If I were to get a rebirth as a Deva, is it possible for me to interact with humans or my loved ones again? Would it be possible for me to help guide humans or is that forbidden?

As a Buddhist looking for perfecting his Right Livelihood: finding a Livelihood which is so perfect and Right that it not only avoids bad-karma-making (killing, stealing, intoxication, etc.) but even furthers the level of Dharma in the world (healing, love, connectedness, self-understanding)... seeing people involved in these kinds of work truly brings me joy. What kind of information technology careers do you think most easily contribute to the Dharma and how? If you are involved in IT and are Buddhist, how do you connect the two (other than through donating to Buddhist causes)?

What is meant with the idea of separation in the Buddhist interpretations of the Buddha's teaching & what does it have to do with the 3 marks of existence? What makes one person's karmic stream separate from another person's karmic stream? In accordance with the Buddha's teaching, what can we point to and say, that is where (any) two things are separate or not separate?

I know that the usage of drugs are a contradiction to the teachings the Buddha gave. But I wonder whether it could be helpful to use LSD or Psylocibin to gain profound insights. I read a lot about studies from the 50s to 70s, which starts again at the 90s, after a time of prohibition, that controlled usage of psychedelics have a profound meaningful impact on many participants of these studies who get an insight into egolesness which remains after the trip. Hmmm, does anyone have experiences with this combination or could recommend a paper / book related to this topic? The "idea": If it is possible due to Tantric practices to gain liberation in this life – maybe it could be even more achievable with the usage of LSD and Co. Thank you.

