My spiritual bonding and connection are very strong with my lovely mother who has passed away. We both have tremendous love for each other. 1. Can we be reunited again in the next life? Can she be born as my daughter/son & Can I be born as her son/daughter again? 2. After my death and before the new birth, can I get to meet and talk with my mom (as the Tibetan book of the dead and many NDEs suggest you can meet the loved one after death)

From my perspective, the Buddha's Teaching is reductive and subtractive. It's experiential and fundamental for knowing how to die well. It's good for transcending the ego by dissolving into all to find freedom from suffering. The object is not to gain anything. Intellectual knowledge can help but little intellect is required. Sometimes intellect can get in the way. One can start a practice by just practicing. Nobody want's to avoid the labor of hard thought because the practice isn't to think, it's to experience. It's Satipatthana. It's understanding the difference between words or other concepts and experiential reality. Does the Buddha's teaching require much intellect? What is anti-intellectualism in Buddhism?

From AN 9.37 : > Ven. Ānanda said, “It’s amazing, friends, it’s astounding, how the > Blessed One who knows & sees, the worthy one, rightly self-awakened, > has attained & awakened to an opening [in a confining place]1 for the > purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, > for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the > right method, & for the realization of unbinding, where the eye will > be, and those forms, and yet one will not be sensitive to that > dimension; where the ear will be, and those sounds… where the nose > will be, and those aromas… where the tongue will be, and those > flavors… where the body will be, and those tactile sensations, and yet > **one will not be sensitive to that dimension.**” Why does the passage omit the sixth-sense sphere, intellect-idea? Usually the use of ellipsis for repetitive text, but not in this discourse. Does this discourse describe intra-jhana or a state after jhana? As an adjunct, MN43 says this about the state after *cessation of perception and feeling*: > Friend, what is the difference between a dead body and a bhikkhu > attained to the cessation of perceptions and feelings? Friend, in a > dead body the bodily determination (in and out breath) has ceased and > is appeased The verbal determination (thinking and pondering) has > ceased and is appeased The mental determination (feeling and > perception) has ceased and is appeased. Vitality is exhausted. The > heat has extinguished, and the mental faculties have broken up. > > Of the bhikkhu attained to the cessation of perceptions and feelings, > the bodily determintion has ceased and is appeased. The verbal > determination has ceased and is appeased. The mental determination has > ceased is appeased. Vitality is not exhausted. The heat is not > extinguished. **The mental faculties are very clear.** Friend, this is > the difference between a dead body and of one attained to the > cessation of perceptions and feelings. If AN 9:37 is not describing jhana, does MN.43 describe a state different than AN 9.37?

I read the following on the internet: > *About this unusual understanding of sati ("Sati is never present moment awareness") I hope the reader of this answer put some time > reading the suttas to come to his/her own conclusion about what sati > can refer to.* Where is the Palis suttas is 'sati' defined as 'present moment awareness'?

I feel that in his [Ball Of Honey Discourse](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html) , the Buddha advised his followers to reflect within whenever they felt offended: and to identify the processes of their mind that caused perceptions or sensations to arise, which then led to anger. In the context of this teaching, can a Buddhist ever truthfully say, "By your wrong speech or wrong action, you have insulted / hurt / offended / angered me. You are responsible for this offence, and therefore, it is your responsibility to stop doing this thing that makes me offended, hurt etc.?" Please reply with references to recent gurus.

I'm doing a little research to understand **what the ninth level of consciousness is**. I learned this concept from an explanation of a saying, namely '**on ninth cloud**'. The only information I was able to find refers to Soka Buddhism. Can you tell me if this concept is also present in the Mahayana or Vayrayana translation? Or even Theravada or Zen, as long as it's not Soka.

It's mentioned in many references that when someone becomes Sotāpanna (= stream-entrant = Person-who-has-seen-Dharma) then the first three fetters (saŋyojana) are dropped. My question is, if the first fetter which is self-View (sakkāya-ditthi) is dropped, then who is going to be Sakurdagami = Once Return, Anagami = non-returning and Arahant, or how can he focus on the path as his self-view is already dropped by that time. And also when Anagami person is to become Arahant, he is supposed to drop the last three fetters which are conceit (māna), restlessness (uddhacca),ignorance (avijjā). And if someone has already dropped the self-view then how he can drop the conceit (mana) (the eighth fetter) as it's a subset of the self-view. The answers like: "It's partially dropped, etc" are not correct as that's not how it's defined (if not it's mistaken). And there are many places in Tripitaka, that Buddha mentioned as I to refer him self, so does the Buddha still has self-view? And in Khemaka Sutta this is clearly explained that even Anagami person has I am feeling and desire, which is a subset of self-view. > "Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower > fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a > lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' > obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of > arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: Do you still believe that Sakkaya Ditti means Self-View ? or is it a mistake?

According to scripture, all those who ask questions of another do so from any one of five motivations. Which five?

I felt this was unfair and somewhat misleading, too, because there were many very elderly laypeople, plus some of the Bhikkhus might not be part of the Aryan (enlightened) Sangha and some of the Lay people might be part of the Enlightened Sangha. I believe it is proper to serve monks first, but at another mixed lineage temple in Oxnard, we never waited, but the Bhikkhus sat first and took food first, but we all sat down and ate together. Are there strict Vinaya rules for this laid down by the Buddha? Thank you for any and all perspectives on this.

Indriyasaṁvara is part of [sīlakkhandha](https://suttacentral.net/define/s%C4%ABlakkhandha) . there you see this > Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā **na-nimittaggāhī** hoti > nānubyañjanaggāhī. whereas **animitta cetosamādhi** is part of highest samadhi. Thats why it is after th 8th Jhana. > sabbanimittānañca amanasikāro, animittāya ca dhātuyā manasikāro. so with this background, and for the sake of proper practice, Can someone help in knowing what is the difference between **not grasping** nimitta (na nimittaggāhī) and **signless**(animitaa) ?

