Is there any sutta about how actions should have conscious intention (that we should not be on autopilot)?

In the Dīgha Nikāya 15 (DN 15), the Mahānidāna Sutta, the Buddha outlines a a complex stratification of "seven stations of consciousness" and "two dimensions" > “Ānanda, there are these seven stations of consciousness and two > dimensions. Which seven? > > “There are **beings with multiplicity of body and multiplicity of > perception,4 such as human beings, some devas, and some beings in the > lower realms. This is the first station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings with multiplicity of body and singularity of > perception, such as the Devas of Brahmā’s Retinue generated by the > first (jhāna) and (some) beings in the four realms of deprivation.5 > This is the second station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings with singularity of body and multiplicity of > perception, such as the Radiant Devas. This is the third station of > consciousness.** > > “There are **beings with singularity of body and singularity of > perception, such as the Beautiful Black Devas. This is the fourth > station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings who, 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,’ arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of space. > This is the fifth station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings who, with the complete transcending of the dimension > of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ > arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.** **This is > the sixth station of consciousness.** > > “There are beings who, **with the complete transcending of the dimension > of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ > arrive at the dimension of nothingness. This is the seventh station of > consciousness.** > > **“The dimension of non-percipient beings and, second, the dimension of > neither perception nor non-perception. [These are the two dimensions.]** ~ DN 15 Is the Buddha here describing subjective, internal states of consciousness that can be directly known in meditation, or externally existing cosmological realms that other beings inhabit? This ambiguity is especially pronounced in the case of the “dimension of infinite consciousness.” Is this to be understood as a temporary mental perception - an internal expansion of awareness beyond form - or does it point to a more ontological reality in which consciousness itself is experienced as boundless? If so, what does this imply about the nature of consciousness: is it something objectively infinite by nature, or is any perception of “infinite consciousness” merely a constructed meditative perception, still within the conditioned world, and thus ultimately impermanent?

Udāna 8.1 describes what appears to be a radically transcendent “dimension” — one beyond the elements, the formless attainments, and even beyond movement, time, and dualistic perception. It is characterized entirely by negation, culminating in the phrase: "just this is the end of stress/suffering."- > There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; > neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, > I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither > passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support > (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress. Have any advanced practitioners, past or present, claimed to have directly realized this dimension? If so: - How was the realization described? Was it marked by total cessation, a kind of knowing without content, or something altogether ineffable? - Was there awareness during the experience? Or did it resemble the cessation of perception and feeling (nirodha-samāpatti), with no consciousness during and only retrospective insight after? - How was the transition into and out of this dimension understood? Did it feel like a gradual absorption, a sudden drop, or a shift beyond all experience? - Did practitioners interpret it as a momentary event or as the uncovering of a timeless truth? In other words, is this dimension entered, or is it recognized as always already the case? - What changed after the experience? Were there shifts in perception, identity, or sense of reality that aligned with the description of “no coming, no going” and “no this world or another world”? ---------- I understand that language may fall short in describing such a realization, but I’m curious whether any teachings or testimonies exist that give practical or phenomenological insight into what this “dimension” might entail — and whether realization is framed as a momentary insight or an ongoing mode of liberation.

The wikipedia page for [Buddhist Cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#Origins) has a section titled "Origins" in which the following sentence occurs: >No single sūtra sets out the entire structure of the universe, but in several sūtras the Buddha describes other worlds and states of being, and other sūtras describe the origin and destruction of the universe. I am interested in reading these sūtras, in which the Buddha describes other worlds and states of being, but I am not sure what they are. Does anyone know what sūtras the author of the article is referring to?

> Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hatred, with the fire > of delusion; burning with birth, aging, and death; with sorrow, > lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair, I say. > > Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences > revulsion... Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through > dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the > knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘**Destroyed is birth**, the > holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is > no more for this state of being.’ What does "destroyed is birth" refer to here, especially regarding a supposed person that manages to overcome, let's say, hatred. The person has a Eureka moment and proclaims "destroyed is birth". What do they mean with that, or rather, **what are they trying to express about their life**?

