When I search for the word "debt" on this site -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=debt -- many of the posts are from the same author -- including two recent ones: - https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/48450/254 > seek out for people teaching the Dhamma not training consuming fools and suggestions that they could escape the debts - https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/48452/254 The answer to the latter question puzzled me -- because I'm not sure what the difference is between a state welfare recipient thinking "I have a right", compared with an employed wage-earner's having the same kind of thought. --- What is Buddhist doctrine on that subject? The only reference that come immediately to my mind is the debt towards parents, which is so immense that it cannot be repaid, and which is acknowledged by the fact that monks are allowed to help care for their own parents in person. There are few references on [Access to Insight](https://accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?q=debt) : - [Ina Sutta: Debt (AN 6.45)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.045.than.html) sounds like it might be a parable or analogy -- i.e. that a monk who behaves badly suffers consequences like a layman who goes into debt - [The Lessons of Gratitude](https://accesstoinsight.org/ati/lib/authors/thanissaro/lessonsofgratitude.html) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu seems to say to repay your benefactors by becoming a better person - [Anana Sutta: Debtless (AN 4.62)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.062.than.html) says that "debtless" is one of the states that a house-holder can enjoy -- along with "having" and "using" wealth, and being "blameless" -- the debtless isn't the import bit in this sutta, which says it's next to nothing compared with being blameless - [Vasala Sutta: Discourse on Outcasts (Sn 1.7)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.07.piya.html) says that denying a debt is one of many examples of misbehaviour that would cause someone to be considered an outcaste Can you summarise Buddhist doctrine about debt? Should you try to be more conscious of debts? If not what should you try to be more conscious of? Part of this question is exemplified by this from Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay: > In other words, as the first passage shows, it's perfectly fine to appreciate the benefits you've received from rafts and other conveniences without feeling any need to repay them. You take care of them simply because that enables you to benefit from them more. The same holds true for difficult people and situations that have forced you to develop strength of character. You can appreciate that you've learned persistence from dealing with crabgrass in your lawn, or equanimity from dealing with unreasonable neighbors, without owing the crabgrass or neighbors any debt of gratitude. After all, they didn't kindly go out of their way to help you. And if you were to take them as models, you'd learn all the wrong lessons about kindness: that simply following your natural impulses — or, even worse, behaving unreasonably — is the way to be kind. > > Debts of gratitude apply only to parents, teachers, and other benefactors who have acted with your wellbeing in mind. They've gone out of their way to help you, and have taught you valuable lessons about kindness and empathy in the process. As a corollary, if the "raft" there might be an analogy of the Dhamma, what do you think of that? If people publish the Dhamma, after which find and use it, you may appreciate that -- is it something to feel "indebted" about, and if you don't feel properly indebted then are you like stealing it from its rightful owner (e.g. the Sangha), and/or is the person who published it some kind of thief?

It's hard to imagine that there is any valid and not actually defeat group of monks out their, Dhamma has been sold out, reformed, reproduced and shared by blind. AI will soon be, or is already, your only 'friend'. What now? What to do if getting clear that their is no more refuge to be found? What should one go after, if having missed the last train leaving, finding oneself booked in the mass train? YouTube: [Stop That Train (I Want to get off)](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iD41dy-AFgg) -- a reggae song

From M43 the Mahavedalla Sutta: > It is said consciousness. Friend, what is consciousness?: It knows, > therefore it is called consciousness. Knows what? Knows this is > pleasant, this is unpleasant and knows this is neither unpleasant nor > pleasant. Knows therefore it is said conscious. Friend, this knowledge > and this consciousness, are they associated or dissociated? Is there a > method to differentiate them and show them apart? What is known is > consciousness and consciousness is knowledge. Therefore these things > are associated and not dissociated and it is not possible to > differentiate them and show them apart. then later: > Friend, this feeling, perception, and this consciousness, are these > associated or dissociated? Is it possible to differenciate them and > show them apart?: Friend, feelings, perceptions and consciousness are > associated and not dissociated and it is not possible to differentiate > them and show them apart: Friend, the felt is perceived, and the > perceived is consciously known Therefore these things are associated > and not dissociated and it is not possible to differenciate them and > show them apart. If these three - consciousness, perception, and feeling - cannot be told apart, how are they conceptualized separately in the first place? It's a contradiction. If they cannot be told apart, why bother listing them as 3 separate aggregates? Why not just say the three arise together?

The 3rd precept is: >I undertake the training rule to avoid sexual misconduct. How is this precept explained? Marriage is defined differently in different cultures, so are the commonly accepted rules in a given society considered as non-misconduct? If not, how should one determine the scope of misconduct according to the precept?

