I have often seen the [Anguttara Nikaya 4.77](https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html) being quoted as in [this post](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49150/causes-of-specific-illnesses-death) against pondering on the precise workings of karma. **My question:** is there a misunderstanding of the Buddha’s words thus misconstruing his intentions. My understanding on the Buddha’s caution on karma (in AN 4.77) is that we should not try to figure out its exact/precise/detailed workings if 1) we don’t have the tools (i.e. divine eye faculty or recollection of past lives) and 2) we don’t have the discernment or wisdom to see anicca and anatta in the process. The danger is that we may draw the wrong conclusion as was the case with [certain mentioned recluse](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html#fnt-5) in Brahmajala sutta. But the Buddha did not prevent anyone from having a deep understanding of paticca-samuppada (dependent-arising or conditionality) which is the basis of karma. And through the insights on conditionality, have a deeper understanding of karma; why it works in general. I believe a deeper understanding of karma is within our abilities as ordinary humans as we have the ability to observe, recall and analyse conditions and events in our lives. For example, if I am staring at the ceiling at 2 a.m. in the morning, unable to sleep and I tried to recall what I did to cause this, I may then remember giving in to temptation and drinking a nice cup of coffee after dinner. So, there was an unskillful craving involving certain pleasure and a bad consequence. This is observing karma-in-action and anyone can do it. Incidentally, I have friends who claimed to be able to drink coffee or tea just before hitting the bed and still sleep like a log. One common theme is that they don’t experience the caffeine-high like I do. Although I always find it strange why people drink coffee if they don’t get any pleasures from it. Whether we talk about karma or the other four niyamas, conditionality is their foundation. Millions of scientists, researchers and engineers all over the world are working hard daily, trying to tease out the conditioned causes that govern the phenomena of the world we lived in, from climate change to superconductivity. They are trying to harness their understanding to improve the lot of humanity. We should also deepen our understanding of karma for our own long-lasting well-being and happiness. If one is not in samsara, they need not bother with the rule of the game i.e. karma. But what choice do we have? Surely, the Buddha understand this and would want us to have a better grasp of karma to improve our own lives. ### Addendum: ### *Suppose we assume the Buddha intended for us to investigate the workings of karma through proper verification by keen observation, analysis and even experimenting on ourselves and not by mere speculation. Furthermore, if we assume this is possible because not all karmic fruits are from our or others’ past lives, many are the results of this life. Would we be doing an injustice to the Buddha by quoting him out-of-context with AN 4.77? Also, wouldn’t discouraging investigations into the workings of karma be totally inconsistent with the entire teachings of the Buddha?* *If we postulate the above is correct, how can we quote AN 4.77 in the right context without giving the wrong impression that the Buddha discouraged investigating and understanding the workings of karma?*

What is the simplest way to think of and give expression to Dhamma for practical purposes for meditators? What exactly is Dukkha?

1. What is your view regarding svasaṃvedana? Do you accept or deny (the existence of) svasaṃvedana? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svasaṃvedana https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Svasaṃvedana 2. Can a Buddhist know whether or not he/she have really genuine and firm bodhicitta **by him-/her- self**? If yes, then how? (Does this question have to do with svasaṃvedana?)

I don't mean disrespect to anyone else with this question, I'm asking on my own behalf as someone with neurological & psychological problems caused by a brain injury at a young age. I know all brain injuries etc are different too, and I guess this question also relates to neurodivergent people. My injury affects my memory, ability to concentrate, intrusive thoughts, emotional stability, ability to hear, and also makes it much more difficult to hold good posture for any length of time (15 mins is the best I can do after practicing for years)- having (or not having) these things are required to meditate properly, right? **Can someone with normal intelligence, but whose brain is injured, practice meditation effectively?** Or will I hit a "glass ceiling" where my missing function limits my ability to progress? I've seen some benefits from meditation in the long term, but I worry that only someone with a healthy brain can meditate "properly". **Did Buddha say anything about practicing while disabled?** metta

As the core goal of Buddhism is to cease sufferings, any task that not relevant to it will be unawarely ignored, and any task that hindering it will be strongly rejected. Analysis/intellect can either be irrelevant to the goal (as in, don't forget that the finger is not the moon), or an obstacle that Buddhists have spent all their life to fight (as in, it's the source of proliferation). However, in some cases where analysis is necessary to remove an attachment, automatically rejecting intellect means (1) the attachment is not removed, and (2) they don't think they have attachment at all. Or as someone puts it, they seem to have [anti-thought bias](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/22195/13525) , and I think anything they say would be [thought-terminating clichés](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%c3%a9) at that point. How to fight this bias? How to make them realize that before you see the moon, as least you should have the finger? How to present them an analysis and they accept to read it as it is, rather than questioning anything irrelevant? Related: - [intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/23639/13525) - [I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31152/13525) - [How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31193/13525) - [How does philosophy not fall into the confirmation bias?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/60848/19487)

From [I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31152/13525) , I get that Buddhist goal is not only to get wisdom, but as a practice for "understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point." This explains why others miss my point. It is more of Daoism I think, in which sufferings are not meant to be cessated, but to be transformed into something more useful. It's like saying "hey, sufferings are fun. Please give me more". This attitude makes sufferings not sufferings anymore, although technically you are suffering. I think every Buddhist aware of the importance of intellect. Yet, when I especially ask for an analysis they still focus on the core goal, thus missing my point. For example, [this person](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/arl4jl/is_buddhism_about_cognitive_linguistics_and/egnx005/) stops replying after I explain the Daoist point. Another example is my very previous question. At first the titular question asked for "what to do" , but then *all* answers focused on the reason, forcing me to change the title to "why is that" (ChrisW's answer is an exception). (Nevertheless this has a good side, as it tells me that I am missing Buddhist points too.) There are two advantages if I can ask other Buddhists to do analysis with me: - My understanding can be refined, and my wrongs can be corrected - If the other person doesn't seem to understand the teachings properly, but dismiss any analysis because they misinterpret that Buddhism advocates to abandon reasoning completely, then this will be beneficial for them (cf. the snake sutta, the raft sutta) So, why does it hard to ask other Buddhists to do analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
FWIW, my though is said to be [interesting](https://www.reddit.com/r/EasternPhilosophy/comments/ar4qbj/are_eastern_philosophies_early_understanding_of/?st=jsc0k1oy&sh=5a22127d) if the readers are in analytic mode. Related: [Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/22195/13525)