By that I mean, an oak tree that doesn't have a sudden death from fire or being cut down or whatever, will for all intents and purposes live many years. Everyone who comes and visits the tree will see generally the same tree. Of course, the tree is never the "same" moment to moment, every atom is being swapped out and moving around, radiation is coming and going, branches and leaves fall off and regrow, etc.. But still, if I visit the tree today, and you visit it 1 year from now (in the middle of the tree's life), the tree is still "there" (even though it might be slightly different). Everyone who walks by will point "there is a tree over there". It's persistent across time and space, for some period. I understand that everything is technically an "illusion". We are all one unified flow of stuff, and the idea of a self or independence is an illusion in the grand scheme of things. But still, within the illusion, there are basically "natural physical laws of the universe" you could say. It's not like all of a sudden, "zap", the tree is an elephant when you visit. Then boom (magic wand), it is a car, then later it is a piece of cotton, or a sun, etc.. Or it magically jumps around in space. That is, there is some sort of structure somewhat independent of me that obeys some sort of rules to stay somewhat consistent in time and space. Even if my "mind" is projecting this experience or interpretation of such a tree illusion.... Everyone's mind is basically projecting a roughly similar illusion. I saw an example of a "river" from somewhere: > - A deva sees a river as a stream of gems. > - A human sees it as water. > - A hungry ghost sees it as a river of pus and blood. Sure, fine. But it's still at least perceived as a general "flow" by all. A continuous stream. It's not like it's a rock to some and an animal to others, and a river to everyone else. Or an explosion of rippling radiation or some other dispersed and hard to imagine network/system of many things.... It's still a flow, in time and space. Maybe to a fast-moving light-being, it is like a slow moving game of tetris, etc.. But it is still moving! If you account for the change in perspective, you have the same overall "flow" in the place. So my question is, at least in Yogācāra Buddhism (or other schools deeply analyzing consciousness to that degree), how do they account for this? My understanding so far is that, in Yogācāra, everything is mind. Everything is consciousness, from the base consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). So then my question becomes "how do you account for physical form then"? To which they respond (it seems) with, "it's a mental projection". Okay, sure, MY experience of a form is a mental projection in my own mind, but that doesn't change the fact that the form is persistent in time and space (like the tree!). How does Yogācāra account for that? But then my reading/understanding of Yogācāra perspective is basically that: > All appearances, including persistent physical forms like trees, are manifestations of consciousness (vijñapti-mātra) arising from causal seeds (bīja) stored in the storehouse consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). Basically, the tree is a co-constructed, stable illusion due to ongoing karmic resonance, not an independent material substance. Its form is projected within consciousness, but projected in accordance with karmic law, which behaves much like physical law. Something like that is very hard for me to comprehend, and feels circular in reasoning somehow. Is there a way to explain how physical forms seem to persist in time and space, from this sort of mind-only perspective here? _Looking further, it seems they would say "all sentient beings who perceive the tree are doing so because they have karmic seeds that generate similar experiences." But that doesn't make any sense to me, that the tree's reality is based on everyone else's reality. Or something like that. That everything is based on everything else, and if one thing changes all of a sudden, the entire universe could change it's fundamental laws. Doesn't seem to jive with me yet. Maybe I'm also reading it wrong._

I’m just curious if anyone has noticed what I am noticing. When I ejaculate, in that exact moment, there is a weird sensation in my head. This sensation is about half the duration of the orgasm, so about one second long. it feels like something is literally being drained from my head in that moment. Immediately, after this, I feel unclear and with slight brain fog - basically more delusion, I think. This brain fog takes about a day to get lifted. So I’m wondering what this is and is it just me or is there’s any mention of any energy related stuff in Buddhism related to it? Thanks for any answers.

Yesterday I saw in a funeral banner the following statement. > Rupam Jirati Machanam, Nama Gottam Najirathi It means, "the body decays but the Name and the Tribe does not". But I have concerns on this. The first part of the statement is valid but however the second part doesn't for me. If everything decays/dies then how is the name and tribe doesn't? For me this is clearly a misinterpretation and destroys the whole base of the Buddha's teachings. I also found this article on this topic as well: - The Common misinterpretations of a Pali Verse that states the body decays but the Name and the Tribe does not Is there any Tripitaka source to this statement? or anything similar? Where can I find it?