Is a logical questioning process of every thought(almost) a useful way to break through thought itself and possibly understand enlightenment? For eg:- What is this thought? What is the mind? And try to inspect it clearly. If no answer appears, (because you see they are difficult, almost impossible questions) that is still ok, but you begin to question things with a scientific temper and rationality.

I've heard Zen Buddhism characterised by the notion of 'Everyone is already enlightened'. Is that correct? - does Zen Buddhism actually say that and if so can someone give a reference to a text where it actually says that or something like it. Many thanks as always

I hold the view that Buddhism may not be suitable for all individuals. For instance, a person born with a mental illness who is unable to differentiate right from wrong may struggle to practice Buddhism. Similarly, individuals with disabilities such as tinnitus may find it difficult to meditate. In my opinion, this presents a limitation of Buddhism compared to other religions, where prayer may be an easier means to gain insight. In one sutta, the Buddha mentions the need to be fortunate to encounter his teachings. Doesn't this exclusivity make Buddhism an exclusive religion for attaining liberation? If the Dharma does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to strive for liberation in every birth, wouldn't it be unrighteous? I am curious to know whether Buddhism is the sole path to liberation from human suffering. Does this imply that individuals who cannot comprehend sutras or meditate cannot attain liberation?"

i found this from learnreligions.com: > If you wonder if you have become enlightened, it is almost certain you > have not. The only way to test one's insight is to present it to a > dharma teacher. Don't be dismayed if your achievement falls apart > under a teacher's scrutiny. False starts and mistakes are a necessary > part of the path, and if and when you achieve enlightenment, it will > be built on a solid foundation and you will have no mistake about it. i was reading about LUANGPOR TEEAN. he is a dead thai monk that was enlightened. upon his enlightenment he was asked questions like 'how do you know yourself?' , 'is salt salty?', 'among black colors, which is more black?', etc what is the standard (good) way of interrogating the enlightened?

I came across an excerpt of Thích Nhất Hạnh from his book *No Mud, No Lotus*, in which he says that happiness must be nurtured in order to sustain (full text is here , the excerpt can also be found here ): > Happiness is impermanent, like everything else. In order for happiness to be extended and renewed, you have to learn how to feed your happiness. Nothing can survive without food, including happiness; your happiness can die if you don’t know how to nourish it. If you cut a flower but you don’t put it in some water, the flower will wilt in a few hours. Even if happiness is already manifesting, we have to continue to nourish it. Earlier in the book (here ), he relates this idea to the Buddha: > The Buddha said that nothing can survive without food. This is true, not just for the physical existence of living beings, but also for states of mind. This surprised me a bit, as I was under the impression that happiness *emerges* when one frees himself (even momentarily, e.g. during meditation) from suffering - and not that it should be pursued as a goal. I read (in Wikipedia ) that Thích Nhất Hạnh's teaching combines various sources, and I'd like to know if this idea - that happiness must be nurtured - can be traced to a certain Sutra, or just scattered texts, in the canon?

“Friend, these five faculties—each with a separate range, a separate domain, not experiencing one another’s range & domain: the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the tongue-faculty, & the body-faculty—have the intellect as their (common) arbitrator. The intellect is what experiences (all) their ranges & domains.” Alternative translation for the last line: - “These five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to the mind. And the mind experiences their scopes and ranges.” - They are restored in the mind and it partakes the pasture commonly. - mind is the repository, and mind reacts to their pasture and range.” what does it mean? Is it yogacara in a nutshell? they say mind-only, mere representation....or maybe it means that the pasture was not good enough to contain my evilness? here is another wacky one from the wikipedia: > These internal sense bases (internal faculty) are not the gross organs > themselves (e.g., the eye, ear, etc.), but subtle matter within them.

If I am with someone in person or talking over the phone, they are engaged and care about me. But what happens when I am not with them? Why would anyone care about me when I am not around them? What makes people care about you behind your back? What makes people care, at all? Essentially why anyone would do anything without any reason, why anyone would unconditionally care? Little Background: I have never been a compassionate person, I don't understand compassion. (edit) Or like why would a Buddha care about me? I provided nothing to them, they even never met me, but I feel still they will care about me. Why? How? (will this question suit better in any other StackExchange?)

Can you give a link to read teeka or sub commentaries..

I remember reading a sutta where the Buddha compares how much suffering there is, or grief or pain or whatever, as if it were a grain of sand, or a bit of dirt on the ground, compared to all the grains of sand in the ganges river or all the mud or something kind of quantitative imagery like that. I think his point was a bit like that of the metaphor of the Second Arrow; that there might well be some kind of pain, but then all the rest of the torment is fabricated by the deluded mind through reactivity-obsession or passion-obsession and whatnot. This sutta didn't quote that one, but it had the same tenor: 'you won't believe how little there is to worry about.' I've tried googling for this sutta but I can't find it.

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?