Good evening, everyone! I'm curious about the Buddhist worldview and would like answers to these sixteen worldview questions. I rely heavily on James W. Sire's worldview questions from his book *The Universe Next Door*. If anyone is interested and willing, I could also gather your answers to these questions over Zoom or Microsoft Teams. There would be no proselytizing on my end. I'm simply curious. Many thanks for considering my request! 1. What is prime reality? 2. What is the nature of external reality, i.e., the world around us? 3. Are there absolute truths? If so, what is its source? 4. What is Good, and does it have a source? 5. What is Evil, and does it have a source? 6. Where did the universe come from? 7. What is a human being? 8. Why or how is it possible to know anything at all? 9. What is the meaning of human history? 10. What is the human problem? 11. What is the purpose of life? 12. What is the significance of the integration of iconography within Buddhism? 13. How do we know what is right and wrong? 14. Are right and wrong, good and evil, absolute concepts? 15. What happens to a person at death? 16. Will the universe as we know it come to an end? If so, how and why?

By far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy, which almost all Hindus nowadays belong to, is the Vedanta school, which is based on an ancient Hindu work called the Brahma Sutras or Vedanta Sutras. The Brahma Sutras consist of a series of aphorisms which summarize and systematize the philosophical teachings of a set of Hindu scriptures called the Upanishads. They also spend some time defending the philosophy of the Upanishads against rival schools of Indian philosophy. In particular, here is what they say concerning Buddhism: > Topic-4: Refutation of Buddhist Realists > > 18. Even if the integration be supposed to arise from either of the causes, that will not be achieved. > 19. If it be argued that a combination becomes possible since (nescience and the rest) can be the causes of one another (in a > successive series), then we say, no, (for nescience etc.,) can each > merely be the cause of origin of another just succeeding. > 20. And because the earlier is negated when the later emerges, (therefore nescience and the rest cannot each be the cause of the next > in the series). > 21. (If it be contended that the effect arises) even when there is no cause, then your assertion (of causation) will be stultified; else (if > you contend that the entity of the earlier moment continues till the > entity of the later moment emerges), the cause and effect will exist > simultaneously. > 22. Neither pratisamkhya-nirodha (artificial annihilation) nor an apratisamkhya-nirodha (natural annihilation) is possible, for there > can be no cessation (either of the current or of the individuals > forming the current). > 23. And (the Buddhist view is untenable) owing to defect arising from either point of view. > 24. And (non-existence cannot be asserted) in the case of Akasa on account of the absence of (its) dissimilarity (with destruction). > 25. And (a permanent soul has to be admitted) because of the fact of remembrance (ie., memory). > 26. Something does not come out of nothing, for this does not accord with experience. > 27. And (if something can come out of nothing, then) on the same ground, success should come even to the indifferent people. > > Topic-5: Buddhist Idealism Refuted > > 28. (External objects are) not non-existent, for they are perceived. > 29. And because of the difference of nature (the waking state is) not (false) like dream etc. > 30. (Tendencies) can have no existence since (according to you) external things are not perceived. > 31. And (the ego-consciousness cannot be the abode), for it is momentary. > 32. Besides (this view stands condemned), it being untenable from every point of view. My question is, have any Buddhist thinkers responded to this critique of Buddhism? Note that I don't want answerers to try responding to the critique themselves (which might lead to too much speculation and arguments). I'm just interested in whether any published works have responded to it. By the way, the aphorisms of the Brahma Sutras are somewhat cryptic, so their meaning and justification are usually understood with the help of commentaries, like this one and this one . Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank You in Advance. EDIT: Here is a book about the Brahma Sutras' critique of the Vedanta school.

I'm very close to becoming a Buddhist, of some strand of Mahayana, but I am having some difficulties with the concept of Heaven(s) and Hell(s). I already know that some such as [Hakuin Ekaku](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3503/25543) of the Rinzai Japanese Zen Buddhism viewed Heaven(s) and Hell(s) as a state of mind. I've heard the same about the Madhyamaka school of Buddhist philosophy (e.g. Nagarjuna's views). This is a view that I can accept, but I don't think its common in Mahayana sects. Nevertheless, from what I've seen though I wasn't able to confirm, it seems that for many, if not most sects and schools of Mahayana Buddhism view Heaven(s) and Hell(s) as real and literal places. Therefore, my question is whether they're actually literal about how do we know that they're real if we are genuinely unable to verify that they exist, either logically or empirically via experimentation. Also, if you know of any Mahayana sects which view Heaven(s) and Hell(s) as psychological states of mind, do let me know please.

