In the [Lokavipatti Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html) the 8 worldly dharmas are pleasure, pain, fame, disgrace, blame, praise, and gain, and loss. The Buddha also says the noble ones experience all of those but don't rebel against the loss etc. and don't welcome the praise etc. In the [Sallatha Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html) , the Buddha says that noble ones experience physical pain but don't follow it with mental pain. This leads me to wonder: if noble ones don't have mental pain following physical pain, it would seem they don't experience loss, blame, and disgrace as mental pain either. But how do they experience it? Is it a physical pain? In psychology they say that a broken heart over a loss literally hurts the heart, i.e. those freakish cases where a person dies of grief when their wife dies. Does a noble one then feel physical pain when they are blamed, disgraced, hurt, or at a loss? Or perhaps everyone does but often run-of-the-mill people only notice the subsequent mental pain, whereas a noble one only feels the first half with no mental pain at all.

I am looking at [Heaven of the 33](https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Heaven_of_the_Thirty-Three) , where it says: > second heaven of the desire realm, situated on the summit of Mount Meru and presided over by thirty-three gods of whom Indra is the chief. Looking it up on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%C4%81yastri%E1%B9%83%C5%9Ba) , we get a list of more gods. I have had spiritual experiences, and have thought a lot about the structure of the universe (from a scientific and spiritual perspective). But never have I gotten into so much detail as to say "out of heaven, there is a second heaven divided into 33 realms, where the gods of x realm regularly battle with the gods of y realm". That would be so much detail, like figuring out that the brain really is divided into X number of functions (visual processing, reason, auditory processing, language, etc.), which took decades of research (or, one could say, hundreds or even thousands of years of thinking). It would be even harder than that, you would either have to reason "well, if perfection exists, then different types of perfection would exist, namely at least 33 perfections, where the whole system of perfections is controlled by a force which has XYZ features, etc..". And delineate crazy amounts of detail. Not only would you have to mentally be able to delineate it, you probably first would have to also deeply experience it in a soul-resonating sort of way! You would have to experience the reality of these heavens, then mentally break it down, then convert it into speech. So how did they do this? How did they arrive at such detail (the 33 heavens in this specific case, or even generally speaking)?

I remember the 1st book I read on Buddhism was about 'dharma' and that this has a few meanings, including, at least 'teaching' and 'element' (I suppose both of these are English glosses). > (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) The natural order of the universe; > natural law, cosmic order. > (Buddhism) The teachings of the Buddha as a practice to > be promulgated and taught. These are different senses: teaching / reality. Would you say that the teachings explain the elements? By "explain" I mean show how they are caused. ---------- Follow up question (I'm posting enough!) is whether *either* the teachings are about something real, *or* what they are about the elements in the present.

I consider the profession unwise and harmful to all. But I'm looking for a compelling argument against it. PS. Maybe "compelling" is too strong a word.

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?

Is "no arising" a thing or just something we may be taught? If it's a teaching only, I guess it's used to show that something else is not the case (showing e.g. that series do end). If it's a dharma in the other sense, then does it exist relative to things arising, so that something arises whenever another thing fails to (showing that series do not end)? More generally speaking, can we fully conceive of the mark of arising without 'no arising', and / or vice versa?

I just learned of the [Abhidharma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidharma) . What was their original or early language they were written in, and do they exist online in copy/pastable (non-PDF or image) format anywhere for free? Is [this](https://pitaka.lk/books/abhidharmaye-mulika-karunu/index.html#2) of any use? So far people have listed some Theravada Abhidhamma links. What about the other schools of Abhidharma? Sarvastivada is supposed to be the only other school that has preserved a complete set of Abhidhamma, also with 7 books like Theravada. What languages are the original Sarvasitvada Ab. available in? And are there English translations?

Is the conventional self "conventional" in the same way as dharmas are? So if the conventionality of dharmas means that they arise and disappear each moment, or that they don't exist from their own side, or that they leave no trace of themselves, or that they always have parts (etc., etc.) does the same apply to the conventional self? I understand that both lack "substance": but does that mean the same thing here? **I'm interested in anyone having said "no".**

What does the one taste of the dharmadhatu really mean? I know no language beside this English, and would be interested in any philosophical, literary, or religious answer on what "taste" means there, so I can best grasp what is being said.

