I'm a bit confused about the Buddhist doctrine of anatta (non-self). Does this teaching mean that Buddhism denies the existence of any kind of soul or self altogether? Or is it more accurate to say that Buddhism accepts some concept of a self, but denies that it is eternal, unchanging, or independent? I'd appreciate any clarification on whether the rejection is total or just about the soul's permanence.

The right view of the Noble Ones is described here as:

"There is no mother and father, without the self."

Buddha describes wrong view here:

“And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is wrong view. MN 117

Is it possible to turn this wrong view into the right view of the Noble Ones by adding "without the self?"

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view of the Noble Ones? ‘There is nothing given without the self, nothing offered without the self, nothing sacrificed without the self; no fruit or result of good and bad actions without the self; no this world without the self, no other world without the self; no mother, no father without the self; no beings who are reborn spontaneously without the self; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world without the self.’ This is right view of the Noble Ones."

Is this an accurate description of the right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path?

i recently went to a meeting with some bhikkhus, and they served the monks a small dish with butter slices and little chocolate squares... i think it was dark chocolate if that matters. So anyway, i was suprised to see it and was wondering other views on this. and the underlying point to the question... i am obviously looking for loop holes for a snack-ish type thing before bed.

Usually in the evening, when I am about to retire, I commit myself to finding and entering into a residential Sangha permanently. When morning rolls in, I fall back into my usual patterns like work, hobbies, social, etc. Usually when I suffer, this emboldens me to seek the monastic life but usually doesn't last very long. When I think about it, I feel like the monastic life is the only way to proceed yet I don't follow through with it. Speaking from a general point-of-view, if a Buddhist knows that the lay life is not ideal, what barriers (overt and inconspicuous) are preventing them from seeking and living the monastical life. How can they be overcomed ?

At the risk of being overly simplistic, it seems that Mahayana traditions have dedicated their intellectual efforts to developing the idea of **Emptiness (śūnyatā)**, starting from Nagarjuna, through Dogen, and extending to the modern Kyoto School. - As you might notice, these examples are biased towards the Japanese branch, which I'm personally more interested in, but other examples also exist, of course. I was trying to locate medieval or modern Mahayanic systematic discussions of **Upādāna** and **Taṇhā**. I was hoping that these ideas were discussed and interpreted in light of the emptiness idea. However, it seems that they have lost intellectual focus. - If it's indicative of anything, the Wikipedia page for Upādāna says the Japanese is "shu", and the one for Taṇhā says the Japanese is "katsu ai". But I couldn't find any meaningful results using these terms in the context of Buddhism. Are there any notable examples of systemaic discussions of Upādāna and Taṇhā in Mahayana Buddhism (particularly within Japanese traditions)?

I am new to buddhism and meditation (I have been practising it for one month now), and despite finishing my fourth book on the matter, I am still very unclear about what a meditation session should look like when practicing either concentration or mindfulness. From what I understood, each of these practices are clearly differents and even have different pali names (Samatha and Vipassana if I am right ?). I can already tell that I can't differenciate concentration and mindfulness. When I focus on my breath, I am naturally distracted by all kind of things which I have to be mindfull of (the way my body feels, the sounds I ear, what I smell from the kitchen, my thoughts and emotions). And when I try to practice mindfulness, I can't help but focusing on my breath, because it is often the first thing that I can notice in that state, and it is always present. When I start my meditation I focus on my breath, then if something happens I try to be mindfull of it, and then I focus on my breath again until something else happens, switching maybe every 2 to 10 seconds. I am wondering why concentration and mindfulness are referred to as disctinct practices in the books I read, as it doesn't make much sense to me. At this point I am afraid that I may be missing something important.

Why is music (sorta) frowned upon in Buddhism? Or it isn't? For people like me, music really helped me get into spirituality. What I'm really trying to understand here is, is there any specific format or type of music that we're not supposed to listen to, or is it just music in general? -Noob here. All help appreciated :)

According to the suttas in SN13 , a stream enterer (or stream winner or sotapanna ) only has at most, seven remaining lifetimes, before they are permanently freed from suffering. On the other hand, takers of the Mahayana Bodhisattva vow , would forego enlightenment for a very long time (apparently aeons), till they complete the full Bodhisattva training (which I presume is the development of paramitas and the attainment of bhumis ). However, this implies that they need to avoid stream entry, which could cause them to become released from suffering in seven lifetimes at most. So, how do they avoid stream entry? Do they avoid it by avoiding the practice of insight meditation (vipassana ) perhaps?

Being vague for the sake of not speaking divisive or malicious speech. I know of a monk who had sex with nun(s) and was disrobed/expelled (later reordained too) From my perspective, a lay person, would it be wise to not learn the dharma from a person like this who has created such a root downfall (I don't know the correct term, but broken vows that cause one to be expelled) I don't mean be harmful to the person either (of course) I just mean should I as a lay practitioner not listen to this person in regards to dharma?

From Thanissaro Bhikkhu (embedded time in the link) What I am specifically curious about is about the stopping of breathing in 4th jhana that he explains. For me personally, I have been able to experience weak rapture on command, what I know as a jhanic factor but I didn't even think i had experienced even the 1st Jhana. I have had some powerful absorption meditations before where I have stopped breathing, and like he said as the end of the question (it's a Q&A section) where people recognize they stopped breathing and kind of "ahhh" then jump out of it. So is that it, is that actually 4th jhana?, is the Bhikkhu incorrect?, is my experience incorrect (you cannot answer that of course) The way I originally learned the Jhanas were through Mahamudra tantra, where it is explained "the mediator stops breathing resembling a dead person" but I always assumed these meditations where I lost my ability to breathe and subsequently jump out of it were nowhere near even the first jhana, let alone the the stopping breathing like what was explained in Mahamudra teachings.I just thought it was just me having some sort of meditation issue, which of course are myriad and varied for all.