According to this answer : > 31 Planes of existence coming together is one universe. There are > infinite similar universes according to the Abhidhamma. This may be > similar to multiverse but unlike in Sci Fi there are no duplicates of > beings and duplication of events as per my understanding. Generally > rebirth is within the universe but there are times beings can be > reborn in intergalactic space / hell which are the coldest places > every. Such being may end up in other universes. The universe we live > in is a lucky place since it is here a Buddha appears. So only the > lucky beings inhabit this universe through there are infinite such > being in the universe. There are infinite being in each universe. The > cycles of creation and destruction in each universe may not be the > same as in such universes may not be habitable. Generally I would > believe even with psychic powers you may not know the bounds of the > universe of see beyond this universe. Perhaps only The Buddha and a > few of the great disciples may have managed to do this. Can anyone expand on this, or simplify it?

From a source which I don't remember any more (some rather scientific book on Buddhist philosophy) I have made a note, that the psyche in Buddhism is seen or can be seen (by certain schools?) as material. To clarify this point for me, I wonder what the general treatment of mind and matter in Buddhism is, whether they are generally seen as two distinct spheres, how they interact, etc.

How is the mind matter process described and explained according to the Buddhist teachings? How does it related to Cognitive Psychology? How is the next moment created from the current? What is the mechanism behind it? How does this process sustain its self? What are the variation with regard to this if any?

Ever since I was a child I was very look concious. I took pride from my looks and took shame from them as well. I'm at a point where my sense of worth is mainly derived from such an unstable, diminishing and limited resource and this inconsistency is causing me a lot of suffering. How to lose identification with my body?

Context: I'm considered a skeptic of rebirth in my tradition which is the Gelug branch of Tibetan Buddhism. I'm asking this question to help me understand what other traditions think. In my tradition it is believed that rebirth is a semi-obscure phenomena the truth of which can be fully known through reasoning alone. I have a hard time understanding how and do not find any line of reasoning I've heard to be particularly convincing. The strongest reasoning I've seen others in my tradition give for rebirth is that each instance of consciousness must have a substantial cause. And that brain/matter cannot be that substantial cause because brain and consciousness are fundamentally of two different natures. Therefore, each instance must have been proceeded by a previous instance as its substantial cause leading to an infinite regress/progress back/forward in time. Here is an excerpt from His Holiness the Dalai Lama's book - Kindness, Clarity and Insight - where he briefly summarizes this reasoning: > "... the nature of > the mind is mere luminosity and knowing. Mind is something that has > the capacity of appearing in the aspect of whatsoever object through > the force of the object’s casting its aspect to it and is an entity of > mere clarity and cognition, with a nature of experience. It > disintegrates moment by moment. However, among its many > causes—classified into substantial cause and cooperative conditions—it > must, as an entity of conscious experience, have as its substantial > cause an immediately preceding cause which is a former moment of consciousness. It is not > possible for an entity with the character of luminosity and knowing to > be produced from external material elements as its substantial cause. > Similarly, an internal mind cannot act as the substantial cause of > external elements. Since each moment of consciousness requires a > former moment of consciousness as its substantial cause, there is no > way but to posit that the basic continuum of mind is beginningless. > Some specific types of minds [such as desire for an automobile] have a > beginning and end, whereas other types [such as the ignorance > conceiving inherent existence] have, in terms of their continuum, no > beginning but an end. However, neither a beginning nor an end can be > posited to the mind of luminosity and knowing. Therefore, although > mind disintegrates moment by moment, its continuum is beginningless." > I believe this reasoning is basically equivalent to Chalmer's Hard Problem of Consciousness. To be clear, I think it is a hard problem for scientific reductionists who believe that consciousness can be reduced to physical matter and energy arranged in a specific way. On the other hand, it is also equivalent in a different formulation to another famously **hard** problem: Descarte's famous mind/body problem which assumes the dichotomy of mind/body above and then asks if these are of such fundamentally different natures, then *how* do they interact? It would seem that positing any mechanism of interaction would betray the original assumption: that they are so fundamentally different that one could never give rise to the other... that they could never *touch* if you will. Which leads to the question: what *is* the substantial cause of an instance of consciousness? 1. Mind 2. Matter 3. Both 4. Neither 5. Pineal gland did it! Would prefer answers with reasoning to help me understand.

What is the origination of the mind-stream continuum? What are the basic elements that make up the mind-stream continuum?