Inspired from another question, I went looking for translations from the pali on suttacentral where pali experts have used the english word 'real.' SN 22.85 as translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi

“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘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’?”

However, Bikkhu Sujato translates SN 22.85

“In that case, Reverend Yamaka, since you don’t actually find the Realized One in the present life, is it appropriate to declare: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’?”

While the original pali of SN 22.85 has:

“Ettha ca te, āvuso yamaka, diṭṭheva dhamme saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne, kallaṁ nu te taṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: Variant: thetato → tathato (sya-all, km) | tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne → tathāgato anupalabbhiyamāno (sya-all, pts1ed); tathāgate anupalabbhamāne (?)‘tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi, yathā khīṇāsavo bhikkhu kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā’”ti?

I think I've isolated the pali phrase in question as saccato thetato which I think breaks down like this: Saccato (सत्यतः in sanskrit): This term conveys the idea of "truth" or "reality." In a philosophical context, it's used to describe something as genuine, actual, or true. In the passage provided, "saccato" is used to suggest that one does not apprehend or perceive the Tathagata (Buddha) as "true" or "real" in the present life as Yamaka perceived. Thetato (स्थितिः in sanskrit): This term refers to "establishment" or "existence." It is used to indicate that something is established or exists in a certain way. In the passage, "thetato" is used to convey that the Tathagata (Buddha) is not established or perceived as existing in the present life in the way that Yamaka perceived. Since I'm neither a pali or sanskrit expert and I know there are some accomplished language folks on this forum:

1. Is saccato thetato the correct term under question in these two different english translations?
2. Which is the better translation or is there another translation that should be preferred over what Bikkhu Bodhi/Sujato suggest?
3. Are there other suttas that reference this term that could help with the translation and the meaning that is conveyed here?

Here is the search of the term on suttacentral. Thanks!

In MN 61 the Buddha teaches his young son the importance of being truthful.  This is an amazing sutta! So wise, and yet so elegant and straightforward, that even a seven-year-old can learn something from it. Are there other suttas in the canon that **explain** the importance of not lying to oneself, or to others?

Background: What I perceived was disenchantment, which seemed to be the cause of duhkha (a psychological pain in this case). In M 44 Dhammadinnā says: > "Now what, lady, lies on the other side of pleasant feeling?" > > "Passion > lies on the other side of pleasant feeling." > > "And what lies on the other side of painful feeling?" > > "Resistance lies > on the other side of painful feeling." > > "What lies on the other side > of neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling?" > > "Ignorance lies on the other side of neither-pleasant-nor- painful > feeling." "What lies on the other side of ignorance?" > 
 > "Clear knowing lies on the other side of ignorance." "What lies on the > other side of clear knowing?" "Release lies on the other side of clear > knowing." "What lies on the other side of release?" "Unbinding lies on > the other side of release." > > "What lies on the other side of > Unbinding?" … The translation from suttacentral is somewhat different: > “But ma’am, what is the counterpart of pleasant feeling?” > > “Painful feeling.” > > “What is the counterpart of painful feeling?” > > “Pleasant feeling.” > > “What is the counterpart of neutral feeling?” > > “Ignorance.” > > “What is the counterpart of ignorance?” > > “Knowledge.” > > “What is the counterpart of knowledge?” > > “Freedom.” > > “What is the counterpart of freedom?” > > “Extinguishment.” > > “What is the counterpart of extinguishment?” The same two verses seem to be saying different things. If I say, 'the counterpart of pain is resistance', that doesn't make good sense. In fact, the whole translated verse from suttacentral seems strange to my mind; the former being more intuitive, perhaps more correct. But still, what does resistance mean? Does it mean aversion?

In Theravada, the Concepts are considered unreal ("person", "chariot" etc.). Then what about the "Concepts about Real" ("red", "perception")? Are they Concepts? or Real?

