Can *kamma* and *sankharas* be considered as synonyms? And if not, which are the differences between both? Which is the relationship between them?

I read the description of Cakkavala in the tipitaka, and it is translated to the term "world system". It is said there are infinite Cakkavala's and light rays emanating from its sun can illuminate the whole Cakkavala, whereas light rays emanated from the Buddha can illuminate all Cakkavala's. Wow!!! And each Cakkavala has a sun, a moon and a mount sineru. I have few questions around this: 1. Does this imply that a Cakkavala is equivalent to a solar system as per the modern cosmology? 2. Why the description of Cakkavala does not take into account other planets in the solar system? 3. Is mount Sineru visible only to those who have advanced mental faculties and have gained the divine eye? Just wondering how come an entire mountain is not visible to us? 4. If mount Sineru was visible to all, then it should be visible to the naked eye from a person living anywhere in India, right?

Is cross-legged sitting better than chair sitting for meditation. If yes why ? What is the reason to keep ur back straight during meditation?

Why is it difficult, if not impossible, to read your way to freedom from suffering(Nirvana)? What if you read the advanced Abhidhamma teachings? Is there such a thing as naturally occurring mindfulness in people that lack a mindfulness practice but read the Dhamma all the time?

Many practising Buddhists that I know also have strong ecological concerns. Is this concern for 'green' issues part of Buddhism or do the two things just attract the same kind of people i.e. people that like Buddhism also like green issues. Specifically does concern for the environment have any basis in canonical texts or commentaries or is it a modern development?

I read another answer here which discussed avoiding actions that lead to "contradictions" (such as lying, stealing), which are considered "evil". The answer was in response to someone else's question about where does the concept of morality come from in Buddhism. A contradiction means "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another". I'm not really sure I understand what the "contradiction" is with stealing, for example.

Since for my last question , I did not get a satisfactory answer I am reducing the question to its barebones. What is the difference between 'Witnessing' and 'Mindfulness' from the context of meditation? I mean when I am looking at the sunset without any thoughts in mind and feel a oneness, am I witnessing the sunset or I am being mindful of the eye-consciousness? In the Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta MN 10 the word mindfulness is used, can I replace it with the word, 'Witnessing' without changing the meaning?

In western philosophy the distinction primarily goes like this: Philosophy - The rational investigation of human reason. Religion - Similar but has its basis in faith rather than 'rationality'. What I was primarily wondering was, does Buddhism make the same kind of explicit distinctions like in western philosophy? Do they view philosophy and religion as the same thing? And, if so what do both Buddhist texts and contemporary scholars say about it. **Not asking whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy**

If you have fully '" arrived" at non duality is there a threat that you won't have ambition? Isn't ambition a driving force in human life ?

S 14.7 The Discourse on the Diversity of Perception says this: > Dependent on the mind-object element, there arises the perception of > mind-object; Dependent on the perception of mind-object, there arises > the thought regarding mind-object; Dependent on the thought regarding > mind-object, there arises the desire for mind-object; Dependent on the > desire for mind-object, there arises the passion for mind-object;Dependent on the passion for mind-object, there arises the searching for mind-object. i want to know if clinging to perception aggregate is causing thinking to occur. i am not interested in thinking (sometimes, more than not, interal verbalization). it's unhappy, tiresome, stressful, etc. if so, how am i clinging to perception aggregate? i am not aware of clinging to this...is it an unknown mind- object? can knowledge be a mind-object?

Here is the movie: [Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring 2003](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1GG6o-hPEA) The plot is that the student having attachment to a woman, leave the temple and marries her. Years fly by, and the student returns because he kills her, after her affair. The master helps him to let the anger out before being caught by the police, and then he immolates himself. After that, he leaves some [śarīra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Aar%C4%ABra) . My question is: why would the master cries before the immolation? (source: [i2.wp.com](https://i2.wp.com/macguff.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Spring-Summer-Fall-Winter-And-Spring-Movie-Still-3.jpg)) My answer is that he disappoints with the student. But isn't that disappointment an attachment?

