While reading through the Buddhist suttas, I came across the detailed descriptions of the eight emancipations. These passages were deeply intriguing, but they also gave rise to some questions in my mind which I decided to ask before which let me cite the concerned passages - > “Ānanda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight? > > “**Possessed of form, one sees forms.** This is the first > emancipation. > > “**Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally.** > This is the second emancipation. > > “**One is intent only on the beautiful.** This is the third > emancipation. > > “**With the complete transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, > with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding > perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ one > enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space**. This > is the fourth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.** This is > the fifth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of nothingness.** This is the sixth > emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception.** This is the seventh emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation > of perception and feeling.** This is the eighth emancipation. > > “**Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward > order, in reverse order, in forward and reverse order**, when he > attains them and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he > wants, and for as long as he wants, when through the ending of > effluents he enters and remains in the effluent-free release of > awareness and release of discernment, having directly known it and > realized it for himself in the here and now, **he is said to be a monk > released in both ways. And as for another release in both ways, higher > or more sublime than this, there is none.”** ~ DN 15 Questions- 1. Why is “nothingness” (6th) distinguished from “neither perception nor non-perception” (7th), given that both involve retreating from mental activity? Or from the 8th which involves total cessation of perception and feeling? 2. What kind of experience is “neither perception nor non-perception”? Is it a liminal state — and if so, how does one know they have entered it? Can a mind in this state be said to ‘experience’ anything at all? 3. In discussions with scholars from eternalist backgrounds, such as vedanta a common challenge raised is that the Buddhist teachings on the eight emancipations seem to imply the existence of a continuous or eternal subject since someone appears to be progressing through these subtle states of consciousness. If there is no eternal soul or self in Buddhism, then who is it that experiences and moves through these emancipations? How would a Buddhist respond to this objection? 4. What is the significance of being able to enter and exit these states at will, as emphasized in the sutta? 5. Is the progression through these states ultimately teaching that liberation is not something to be gained, but everything to be let go including perception, feeling, identity, and knowing?

“liberated both ways” can you tell me what does it mean? I will find the discourse later

Where does it say jhanas are necessary (or not) to realize the four supramundane paths (stream-entry, etc)?

Is it possible for a person to gain liberation while simultaneously practicing unskillful means? Is it possible for a person to understand profound universal truths while simultaneously practicing unskillful means? Are skillful means in accordance with profound universal truths? Are profound universal truths in accordance with skillful means? An example of a skillful means is acknowledging the conventional truth of rebirth in cyclic existence. An example of a profound universal truth is that the Buddha was not to be regarded as a real and genuine fact as was taught to Anurādha. An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma. An example of a profound universal falsify is to understand the Buddha as a real and genuine fact. Another example of a profound universal falsity is to believe like Yamaka that, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.” Various traditions divide the above conventions into a dichotomy. The labels that are used and the understanding of that dichotomy is different from tradition to tradition. In Theravada, I have seen the dichotomy variously described as right views of two types including, without vs with effluents, definitive vs interpretable, supramundane vs mundane, and in commentarial literature ultimate vs conventional. In Mahayana, the dichotomy is labeled in similar ways but also absolute/ultimate/universal vs conventional/relative/dependent.

And even more, that we should embrace it and accept it (while at the same time avoiding the sufferings) ?

According to Buddhist teachings, is it possible to continue to reborn and suffer for all eternity? Suppose if a being never attained any merit, never was able to work through its old karma. Would it be possible for that being to never escape suffering? I have heard some people say: > No, nobody can be reborn and suffer forever. For an extremely long time, maybe, but not *forever.* I mean, *forever* is really an astounding concept. Even if you take billions of trillions of gazillions of births it's still *nothing* compared to *forever*. If it's *not* possible to be reborn forever, then it implies that all beings are eventually destined for Enlightenment. Some may have an insanely long way to go, but if they're not gonna be reborn forever, then they have to *eventually* attain Enlightenment? **Do some beings continue to be reborn and suffer forever, or are all beings destined to attain Enlightenment *eventually*?** I prefer answers that give sources and all that. But some nice reasoning is also welcome.

