Psychedelic substances such as psilocybin or LSD often induce experiences described as "ego death," where the usual sense of self dissolves and a feeling of unity or boundlessness arises. Some interpret these states as glimpses of spiritual truth, potentially similar to Buddhist insights into anattā (non-self) or śūnyatā (emptiness). From a Buddhist perspective, are these chemically induced experiences considered valid insights into the nature of self and reality, or are they fundamentally different from the realizations attained through traditional Buddhist practice? Are there teachings or commentaries that address the nature or value of such experiences?

Udāna 8.1 describes what appears to be a radically transcendent “dimension” — one beyond the elements, the formless attainments, and even beyond movement, time, and dualistic perception. It is characterized entirely by negation, culminating in the phrase: "just this is the end of stress/suffering."- > There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; > neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, > I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither > passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support > (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress. Have any advanced practitioners, past or present, claimed to have directly realized this dimension? If so: - How was the realization described? Was it marked by total cessation, a kind of knowing without content, or something altogether ineffable? - Was there awareness during the experience? Or did it resemble the cessation of perception and feeling (nirodha-samāpatti), with no consciousness during and only retrospective insight after? - How was the transition into and out of this dimension understood? Did it feel like a gradual absorption, a sudden drop, or a shift beyond all experience? - Did practitioners interpret it as a momentary event or as the uncovering of a timeless truth? In other words, is this dimension entered, or is it recognized as always already the case? - What changed after the experience? Were there shifts in perception, identity, or sense of reality that aligned with the description of “no coming, no going” and “no this world or another world”? ---------- I understand that language may fall short in describing such a realization, but I’m curious whether any teachings or testimonies exist that give practical or phenomenological insight into what this “dimension” might entail — and whether realization is framed as a momentary insight or an ongoing mode of liberation.

Clearly Asperger's/Autism is not something that exists independently on its own as an entity, but it is made up of component simple experiential phenomena. What is such a view on Asperger's? What are its building components? What is it at the most fundamental level, as seen from Buddhist persepective?\ Thanks

I recently did a two week mindfulness retreat (with focus on Primnordial Awareness) with beautiful conditions and I was grateful to have achieved a degree of concentration, which led to a few meditation experiences. I'm a little bit unclear about this one. Please may someone suggest either a text or a book to explain this please? What occurred: I used the gap between breaths to go into the groundless ground. Experienced it as vibrations. Saw multiple white circles of lights. Then Tibetan Tankha type shapes. Then had the circle of light at the centre of my forehead swivel (like it was a stage set). Had the sense that my vision was turning around to look inwards. Saw the shapes of my eyes and cavernous holes instead of my eyeballs. This lasted for 2 seconds. Then the phenomenon faded, and I felt a snake like spiral of energy go down from my third eye. Then it was back to 'normal'. If anyone has any explanations, or has had similar experiences, and knows what it means for my practice, I'd be v grateful. With metta.

How did Buddha fully understood the world and proclaimed it without the knowledge of all experiments of science? Was his knowledge about the properties and the behavior of matter limited? Thanks.

Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena? If not, when we talk about the suchness of phenomena we could mean what they are like, the qualitative experience of a taste e.g.. But if, conceptually, they are different, then no experience of taste amounts to its "true state" -- the meaning of suchness. I'm asking because I've seen it said that tathata *means* qualia. And, while I never agreed, I wasn't sure what's wrong with that. I suspect, today, that it's wrong because they are in fact opposites -- opposites that need to be harmonized

I find that a good number of believing Christians and Muslims think that Satan literally exists and is a very real actor in the real world. Is "Mara the Evil One, the Tempter" a rhetoric device in Buddhist tales -- a personification to enable the construction of a certain kind of parable? Or is "Mara" understood by contemporary Buddhists as an evil being who actually exists in the physical plane that we inhabit?

Do enlightened people "know" what nirvana is like? Obviously, they can't express it to anyone else, so the question isn't super helpful. I just wondered whether nirvana is a thing that we can know as well as experience or taste. One response, one I don't (personally) want to hear about (at least without some in depth quotation) is that nirvana isn't "like" anything. And, of course, nirvana isn't similar to anything. I'm asking whether Buddhas of any sort "know" the qualities (e.g. bliss) of nirvana.

What would be considered a religious experience in Buddhism in the same way,for example, Moses' experience with the burning bush of God? Would it be the Buddha's enlightenment itself or a bodhisattva's interaction with Buddha?

Many of us have been trying hard to understand the Dhamma which essentially teaches impermanence,unsatisfactoriness & **nonself**. Buddha famously did not give answer to Vacchagotta's direct question "Is there a self ?" However Buddha definitely said that "all phenomenon are **nonself**". Suppose I ask you : Do you experience presence of self now? What would be the honest reply?