For the last couple of years there has been growing research on so called compassion fatigue among social workers/therapists/social workers, and their likes. In short, compassion fatigue can be described as exhaustion and/or vicarious traumatization in different forms of healthcare/emotional labor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue) . My question is - if and how - one can understand these phenomena based on buddhist dharma? As far as i understand there is no mentioning of these types of specific phenomena in the suttas. A few personal hypotheses is that compassion fatigue is the result of one or more of these factors: - an imbalance between the five indriyas/faculties and the five pancabalani/strengths, leading to - akusala padhana/unwholesome effort. - upadana, grasping for being overtly supportive at the expense of own health, or clinging to a self-view as a tireless helper. I realize this may seem counter to popular buddhist notions such as the brahmaviharas, for instance. I still can't help but wonder if this can explain compassion fatigue, or if there are other alternative interpretations based on a buddhist framework? (This is a sutta reference request)

*(English is not my mother tongue, sorry in advance if I make mistakes)* I recently read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's writings [](https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/Ebooks/SelvesAndNot-self_181215.pdf) [](https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/NotSelfRevisited171126.pdf) on anatta and although I found his arguments persuasive I am still conflicted. I invite you to read them at least in part before reacting as they are rich in arguments and answers to the first objections that might come to mind. Nevertheless, I quote TB's summary of his thesis and the objections he encountered: > These reflections were sparked recently by reading a critique of an article I wrote in 1993, called “The Not-self Strategy.” The thesis of that article (available in the essay collection Noble & True)—which I revised in 2013 both to tighten and to expand the presentation—was that the Buddha intended his teaching on not-self (anattā), not as an answer to the metaphysical/ontological question, “Is there a self?” but as a strategy for cutting through clinging to the five aggregates and so to put an end to suffering. The main argument I presented in support of this thesis in both versions of the article was that the one time the Buddha was asked point-blank, “Is there a self?”… “Is there no self?” he remained silent (SN 44.10). Similarly, in MN 2, he stated that such questions as “Do I exist?” “Do I not exist?” and “What am I?” are not worthy of attention because they lead to conclusions that fetter a person in a “thicket of views” and a “fetter of views,” including the views that “I have a self” and “I have no self.” In other words, any attempt to answer these questions constituted a side road away from the path of right practice. > > The critique—“Anattā as Strategy and Ontology,” written by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi—was brought to my attention just over a month ago, even though it has apparently been around for some time. It takes issue both with the thesis and with the argument of my article, but in doing so it displays the scholarly bias mentioned above: that the practice of the Buddha’s teachings is primarily a process of leading the meditator to give full assent to the accuracy of those teachings as a description of reality, and that this assent is what frees the mind from suffering. Because this bias is not only the bias of the critique, but of so much thought in the Buddhist world, I thought it might be useful to explore how both the thesis of the critique and the arguments used in support of that thesis display this bias, so that it can be recognized for what it is not only in this case but also in other Buddhist writings. I came across [this page](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/bodhi-vs-hanissaro-debate/7348) where Buddhists are debating the view of TB in opposition to Bhikkhu Bodhi's response. In particular, I found [this answer](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/bodhi-vs-hanissaro-debate/7348/89) interesting. I'd like to hear your views on the arguments on both sides. Anatta: only a strategy for realization or a real "ontological" position? Among the [trilakkhanas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence) , anatta is really the one I have the most trouble with. I can't understand it. And the more I learn about it, the more I realize that Buddhists don't seem to understand it either, given all the disagreements on the subject. Even within Theravada, many ajahn of the Thai Forest Tradition seem to reintroduce a form of self by talking about the ["mind that does not disappear, immutable and indestructible reality"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Forest_Tradition#Original_mind) (which clearly resembles the Hindu [atman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)) / [purusha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha)) . Ajahn Maha Bua, considered by his peers to be an arhat, stated that he ["observes the essential enduring truth of the sentient being as constituted of the indestructible reality of the citta (heart/mind), which is characterized by the attribute of Awareness or Knowingness. This citta, which is intrinsically bright, clear, and Aware, gets superficially tangled up in samsara but ultimately cannot be destroyed by any samsaric phenomenon."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajahn_Maha_Bua#Some_basic_teachings_on_the_ 'Citta'). In the Mahayana it's even more obvious, we could talk about [tathāgatagarbha, buddhadhātu,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature) [dharmakāya,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakāya) [dharmadhatu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmadhatu#Definition) ... Absolutely all these concepts seem to me to be reinsertions through the window of the self thrown out the door. They all affirm, in one form or another, an ultimate reality, which they call "awareness" or "mind", a state of bliss… wich literally corresponds to the [Hindu definition of the supreme self.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda) Yet the Buddha seems to speak explicitly of this state and describe it as just a step towards the summit: > Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of earth and the perception of the dimension of infinite space—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness. (…) > > https://suttacentral.net/mn121/en/sujato Even vacuity (sūnyatā) does not seem to be the destination, [the infinite nothingness being only a penultimate stage of the jhanas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhyāna_in_Buddhism#The_arupas) . What should we think about all this? At the end of the day, it seems to me that the subject can be summed up in one question: It is often said that the Buddha would have affirmed that all phenomena are without self: sabbe dhamma anatta Then the question arises as to whether Nibbana is a phenomenon (dhamma) or not. If this is not the case, [as some people maintain](https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/sabbe-dhamma-anatta-did-the-buddha-really-teach-that-there-is-no-self/) , it is logical to consider that the supreme reality, being neither impermanent nor dukkha, does not possess the third seal of the no(t)-self either, and to start talking about this supreme mind, awareness, etc., which is not a dhamma, but a permanent and blissful source of all impermanent and unsatisfactory phenomena - by the way, *how better to define the phenomenon than as what appears in consciousness*? -; in this case, the border with the Hindu atman-brahman becomes extremely thin, not to say non-existent. If, on the contrary, Nibbana is also a phenomenon (dhamma), having no self, the difference with Hindu thought remains but then, what about the other two seals of all phenomena: anicca and dukkha? How to apply them to Nibbana? Maybe, like dukkha and anicca, anatta must be abandoned once the destination is reached.

