the reality of universals. But I find it hard to reconcile the 'idea of the Buddha' against their 'apoha logic'. Has this idea occured to anyone else?

I read the following on the internet: > But the core of the **Realization has nothing to do with causality**, > otherwise Nirvana would still be subordinate to Samsara, while in fact > Nirvana is famously unconditioned which is to say it transcends > causality. The first time it [Nirvana] is perceived is referred to as a realization aka awakening to a truth never seen before. What Pali or Sanskrit words in Buddhism are usually used to mean 'Realization'? Is Nirvana a Realization? Is Realization a nama-dhamma (mental phenomena) or can it be an asankhata-dhatu (unconditioned phenomena)? Can Realization be unconditioned & have nothing to do with causality? What Pali or Sanskrit words in Buddhism are usually used to refer to attaining the experience of Nibbana?

I have noticed that most sutras (Mahayana) have this opening verse. What is the story behind it? Do all sutras have this opening verse? Is it compulsory to have it, say, if it's for Mahayana?

Even in my limited knowledge on Buddhism, it makes sense to see a connection between a terminal illness (like cancer) and previous negative karma. Is there a Sutta where Buddha talks about this connection? Is it true that a terminal illness can be seen in a "positive" way, like purifying past karma? From a Buddhist prospective, are there specific ways (like rituals, prayers) for curing (or helping with) a terminal illness? Thank you all for your answers! Be well!