Maybe i misread this but i read again now that in buddhist view life span will become shorter and shorter until 10 year life span did i misunderstand somehthing ? it seems that the lifespan is getting bigger and not shorter

What is the main basic difference between Hinduism and Buddhism regarding Life after death ?

Is worry about life, body health, e.g. householding, status-maintaining, obstacles for Arahataphala? Is this in accordance with what the Teacher taught? And why is such an obstacle? Would one believing no former, no next life (deny rebirth), not hold either strong on kaya (Sakkaya), worry about life and health, or falls into ideas of "abounding life will be Nibbana, end of suffering"?

Very often when I meditate, or in everyday life, there are times when I get bored. I don't have to do anything. And often I go on YouTube to get busy. It is the same in meditation, very quickly I get bored, I feel the time passing and it becomes heavy. How do you manage all this?

Where can i find the collection of these stories about Buddha past lives? Any book or video about this stories especially stream-enterer in series or probably some before this stage. One life before i found was a king. Source

What is the best thing in life, according to a Buddha, excluding nirvana? I have no idea. As a goal, things to fill your life with. And why?

As asked in the question, what are the characteristics by which a thing is classified as 'living being' or 'non-living' ? How is a lifeform defined in Buddhism, I mean, like how humans consider themselves as living beings due to various facts such as: their experience in this world due to consciousness, their actions (kamma), etc. If lifeform is defined as something that has consciousness and capable of producing kamma, what things are concious? Is a plant a living being/conscious? Is a **stone** living being/conscious? Is the universe conscious? Is everything a lifeform in some way? Is rebirth possible only as a lifeform? (I mean, by rebirth, just a transfer of consciousness/experience subject to different conditions. Please correct me if I'm wrong) Can our next rebirth be as a stone/whatever, other than the 5 predefined possibilities (human, god, ghost, animal, hell) in Buddhism? I'd be glad if all the questions are addressed :)

I wonder if 'Consciousness' is many "Facets Of One Entity" and that in itself all things from Good to Bad are part of this entity, and from this the Entity is itself playful, and that all actions (karma's) are created by itself? Otherwise, are we in purgatory held by another consciousness? Could liberation be the realisation of this?

How does one let go of something the other person involved won't acknowledge? I don't mean the niceties of the other person's behaviour, the ins and outs and whys. Merely, that the other person - I think - nihilistically won't finish up. So e.g. your lover leaves you without even leaving a note. Or your friend pretends not to know you, with no explanation. Or your family changes the locks and won't answer the door when you visit.

In the west, when we talk about wisdom we tend to mean knowing the value of things. As far as I tell, prajna is about emptiness, at least in its perfected aspect. So does it also allow us knowledge of what is valuable, or is that something that the path is founded on - good karma nd liberation from suffering - so that really all the sages have very little to say about it?

Before I started studying Buddhism I had desire for life and desires for more in life. That eventually led me to inevitable and immense suffering and eventually to Buddhism. Now as I practise Buddhism and as I study sutta and all I understand that rebirth is something we need to avoid by practising dhamma. We have to end this cycle of Life and Death and eventually suffering. Buddhism is a soteriological practise and philosophy which guides us out of samsara. Also lot of Buddhist suttas mention suffering as inherent and innate. Now this has led me to other end of thought spectrum of **aversion** towards life. As I learnt and understood '**craving for non existance'** is also a craving and should be avoided. But how can one think otherwise. Its either I want life or I dont want life and undertake an arduous journey towards Nirvana. How can one not feel aversion towards life if one desires and practises towards Nirvana. My question is how do I think or train mind to not have either desire or aversion towards life?

My question tag is similar to this one but I am asking a different question. I am reading DN15 the mahanidana sutta where the Buddha says; > Suppose there were totally and utterly no rebirth for anyone anywhere. > That is, there were no rebirth of sentient beings into their various > realms—of gods, fairies, spirits, creatures, humans, quadrupeds, > birds, or reptiles, each into their own realm. When there’s no rebirth > at all, with the cessation of rebirth, would old age and death still > be found? > "No, sir.” “That’s why this is the cause, source, origin, and > condition of old age and death, namely rebirth. ‘Continued existence > is a condition for rebirth’—that’s what I said. And this is a way to > understand how this is so. Suppose there were totally and utterly no > continued existence for anyone anywhere. That is, continued existence > in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, or the formless > realm. When there’s no continued existence at all, with the cessation > of continued existence, would rebirth still be found?” “No, sir.” Suppose in a hypothetical scenario in which all sentient beings which the Buddha mentions attain Nirvana and there is no rebirth here on planet Earth, wouldn't life as we know it vanish (Except for the trees)? If there is no life, there is no Dhamma and no Buddhism. In that case wouldn't lifeforms emerge and evolve all over again on Earth or on some other habitable planet as they came to being in present form and all cycle of samsara and suffering and birth of Buddha all over again leading to absurdity of the whole endevour? In that case wouldnt Buddhism be an effort to finish the sentient life and act against lifeforce as it is an effort to finish rebirth?