As titled, According to the suttapitaka. What is the relationship between 'signless samadhi', 'signless property', 'emptiness' and 'the cessation of perception & feeling'? I want only Theravada oriented and substantiated answers.

Does Buddhism have a view or agree with the gut feeling? Is this considered the same as intuition?

I have been chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo (daimoku - Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism) for about 4.5 years. I also regularly attend Soka Gakkai International (SGI) meetings. I have experienced a lot of benefits from the practice. But, I have been unable to understand what technically happens when we chant. I have read in some of the texts that we create a good karma when we chant or some of the questions here answered that the "act" of chanting leads us to the path of enlightenment. But, being a Physics student, I am interested in knowing what exactly happens when we chant. For example- when I chant, I generate sound energy. Now that energy would have some temporal variation as the words "Nam" , "Myoho" etc. would have different sounds but the ratio of amplitudes and frequencies would be almost equal for each person. I would be happy if someone can give a technical explanation of what exactly happens when we chant.

According to the [Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html) , the Buddha asks us to treat the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness) as "this is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself". Since "this is not mine", "this is not I" and "this is not myself", the Buddha asks us to find 'estrangement' in the five aggregates. Are there any further techniques that we can use to help us achieve this estrangement? For example, in the Theravada tradition, Buddhist monks have said that if your ear hurts, think of it as 'there's an ear, and it hurts', rather than thinking "my ear hurts". So far, I have been using this method when it comes to observing my physical body. When it comes to feelings (e.g. anger, fear), it helps me to close my eyes and observe the feelings as an outsider. As I am observing them, I can feel them going away and myself becoming calm again. Is the above way of practicing estrangement correct? I would like to make sure that I stick to Buddha's original teachings/ theravada tradition. Thank you.

From Ñanavira's Notes on Dhamma: His note on Mano: > Note that just as the eye, as cakkhāyatana or cakkhudhātu, is that yena lokasmim lokasaññī hoti lokamānī ('[that] by which, in the world, one is a perceiver and conceiver of the world') (Salāyatana Samy. xii,3 ), i.e. that thing in the world dependent upon which there is perceiving and conceiving of the world, namely a spherical lump of flesh set in my face; so the mind, as manāyatana or manodhātu, also is that yena lokasmim lokasaññī hoti lokamānī, i.e. that thing in the world dependent upon which there is perceiving and conceiving of the world, namely various ill-defined parts of my body, but principally a mass of grey matter contained in my head (physiological and neurological descriptions are strictly out of place—see PHASSA).[c] This is in agreement with the fact that all five khandhā arise in connexion with each of the six āyatanāni—see NĀMA & PHASSA [a]. For 'perceiving and conceiving' see MAMA [a]. Why does he say "this is in agreement with the fact that all five khandhā arise in connexion with each of the six āyatanāni."?

The Buddha has taught the concept of 'not self' (anatta) - which comes into play when we are dealing with our body, feelings, perceptions etc, to think that it's not actually 'my' body, or 'my feelings and perceptions', but rather to observe them as if you're an outsider. For example, instead of thinking "my ear hurts", it should be "there's an ear, and it hurts". Instead of "I feel angry", it should be "a mind has thoughts that have anger in them", so observe these thoughts as if you're an outsider and watch the anger arising, existing whilst constantly changing, and passing away. I was wondering whether the Buddha ever said anything about how to apply this principal when we're "talking"? The words feel much like 'myself', and I'm wondering how I can practice not-self while talking as well. Are there any suttas that address how we can practice not-self when we talk?

For most people identifying as Buddhists in very Buddhist countries (Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand), what are the most significant ways in which being a Buddhist affects their lifes? For instance, how common is - visiting the temple service at least once a month? - saying grace before eating? - intense meditation? My current image is that unless one's a monk, being a Buddhist is a formality for most people in South East Asia, mostly manifesting in Buddhism classes in schools, weddings and funerals.

When Buddha was born, he walked seven steps and then stopped without stepping the eighth step, and at every step there was a shower of rain. I ask: what does the seven steps symbolize?

In Ñanavira's book Notes on Dhamma: > Phassa is included in nāma since nāma, in specifying saññā, necessarily specifies the pair of āyatanāni ('bases') and kind of viññāna involved (e.g. perception of sourness specifies tongue, tastes, and tongue-consciousness), whereas rūpa does not (inertia or behaviour does not specify its mode of appearance, visual, auditory, and so on): nāma, in other words, entails (but does not include) viññāna, whereas rūpa is simply 'discovered' by viññāna. I don't follow his reasoning here... why is it that Phassa is included in nama instead of rupa because nāma 'entails (but does not include) viññāna, whereas rūpa is simply 'discovered' by viññāna.'? Also why is sañña given some kind of precedence in its inclusion within the category ahead of Phassa?

This is from the Paṭhamaadhammasutta (AN10.113). >Katamo ca bhikkhave adhammo ca anattho ca? > > Micchā-diṭṭhi, micchā-saŋkappo, micchā-vācā micchā-kammanto, micchā-ājīvo, micchā-vāyāmo, micchā-sati,micchā-samādhi, micchā-ñāṇaɱ, micchā-vimutti. > > And what are not-dhamma and not-aim? > > Wrong view, wrong thinking, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong living, > wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration, wrong knowledge, > wrong release. (Found on Obo-net .) Does anyone know what wrong release could be? Does the Buddha explain this anywhere? I can't really understand how release can be wrong. Seems to me that one is or is not released.