Does Theravada Buddhism encourages animal release? Would it be conflicting if one is under the branch Theravada Buddhism but perform animal release?

If Tanha (Craving) is caused by Avidya (Ignorance), and Avidya is originated and sustained by Tanha, then the origination of Avidya is part of a recursive cycle with no beginning. Yet Prajna (Wisdom) (as delivered through the Dharma) is purported to extinguish Avidya (Nirodha - Cessation). How can something with no beginning (cycle of dependent origination) have an end (Nirodha)? And likewise how can a state with no end (Nirvana) have a beginning (Nirodha)? Are Avidya and Nirvana therefore Nicca (Permanent and Unconditioned) or Anicca (Impermanent and Conditioned)? Put another away, if Prajna is Nicca, how could it give way to the origination and sustenance of Avidya in the first place? If Prajna is Anicca and has a beginning, then how can we say that Nirvana (which requires Prajna) is Nicca?

After years of abandoning Buddhism and becoming an agnostic, I somehow finally experienced/felt the Four Noble Truths yesterday, or at least the truth of the first three. Then the same thing happened with anatta. What followed was mostly a relief. Then a sense of calmness, concentration, clarity and energy. But there was an ego struggle. I was scared, that I am giving up, who I am. That I won't care so deeply about things, that used to matter to me anymore. Right now I can kind of feel this... f.e. when I am listening to the music right now, I no longer consider it a part of my identity, nor do I connect so deeply with it in a sense, that its sadness nor joy resonate with my ego. The thing is, I liked being attached to it, I used to be an obsessive person - hobbies, people, music, ideas, beauty, art... Everything. Today, I feel basically the same way, both a relief and a little fear, even though my ego fear is weaker. So, I suppose, this is not a 100% realization of anatta. Is it possible to go fully back to my old attachments? :D Or is it possible to live somewhere in between? Btw, yesterday it also occured to me, that samsara and bhavacakra are just metaphors for person's psychological development both throughout life and day... Similar with karma. (I remain agnostic regarding taking them literally. Just like with anything else, like God.). I somehow feel like I will still be me. But without attaching to everything including my identity. Does that make sense? It is also radically different from a discomfort of depersonalisation, that I had a chance to briefly experience in my life. Still a little scared though. Thanks for reading this.

How can we evaluate which description of nirvana is accurate? Also what problems does King Millinda point out about nirvana in his 80th dilemma?

It is very typical to live life with self realism behavior and aware every time with our daily routine. When i sit and think about my past life i just found, there was a time which has been gone and never will come back, things has been happening and passing from our eyes, we are just going, going and keep continuing. I am just feeling sad about passing time, where am i going and where will i reach. We just follow daily routines as per humanity following. I want to know what should we our work, which could give us a full flicit and after following that way, there should not be any sadness and should be full of awareness.

This question mainly came up to my mind as I thought about how interconnected some concepts and practices of Buddhism are with other spiritual practices, such as meditation, and the concept of letting go. Was the Buddha ever questioned about something of this nature, and did he ever make this clear at any point in his teachings?

I may be a little off-mark here, but if I understand correctly there are two broad opinions on liberation. The first where a practitioner works towards her own liberation (the way of the Sravaka or Pratyek-Buddha) and the second where they work towards the liberation of all sentient being (the way of the Boddhisattva). Is there a middle way between these two? Perhaps surrendering a specific desire and to work towards removing one's defilements and allow liberation to come when it does and as many sentient beings be helped as possible.

Is there any relations between 3 deliverance, attha vimokkha and stages of enlightenment? During meditation (like anapanasati) , how does one *switch* to insight (into five aggregates) after gaining some concentration? > 1. the conditionless (or signless) liberation (animitta-v.), > > 2. the desireless liberation (apanihita-v.), > > 3. the emptiness (or void) liberation (suññatā-v. ). vimokkha