The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism By Bernard Faure p60 (I've not read this book) links it to linji ("the true man without affairs") Wiki says > In his later years Dōgen often severely criticized the Senika heresy > (sennigedo), which is the erroneous view that the mind abides while > the form perishes. According to this view, there is a bright spiritual > intelligence contained in our body that is the source of > self-understanding. When the body dies, the spiritual intelligence > alone does not perish but abides immutably. This view, Dōgen argues, > when "hearing of the doctrine of this very mind (itself is buddha), > takes it to mean that the discriminating knowledge of sentient beings > is itself the buddha" > > Dōgen (c. 1230-50) as cited in Masao Abe, Steven Heine (1992) A Study of Dōgen: His Philosophy and Religion. p. 158 > The Senika heresy here mentioned is a Buddhist believe in eternalism of the self. I'm interested, then, in whether it's only really a heresy in Soto Buddhism, and other traditions might find it useful. I think it may be a useful fiction, which is why I ask.

## Context ## First, let me frame my question by establishing a shared understanding of what I mean by "view." Throughout all forms of Buddhism as far as I know, the Four Noble Truths are considered essential Buddhadharma. Included in the 4th Truth is the Eightfold Path, which Bhikkhu Bodhi (in *Noble Eightfold Path*) describes as follows: >The eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are not steps to be followed in sequence, one after another. They can be more aptly described as components rather than as steps.... With a certain degree of progress all eight factors can be present simultaneously, each supporting the others. However, until that point is reached, some sequence in the unfolding of the path is inevitable. Right view has a very important role in that unfolding. One's very definition of "Noble" or "wisdom" reflects one's view, and in fact it seems that inquiry into and transformation of view is integral to how and where one travels as a sentient being. As Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in the same book: > Right view is the forerunner of the entire path, the guide for all the other factors. It enables us to understand our starting point, our destination, and the successive landmarks to pass as practice advances. To attempt to engage in the practice without a foundation of right view is to risk getting lost in the futility of undirected movement. Doing so might be compared to wanting to drive someplace without consulting a roadmap or listening to the suggestions of an experienced driver. One might get into the car and start to drive, but rather than approaching closer to one’s destination, one is more likely to move farther away from it. To arrive at the desired place one has to have some idea of its general direction and of the roads leading to it. Analogous considerations apply to the practice of the path, which takes place in a framework of understanding established by right view. Back in the full context of the Eightfold Path: among the three trainings, Right View and Right Intention make up the "training in the higher wisdom." This goes along with training in two other sets of Path elements. Bhikkhu Bodhi: > the moral discipline group [is] made up of right speech, right action, and right livelihood; [and] the concentration group [is] made up of right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration To give an example of the role of View from an Indo-Tibetan tradition, Sachen Kunga Nyingpo had a vision in which Manjushri taught : "If there is grasping, you do not have the View.” This same teaching includes 3 specific attachments to relinquish leading up to this: - If you are attached to this life, you are not a true spiritual practitioner. - If you are attached to samsara, you do not have renunciation. - If you are attached to your own self-interest, you have no bodhichitta. Therefore, as is true throughout the Indo-Tibetan traditions I've encountered, the Right View must include a perspective that looks across countless lifetimes as well as beyond samsara; and that takes consciousness as somehow more primary than the physical. The ontological assumptions behind both "matter" and "mind" can certainly be tested, but by framing this in terms of View I want to focus on how one's convictions about the relationship between the physical world and consciousness (whatever one's ontological stance about them) shapes the way one interprets and practices Dharma. Second, let me try to explicitly name my motivations in asking this question: I ask partly as someone born into an environment of unexamined scientific materialsm, who has found greater sanity and happiness extending beyond its bounds as I've inquired into my assumptions. I hope to uncover and test more such assumptions within myself by asking others about their views, and thereby to keep getting more sane and happy for the sake of my own good and that of all sentient beings. I also ask hoping to become more skillful when I encounter people who are both materialists and Buddhists. I've definitely gotten perturbed before (and probably will again) in reacting to materialist views that I consider unhelpful or already refuted. Beyond the afflictive emotion involved, it seems like such a critique on my part is "wrong speech" if it drives someone away from wanting to study and practice Buddhadharma. Given the interdependent and holistic nature of the Eightfold Path, how could wrong speech possibly help to advance right view or anything else? Further, given the immense range of skillful means employed by Buddhas in training beings, why should I assume that a materialist stance (especially given the dominant cultural assumptions of modern civilization) might not fall within one or more of these skillful means, at least as a provisional adaptation to social mores? With a more complete understanding, I can still speak my own truth but do so in more compassionate and constructive ways. ## Question ## Hoping I've now given enough context to avoid coming across as rude or provocative, I'll present my question: if as part of your view you find that what you call physical reality (e.g., "matter & energy") encompasses and underpins what you call mind (e.g., "the space of mental events that includes qualia, thoughts, images and feelings"), how do you: 1. Express this view in your own words; and 2. Carry this view (or not) into how you travel the Eightfold Path? In particular, what are its implications for how you train in ethical discipline and/or concentration?