Is there any mention of the fundamental building blocks of reality in Buddhism? Science tells us that we are made of atoms, which in turn are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, which in turn are made of quarks and so on. Does Buddhism reveal to us the absolute fundamental building blocks of reality and the Universe? If so, then what is the nature of those building blocks? I am 100% certain that the Buddha would have known the deepest nature of physical reality and answers to all the mysteries, humans have spent pondering since millenium. I know this question falls under the imponderable and thus doesn't aid me in relieving suffering in samsara, but still curious to know :) Peace.

1. Is the whole of reality what is being denied by some Buddhists? So, for as long as the sensation of pleasure or an atom or visual consciousness or apple is thought to belong to everything that exists, we are confused about them; and everyone is. If so: 2. can we add that everything absent from the whole of reality exists? I know you can literally couple the fire sermon (the Buddha goes nowhere after death) with the unanswered questions (does the Buddha exist after death, in unanswerable). But maybe they're saying that in his no longer existing in the world, he is beyond every concept except existence? So the question is unanswerable because of the assumption that he has somewhere to go.

Our reality is quite violent. Observing the violence of others causes mental conflict, And it will ruin your state of mind during meditation. What should be the reaction of a person to violence? Put Nirvana aside, Can you even think of a simple meditation when there is growing violence around you? How to deal with violence?

Whenever I want to meditate (down to Nirvana), it seems that the whole world wants to confront me to stop me. Does reality fight back when you want to meditate? Have other people encountered this? i assume you know how anxiety affects our focus, The world always seems to find a way to disrupt my focus.

Is thinking that there are no good people / followers of five precepts in this world a wrong view? I read this in some where but I forgotten it. It is hard to see that kind of people other than Buddhist monks. This is a reason for some people to not to follow buddhism. Some times I feel the same way. Is this a wrong view? Do you meet real Buddhists in real life other than monks? I always try to remember that the metaphor of lotus pond. Kind regards.

I've often heard the Yogacara school of Buddhism being described as 'Mind Only'. To my untutored mind this seems reminiscent of the western philosophy of Idealism. So there is a description of Yogacara which goes > the reality we think we perceive does not exist except as as a process > of knowing. Phenomena, anything that can be experienced, have no > reality in themselves. And a description from Idealism which goes > [..] reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally > constructed, or otherwise immaterial. To me they seem similar but actually my feeling is in reality the two philosophies are very different. Can someone help me understand how they are different? **Note:** I know the two quotes are from sources that have been identified as potentially unreliable (Barbara O'Brien and Wikipedia) but really I'm just want to use them as an illustration of how similar the two philosophies appear to me. I'm not claiming accuracy - in fact they could well lack it.

Does reality exist? Carlo Rovelli (a famous theoretical physicist) doesn't think so and he cites Nagarjuna as believing the same: > Rovelli has a different idea. **He says reality doesn’t exist.** The > reason physicists have been led astray by bonkers theories in the 100 > years since Helgoland is because they can’t bear the thought of not > being real. > > It was at this point — a third of the way through the book — that I > mimicked Heisenberg and took my first long, befuddled walk. Reality > doesn’t exist? What on earth does that mean? Rovelli’s favourite > example is a red chair. ‘Red’ doesn’t exist, for sure — everyone knows > that philosophical chestnut: it’s just the way our brains make sense > of light of a certain wavelength. But Rovelli also insists that > nothing else about the chair exists either — its weight, its shape — > except in its relationship to the person looking at it. And you can > keep banging away at this type of argument until you get to the level > of the atoms forming the chair. Insisting that anything about this red > chair needs to exist outside of relationships is metaphysical > neediness. > > Part of the fun of Rovelli’s book is that your immediate reaction to > his ideas — repugnance or delight — isn’t meaningless. Without > mathematics or experiment, by page 81 your thoughts are at the > frontier of quantum theory, and it’s time for your second > brain-cudgeling walk. If things exist only by virtue of their > interaction with other things, what happens to them between times? Do > they vanish? Do instants of time also not exist? Does it even make > sense to talk this way? Oh dear, oh dear. > > Rovelli devotes a precious chapter to the work of the second-century > **Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, who also insists there is no ultimate > layer of real things.** Emphasis mine. These ideas form the heart of his well regarded Relational Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and are discussed extensively in his new book Helgoland. Other questions on this forum have asked whether physical reality exists, but the highest rated answers have mostly danced around the question. They argue that it is our "attitude" about such questions that is relevant... In other places, the assertion is that this question is one of the "thickets" or is somehow unanswerable or is somehow not amenable to logic. I find all of these quite flaccid in the face of this prominent theoretical physicist coming out quite explicitly saying that our current best known laws of the universe (properly interpreted) indicate that reality itself doesn't exist and that the unwillingness to acknowledge this by other physicists is "metaphysical neediness!" He is arguing that we can talk about this meaningfully and use our reason to arrive at this conclusion with mathematics, logic and empiricism. I'd also say that it is quite obvious **the answer to this question has vast soteriological consequences that are very deeply relevant to Buddhism** and should not just be ignored or danced around. So, is he right?