In "The Sublime Attitudes " the word "release" appears multiple times. What is meant by "awareness-release"? What is meant by "release of awareness"? Do both have the same meaning? Do they mean escape? As in, from becoming aware, I am released (from something). Do they mean potential attention (awareness), become manifest? Both, neither? Twice in the sutta the translator uses the phrase "no higher *release*" (without the word *awareness*). Is this significant? Help! :-)

Imagine a journalist writing about the crimes of a mafia boss or corruption in a dictatorial government, and other people pounce on history and share it on social media. Is what the Jornalist and/or those who spread his articles do divisive speech? Keep in mind that this type of news is mainly read for entertainment and will cause ill will against the perpetrators in most readers. On the other hand, this type of journalism is an important mechanism that ensures that corruption does not spiral out of control. Bonus question: Is journalism right livelihood?

How do Buddhists account for unhappiness without negative vedana? Is there no way to do so except future feeling (and so moral agency) and enlightenment? e.g. while there's a lot of things I want to change, there's nothing much I would say I'm "unhappy about" in addition to that: does that latter claim mean anything more than feeling? What about unhappy relationships, groups and ideologies, are they just vedana and enlightenment?

I'm wondering about older sources for some of what Ven. Nyanaponika Thera says in this essay: - [The Four Sublime States: Contemplations on Love, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and Equanimity](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html) . For some of the claims, it's easy for me to realize what older text he's referencing - for instance his claims about why they are called sublime you can trace to Vism. IX 105. But specifically for his claims about how the four sublime abidings all suffuse each other, I'm having a harder time thinking of an older reference. Anyone know one? Or should these be categorized as his own claims? The passages I'm thinking of are these ones: > "How, then, do these four sublime states pervade and suffuse each > other? > > Unbounded love guards compassion against turning into partiality, > prevents it from making discriminations by selecting and excluding and > thus protects it from falling into partiality or aversion against the > excluded side. > > Love imparts to equanimity its selflessness, its boundless nature and > even its fervor. For fervor, too, transformed and controlled, is part > of perfect equanimity, strengthening its power of keen penetration and > wise restraint. > > Compassion prevents love and sympathetic joy from forgetting that, > while both are enjoying or giving temporary and limited happiness, > there still exist at that time most dreadful states of suffering in > the world. It reminds them that their happiness coexists with > measureless misery, perhaps at the next doorstep. It is a reminder to > love and sympathetic joy that there is more suffering in the world > than they are able to mitigate; that, after the effect of such > mitigation has vanished, sorrow and pain are sure to arise anew until > suffering is uprooted entirely at the attainment of Nibbana." etc.

When does an ideology become a religion rather than just philosophy (which is just a way of living)? Does each has any specific definition? or it depends upon person to person perception?

How should lay buddhists respond to amoral people, people who keep generating bad karma for themselves but don't believe they've done anything wrong at all, especially if they have the power to get away with it materially speaking?

Is there a sutta suitable for monastics or laypeople, that helps one become motivated when one is having a hard time disciplining themselves?

My mind creates this desire or a dream that I will get enlightened and become some sort of Guru who teaches Buddhism to many, I will become someone like Bodhidharma or Milarepa etc. I want some practical solution to counter this fantasy of my mind which has become a hindrance to the meditative absorption state. How should I counter this mental fantasy by making the mind look at the facts, whatever that may be.

It's my understanding that the belief in Tibetan Buddhism is that when a Lama is reborn he (not meaning to be sexist, but I know of no female Lamas - please let me know if I'm wrong) becomes that same Lama again. From a western viewpoint, it might be said his soul is put into a new body and he returns as the same Lama in the new body. However, recent comments by the Dalai Lama have me wondering about this. It seems he wants to be reborn in order to continue helping others, but without becoming the Dalai Lama again. (It has been speculated that there may be political motivation to this, as the Chinese want to designate the next Dalai Lama.) However, wouldn't the 14th Dalai Lama become the 15th Dalai Lama if he is reborn? Would a Lama be able to end a series of Lamas even though he is reborn? (I have heard of Lama lines ending, but it's my understanding that the belief is that the Lama chose not to reborn.) Or is my understanding here completed off base?