Is a Buddha omniscient? If so, is there some agreement on what omniscience more specifically means? (All traditions are of interest. But particularly Mahayana)

Is the following anyhow related to 'Papañca' in the apparent 'proliferation' as you understand it? > And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being 'I am,' there comes to be 'I am here,' there comes to be 'I am like this' ... 'I am otherwise' ... 'I am bad' ... 'I am good' ... 'I might be' ... 'I might be here' ... 'I might be like this' ... 'I might be otherwise' ... 'May I be' ... 'May I be here' ... 'May I be like this' ... 'May I be otherwise' ... 'I will be' ... 'I will be here' ... 'I will be like this' ... 'I will be otherwise.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal. Could you otherwise point out what is Papañca as you think of it?

There are a few questions I have about this Sutta ([SN 42.12 Rasiya Sutta](https://suttacentral.net/sn42.12/en/sujato)) based on the following passages: >They make themselves happy and pleased. This is the second ground for praise. > They don’t make themselves happy and pleased. This is the second ground for criticism. Is the Buddha advocating delighting in sensuality here? If so is that not in line with the majority of what he teaches? >They enjoy that wealth untied, uninfatuated, unattached, seeing the drawbacks, and understanding the escape. This is the fourth ground for praise. This pleasure seeker may be praised on these four grounds. How does someone enjoy sensual pleasures and yet be unattached to them? >In this case, the third self-mortifier may be criticized on one ground, and praised on two. What is the one ground for criticism? They mortify and torment themselves. This is the one ground for criticism. What are the two grounds for praise? They achieve a skillful quality. This is the first ground for praise. They realize a superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. This is the second ground for praise. This self-mortifier may be criticized on this one ground, and praised on two. How does self mortification lead to a superhuman state and if so why is it praiseworthy?

I'm looking to collect all the major sutta references on the 3rd hindrance. Help me complete the collection: http://lucid24.org/sted/5niv/5niv3/index.html What I have so far: AN 5.78 5 future dangers AN 5.193 saṅgārava: similes of looking at reflection in bowl of water, 3. Sloth-torpor like water with moss and aquatic plants AN 7.46 seeing suffering in impermanence AN 7.61 Pacalāyana: Buddha advises Moggallana with 7 ways to cope: You should have 7 memorized and recite daily. MN 62 mudita to counter listlessness MN 70 let only my skin and bones remain... : using vigor to counteract sloth MN 131 today the effort must be made...: using maraṇa-s-sati 💀 SN 46.51 Nourishment and starving of Sloth and Torpor SN 46.53 balancing 7sb☀️ factors SN 46.55 simile of water covered with moss Let's restrict the discussion to EBT (early buddhist text, pali, chinese agama, sanskrit, etc.) for now. I'll open up a thread later for Non EBT strategies to deal with sloth later. Suttas with similes of the 5 hindrances AN 3.101 simile of 3 levels of gold impurities preventing samadhi and 6ab ⚡☸. 5niv are the 2nd level moderate impurities. AN 5.23 simile of gold impurities (instead of 'nivarana' calls 5niv 'cittassa upakkilesā') preventing samadhi and 6ab ⚡☸. Also uses keywords from j4🌕 āneñja⚡. AN 5.51 simile of river split into 5. DN 2 similes 1. in debt, 2. ill, 3. imprisoned, 4. slave, 5. crossing desert MN 140 references goldsmith removing impurities, similar to AN 3.101 and AN 3.102, but doesn't call out 5 elements of 5niv by names. SN 46.33 5 impurities of gold (copper, tin, silver...) make gold (samadhi mind) brittle and unworkable. SN 46.55 similes for not seeing one's reflection in bowl of water: 1. water is colored with dyes, 2. heated by fire, boiling and bubbling, 3. overgrown with moss, 4. stirred by the wind, 5. murky, muddy

As early as Mahasamghika schools of Buddhism there was a view that there are countless Buddhas in the ten directions, that all Buddha's have one body (dharmakaya), and that they are just manifestations (nirmanakaya). The last part says how Buddhas, including Gautama, didnt and dont actually ever get hungry, or eat, or got dirty, or defecate, or struggle to achieve enlightenment, or grow old and die, but that all that is for show, a part of teaching people. Are all Buddhas like this, just like some 'holograms' that Dharmakaya projects in various world to teach people? If that is the case, that seems to imply that we cant actually become Buddhas, because the Buddhas are just manifestations. I know the stories in some Sutras about how some humans aeons ago made vows to become a Buddha and now they are a Bodhisattva (such as Avalokitesvara) or a Buddha (such Amitabha), but if that is also all just for show, skillful means to teach people, it seems there are no examples of actual people becoming a Bodhisattva or Buddha..? Whats going on there?

