I have recently been looking into the systematic methods of mediation subjects taught in the Pa Auk tradition and wanted to know if the Thai Forest tradition has a similar systematic course of methods, or if the meditation practice is adapted depending on the student. I do know the tradition is a traditional teacher (preceptor) student relationship for anyone seriously thinking of taking ordination, from Angarika to full Bhikkhu. I cannot seem to find any information on any of the websites from the tradition on what definite meditation subjects are taught, in what order etc. Other than of course the websites having sources of teachings and I know the tradition is based upon the teachings of the Tipitaka. Compared to Pa Auk tradition which is based upon the Vissudhimagga. I suppose this is a question for anyone who studies with, lives within or has stayed as a guest for a certain amount of time within the monasteries within this tradition.

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)?

Bearing in mind that ignorance is in opposition to knowledge and the starting point for all the suffering, it seems still unbelievable that there were people contemporary to the Buddha that contradicted and refused his teaching. Considering that he was the culmination of human intellect and the embodiment of pure knowledge, how is it possible to be in such stubborn opposition with the truth?

Please see a breakdown of how one may approach the question... - 'Knowings' in this sense has not been influenced by external stimulus. One can know things about our environment using the six senses as a substrate between the seeming reality *out there* and the seeming mind *in here.* However, one can also have a knowing that occurs apparently separate from this process. - Intuition in the question here refers to an instinctual awareness that something is so but interestingly the intuition hasn't arisen through the conventional methods of learning; there has been no previous auto-suggestion. The knowing itself is the knowing of rebirth. It has been something I've steered well clear of but, suddenly, there was the clear knowing that rebirth is so. Thus the conflict occurs - if I have relied on my six senses all my life to know things, how could I know rebirth to be so? What on earth is 'Mind'??? Where is Mind'??? (Rhetorical questions but if you're feeling cognitively malleable then feel free to answer these also!)

> In the same way, my friend, purity in terms of virtue is simply for the sake of purity in terms of mind. Purity in terms of mind is simply for the sake of purity in terms of view. Purity in terms of view is simply for the sake of purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity. Purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision is simply for the sake of total Unbinding through lack of clinging. > [MN 24](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.024.than.html) Why is the purification of by overcoming doubt i.e purification leading to Stream Entry not already the doing the next two of the purifications subsequent to it? (excluding the purification leading to Nibāna without clinging). Why are those other two purifications needed before stream entry? Surely if one has purified any one of these three it would imply the the other two?

I have been discussing online whether there is a counterpart to the Greek idea of 'nous' (intellect) in the early Buddhist texts. The discussion was about discriminating between sensory experience and rational thought. I was arguing that there is a clear distinction between sensory and rational faculties in Greek philosophy. Then someone said, what about in Buddhism, where 'manas' is given as one of the six sense gates? Doesn't this mean that Buddhism equates manas and sensory faculties? I said, no, because there is the faculty that 'discerns the dharma' which is not a sensory faculty but discriminative wisdom. The word that came to mind was the Sanskrit 'viveka', for which I found the definition 'Sense of discrimination; wisdom; discrimination between the real and the unreal, between the self and the non-self, between the permanent and the impermanent; discriminative inquiry; right intuitive discrimination; ever present discrimination between the transient and the permanent.' However, I'm not aware of much discussion of this in the texts. I'm wondering if there's any discussion in abhidharma texts of this distinction and the faculty of discriminative wisdom?

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.

Buddha was omniscient and had knowledge over all materialistic things,then why did he need a personal physician?Also there are suttas which are to be recited for recovery from diseases which highlight the praises of Buddha,then why couldn't the Buddha and the Arahant Bhikkus protect themselves from the clutches of diseases?

Harari (2011) claims: > Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known. From my limited understanding of Buddhism, the above seems false of Buddhism. I was hoping an expert on Buddhism could give a more definite explanation as to whether the above statement has any truth. (Restrict attention to the bit about Buddhism.)

Is it a scientific error of the Buddha? > Sāriputta, there are these four kinds of reproduction. What four? Reproduction for creatures born from an egg, from a womb, **from moisture**, or spontaneously. > > And what is reproduction from an egg? There are beings who are born by breaking out of an eggshell. This is called reproduction from an egg. And what is reproduction from a womb? There are beings who are born by breaking out of the amniotic sac. This is called reproduction from a womb. **And what is reproduction from moisture? There are beings who are born in a rotten fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a cesspool or a sump.** This is called reproduction from moisture. And what is spontaneous reproduction? Gods, hell-beings, certain humans, and certain beings in the lower realms. This is called spontaneous reproduction. These are the four kinds of reproduction > > * MN 12 This idea was common in ancient times and was understandable because they had no way of understanding how maggots "appeared" on decomposing bodies, but we now know that it is false. If it is a scientific error of the Buddha, then how can we understand his omniscience? Couldn't he see with his supernatural eye that maggots weren't really born from the decomposition of bodies? His knowledge is supposed to encompass the whole cycle of rebirths, I find it hard to see how he could be wrong about the birth of a whole part of these animal beings.