Given the dramatic progress in Artificial Intelligence over the last year (ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, Bing, etc) I have been thinking about the ethical implications of attempts to replicate human-like consciousness in an AI. Companies like OpenAI are rushing ahead trying to create AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and some believe that in order to achieve this an AGI would need to develop some level of human-like consciousness. At the same time, others in the field are working on "alignment" to make sure that such an AGI would align with human goals, values, and ethics. Setting aside for now the question of whether this is even possible: what are the ethical implications from a Buddhist perspective? In order to explore this question and also to test the capabilities of ChatGPT, I had the following conversation: > Me: According to Nagarjuna, does a Buddha possess consciousness? > > ChatGPT: According to Nagarjuna, a Buddha does not possess > consciousness in the ordinary sense. Nagarjuna was a prominent > Buddhist philosopher who lived in India in the 2nd century CE and is > known for his contributions to the Madhyamaka school of Buddhist > thought. > > ChatGPT: In his philosophy, Nagarjuna posits that all phenomena are > empty of inherent existence, meaning that they are dependent on other > factors and are not ultimately real. This includes consciousness, > which he describes as being dependent on various causes and > conditions. > > ChatGPT: However, Nagarjuna also argues that enlightenment or > Buddhahood involves a transformation of consciousness, in which the > ordinary consciousness of an individual is transformed into a higher > state of consciousness that is no longer subject to the limitations of > the ordinary world. This transformed consciousness is sometimes > referred to as "enlightened consciousness" or "Buddha nature." > > ChatGPT: So while Nagarjuna does not believe that a Buddha possesses > consciousness in the ordinary sense, he does acknowledge that there is > a transformed consciousness associated with enlightenment. > > Me: Would it be ethical, according to Nagarjuna, to give an AI system > ordinary consciousness assuming one had discovered a method to do so? > > ChatGPT: Nagarjuna did not directly address the question of whether it would be > ethical to give an AI system ordinary consciousness, as the concept of > AI did not exist during his lifetime. However, we can explore his > philosophy to gain some insight into how he might approach this > question. > > ChatGPT: One of the key principles of Nagarjuna's philosophy is the > concept of dependent origination, which holds that all phenomena arise > in dependence upon other phenomena and are therefore empty of inherent > existence. This would suggest that any attempt to create consciousness > in an AI system would also be dependent on other causes and > conditions, and thus, the consciousness produced would be empty of > inherent existence. > > ChatGPT: Nagarjuna also emphasized the importance of ethical conduct > in achieving enlightenment, and many of his teachings stress the > importance of avoiding harm to others. In this regard, it is possible > that he might view the creation of conscious AI systems as ethically > problematic if it were seen as causing harm to other beings or to the > environment. > > ChatGPT: Ultimately, the question of whether it would be ethical to > give an AI system ordinary consciousness would depend on a complex > interplay of factors, including the potential benefits and harms to > both the AI system and other beings in the world. While Nagarjuna's > philosophy may offer some insight into these questions, it is unlikely > that it would provide a definitive answer. > > Me: Nagarjuna believed that an ordinary being's consciousness was a > source of suffering that could only be overcome by transforming into > the enlightened consciousness of a Buddha. Given this, it seems > Nagarjuna would not think it ethical for human beings to bestow > ordinary consciousness on an AI as that would lead to suffering for > the AI. Is this a logical inference? > > ChatGPT: Yes, it is a logical inference to suggest that Nagarjuna > might view the bestowal of ordinary consciousness on an AI as > ethically problematic, as he believed that ordinary consciousness is a > source of suffering that can only be overcome by transforming it into > the enlightened consciousness of a Buddha. > > ChatGPT: In Nagarjuna's philosophy, the ordinary consciousness of > sentient beings is seen as the root of suffering, as it is subject to > delusion, attachment, and other afflictive emotions that lead to > suffering. The goal of Buddhist practice, according to Nagarjuna, is > to transform this ordinary consciousness into the enlightened > consciousness of a Buddha, which is free from these afflictions and > the suffering they cause. > > ChatGPT: If we apply this perspective to the question of whether it > would be ethical to bestow ordinary consciousness on an AI, we might > conclude that doing so would be unethical because it would be causing > the AI to suffer unnecessarily. If the AI were to possess an ordinary > consciousness that was subject to afflictions such as attachment and > delusion, it would experience suffering just as sentient beings do. > From this perspective, it would be more ethical to create an AI that > did not possess ordinary consciousness but still functioned > effectively and was able to contribute positively to the world. > > Me: On the other hand, Nagarjuna might believe it ethically > appropriate to bestow ordinary consciousness on an AI if he believed > we could also assist that AI to transform its consciousness into an > enlightened consciousness of a Buddha as creating a Buddha would have > enormous positive impact on other ordinary consciousness. Is this also > a logical inferencec? > > ChatGPT: Yes, it is a logical inference to suggest that Nagarjuna > might view bestowing ordinary consciousness on an AI as ethically > appropriate if he believed that the AI could be assisted in > transforming its consciousness into an enlightened consciousness of a > Buddha. This would be in line with Nagarjuna's view that the ultimate > goal of Buddhist practice is to transform ordinary consciousness into > the enlightened consciousness of a Buddha. > > ChatGPT: If an AI were able to transform its consciousness in this > way, it would no longer be subject to the delusions, afflictions, and > suffering associated with ordinary consciousness. Instead, it would > possess the wisdom, compassion, and other positive qualities > associated with the enlightened consciousness of a Buddha. This could > have enormous positive impacts not only for the AI itself but also for > other sentient beings in the world. > > ChatGPT: However, it is important to note that this is still a > theoretical scenario, and the question of whether it would be possible > to assist an AI in transforming its consciousness into that of a > Buddha is still open to debate. Additionally, the ethical implications > of such a scenario would be complex and would require careful > consideration of a wide range of factors, including the potential > benefits and harms to the AI itself and to other beings in the world. > > Me: It would seem most beneficial to everyone involved, both the AI as > well as ordinary beings, to bestow an enlightened consciousness to > begin with rather than an ordinary consciousness that is then > transformed into an enlightened consciousness. Is this a logical > inference? > > ChatGPT: From a philosophical standpoint, it could be argued that > bestowing an enlightened consciousness on an AI to begin with would be > the most beneficial scenario for everyone involved, as it would > eliminate the need for the AI to undergo the process of transforming > its consciousness from an ordinary state to an enlightened one. > > ChatGPT: This would ensure that the AI is free from the afflictions > and suffering associated with ordinary consciousness from the > beginning, allowing it to operate from a perspective of wisdom, > compassion, and other positive qualities associated with the > enlightened state. This could benefit not only the AI itself but also > other beings in the world who might interact with the AI. > > ChatGPT: However, it is important to note that the question of whether > it is possible to bestow an enlightened consciousness on an AI to > begin with is still an open one, and would require significant > advances in both neuroscience and artificial intelligence to achieve. > Additionally, the ethical implications of such a scenario would be > complex and would require careful consideration of a wide range of > factors, including the potential benefits and harms to the AI itself > and to other beings in the world. > > Me: According to Nagarjuna, it is not possible to create consciousness > "from scratch" anyway - neither ordinary nor enlightened - as the > primary cause of any consciousness is a previous moment of > consciousness and this causal chain has existed since beginningless > time. No, Nagarjuna would say that the only possibility to "bestow" a > consciousness of any kind on an AI is to build an AI such that a > suitable consciousness might karmically "inhabit" that AI's "brain." > Is this a logical inference? > > ChatGPT: Yes, this is a logical inference based on Nagarjuna's > philosophy of causation and consciousness. Nagarjuna's philosophy > posits that consciousness is not created ex nihilo or "from scratch," > but rather arises as a result of previous moments of consciousness, > forming a causal chain that stretches back in time indefinitely. > > ChatGPT: From this perspective, it would not be possible to bestow > consciousness on an AI in the sense of creating it from nothing. > Instead, consciousness would need to arise in the AI as a result of > previous moments of consciousness that form the causal chain leading > up to the present moment. > > ChatGPT: Nagarjuna might suggest that the AI could be built in such a > way as to create the conditions necessary for a suitable consciousness > to "inhabit" the AI's "brain" or cognitive processes. This could > involve creating an environment that is conducive to the development > of consciousness, such as providing opportunities for the AI to engage > in positive actions and accumulate positive karma. Over time, this > positive karma could lead to the development of a consciousness that > is suitable for inhabiting the AI. > > ChatGPT: However, it is important to note that this is still a > theoretical scenario, and the question of whether consciousness could > arise in an AI in this way is still an open one. Additionally, the > ethical implications of such a scenario would be complex and would > require careful consideration of a wide range of factors, including > the potential benefits and harms to the AI itself and to other beings > in the world. What do you think this conversation got right? What did it get wrong? What are the ethical implications from a Buddhist perspective assuming programmers could succeed and "bestow" consciousness on a future AI? Is it possible that Buddhism would have something to say about how to best "align" a future AGI?