I quoted below, the words of Ven. Dhammavuddho, who stated that, according to SN 55.5, to attain stream entry, one must have focused attention (yoniso manasikara) when listening to the true Dhamma from true men (ariyans) and contemplating on it. After that, they must practise the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. They can have focused attention, only if the five hindrances stop habitually obsessing their minds. Two types of persons pass this criteria - one who has attained the first jhana and one who is highly intelligent (has high IQ). Both can concentrate their minds effectively. My questions are: - Is the role of IQ as stated above, found in the suttas? (reference request) - How could not-so-intelligent persons compensate for their lack of IQ, if they want to understand the Dhamma and attain stream entry? In the YouTube video entitled "Characteristics of a Sotapanna ", Ven. Dhammavuddho Mahathera stated (with some paraphrasing): > Now we look at another Sutta - SN 55.5 . ... It is mentioned that there are > four factors or conditions for stream entry - sotapattiyangani. First, > association with true men - sappurisa. Second, hearing the true > Dhamma (Saddhamma). Third, focused attention or proper attention (yoniso manasikara). And fourth, > practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma - > Dhammanudhammapatipatti. > > The first one is association with true men. The word sappurisa also > means ariyans - those who understand the true Dhamma. Because they > understand the true Dhamma, you can hear the true Dhamma from them. > > The second condition - What is the true Dhamma? ... if it agrees with > the Buddha's words in the Suttas, then it is the true Dhamma. .... > > The third condition, this word - yoniso manasikara, which I translate > as focused attention. Sometimes they say careful attention. This word > means that when you listen to the Dhamma, you are focused on listening > to the Dhamma. In other words, at that time, you don't have the five > hindrances. If that is so, then you can understand the Dhamma and > attain stream entry. > > So who are the people who do not have the five hindrances? In the > suttas, it is stated by the Buddha that as long as a person has not > attained piti and sukha which are secluded from unwholesome states, > which are secluded from sensual pleasures, the five hindrances will > obsess him and obsess him habitually. > > So, there are two types of persons who do not have the five > hindrances. The first is the one who has attained the first jhana > (i.e. he who has attained piti and sukha). When a person has attained > the first jhana, he has eliminated the five hindrances and the Buddha > says that the five hindrances no longer obsess that person habitually. > > So there are two conditions if a person has the hindrances. Firstly, > it obsesses your mind, it enslaves your mind. Secondly, it is > habitual, it is very often there. ... When a person attains the first > jhana, these hindrances reduce to a very low level. ... > > **The other type of person who does not have the five hindrances habitually obsessing his mind is an intelligent person - the person > with a high IQ. Normally, a person born with a high IQ, he has good > concentration and that was obtained from previous lives.** A very good > example is Albert Einstein. ... (some example of Albert Einstein) ... > It shows that he had great concentration. So, people who are > intelligent, they are able to focus their mind. That is very > important. A scatter-brained person cannot be an intelligent person - > the mind is so scattered. > > These are the two types of persons. One, because of previous lives, > he's born very intelligent - he can focus his mind. The second person > is one who has attained the jhanas. > > The fourth condition - practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the > Dhamma. So he keeps practising the Dhamma and he will attain stream > entry. Now this fourth condition may not be necessary for some people. > We find in the suttas - many people when they listen to the Buddha, > speaking the Dhamma, even for the first time, they attain stream > entry. The Buddha confirms this. But some people after they have > listened, it doesn't click immediately. They go back and they think > about it and then it clicks. And then they understand the Dhamma and > attain stream entry. > > So this practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma is after > he has listened, he starts to recall the Dhamma or investigate more of > the Dhamma. And then after some time, then the pieces fall into place > like a jigsaw puzzle. And then he sees the Dhamma.

Say some (silver, non-governmental) Buddhist themed coinage wanted to be made, what would be some signs/symbols (other than the Buddha in human(like) form) to include, as well as some concise and fundamental teachings? Links, especially to images, are appreciated. I was thinking: he who sees the Dhamma sees me, he who sees me sees the Dhamma; do good, don't do evil, purify the mind; and the Ashoka pillar edicts. (Also, please modify or correct any of the aforementioned as they are from memory and may be faulty and/or improved upon)

I am not very experienced with Buddhism, but I do think I have read several suttas teaching that it is not good to hold on to views, and that the Buddha doesn't teach what the universe is like, but rather about the mind. I think this makes sense, since I experience that any clinging, even the mildest one to a view, causes discomfort. Still, I see so many Buddhists cling on to views like rebirth or karma: Many Buddhists that I know make it an important part of their lives, and I see many analyses about Buddhism describing it as central to the belief. Is this just the natural human desire for certainty putting forward these views, or are there any teachings that actually promote it? If so, what arguments do they use? (I am not precisely asking for the psychological factors behind this clinging, but rather the ground; the teachings, that are behind it) I am asking for teachings that imply that these views (rebirth, karma etc.) are important and that it therefore is skillful to hold on to these views.

