> When that pleasant feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his *development of the body*. from MN 36 Maha-Saccaka Sutta translated by Thanissaro. Pleasant feeling (vedanā) is not limited to five senses, but can also be experienced by the mind. To understand the sutta, it seems important to understand what exactly is meant by *development of the body*. > When that painful feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his *development of the mind*. Here the Buddha makes a clear distinction here between 'development of the body' and 'development of the mind', and from MN 119 > [The Blessed One said:] "And how is mindfulness immersed in the *body > developed*, how is it pursued, so as to be of great fruit & great > benefit? **What did the Buddha mean by 'development of the body' versus 'development of the mind'?** Then, how does one develop the body?

There is incident where Mara is trying to get to Buddha even after he became enlightened. Finally Mara win him over by his death. With that knowledge is it correct to assume he had hunger feeling and sexual feelings too? **From [Parinibbana Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html)** > 42. There was a time, Ananda, when I dwelt at Uruvela, on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of the goatherds' banyan-tree, soon after my supreme Enlightenment. And Mara, the Evil One, approached me, saying: 'Now, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! Let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord. > 43. Then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by appropriate conduct and, having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma. > 44. I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until this holy life taught by me has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular, and widespread, until it is well proclaimed among gods and men. > 45. And again today, Ananda, at the Capala shrine, Mara, the Evil One, approached me, saying: 'Now, O Lord, bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples of the Blessed One — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding in the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; and when adverse opinions arise, they are now able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma. > And now, O Lord, this holy life taught by the Blessed One has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular and widespread, and it is well proclaimed among gods and men. Therefore, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! Let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord. > 46. And then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'Do not trouble yourself, Evil One. Before long the Parinibbana of the Tathagata will come about. Three months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away. > 47. And in this way, Ananda, today at the Capala shrine the Tathagata has renounced his will to live on.

Relating to this question, I am curious if it is a usual experience of duhkha that even people in good health, wealth, external circumstances also experience. Does it have a defined name within the factors of duhkha (in theravada terminology) or is it just lumped together as duhkha?

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?

In Kd 6 , We come across the following:- > On one occasion a monk was possessed by a spirit. His teacher and > preceptor who were nursing him were not able to cure him. He then went > to a pigs’ slaughterhouse to eat raw meat and drink blood. As a > result, he became well. They told the Buddha. > > “For one who is possessed, I allow raw meat and raw blood.” I had never heard of this before. I only encountered it because a polemical blog quoted it in an attempt to criticize Buddhist scripture by highlighting passages that seem negative or problematic when taken at face value. Since their intent of quoting the above was obviously hostile I’d like to understand the background of these from those familiar with the Vinaya:- My questions are: 1. Is the translation accurate? Does the Pali genuinely say that the Buddha allowed raw meat and raw blood in such circumstances? 2. Is this passage considered authentic and canonical within mainstream Theravāda? 3. If both of the above are true, How is this interpreted by traditional Buddhists today? Is it taken literally, regarded as a narrowly defined medicinal or exceptional allowance, or understood in some other way? And if it is accepted, how is it justified within Buddhist ethics and discipline?

I’ve been reflecting on ***the slide*** of the practice—that threshold where the "Doer" or the "Agent" seems to fall away and you’re just left with the flow of the process. Suttas like **AN 11.2 (the Cetana Sutta)** describe this beautifully. They show the path as a series of mental qualities that "flow on and fill up" through dhammatā (natural law), without needing an act of will (cetanā) to push them along. It's one thing to know the "map" of these links intellectually, but I'm curious about the specific point where that knowledge flips into a direct "Aha!" moment—witnessing the mechanics run themselves. How do the Suttas (or the broader tradition) describe this shift from just knowing the mechanics (ñāṇa) to actually seeing them unfold (dassana)? Is there a specific term for that tipping point?

Is the Eightfold Path exclusive to Buddhism? Buddha taught the **Noble** Eightfold Path. The way I understand, the eightfold path is a generic path not exclusive to Buddhism. However, the Noble Eightfold Path is exclusive to Buddhism. I was trying to convince many [in Dhamma Wheel](https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=38202) of this without much support. I would like to know the opinion of this learned Buddhist community.

Why is consciousness not discussed as internal and external in the Dhathu-vibhanga sutta (MN 140)? > "And what is the space property? **The space property may be either internal or external.** What is the internal space property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space property & the external space property are simply space property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and makes the space property fade from the mind. > > "**There remains only consciousness: pure & bright.** What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure. When sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of pleasure.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of pleasure that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure — ceases, is stilled.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. When sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain — ceases, is stilled.' > > https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