“finding a place for the mind in a world that is fundamentally physical” —has been puzzled over for centuries, and is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. The reason is that apparently every possible solution has inadequacies. Anyone familiar with the philosophical literature is aware of all the problems with Cartesian substance dualism, reductive physicalism, eliminative materialism, behaviorism and functionalism, non-reductive physicalism and emergentism. One is tempted to agree with Colin McGinn that the cognitive apparatus of humans is intrinsically inadequate to the problem of explaining the relation between the mind and the brain. How something like consciousness can emerge from something like the brain seems totally inexplicable. What is the Buddhist explanation for Mind-Body problem?

Did the Buddha tell us anything about reaching the end of the cosmos or time-travel through the means of experiencing all the Jhanas in meditation?

Question in the title. I'm looking for answers citing either canonical scripture or the position of any particular school of Buddhism. The *inner monologue* in the question could also be read as mental chatter; mental noise; superfluous thoughts; extraneous thoughts; or the unnecessary thoughts that normal people have every moment. And I mean when the inner monologue has stopped for good; that is, the case when it never comes back. Another way to read this question might be, *Do arahants have an inner monologue?*

An argument why [a question "mind vs. matter"](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/33424/mind-vs-matter-what-lasts-longer) will not be given free points on: >That’s why, when it comes to this mind, an uneducated ordinary person is unable to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed. Given that certain "Buddhist" say that matter is more secure, lasting and higher, why do they at the same time not get disillusioned about the mind? Or what does the Buddha here say, when praising the abounding of the "more lasting" first: >But an uneducated ordinary person would be better off taking this body made up of the four primary elements to be their self, rather than the mind. Why is that? This body made up of the four primary elements **is seen** (perceived) to last for a year, or for two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or a hundred years, or even longer. May there be not-uninstucted and masters of Vipassana, who could enlighten the topic a little, for those who had abound "the longer lasting" already. *(Note that this pixles here will by far not last as long as your mental imprints beyound it, so be quick in penetrating)*

Does Viññāṇa generate Nāmarūpa in the sense that would make "uploading concsciousness" to a computer impossible? I was reading this question on philosophy.stack I'd suspect that it's impossible to *make sense* of momentary rebirth / causal continuity in terms of computer data. Wouldn't every Buddhist say that pots and trees are mental constructions, so that, even if granted concrete reality, as in the Sarvastavadin school, they don't exist from moment to moment? A chariot's axle, for them, does not generate visual consciousness, only colour and shape do that. And so the same for computers. But should the Buddhist claim it's not merely opaque but impossible, especially due to mind-body dualism? Does rebirth consciousness actually **form** the new body (and mind), in the 12 links of dependent origination? Because if it does, unless I've misunderstood 'consciousness', perhaps due to its coupling with 'rebirth', I don't see how anyone can claim that there is genuine continuity. As surely my consciousness does not **form** the physical body of a computer: it's already been designed etc..

I think this question is distinct from those asking what is reincarnated . I understand the distinction between the mindstream and a soul, and the *simile* of passing on a flame. I also understand that an association is made between a mindstream and human form, most often in the womb. What is it that makes and maintains this mental-physical association endure throughout a human lifetime? Why is there a tendency for the association to result in a first-person perspective/sense of self?