MN 137 discusses the six sense fields. How can we understand lay equanimity with respect to the six sense fields? For sights, lay equanimity arises for an uneducated ordinary layperson but such equanimity does not transcend the sight, and that's why it's called lay equanimity - says the sutta. What does that mean? What is an example of lay equanimity? > And in this context what are the six kinds of lay equanimity? When > seeing a sight with the eye, equanimity arises for the uneducated > ordinary person—a foolish ordinary person who has not overcome their > limitations and the results of deeds, and is blind to the drawbacks. > Such equanimity does not transcend the sight. That’s why it’s called > lay equanimity. When hearing a sound with the ear … When smelling an > odor with the nose … When tasting a flavor with the tongue … When > feeling a touch with the body … When knowing a thought with the mind, > equanimity arises for the uneducated ordinary person—a foolish > ordinary person who has not overcome their limitations and the results > of deeds, and is blind to the drawbacks. Such equanimity does not > transcend the thought. That’s why it’s called lay equanimity. These > are the six kinds of lay equanimity. > MN 137

I see some teachers express 'namarupam' as 'mentality & materiality' and want to hear what you have to say on this matter.

**What unwholesome sankharas can be created from too much focus on dhamma concepts, reading and intellectual pursuits, and practice?** **What kind of results do those sankharas produce?** **What blockades are created?** **What are the common associative thinking patterns and behaviours that emerge out of persistent preoccupation with dhamma concepts?** In the Mahayana tradition, Japanese Zen Master Hakuin, has this to say: > “People see it as if it is far away. What a pity! They are like a man > who, standing in water, complains of thirst” In the Theravada tradition, they have a similar outlook, gesturing their practitioners to not become fixated on the signs and features of their perceptions, which should include dhamma concepts. Although helpful at the outset, a hindrance may develop, and this is Theravada's recognition of that hindrance alongside many others. In my own understanding, I have this to say about it: > The Plateau of Diminishing Returns > >It is only when all effort has been exhausted that the seeker lays down their ordinance and armaments amounting to their spiritual techniques, their religious paraphernalia, and their pride. This might happen to be rather elongated and messy affair, but never mind. From here onwards, one becomes strikingly honest with oneself and receives absolutely nothing in return.

Where can i find the collection of these stories about Buddha past lives? Any book or video about this stories especially stream-enterer in series or probably some before this stage. One life before i found was a king. Source

I'm trying to clarify something I believe I heard a while back. I think I heard the monk instruct the lay person to say "Bhikku Sanghassa Demi" which I believe was later translated as "I give this to the community of monks" Is this correct?

My brain is constantly raising, I’m always thinking about new stuff. Does that affect my meditation?

I'm under the impresion that Samsara is the natural state of things in this Universe, every being just "recycles" itself on and on, at the laws of randomness and karma. Eventually, beings figured a way out, and by gaining such control and power, could now model and reshape the flow of Samsara, therefore creating a force of spiritual evolution (spinning the wheel). So the wheel of Dharma was arficial, but at such scale and ingrained in the very fabric of the Universe that it could pass as a force of nature. The only difference is that it must be "kept spinning" by illuminated beings. Is my reading correct?

In [MN 22](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html) in the end of the simile of the raft the Buddha says that the arahant has relinquished both what is skillful and what is unskilful: > "Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go (pahātabbā) even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." Why is then the Buddha described in [MN 88:17](https://suttacentral.net/mn88/en/suddhaso) like so: > "The Tathāgatha great king has abandoned all unwholesome states and possesses (samannāgata) wholesome states"

This seems to be a very baffling Sutta passage where he describes a seemingly contradictory state where one is in a special Samadhi beyond neither perception nor non perception but is still percipient. What is this Samadhi attainment called? [AN 10.7](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.007.than.html) > Then Ven. Ananda went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "Friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?" "Yes, friend Ananda, he could..." "But how, friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?" "Once, friend Ananda, when I was staying right here in Savatthi in the Blind Man's Grove, I reached concentration in such a way that I was neither percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet I was still percipient." "But what, friend Sariputta, were you percipient of at that time?" "'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me, friend Ananda, as another perception ceased. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one flame arises as another flame ceases, even so, 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me as another one ceased. I was percipient at that time of 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding.'"

Right concentration supports wisdom(panna) if right mindfulness arises? If right mindfulness isn't there then does right concentration support ignorance?

According to this answer : > 31 Planes of existence coming together is one universe. There are > infinite similar universes according to the Abhidhamma. This may be > similar to multiverse but unlike in Sci Fi there are no duplicates of > beings and duplication of events as per my understanding. Generally > rebirth is within the universe but there are times beings can be > reborn in intergalactic space / hell which are the coldest places > every. Such being may end up in other universes. The universe we live > in is a lucky place since it is here a Buddha appears. So only the > lucky beings inhabit this universe through there are infinite such > being in the universe. There are infinite being in each universe. The > cycles of creation and destruction in each universe may not be the > same as in such universes may not be habitable. Generally I would > believe even with psychic powers you may not know the bounds of the > universe of see beyond this universe. Perhaps only The Buddha and a > few of the great disciples may have managed to do this. Can anyone expand on this, or simplify it?

Can you develop Samadhi (concentration) and Pañña (wisdom) exclusively from one another (according to the suttas)? I am under the impression that a meditator cannot develop one without developing the other.