I am unable to understand different meanings of words dhamma, dharma, atta, anatta... Does dhamma means as "path" or "truth" or "teaching" as in Ariyapariyesana Sutta or as "phenomenon" or as "things ? Is dhamma and dharma same? Does atta means 'self' or 'soul' or 'ego' or 'eternal-self' or something else? I have read anatta meaning as 'not-self', does this means as 'not-I' or 'not-me' or 'not-mine' or something else? It is because I have read it's use as different meanings...confusing. What could be the correct translation of "Sabbe dhammā anattā."?

I have been practising dharma and meditation now for more than 2 years and i feel a good progress within me. Does these 2 tools dharma and meditation alone can take us through to different levels of consciousness ?

Buddhists talk about abstract and concrete things, particulars, parts and wholes, etc., and Theravada Buddhism is often I think thought of in terms of an analysis of parts, breaking things down into smaller components and the Buddhist 'dharma'. But do they talk about "insides" at all? I'm asking because surely everything with a beginning has an inside, but death, which must occur and so begin, can't have an inside in at least some senses, at least supposing that there is no after-life.

I am struggling to understand the difference between two of the four pairs of the mundane/worldy concerns , namely between seeking praise and seeking honour/fame. They seem to me not to have much of a difference, consisting both of seeking the admiration and valuing of others. I'll be grateful for any explanation!

As per title. I read the English translation of the heart sutra recently.If Karma is part of the Dharma, or is the Dharma, does this mean that Karma is not created or destroyed, and it neither decreases or increase, according to the heart sutra?

I am examining ways of going further on my dharma road. At this point i am entirely self taught, for better and worse. I strongly believe that from here, some form of guidance from a more experienced teacher could help. Preferably face to face if possible. Does anyone know if there is someone committed to teaching in west sweden? Also, is there a sangha (anywhere in the world, really) that formalizes dharma teaching in some form of curriculum? I think a more structured approach could help my western mind learn dharma.

Like the man in the matrix. Whats his name? Played by Keanu Reeves. Im wondering if its better to keep with the illusion? Non illusion is a lonely place> Isnt there something positive to it? Hope of a soul?

The Buddha or the scriptures do not state specifically if an individual being a transgender is right or wrong. So how would a Buddhist interpret this in a modern light and why?

I believe that the word 'dharma' (among other things) refers to the constituent elements of a body and mind, and that the Buddhist should find those dharmas void of a person, and perhaps any substantial quality whatsoever. How is dharma formed? "Form" is one of the skandhas, what a body-and-mind (I believe 'nama-rupa' in the sanskrit word for that?) has contact with in order to generate the rest of us. Is there a Buddhist philosopher who talks or debates, perhaps at length, and ideally grounded in sutras, about how dharmas depend upon form? I suspect there's a major / basic teaching on this, just wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything, when i research this question, which I find interesting because the contemporary world seems to make its ideas out of "form".