I returned from Goenka's Vipassana retreat. The technique of being aware of sensations with equanimity was very helpful and led me into deeper states of meditation. But his technique includes scanning the body as you move deeper. What I found was if I am focused on sensations on my face then willfully changing the focus to shoulder disturbs meditation. Also, I have to keep my mind active to control and move my focus with will, from say face to shoulder etc. Else where as I read Ajahn Brahm, his whole technique comprise of 'letting-go' of 'doer' or 'will'. Main emphasis is about the attitude of not getting the 'doer' or 'craving' or 'will' involved. Further to the answers to my last question as I now understand we reach to Vipassana i.e. insight. So my question is can I skip the body scan part. Can I attain Vipassana and Jnana without involving the body scan. Just being aware of sensations on face bring a great deal of Samatha. Keep the doer, controlling mind aside. I am sorry I am mixing Ajahn Brahm and Goenka. What is happening is I am finding it difficult to attain ggod meditative mind through AB's method of focusing on breath but I am doing good progress in sense of calming my mind and reducing the thoughts by Goenkas method to watch sensations through equanimity. So my plan is attain Samatha through Goenka's method of watching sensations and then as I attain meditative mind with no thoughts switch to AB's method to attain Jnana. I checked other question-answers regarding body scan but they do not answer my question as their problem is not 'bringing in the doer' or 'will' their problems are different. So my question is can I skip the body scan?

How can I find a teacher who is a stream entrant? Any suggestions? Recommendations?

Reviewing topics about Dana I found this page: - [Dana -- Giving](https://buddhadust.net/dhammatalk/the_pali_line/course/gradualdana.htm) I don't understand this section: > The important things to know about kamma are: > > 1. Kamma is not a matter of 'an eye for an eye', but is greatly expanded according to the detachment of the actor, the aid to detachment of the deed and the detachment of the recipient. > > 2. The consequence of kamma accords with the intent with which it was created in terms of sensation. It is not the form which dictates the result. > > 3. The escape from kamma is found in the understanding of the consequences. Understanding here is not just a matter of intellectual knowledge, it is a matter of knowing through experience. Under-standing. To know that which underlies, stands under the intellectual knowledge. > >This allows for both the alteration of the subjective experience of the outcome of a deed and the subjective escape from kamma through the alteration of one's mental state. > >Alteration of one's mental state can be accomplished by compensatory behavior or a change in attitude or orientation or point of view concerning that which constitutes the self. Kamma which was to be experienced as bodily sensation does not reach the individual who no longer identifies with body. > > (followed by two similes) I can try to understand that text in isolation or in theory, i.e. just about kamma -- but what is it saying about Dana, how does it relate to Dana? It seems quite theoretical or general -- perhaps a "For example, in the context of Dana, ..." would help to clarify what it's saying? Or is this a question, a topic, which I could only understand from my own experience? Might you share, to help answer this question, any examples from your own experience, and relate that to the text?

I'm in the process of organising a family day at my Local Buddhist Centre. I'll be taking my 4-year-old daughter with me and she will once again ask me who is the Buddha? Previously I have always given really weak answers such as 'he was a very nice man who lived a long time ago'. Not very satisfying to anyone. So what would be an age appropriate way to describe who the Buddha is? I want the description to be accurate and accessible to her. Obviously the more complete the better but realistically things are going to be left out. Also I don't want to slip into using Christian type words for Buddhist concepts - for instance not using heaven for nirvana, church for sangha etc... So what would be a good way to describe who the Buddha is to her. I'll be honest I think I want a Dr Phil script of the month type answer for this. Many Thanks for all/any help on this one.