What are the actual suttas in which the Buddha described how to meditate? A list of all such suttas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Aside from the Agganna Sutta, are there other Buddhist texts that discuss how the world or the universe came into existence?

Not vinaya information like the 13 questions, but things like a householder who has children should not ordain, or one should only ordain after being able to maintain sila for X amount of time, or when one has weakened desire enough that longing for X sensory pleasure no longer causes a burden. I did see a user "sankha" mention in a question here some information on when is right to ordain, but no sources. > When you become dispassionate in continuing the lay life or when you get enough confidence that you can successfully fend off the temptations of lay life, it is worth considering ordination. I am interested on what the Buddha said on who should, who should not, when, when not, who cannot etc ordain.

DN 15 mentions the following eight kinds of emancipations: > “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.” The Chāndogya Upaniṣad describes Brahman-realization in the following terms: > यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमाथ > यत्रान्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पं यो वै भूमा तदमृतमथ > यदल्पं तन्मर्त्य्ं स भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि यदि वा न > महिम्नीति ॥ ७.२४.१ ॥ > > yatra nānyatpaśyati nānyacchṛṇoti nānyadvijānāti sa bhūmātha > yatrānyatpaśyatyanyacchṛṇotyanyadvijānāti tadalpaṃ yo vai bhūmā > tadamṛtamatha yadalpaṃ tanmartyṃ sa bhagavaḥ kasminpratiṣṭhita iti sve > mahimni yadi vā na mahimnīti || 7.24.1 || > > **Sanatkumāra said: ‘Bhūmā [the infinite] is that in which one sees > nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows [i.e., finds] nothing > else.** But alpa [the finite] is that in which one sees something else, > hears something else, and knows something else. That which is infinite > is immortal, and that which is finite is mortal.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, > what does bhūmā rest on?’ Sanatkumāra replied, ‘It rests on its own > power—or not even on that power [i.e., it depends on nothing else]’. Chandogya Upanishad 7.24.1 similarly, > यदा पञ्चावतिष्ठन्ते ज्ञानानि मनसा सह । बुद्धिश्च न विचेष्टते तामाहुः > परमां गतिम् ॥ १०॥ > > yadā pañcāvatiṣṭhante jñānāni manasā saha . buddhiśca na viceṣṭate > tāmāhuḥ paramāṃ gatim > > When the five instruments of knowledge(senses of perception) stand still, together with the > mind and when the intellect does not move, that is called the parama gati (Supreme > State). Katha Upanishad 2.3.10 Would the realization of Brahman or the attainment of the highest state as described in these Upaniṣadic passages correspond to the eighth emancipation in the sutta, particularly as it pertains to the cessation of perception? If not, is there a more accurate mapping within the eightfold scheme : perhaps one of the immaterial attainments or an earlier emancipation?

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?

Did the Buddha ever said something like this: > What the world sees as pleasure, it is suffering for me. What the world sees as suffering, it is pleasure for me. Or something similar in the meaning, in any canonical texts?

What is the "meditation on emptiness" in MN 121 ? What does "emptiness" refer to in this sutta? Also, what does "oneness dependent on the perception of ..." mean in this sutta? > “Indeed, Ānanda, you properly heard, learned, attended, and remembered > that. Now, as before, I usually practice the meditation on emptiness. > > Consider this stilt longhouse of Migāra’s mother. It’s empty of > elephants, cows, horses, and mares; of gold and money; and of > gatherings of men and women. There is only this that is not emptiness, > namely, the oneness dependent on the mendicant Saṅgha. In the same > way, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the village and the > perception of people—focuses on the oneness dependent on the > perception of wilderness. Their mind becomes eager, confident, > settled, and decided in that perception of wilderness. They > understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the perception of village > or the perception of people. There is only this modicum of stress, > namely the oneness dependent on the perception of wilderness.’ They > understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of > the village. It is empty of the perception of people. There is only > this that is not emptiness, namely the oneness dependent on the > perception of wilderness.’ And so they regard it as empty of what is > not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present. > That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure. > > ...... > > Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, > supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them > enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness. So, > Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the > pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’ That’s how you should train.”