While reading through the Buddhist suttas, I came across the detailed descriptions of the eight emancipations. These passages were deeply intriguing, but they also gave rise to some questions in my mind which I decided to ask before which let me cite the concerned passages - > “Ānanda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight? > > “**Possessed of form, one sees forms.** This is the first > emancipation. > > “**Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally.** > This is the second emancipation. > > “**One is intent only on the beautiful.** This is the third > emancipation. > > “**With the complete transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, > with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding > perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ one > enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space**. This > is the fourth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.** This is > the fifth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of nothingness.** This is the sixth > emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception.** This is the seventh emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation > of perception and feeling.** This is the eighth emancipation. > > “**Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward > order, in reverse order, in forward and reverse order**, when he > attains them and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he > wants, and for as long as he wants, when through the ending of > effluents he enters and remains in the effluent-free release of > awareness and release of discernment, having directly known it and > realized it for himself in the here and now, **he is said to be a monk > released in both ways. And as for another release in both ways, higher > or more sublime than this, there is none.”** ~ DN 15 Questions- 1. Why is “nothingness” (6th) distinguished from “neither perception nor non-perception” (7th), given that both involve retreating from mental activity? Or from the 8th which involves total cessation of perception and feeling? 2. What kind of experience is “neither perception nor non-perception”? Is it a liminal state — and if so, how does one know they have entered it? Can a mind in this state be said to ‘experience’ anything at all? 3. In discussions with scholars from eternalist backgrounds, such as vedanta a common challenge raised is that the Buddhist teachings on the eight emancipations seem to imply the existence of a continuous or eternal subject since someone appears to be progressing through these subtle states of consciousness. If there is no eternal soul or self in Buddhism, then who is it that experiences and moves through these emancipations? How would a Buddhist respond to this objection? 4. What is the significance of being able to enter and exit these states at will, as emphasized in the sutta? 5. Is the progression through these states ultimately teaching that liberation is not something to be gained, but everything to be let go including perception, feeling, identity, and knowing?

Please give a clear simple example of how this looks in a practical way without quoting suttas. I just want a practical example. Thanks "The object of consciousness, or mind-object, that arises has to be of ultimate reality, not conventional reality. We must be able to differentiate between what is absolute reality, or paramattha dhamma and what is conventional reality, or sammuti."

Some Buddhists refer to Vishnu as Vasavatti Māra Deva. Others say that Upulvan Deva is Vishnu, and some say **Varuna** Deva is Vishnu. So who exactly is Vishnu? Is he Māra or a Deva? In Hinduism, Vishnu is known as the one who holds the chakraudha (sudhssana chakra). Upulvan deva consider as protector of sri Lanka Buddhist people say sri Lankan misunderstood Vishnu as upulvan. Some say both are same deva. So who is Vishnu....

How would one explain when Buddha said in Mahānidāna Sutta, that "rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso" and "nāmakāye paṭighasamphasso". The meaning of this?

I am in process of writing a book about buddhists masters. I have following few masters in my mind. 1. Gautam Buddha 2. Bodhidharma 3. Milerepa Please suggest names of other masters to write an essay on each master. It can be from any tradition.

I read the following on the internet: > I came from a Christianity ethical background so i originally thought > sexual desire and masturbation was bad, but in reality all that is > "bad" is the desire itself, which could be desire for sex, or desire > for chocolate cake. It is the same thing "kama-tanha" As for alcohol, > same thing, kama-tanha. Though I want to point out the story of > sarakani SN55.24 explaining that even what is seen to most buddhists > as a true downfall, alcohol. It itself is not inherently bad/evil etc. > Kama-tanha is the problem, not the pleasure we can experience from > sex, booze or chocolate cake! Can sensual pleasure be divorced from craving? What do the Pali Suttas say about this?

I am single and often indulge in masterbation and pornography. What are buddhist thoughts on these. Does it affect the quality of meditation. What was Buddhas advise to lay followers about them?

In Buddhist philosophy, particularly within various schools like Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Yogācāra, the concept of saṃsāra (cyclic existence) is central characterized by suffering, ignorance, and rebirth. A key metaphysical question arises: How did bondage—the state of being trapped in cyclic existence begin? Was there a specific point in the past time or cause that marked the start of sentient beings' entrapment? Or conversely, is bondage considered beginningless, similar to the doctrine held by certain Vedānta schools which maintain that ignorance (avidyā) has no beginning but can have an end?

I have recently been looking into the systematic methods of mediation subjects taught in the Pa Auk tradition and wanted to know if the Thai Forest tradition has a similar systematic course of methods, or if the meditation practice is adapted depending on the student. I do know the tradition is a traditional teacher (preceptor) student relationship for anyone seriously thinking of taking ordination, from Angarika to full Bhikkhu. I cannot seem to find any information on any of the websites from the tradition on what definite meditation subjects are taught, in what order etc. Other than of course the websites having sources of teachings and I know the tradition is based upon the teachings of the Tipitaka. Compared to Pa Auk tradition which is based upon the Vissudhimagga. I suppose this is a question for anyone who studies with, lives within or has stayed as a guest for a certain amount of time within the monasteries within this tradition.

Did the Buddha ever said something like this: > What the world sees as pleasure, it is suffering for me. What the world sees as suffering, it is pleasure for me. Or something similar in the meaning, in any canonical texts?