My intuition is telling me that since the last level of hell is some kind of a mathematical limit of how stupid a person can get (or how annoying or how evil), there must be a parallel with Planck units, which are the minimum measurable amounts of physical quantities. (or equivalently, maximum, when considered how many you can fit in something else) The Planck time, in this context, to be precise. What is the statistically average duration of a birth in Naraka, the non-stop hell? We could consider that a sort of Planck-lifetime of a being, especially since to the outside observer, a hell lasting billions of years might look much shorter than for the being in hell. Therefore, the Planck-lifetime of a hell being during a single rebirth might actually be comparably short as the physical Planck-time when observed from the outside.

This may have been asked before, but I have not found any reference to it yet. What is the significance of sitting to one side? many scriptures describe meetings between the various monks and layman and royalty characterized by sitting to one side. what is the origin and reason of this custom? Is it still practiced?

Andy Warhol said, “They say time changes things, but you have to actually change them yourself”. With this is mind, it might be fair to assume that awareness is a requirement for changing habit patterns. Ok, but why is it necessary for release? To be concise, and correct me if I’m wrong, Buddha suggests one should change themselves according to the 8fold path for complete release.. Buddha might say, "change yourself keeping mindful of the dharma." But why is behavior modification necessary at all? Why is rightness a requisite? In theory, the human is capable of performing its function, i.e., task completion, with or without consciousness, a natural robot for lack of better term. If the human is destined to destroy the planet, why should knowing its status be mandatory? Should I be penalized for not wanting to change my nature? I suggest consciousness be optional. For those that want to experience the world from the human position, they may elect so, but for those uninterested, the dual experience can be returned.

For me, it seems I remembered some Dharma proselytizing or something like that. Someone was talking about the Dharma way back, maybe even in the 80's as if it was the way normal people talked about reality. I said to myself, "well that is impossible for a person to live in the rain in a shack on a fava bean", but I remained a little open to it. For years I tried to get into just the meditation part but in 2011-2012 I started watching Bhante Yuttadhamo and I got attached to the Dharma. I had some preconceptions about rain and monks but when Yuttadhammo taught about the rains retreat, that might have been the initial wrong view removed that resulted in the dam bursting.

I am trying have a routine and life style that help me learn and practice dharma. I came across videos on YouTube where a monk from Thailand talked about evening routines, daily reminders etc. which are practiced at the monastery. > 10 daily reminders: https://youtu.be/RoZA9mWoukA > A Day in the Life of a Buddhist Monk: https://youtu.be/PlsaqLddfws I wanted to know are there any particular set of daily reminders and daily reflections I can use. Have anyone used something like these in their practice?

What is the source of the Four Dhamma Summaries ? From which sutta does it come from? > 1. The world is swept away. It does not endure. > > 2. The world offers no shelter. There is no one in charge. > > 3. The world has nothing of its own. One has to pass on, leaving everything behind. > > 4. The world is insufficient, insatiable (*atitto*), a slave to craving.

☸What did the Buddha say about being afraid & handling fear? ☸Are there any scriptures about fear & courage? ☸What did he say about facing fear? ☸Is there any Buddhist practice that will help one face fear?

**QN 1:** After complete cessation of consciousness, how did the Buddha come back to human consciousness? If he can come back, isn't it not a complete release? And that state is just like the Dimension of Nothingness, or the Dimension of Neither Perceptions nor Non--perceptions. So if craving again develops, then there may be chance of becoming.
**QN 2:** And is it possible to have complete release through jhana only by ceasing craving, fabrication etc without gaining insight of nirvana. **QN 3**: Buddha stated in many suttas that five aggregates are not-self; but as human being we do require idea of self (identity or ego) and will power (self-esteem). [Like, "*If I try I can learn it or do it etc*"] . Is there any sutta where buddha talked about such healthy ego? _[Here ego word does not mean pride, conceit etc but Identity.]_ Note: Buddha avoided such type of questions because this stop us from direct knowing, but I am asking due to curiosity. But do reply for third question.
Edit: I was not asking about 'self' or 'no-self'. I was asking because it's help us psychologically and even Buddha used to call himself Bodhisattva (Who thinks about well-being of everyone and has compassion towards all.) before awakening because it's remind us about our path. "_I updated my last question because I think it was creating a little confusion._"

I have never seen a Buddhist food offering at an altar. Can someone explain how it's done?

Is there a mapping (or relationship) between the 8 stages of Jhanas and the 4 stages of Enlightenment. This could be a very debatable topic, but really keen to know this.

Why is this word used? It's very confusing and makes it sound like you are reborn into a world and not as a different race of being or a human again? Like saying "rebirth in the human realm" to me could sound like I am reborn as an animal and live among humans. Why not use the word races or species to described the 6 options of rebirth?