Where did Lord Buddha say to Ananda Thero that a Buddha can, if there is an invitation, extend His lifespan? Was this mentioned in a Sutta or somewhere else?

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.

Is there is anything existing in the past,present or future which is not a phenomena ? Is it correct to say that all phenomena must be impermanent? If yes then how we know this?

*(English is not my mother tongue, sorry in advance if I make mistakes)* I am currently reading a philosophical book that I stumbled upon by chance, a unique work by a young (23yo) Italian of the early 20th century, after what he killed himself: *Persuasion and Rhetoric* by Carlo Michelstaedter. I don't know if anyone here has read it? I hope so, because I may not be the clearest. At first I must confess that I didn't understand it at all, but as I progressed through the book I began to see what he was talking about: I haven't finished his book yet, but I can already tell - it's amazing. There's so much to say, I'll try to keep it synthetic. This book had been sold to me as "the most depressive philosophical book (that my interlocutor had read)". I'm not disappointed, I got my money's worth. But in fact, its analysis is incredibly deeper than that. Let me be clear: the more I read it, the more I am struck by his observation: his whole book seems to me to be about dukkha. It's really incredible, I'm pretty sure he's never heard of Buddhism and yet his whole book is a wonderful analysis of dukkah, this cosmic suffering-unsatisfaction hidden in the hollow of all phenomena, like a cursed mark on (conventional) life. He analyses both dukkha caused by boundless desire, dukkha caused by the impermanence of all things, and dukkha caused by conditioning itself. This is wonderful. I would like to quote entire passages from the book to show you that a Buddhist monk could approve everything. My point is that he committed suicide after this book. And when you read it you can understand why, it's even almost logical: he didn't know Buddhism and therefore the radical teaching of Buddha: certainly dukkha exists and is everywhere, but it is not absolute; a way out is possible (nirvana). Except that Carlo didn't know this way out, and when one realized only dukkha, what's the point of living? The problem is that I recently read a very good article (PS 5) in the blog 'Politically Incorrect Dharma' about the difficulty of reaching enlightenment: in this day and age, in fact, hardly anyone achieves nirvana. Therefore, even if we can believe the testimonies of the historical enlightened about the existence of a way out (nirvana), when the chances are infinitesimal that we reach it, for us, it is as if there is no way out. From that point on, how can we not be depressed when we have (at least partially) realized dukkha? I'm not talking about a purely intellectual understanding, but a real beginning of realisation. How not to end up like Carlo, or completely depressed at the very least? ​ PS 1: At the risk of repeating myself, I have chosen only one part of the book's topics here, apart from the absence of solution (nirvana) because of his ignorance of Buddhism, his whole book sounds deeply Buddhist to me, as it delivers a brilliant and profound analysis of impermanence, desire (tanha), conditioning, life, phenomena and suffering-dissatisfaction. ​ PS 2: >“Are you persuaded of what you do or not? Do you need something to happen or not in order to do what you do? Do you need the correlations to coincide always, because the end is never in what you do, even if what you do is vast and distant but is always in your continuation? Do you say you are persuaded of what you do, no matter what? Yes? Then I tell you: tomorrow you will certainly be dead. It doesn't matter? Are you thinking about fame? About your family? But your memory dies with you,with you your family is dead. Are you thinking about your ideals? You want to make a will? You want a headstone? But tomorrow those too are dead, dead. All men die with you. Your death is an unwavering comet. Do you turn to god? There is no god, god dies with you. The kingdom of heaven crumbles with you, tomorrow you are dead, dead. Tomorrow everything is finished—your body, family, friends, country, what you’re doing now, what you might do in the future, the good, the bad, the true, the false, your ideas, your little part, god and his kingdom, paradise, hell, everything, everything, everything. Tomorrow everything is over—in twenty four hours is death. > >Well, then the god of today is no longer yesterday’s, no longer the country, the good, the bad, friends, or family. You want to eat? No, you cannot. The taste of food is no longer the same; honey is bitter, milk is sour, meat nauseating, and the odor, the odor sickens you: it reeks of the dead. You want a woman to comfort you in your last moments? No, worse: it is dead flesh. You want to enjoy the sun, air, light, sky? Enjoy?! The sun is a rotten orange, the light extinguished, the air suffocating. The sky is a low, oppressive arc. . . .No, everything is closed and dark now. But the sun shines, the air is pure, everything is like before, and yet you speak like a man buried alive, describing his tomb. And persuasion? You are not even persuaded of the sunlight; you cannot move a finger, cannot remain standing. The god who kept you standing,made your day clear and your food sweet, gave you family, country, paradise—he betrays you now and abandons you because the thread of your philopsychia (love of life) is broken. > >The meaning of things, the taste of the world, is only for continuation’s sake. Being born is nothing but wanting to go on on: men live in order to live, in order not to die. Their persuasion is the fear of death. Being born is nothing but fearing death, so that, if death becomes certain in a certain future, they are already dead in the present. All that they do and say with fixed persuasion, a clear purpose, and evident reason is nothing but fear of death– ‘indeed, believing one is wise without being wise is nothing but fearing death.” ​ PS 3: >“Likewise, however little man, in living, demands as just to himself, his duty toward justice remains infinite. The right to live cannot be paid by finite labour, only by infinite activity. > >Because you participate in the violence of all things, all of this violence is part of your debt to justice. All of your activity must go toward eradicating this: to give everything and demand nothing; this is the duty—where duties and rights may be, I do not know.” ​ PS 4 (>Xbox): >“I know I want and do not have what I want. A weight hangs suspended from a hook; being suspended, it suffers because it cannot fall: it cannot get off the hook, for insofar as it is weight it suspends, and as long as it suspends it depends. > >\[...\] > >Its life is this want of life. If it no longer wanted but were finished, perfect, if it possessed its own self, it would have ended its existence. At that point, as its own impediment to possessing life, the weight would not depend on what is external as much as on its own self, in that it is not given the means to be satisfied. The weight can never be persuaded. > >Nor is any life ever satisfied to live in any present, for insofar as it is life it continues, and it continues into the future to the degree that it lacks life. If it were to possess itself completely here and now and be in want of nothing—if it awaited nothing in the future—it would not continue: it would cease to be life. > >So many things attract us in the future, but in vain do we want to possess them in the present.” ​ PS 5: [http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-ive-almost-stopped-meditating-part\_15.html](http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-ive-almost-stopped-meditating-part_15.html) **Edit:** *I just learned that Evola was a reader of Michelstaedter, that he wanted also to kill himself at 23, and that he changed his mind after reading the Pali Canon. Amazing. My hunch didn't come out of nowhere!*