Are these two words synonymous? Is everything that exists, real? Is everything real, an existent? What is a proper relationship between the words "real" and "exists" in the context of Buddhist doctrine? What is a proper definition of "real" and of "exists" in the context of Buddhist doctrine? Are dreams real? Do they exist? Are illusions real? Do they exist? Are chairs real? Do they exist? Are persons real? Do they exist? Is the son of a barren woman real? Do they exist? Is there anything that is real, but does not exist? What do we *really* mean when we say something is real? Pun intended.

I had a discussion with one of my friend, who said, there's no such thing as physical reality, as per Lord Buddha. He quoted "The universe only exists inside this small body". As per my understanding, this is about how we understand the universe is different. But his idea is that there's no physical reality, all we are experiencing is a delusion. Any idea about this ?

In lord Buddha's daily routine, divided into five parts as follows. 1. the morning session 2. the afternoon session 3. the first watch 4. the middle watch **(10.00 P.M. TO 2.00 A.M.)** 5. the last watch So the 4th part is The Middle Watch, from 10.00 PM to 2.00 AM. In that time Lord Buddha will answer the questions from "Devas", and these Devas come to see Buddha by flying Machine called "Wimanas" (or [Vimana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimana)) . So my question is, does "Devas" here means Aliens? Did Aliens came to see Lord Buddha, and learn about Buddhism?

How do we as Buddhists deal with a world that creates and embraces illusions and fabrications? For example, government is an idea and a fabrication, it is not a person or a thing, it just a group of individuals. A lot of people believe in this idea and accept it as something real; they believe it so much they follow without thinking. Next, covid. WOW! talk about following non-truth. This something that has never been proven to have been isolated, therefore it does not exist, yet people follow the the other illusion's advice (government). Why do people follow an illusion of an illusion? As a Buddhist who has learned to strip away many of these illusions, I still find it difficult to fathom. Particularly when others illusions start to directly affect me and my safety. Even other Buddhists have bought into this covid illusion, why? How do we stay on the path, when our actions of not following these illusions makes a target, by not wearing masks, taking vaccines and not following government illusions?

I am a beginner and I stumbled upon the sentence in a video given by a monk. > There is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a > pleasant sensation I will give you the context > We have to remove this idea that there is something beneficial about > the happiness. This is probably mind blowing for most people if > they've never studied things like Buddhism. But really what objective > and what answer can you give if I ask objectively or intrinsically > "What benefit do you gain from pleasure ? From physical pleasure ? > What is positive about it ?" And you know you can simply you can give > a tautology and say "it's good because it's pleasant" or "pleasant > sensations are good because they're pleasant" which are both > meaningless of course. > > And this isn't simply a tricky sort of argument, it's not an > intellectual trick of sorts. **It's actually true that there is no > benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant > sensation**. (...) The issue is this clinging, this craving for > pleasant sensations and the idea that pleasure is somehow positive. As the monk said, it is a bit mind blowing for me. If I take an example, when I am hungry, I am in pain, which is the nature way to tell me "Time to have a meal" and when I am full, the nature is telling me I have eaten enough and I do not need to eat more. And when I am listening to pleasant music or when I am with people I like/I love, I feel my mind at ease and I am happy. So my question is: what does the monk really mean ?

> Conditioned reality, the psycho-physical interdependence, only exist > because we experience it. This is how I interpreted Yuttadhammo's > videos on Ultimate Reality. Is this a correct interpretation and if > so, how can I apply this to my meditation practice? Metta!