Am I wrong or is "beginner's mind " a Zen term that means "seeing the experience you are aware of, moment by moment, as if you have never experienced concepts before... Like you have just been born with a mind that has not developed concepts yet and so you see things as they really are? Is "Beginner's Mind" equivalent to direct seeing or very related to direct seeing(or even clear comprehension)? Should insight meditators be "trying" to see this way, "trying" to see things as if the meditator was just born? ...OR... Does direct seeing develop when a beginner starts by watching meditation objects "imperfectly" with all the concepts of each meditation object mixed with what really is and then slowly through continuous practice the meditator will be able to understand what is concept and what is direct experience? If this is true then its not a matter of effort or trying to see direct reality but more about "discerning" what are concepts and what is the real object that is arising in experience by just seeing what the meditator sees. Maybe, I'm mistaken somewhere because it's not totally clear to me. EDIT: to sum it up, I'm trying to see if I have the right idea about "direct seeing" and "Beginner's Mind". Also, I'm generally asking if we put forth effort to experience directly or not. --Thank You & Metta ---------- Note: Beginner's Mind, or *Shoshin*, is a Chinese Buddhist term exported Japan, translated into English. The Chinese 初心 (pinyin: Chūxīn) is from Avatamsaka Sutra 《華嚴經》, describing the Bodhisattva when first making the Bodhisattva vow: > 三世一切諸如來　　靡不護念**初**發**心** > > All past, present and future Buddhas, none won't protect nor won't remember > those who first set motion this *heart [citta/mind]* (an usual > Classical Chinese grammar unusal for English, for *will protect and > remember*). > > 如菩薩**初心**　　不與後心俱 > > Like the Bodhisattva's **initial *heart*** (here it means the > willing/vowing determination to go the Bodhisattva Path) This initially may also include the meaning of an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject as brutally hacked off 80% of the rest of the meaning by Wikipedia *amateur experts*, further corrupted when hitch-hiking by book-writing Zen teachers such as wikipedia-ed Shunryū Suzuki. Of Import is, one shouldn't further corrupt this term with Theravadin's *Luminious Mind*. It will be very hazardous to the normal Buddhist student's learning, like smoke is hazardous to health. The excitement caused by nicotine is like the student excited by novelty, both are trading excitement with detrimental to health. Like the Law of Entropy in Physics, this freely hitch-hiking terms activities will further pollute the Dharma/Dhamma; also like Entropy, the end result is un-pure Dharma/Dhamma, or, chaos. > Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of > which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem > to many far-fetched, and may **repel beginners as obscure and > difficult of comprehension**. Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the > Thermodynamics of Fluids

My cousin just had a baby two months ago, a beautiful baby boy. The father is a catholic and my cousin, the mother, is a Buddhist. They have taken this two month old baby to a very sacred Buddhist temple to receive blessing from the relics of Buddha and to give alms. One of the chief monks blasted them both, threatening them that they'll never be given permission to give alms or enter the premises: because the baby is only 2 months old and apparently should not have been brought to a sacred place. Hearing this story made me so upset. On their way home they have visited a church where the reverend Father had welcomed them both and blessed the child. **I really want to do something about it but I just don't know what to do?** This should be fixed. This is not the way monks should behave in sacred places in the presence of the relics of Buddha.

When we see "a car' then there is the "seeing of the car formation" and that is mind or "nama". At the same time there is the rupa car formation that is not a concept from our mind. I always thought rupa was "the experience or hardness , softness, roughness ect.. but I guess this is wrong because rupa is it's own ultimate reality?

This might be a poor question, for which I apologize but I am trying to gain some insight on this idea I have had for a long time... It seems that paths and practices are taught to people with the intent that they have the same results that the teacher did by doing that. But the teacher might have come across the practice by accident, and the teaching is simply their experience, not a principle. When I read suttas, interviews, articles, different sects' explanations and so on, there is an almost infinite variety of statements and interpretations, and people seem to get lost in words. If a practice was really "true" absolutely, then there could be no difference of explanation or understanding, right? It certainly is not like Physics, where everyone would get the same results of a clear experiment. If a Teacher was so wise that they came up with the practice before they had used it, that would be a miracle indeed. Is it not the case that all that is taught about spiritual development is basically experiential? Even the Buddha had to learn by doing. We are just following what he said.

If one has recollection of memories that were experiences of pain be it physical, mental, emotional, how do these affect the path? Often memories are triggered involuntarily and more than often they surface when reflecting.

In Buddhism as I have been taught it, the mind is included as part of the six senses. So in contrast with the 'normal' five senses we have those five plus mind giving us six. However mind still feels different in some way to the other senses. Is there anywhere in the Buddhist texts where it is acknowledged that mind is in some way special or separate from the other senses. Or is that just an illusion and closer reflection would reveal that actually it is no more different to the others than hearing or vision.

I have found that if i do not share or understand the perspective of others, it is difficult to appreciate their point of view so that one is able to be the viewer as opposed to the actor. How does one experience the experience of others?

I have never been clear on the exact nature of rupa. Is rupa the experience of the physical, is rupa not experiential but instead it's what is in 3D space and is there whether or not it's being experienced(like how most people view material reality before practicing Dhamma) or can rupa be both experiential and not experiential(conceptual?) at the same time? We are supposed to see reality through our individual experience but it seems to me that rupa might not be an "experiential reality kind of teaching". Is rupa only about when we are experiencing "hardness","coldness","wetness" when we touch an ice cube or is rupa the "formation" of the ice cube or could Rupa just be the concept of the ice cube? How I interpreted the teachings on rupa told me rupa might be conceptual at times and ultimate at other times but really I don't know. -Thank You :)

I have on a few occasions come across the distinction between a 'hard' and 'soft' Jhana and would like to know what the experiential distinction between these two terms might be.