So I've been thinking about how in scripture, Buddha often refers to certain views as the "extremes". A famous example is the eternalists (eternal soul and afterlife) vs the annihilationists (no soul, no afterlife, pure materialists). The Buddha taught both of these as the two extremes and promotes a Middle Way. But is Buddha's own approach not a form of extermism? Consider the following: one extreme that I will call eliminationists (suffering is intrinsically bad and is to be completely eradicated - this is Buddha) vs masochists (suffering is to be sought out and maximized as much as humanly possible). The Middle Way here would be "We do not like suffering (though that does not make it bad or evil by itself), but it has important functions and is in some ways, simply inevitable as long as one is actively "alive" in any conceivable way, so we should seek to reasonably reduce unnecessary suffering as judged by us, but re-orienting the entire society for the sole goal of eliminating suffering can lead to other negatives and extreme behaviour". Why should we eliminate rather than lessen suffering? Isn't that one extreme (other being actively seeking out as much suffering as possible)? I can list many ways in which obsession with harm reduction can lead to a highly dysfunctional society and worsen conditions of many people. So why does the Buddha actively promote the Middle Way for other positions, but does not apply it for his own?

I have done Samatha and Vipassana for a few years. Now, I have lost interest in everything. Feel like I have no hope for anything. No desire. Isn't that what Vipassana about. Removing hope and desire? Can't even eat. What's wrong with me? Is this a result of Vipassana? Or laziness? I'm stuck where I am. Lots of past experiences are coming up and disturbing me. 🙏🙏🙏

This question is for experienced meditators. I’ve been practicing for a very long time, meditating often, yet I still notice my mind wandering all the time. I struggle to sit still. My mind is always trying to escape from this place to another. I’ve been recommended to simply watch the mental activity and wandering, but the mind wandering takes me away and I forget to observe. It feels straining to be in the moment. How should I approach it better?

According to the Buddha, what is samsara made of? 1. Karma? 2. All the Buddhist realms of existence? 3. Your moment by moment mind and body experiential arisings as they happen? 4. Isn't samsara what arises when you meditate satipatthana?

As per title. To be more specific: The rule, or the working way of Karma - is it part of the world and thus uniquely determined within the formation of our world? Or is the working way of Karma some superior rule higher than the formation of our world, that all worlds (we know Buddhism believe there are many parallel worlds in time and space) follow a same set of Karma rule? Take as an example, SA 527 , which says: > a novice monk stole monk's 7 fruits, so he was punished by Karma, that he fell into hell for many lives, and even if he reincarnate into a human after these sufferings, hot iron bullets will penetrate his body from time to time Is such karmaphala penalty for stealing monk's fruits (i.e. falling into hell and later becoming a human penetrated by bullets), - (a) the same or similar across all worlds, or - (b) unique of our world, or - (c) unique only to Sakyamuni Buddha's era in our world? There is a similar question but not well-answered either. ------------------- Note this question is not "is Karma part of materialistic world". Karma itself is obviously bound with sentients in this world, but I want to know whether the rule of Karma also bound to us.

Caucasian skin is peachy and sandy (due to having no pigmentation) while the great man's body in nibbana is, according to the 32 perfections of a great man , "his skin is the color of gold". White skin requires some pigmentation. Currently my journey with white skin represents the Trix rabbit's (1994 commercial) attempt to take his own cereal. All he gets is "silly rabbit Trix are for kids!" And the fact that some saints may have received such a miracle to change their skin color forever makes the pain that much more serious. And what should I do regarding the psychologist? I am visiting one to drain my emotions of this, and that might make my eternity as a yellow man all that much more permanent!

I remember reading offhand on a website a Zen Buddhist Koan that had not worrying as its theme, and one of the lines was "if you're about to go to Hell, don't worry". That's all I can remember of it. If anyone of you knows what I'm talking about, please share the name and text of this Koan. Thank you in advance.

I came across this contemplation in [DN 22](https://suttacentral.net/dn22/en/sujato#5.3) : > It’s as if there were a bag with openings at both ends, filled with various kinds of grains, such as fine rice, wheat, mung beans, peas, sesame, and ordinary rice. And a person with clear eyes were to open it and examine the contents: ‘These grains are fine rice, these are wheat, these are mung beans, these are peas, these are sesame, and these are ordinary rice.' > > And so they meditate observing an aspect of the body internally … What kind of wholesome qualities on the 8-fold noble path does contemplating the bodies of people like sacks of different grains of rice and wheat inspire? Like sinews, muscle tissue, synovial fluid, neural tissue, skeleton. Contemplating this rotten body as a sack of grains in a linen bag, just like one the Buddha would have seen being carried around when he was a child 3000 years ago in India? Picture this, young Buddha seeing someone on the street by his palace, carrying a sack of rice for cooking a meal for him, and seeing the cooks in the kitchen? Thanks. sukhi hontu

