In particular, does Buddhism think that rebirth is a solution to a human need, or is it a mechanic to how the universe works? And is rebirth a type of regeneration? In my interpretation of Buddhism, rebirth is the means by which pain does not last forever, because according to type theory, pain should be eternal.

My first exposure to Buddhism was watching [Seven Years in Tibet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years_in_Tibet_%281997_film%29) in my German childhood. Most memorable were the following two scenes of Buddhist monks in orange robes. In the one scene, some monks were carefully making a large picture out of coloured sand in a room with large windows. Upon completion (after one year of labour), the monks would simply open the window to let the wind carry the picture away. In the other scene, monks were very carefully turning soil. Apparently the monks had to be especially careful not to harm any earthworms, because, according to their belief, **their mothers would be reincarnated as earthworms**. Needless to say, I found it very arbitrary at best that _mothers_ should be reincarnated as _earthworms_ and was troubled by this first impressions for the next decade or so. Unfortunately, I still haven't been able to solve this mystery. So my question is, as it has been for many years, is there any connection between _mothers_ and _earthworms_ in Buddhism?

Can anyone share or tell: where can I find a summary explaining those ancient Indian philosophies of those non-Buddhist schools that had debated with Buddhist, especially Nalanda, masters? For example, those philosophies of those opponents in Indian Buddhism Śāstras (i.e. treaties). I ask because I am studying some texts on and also pondering on the tenets system/theory of Indian Buddhism, and I would like to be rigorous in understanding what non-Buddhist philosophies are refuted grounding in reasoning by Indian Buddhism (Nalanda) masters.

I am one of the (Taiwanese) fans of the Dalai Lama for a long time. Currently I am studying the subject "the four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets (of mainly Indian Buddhism before its decline)" both in Chinese (but actually translations from Tibetan) and in English, wishing to learn and to grow like the Dalai Lama. "The four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets" are standardly named: **Vaibhashika** (Skt. **Vaibhāṣika**), **Sautrantika** (Skt. **Sautrāntika**), **Chittamatra** (Skt. **Cittamātra**), **Madhyamika** (Skt. **Mādhyamika**). I am having the following questions and looking for guidance and/or instruction. 1. What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most easily-learnable or learner-friendly? 2. What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most rigorously- and detailedly- and thoroughly- written? 3. What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most faithful and accurate and precise presentation(s) of real historical facts? Thank you in advance.

Are these two words synonymous? Is everything that exists, real? Is everything real, an existent? What is a proper relationship between the words "real" and "exists" in the context of Buddhist doctrine? What is a proper definition of "real" and of "exists" in the context of Buddhist doctrine? Are dreams real? Do they exist? Are illusions real? Do they exist? Are chairs real? Do they exist? Are persons real? Do they exist? Is the son of a barren woman real? Do they exist? Is there anything that is real, but does not exist? What do we *really* mean when we say something is real? Pun intended.

Are there any body who achieved Nibbana currently (in the current world). If so give one or two names, please.

Among the many schools and traditions, what core teachings are shared by all Buddhists?

*(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've been learning about Dharma traditions for a while now. In short: I am attracted by the figure of Siddhartha Gautama and by the fact that Buddhism is not based on faith in the scriptures (nastika). I am completely convinced by his speech on dukkha. Besides that, I'm not convinced at all by the anatman. I believe in the atman, I am convinced by the vision of the advaita védanta, and I love the simplicity of Patanjali's Ashtanga Yoga and its 8 clear and defined steps to the Absolute (Samadhi). All this being said, which path to take? Which one would be the closest to my position? I was told the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna?

Would you characterize belief in rebirth as a central component of Buddhism? Are there Buddhists who do not believe in it? How is this concept understood, i.e., what does rebirth mean (in as much detail as possible) to a Buddhist?