What is the Pali/Sanskrit term(s) for 'intelligence'? Is there another word(s) in Pali/Sanskrit for 'wisdom'? I hear 'intellect', 'intelligence' and 'wisdom' used interchangeably, is this correct? What is the relationship between intelligence and wisdom in Buddhism? Are they really the same thing or can they be the same thing or what? :)

I heard "Nothing like anything" from many people. I think a lot over it and finally i got it like "Tyag se he mukti milte h" and i feel it with my self yes tyag se he mulki milte h but i could not get it remain with my self. Will you please give me a direction so that I could pertain it as remain and what is the the proper meaning of "nothing like anything" according to Buddism because I do not have much knowledge about Buddha teachings. Thanks in advance.

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 is the orthodox position or the sutta's position about the knowledge of reality itself, beyond any intervention of subjective factors? In science, when we find evidence that proves some hypothesis, we cannot say that we've found the truth behind the studied phenomenon. We can only say that, until this point, the hypothesis works and it's useful to explain that phenomenon, and that, until refuted, we can use that hypothesis as a provisional working hypothesis, which is subject to eventual modification. In sum, science help us to find the most useful ideas to use in our lives. Does this apply to Dhamma as well? Evidence, (no matter how much evidence, whether theoretical or experiencial) is not enough to posit that the truth has been reached without any posible future refutation. Let me ask this with an example: We can say that the khandhas are not the self, but does that imply that there is not self at all? How can we reach that conclusion without any doubts? Isn't better to simply say that we cannot know, and that it shouldn't matter at all? After all, if something is beyond the realm of experience, we shouldn't be able to say anything about it. EDIT: a few more details... Is Buddhism concerned with ontology (how and what thinfs are by themselves, and not only how we humans perceive them), epistemology (the possiblity of knowing things about reality itself, objectively) or pragmatism (to use whatever seem to work for some specific end)? Is it concerned with all of them, some of them, or none of them? Pragmatism, for example, doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, and technology and scientific progress seem to be evidence for that. The problem lies in assuming that this -unknown- degree of certainty is somehow the same as the truth (or the expression of all possible definition or information about a phenomenon). If we arrive to the truth, how could we know? Because of a certain X amount of evidence? How much evidence is indication of reaching the truth? Or in other words, is enlightenment enough and definitive proof of having reached the truth about reality itself? Does it even matter if it works? After all, some physicist, in the 19th century, thought that there only a few stuff left to be known about reality, because apparently, there was no important evidence to suggest or indicate that the current theories and hypothesis were wrong nor incomplete. Thanks for your time and patience! Kind regards!

We are all suffering. This knowledge results in compassion. Buddha was compassionate. And courageous too. My question is : Is there any aspect of knowledge which results in courage?

What is the Pali word for mundane knowledge

What is the difference between the 16 stage insight meditation vs. 10 stage insight meditation? What about 0 stages any teacher teach 0 nanas? What is the basis for "nanas" is the suttas?

If the Buddha said that ultimate reality is really non-self (anatman), or empty of inherent existence (sunya), then why did he bother to talk about human beings and other “provisional” things?

Quoted below is from, Kitagiri Sutta MN 70 > …There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a > teacher]. Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one > lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the > Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of > the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, The question is where it says “*one remember the Dhamma* ” does this mean that the person is recollecting from previous forgotten knowledge? To be specific does mindstream-continuum from previous life reaching the person been thought contain knowledge of the Dhamma albeit forgotten?

I like this verse, it is simply stated, and I like simple statements that can be made into something, or understood as, important. But I'm totally unsure how to make sense of its four (famous) components! I probably think that "emptiness" means no causation, the idea that conditioned (caused) things don't exist in **reality**: that any *supposed* knowledge about them is bound to be found out as a form of *ignorance*. So then I understand them as: - causation isn't real - this is real - we can study this - and we already are Is that an OK-ish understanding, or have I fallen into a trap? If it is, do all four of these teachings **permanently replace** our deluded conceptualisations?