Can one person's karma be affected by the karma of another person or other persons?

for example, when he was being tempted by Mara, he said "the Earth bears witness." how do we know this? he was clearly alone, right? no one was there witnessing this to write about it. did Buddha just tell it to everyone later? not just that, there are so many instances in his story where he was clearly alone. no one else could've known about those moments to write about them.

The following video got me thinking: [Machiavelli’s Advice For Nice Guys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQlnmWCPgA) Machiavelli believes that being kind and compassionate is good, but one often needs to learn to be harsh and ruthless in order to survive so that good may triumph. The best example would be the Axis Powers during World War 2 - if the Allies had been nice, they'd have been no match for the Axis Powers for their sheer ruthlessness. On a smaller scale in everyday life, it's the nicer, more helpful people who are constantly taken advantage of. So this raises a dilemma. Continue being gentle and compassionate with loving kindness, and get eaten. Or react harshly when necessary and risk darkening ourselves. Or, is there a proper middle path? Yet, Buddhism has survived 2500 years and even flourished at a time where war and cruelty were rampant. So there must be something there, and it bugs the heck out of me.

Siddarth promised Alara Kalama & uddaka rāmaputta that if he ever finds the way, he will come and tell them ? Is it true that buddha saw them being born in a Universe, where there was not physical body, but only mind ? And in Buddha's way one must have a physical human body.