I recently went to a dhamma talk that I am skeptical of for a few reasons. One of the things we were told in this talk is that the mind always lies and the body never lies, which (in a mundane sense) doesn't line up with what I know. He specifically told us to go by how our body feels when asked for money by a panhandler. He said that if we feel bad physically when asked, we should not give money, but if we feel good physically, we should. (Part of the reason I am skeptical of this dhamma talk is that he said a bunch of really negative things about panhandlers here and about the idea of giving them money, which seems not based in Buddhist thought at all) Personally, I have had many times where I have been convinced I was suffocating during a panic attack. I have also read many studies where "gut feelings" - that is, physical feelings people interpret as guidance - are shown to perpetrate racist or other -ist biases in society. In a mundane sense, I am skeptical of the idea that bodily sensations are significantly more trustworthy than thoughts. My question here is if there is anything in the suttas (preferably the Pali canon, but I'm also interested in other sources) regarding this idea of trusting the physical sensations of the body as some great arbiter of truth. EDIT: Since someone mentioned not having more context, I'd like to make clear, we were not given much more context than I mentioned above. I'll do my best to explain what we were told exactly. This talk was specifically part of a once a week service for lay people who may not even identify or consider themselves Buddhist, and I do not believe the teacher expects that many of his audience even meditate outside of this once-a-week practice. The dhamma talk was centered on the Pāramitās and this discussion about the body was part of the part of the talk on generosity. The teacher briefly defined each term, and then spoke about them. For generosity, he said panhandling was an opportunity to practice generosity, which seems fair to me. Then he started talking about all the concerns he has had when approached by a panhandler- he spouted off a very very long list of negative beliefs or stereotypes about panhandlers, and then talked about how those thoughts were suffering. He made no positive statements regarding giving money to panhandlers, except for the initial statement that it was an opportunity to practice generosity. This is where he says that the mind always lies, but the body never lies, and that we should listen to our bodies when asked for money by panhandlers. Specifically, he said that if you felt bad and uncomfortable physically, you shouldn't give. This struck me as giving people carte-blanche to never be generous and also never consider why they didn't feel comfortable being generous. His only reference for "the body never lies" is a mention that "his teacher" taught him this, but throughout the talk he referenced non-Buddhist western "Mindfulness" teachers more than anything Buddhist, so I am unsure if his teacher was even nominally Buddhist. There was a strange emphasis on how these virtues were also important in Christianity as well, which I couldn't place/understand. The reason I asked the question is that I had an immediate reaction of "This can't possibly be true" but I wanted to get a second (and a third and so on if possible) opinion to be sure that I wasn't dismissing the teaching unfairly, or perhaps discover if it was at least rooted in something that was less likely to be used as an excuse for unskillful means.

For example, in this answer , we find Buddhists insisting that the mind is not a "byproduct" of the brain, i.e. the mind does not arise neurologically in the brain. By neurology, I mean that according to that view, the mind arises by the electrical and chemical interactions happening in neuron cells of the physical brain. I have also seen Ajahn Brahm stating in a video that even a person with dementia would have a moment of clarity of mind, just before death, proving that the mind is not neurologically originated. My understanding is that Buddhists have this view, because without it, it does not seem sensible that the mind stream can be reborn into another life. Is this right? That's my first question. This answer is interesting: > Consciousness (viññana) and Materiality (rūpa) are related as are > magnetism and electricity. Their relationship is reciprocal, each > conditioning the other. They are dependently originated, i.e. neither > exists independently. To me, it does not matter if the mind arose neurologically in the physical brain or not. My analogy is that software or data is composed of the bits of 1s and 0s on the physical media of a computer, for example, harddisk and RAM. So, it is electronically and chemically originated. However, software can be copied or transferred to other computers or other physical media over networks. So, while software depends on physical media, this does not impede it from moving to other physical media. So, my second question is, does it really matter (in terms of holding the Right View ) if the mind is neurologically originated or not? I think if the mind is neurologically originated, it does not matter and does not impede the notion of rebirth or continuity of the mind stream, just like in the case of software.

> Similarly, wise consideration of the mental liberation of loving kindness (mettā- cetovimutti) counteracts ill will; wise consideration of the elements of effort (ārambhadhātu), exertion (nikkamadhātu), and striving (parakkamadhātu) counteracts sloth and torpor; wise consideration of tranquility (cetaso vūpasama) counteracts restlessness and worry; and wise consideration of wholesome and unwholesome states (kusalākusaladhammā) counteracts doubt.6 So lets say i am having ill will thoughts. Do i just replace those thoughts with loving kindness instead? Or if I am experiencing sloth and torpor, do i just replace and abandon those thoughts with exertion and striving? Is that how you apply this passage in the real world, by abandoning those thoughts and having one pointed focus on their antidotes?