The difference between Theravada and Zen may be like night and day. I favour Zen over Chinese Mahayana because I don't quite prefer the Pure Land beliefs. Hence, I want to compare these two. I already know that in Theravada, one seeks Nirvana and it is sufficient to become a Arahant which is already difficult enough to attain. However, in Mahayana, one aspires to go in the path of the Bodhisattva. However, philosophically and doctrinally, what are the major differences between Theravada and Zen? Please elaborate. For e.g. Zen has Buddha Nature and Emptiness which do not feature in Theravada. Compassion also features more strongly in Zen than Theravada. Zen also has Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth? On the other hand, Theravada strongly emphasizes the Four Noble Truths, Three Marks of Existence, dependent origination and the Noble Eightfold Path. I'm not sure how important these Theravada doctrines are to the Zen tradition. How do these differences in philosophy shape the differences in mindset and world views between the two? For example, are Zen Buddhists more compassionate towards the suffering of others, while Theravadins are more detached from, and thus more apathetic towards the suffering of others? Another example: Are Zen Buddhists more in touch with their emotions in terms of compassion and appreciation of the Buddha Nature and Emptiness in nature and in the world around them, compared to Theravadins who may want to be detached from their emotions? The philosophical and doctrinal differences may also influence differences in terms of practice. Any examples of this?

I suppose that there is (are) differences between the *tilakkhana* (anicca; dukkha and anatta) and the so-called *three dhamma-seals* (anicca; anatta and nibbana). Can anyone help me?

If a human being consists of two parts as mind and body, is it then possible to live without mind? Appreciate your ideas.

You may get to see someone or an animal is sick and suffering in pain. You may be able to give that person or animal a medicine that helps relieve the pain somewhat. But sometimes there’s so much pain that it goes beyond the reach of any morphine, any opium, any painkiller at all. At such moments what would be your thoughts? Being well informed of the Dhamma, you know in the back of your mind that it is our responsibility for what we are. We were the ones who chose to be born here. It was because of our desires and our cravings that we took birth as human beings or animals for that matter. When you’re responsible for your birth, then you also have to be responsible for how you handle your aging, illness, and death. They all come as part of the same package. So how could you be of help to self and the other in such a situation?

What is the difference between kilesas and asavas? Or are they synonyms?

About the doctrine of the 31 realms of existence. I have a few questions, because science, especially the theory of evolution, makes a good argument for categorizing humans **as animals**. 1. Is this list of 31 realms *static* or can single realms vanish? Because due to science we know that this earth won't last forever. This would mean, that there are no animals or humans anymore, unless a similar species lives on another planet somewhere in this universe (which is very, very, very unlikely if you consider the set of condition it took of several billion years to evolve humans). 2. The theory of evolution proofs, that humans have evolved from animals and just use different techniques for surviving as every other species as well. So knowing that there was a time of transition, where there only existed primordial human beings, how could you at that time say if it was a human or an animal? How can you cross that line between one species (humans) and every other one? Because it is sure, that in the next few 100.000 years humans will have evolved to a totally different species according to the conditions in the environment. So how should you understand this classification of beings. Is it just a provisional and time-dependent concept? Or is it only related to the degree of suffering, which predominate each realm? I know on this topic are already many questions. But none of these related to this particular question. So please don't tag as duplicate.

Understanding of 'Anatta' is key to so much Buddhist meditation practice and philosophy that I've been exposed to but (call me conservative) I gain great confidence when the Buddha himself had something direct to say about the term / concept. There seems to be common consensus that 'anatta' means there is no abiding self / Self. Christopher Titmuss in his list of what the Buddha did not teach says: > **No-Self.** The Buddha remained in noble silence when asked whether there was a self or no self. He simply stated that body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, including thoughts, and consciousness were not oneself and did not belong to self. he taught not self as vehicle for liberation from misperception. Anatta literally means ‘not-self’; if the buddha had meant ‘no self’ he would have said ‘na-atta’. What the Buddha did not teach Having studied Avaita Vedanta for some years, I recognise Buddha's early approach as pure self-inquiry i.e. recognising that the self is not in any of the skandhas, that we normally identify with, which leads to directly to the real Self. Is it true that there no support in Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas for the commonly held doctrine? I feel this is an important question as this view has implications for the commonly held view that Buddhism is humanist, nihilistic, compatible with atheism, secular etc., when the Buddha himself held no such position.

After attaining Nirvana, what happens to the person(conscious) after death? Does the person cease to exist? If not, does the person go to some peaceful place?

If I understand it correctly, Nirvana is the liberation from the endless cycle of rebirth, thereby terminating all sufferings. Is Nirvana a goal which every Buddhist must achieve? Is there any other things more important than attaining Nirvana?

This is a question formed from an anecdotal experience, if this means that it is unsuitable for this format, I have no problem with it being removed. Specifically, after seeing the news about a mass shooter, shooting out of jealousy; I felt a temporarily release from any jealousy I had myself. Can this be actual insight according to Theravada sources?