I’ve been reading quite a bit about both Pyrrhonism (from ancient Greek philosophy, particularly Sextus Empiricus) and Madhyamaka Buddhism (especially Nāgārjuna’s teachings), and I’m curious about how deeply their approaches to knowledge, doubt, and emptiness might align. Here are some specific points I’d like clarification on: - Both traditions seem to question the possibility of arriving at certain knowledge. Do Madhyamaka philosophers use skeptical methods purely as a strategy, or do they endorse a form of suspension of belief like Pyrrhonists? - In Pyrrhonism, the goal is ataraxia (tranquility) that arises from suspending judgment. Is this comparable to the nirvana that results from realizing śūnyatā (emptiness)? - Do Madhyamakas arrive at any “ultimate” view, or is even that view deconstructed like any other? - Are there any Buddhist responses to skepticism that help clarify the boundaries between constructive doubt and nihilism? ----------

Is wanting to do something = desire ? Doesn't enlightened people want to do anything ? They just react to whatever comes ? ( "react" may not be a suitable word). A related question that I hope to ask in Buddhism SE: How a enlightened monk differs from a enlightened lay person ? As I know: 1. Monks have intention to teach dhamma to others. 2. Monks can live more than 7 days. The first one have some relation to this question.

What is the difference between domanassa & dukkha? Does domanassa arise in enlightened beings? Does bodily dukkha arise in enlightened beings?

In commenting a post , I have just been introduced to the *"two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other" Sutta*. The comments have just been moved to chat and I hope it would be kept for awhile since I notice most chats are just rubbish bins to collect "hazardous" information in this forum and later deleted. From Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288 it has this verse: > ...譬如：**三**蘆立於空地，展轉相依而得豎立，若去其一，二亦不立；若去其二，一亦不立，展轉相依而得豎立。**識** 緣名色，亦復如是，展轉相依而得生長。 > *Translation* > ...For example, **three** reeds standing on the floor, they > relying on each other so are able to stand up. If one is removed, the > other two cannot stand; if removed two, one also cannot stand. [Only] > by relying on each other they are able to stand up. **Consciousness** > correlating to name-form, is also the same, [they] relying on each > other then are able to develop. *~ Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288* > > >Remark: Chinese 識 has multiple meanings, depends on the context of the text, it either just refers to consciousness - the faculty of cognizing, or the total of mind However, Pali Sutta Nalakalapiyo Sutta : Sheaves of Reeds reads: > "Suppose there were **two** bundles of reeds leaning up against each other. In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. If the first of those bundles of reeds were to be pulled away, the other would collapse. And if the other were to be pulled away, the first would collapse. In the same way, when name and form cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease.” *~ SN 12.67* The Chinese Agama said **three** reeds can lean againist each other, but the Pali Nalakalapiyo said **two** reeds can lean against each other. My questions are: 1. Are these two Sutra/Sutta equivalent but different versions?1 2. If they are equivalent Sutra/Sutta, which is more reliable? Or, more accurate? 3. They obviously have marked disagreement - can three reeds leaning against each others to stand up, or two reeds? I welcome non-dogmatic, non-sectarian answers, and thanks in advance. Reminder, this is a professional academic comparison, please appeal to logic, reasons and facts. That would be much appreciated. ---------- Footnote: 1. From my knowledge, Chinese Samyutta Agama has two versions, one is from Ceylon (Sri Lanka). But also from my knowledge, there wasn't any script of Pali Canon being brought back from Ceylon to China by the ancient Chinese Buddhist pilgrims in the Chinese Tripitaka. 1.1 Just excuse me rumbling, the Chinese pilgrims took scripts from other sects in Ceylon, not the Mahavihara sect - called Theravada today, who kept the Pali Canon.

A lay person who becomes an Arahant must become a monk or they will die? Can anyone explain what this teaching means? Do they have to become a **Buddhist** Monk? Can they just leave the world and become a hermit? Could it be appropriate to just die and enter parinibbana?

Buddha said Sariputra "_My Sila is the best/incomparable_". But people at the time of Buddha donated flowers, perfumes and jewelries to Buddha (Need citations in Pali Canon and Pitaka). The monk/num's Sila are 227 and more and monks do not allowed to get/use flowers, perfumes and jewelries, etc. How the Sila of Buddha was superior to monks' Sila whilst the latter seems more restricted than the former? Is there any more facts that I was missing to know about Sammasam Buddha's Sila?