I've just started learning Buddhism, and currently investigating 6 realms of rebirth. What confuses me is that it seems different sources give inconsistent ordering of the realms. For example, in the book [Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction](https://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook/dp/B00BHXVWSS#:~:text=Buddhism%3A%20A%20Very%20Short%20Introduction%20introduces%20the%20reader%20to%20the,of%20Buddhism%20in%20daily%20life.&text=By%20considering%20how%20Buddhist%20thought,faced%20from%20a%20Buddhist%20perspective.) the 6 realms of rebirth is ordered (from highest to lowest) as follows: 1. Gods 2. Humans 3. Titans 4. Ghosts 5. Animals 6. Hell However, in wikipedia article of [Saṃsāra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra_(Buddhism)#Realms_of_rebirth) it presents the following order: 1. Gods 2. Human 3. Demi-god 4. Animal 5. Hungry ghost 6. Hell I also checked wikipedia for [六道](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%AD%E9%81%93#%E4%B8%89%E5%96%84%E9%81%93) and some other Chinese online articles (since I can read Chinese). It seems they prefer to order demi-god realm above human realm. So in summary, there seems to be inconsistency of relative ordering of two pairs of realms among various sources, namely the relative ordering between human realm and demi-god realm, and between animal realm and ghost realm. I'm wondering which is right? Is there a definitive ordering? Maybe different branches of Buddhism define them differently?

I hope this finds you well and happy. Over the last 25 years I have been trying to apply the instructions from the Buddha on how to study his teaching to keep it pure, found in the Pali Early Buddhist Texts. In my documents linked below, I try to resolve glaring inconsistencies in the Pali text, from the perspective that the Buddha is the unexcelled teacher and does not need help from disciples to teach. You will need a google account to view them: My comparison of up to 54 possible variations in the gradual Path (the Fourth Noble Truth) found in the Pali Texts: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acDIhERcjDfGYof2v45tqdXOipIh09_OYUfHwXWpVTY/edit?usp=sharing My theory of early and late Buddhist Teachings (covering all Four Noble Truths): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CE8ycGuHdOBI96wzOiZt2Da1QWHclb2BCR-b1BwZEGs/edit?usp=sharing I'd be interested to hear of other similar work, because I'd like to associate and discuss with people who show at least the easiest to recognise Fruit of Stream Entry, taking the Buddha as their only teacher. That is, I'm seeking the Noble Community. Bhikkhu Sujato et al's 2014 study: Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf only wants to present the case, there is NO evidence of **major** doctrinal change in the EBTs. I'm not interested in people preaching or 'soap boxing' to me, the standard interpretations of doctrines, which I would call dogma. I was a Theravada monk for 20 years. So I am very familiar with them. This pushing of dogma is usually done in the style: 'this is the truth style'/'the Buddha taught this' etc. I'm interested in authentic discussion where people apply the training for his disciples ascribed to the Buddha of 'do not say this is the truth' but rather 'I believe this is the truth', called 'safeguarding the truth' MN 95 and is expressing one's view as one's view, as it really is. I understand this to be an insight practice and found it eradicates arrogance. The difference might better be understood by the difference in: 'the world is flat' - pushed by some organisations and 'I believe the world is flat' - someone expressing their belief realistically. I appreciate facts such as, the Noble Eightfold Path appears x times in the EBTs, but not quoting scripture to push the standard view, as my research shows there are likely many corrupted ideas in the EBTs. For me, agreement with the large body of consistent words of the Buddha, is a higher standard than the number of times an idea occurs. best wishes Joe

As the title says, I am looking for sources from EBT or Theravada, from the actual words of the Buddha about the process of death. Including advice on what one should do when death is close. Assuming the person knows death is arriving imminently. (if that is a correct term)

Was dependent-origination (Pratityasamutpada) revealed to Buddha with enlightenment? If not, when? AI says: > First Sermon: The first formal teaching of this doctrine occurred > during the Buddha's first sermon at Sarnath, shortly after his > enlightenment. This sermon is known as the Dhammacakkappavattana > Sutta, **where he introduced the Four Noble Truths and the concept of > dependent origination**. Okay, but there is only a brief reference to anything resembling dependent-arising in sn56.11 . > Bhikkhus, for however long the wisdom that sees in accordance with > reality - having three modes and twelve aspects - regarding these four > noble truths was not well purified in us,..- And what exactly "the three rounds, twelve aspects" means is still unclear. Does it refer to the Four Noble Truths? > The Buddha turned three times the Dharma wheel of the Four Noble > Truths. During the first turning for indication, the Buddha revealed, > “This is suffering; this is accumulation of afflictions; this is > cessation of suffering; this is the path.” During the second turning > for persuasion, He advised, “This is the suffering you should know; > this is the accumulation of afflictions you should destroy; this is > the cessation of suffering you should achieve; this is the path you > should take.” During the third turning for confirmation, He testified, > “This is the suffering I have known; this is the accumulation of > afflictions I have destroyed; this is the cessation of suffering I > have achieved; this is the path I have completed.” It's summary : > It is the path of understanding and practice, whereby the truth can > become known (sacca-ñāṇa), its function understood (kicca-ñāṇa), so > that its accomplishment may be realized (kata-ñāṇa). Another theory: > The three rounds refer to the three watches of night described in >Mahāsaccakasutta, and the twelve aspects are indeed the twelve links of > Pratityasamutpada.. Was DO developed logically, with effort, or was it a spontaneous arising of his enlightenment?