I am trying to find sources of info of if the Buddha ever explained any reason why we as humans are afflicted by sexual desire. Conventionally we are animals so are innately afflicted with a predisposition towards reproduction, with sexual desire itself being enticed by physical pleasure. Just want to know if the Buddha explained this desire in any depth. Obviously this issue would have come up within the sangha.

*Sorry; part of this question is described in Chinese, as I cannot find their Pali or Sanskrit script; even if I can, I can't read them.* The Saddharmapundarika Sutra (法华经) quoted Buddha (Sakyamuni himself) once said about "Saddharma Vipralopa (末法)", the Ending Era in which Buddhism would become unpopular and weak (转复微末，谓末法时). Later commentary scripts claimed Buddha said "there is 500 years of correct Buddism, 1000 years of similar Buddhism and 3000 years of Ending Buddhism after my nirvana" (然佛所说，我灭度后，正法五百年，像法一千年，末法三千年). This saying is believed to be real but also there are different interpretation. Some source said Samyuktagama (杂阿含经) mentioned Ending Era (Saddharma Vipralopa) much earlier, but I didn't find. Based on the idea that Buddha said "500+1000 years after his nirvana, it is the Ending Era", the Mahayana Jingtu faction (净土宗) and 净土-influenced Tiantai faction (天台宗) thus believe we are now in the Ending Era of Buddhism, and developed a full system of getting liberated in this current era. These are, however, not accepted by Zen faction (禅宗), another major Mahayana faction in China. Zen believe the Ending Era is real but it is not that bad and the timetable is not referring to real time. > 末世众生愚痴钝根，不解如来三大阿僧祇秘密之说，遂言成佛尘劫未期，岂不疑误行人退菩提道。 I want to know, are these 3 creeds (below) also accepted in other factions of Buddhism, especially different factions of Theravada out of Sinosphere? Or, are these thoughts denied or left intentionally not to discuss? 1. There is an Ending Era of Buddhism after Buddha's nirvana. 2. The Ending Era is very bad, Buddhism becomes unpopular and wrong, and people are too stupid to get nirvana by themselves. 3. We are currently in this Ending Era. --------------- I think maybe some faction may deny the idea of Ending Era; for example, another translated book named "Ekottara Āgama (增壹阿含经)" said the Buddhism after Buddha will last forever and gain billions of believers. > 佛告阿难曰。我灭度之后。法当久存......东方弟子无数亿千。南方弟子无数亿千。是故。阿难。当建此意。我释迦文佛寿命极长。所以然者。肉身虽取灭度。法身存在。此是其义。当念奉行。 Maybe some of them is fake, wrong, or intepreted mistakenly. I don't know, and don't want to discuss which is correct and which is wrong, they are all ancient and said to be translated from India. My question is only, is there any other faction believe "it's the Ending Era now, the End is nigh!".

I read something on reddit that made me think that the author confuses between Nibbana (extinguishment, liberation) and saññāvedayitanirodha (cessation of perception and feeling), thinking that they refer to the same thing. I quoted some of the suttas below that led them to this view. Questions: 1. What is the difference between the two? 2. Are they the same? If they are the same, then when the Buddha returns to the normal waking and talking state, he would lose his Nibbana wouldn't he? 3. What is the difference between the bliss or pleasure of Nibbana in the waking and talking state, compared to the bliss or pleasure of saññāvedayitanirodha? Are they the same or completely different? 4. Is saññāvedayitanirodha needed for attaining arahantship? Can one attain arahantship without ever reaching it? 5. Is it possible that one could attain saññāvedayitanirodha, without attaining Nibbana? They used these sutta quotes to support their assumption that Nibbana and saññāvedayitanirodha are the same: > They understand: ‘There is this, there is what is worse than this, > there is what is better than this, and there is an escape beyond the > scope of perception.’ > MN 7 > When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend > Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it (Nibbana), > since nothing is felt?” > > “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely > what’s blissful about it. > AN 9.34 > “One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The > cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is > nibbāna.’ Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises > and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another > perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the > cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ On that occasion, friend, I was > percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’” > AN 10.7 > There are those who would say that this is the highest pleasure and > happiness that sentient beings experience. But I don’t grant them > that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure that is finer > than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when a mendicant, going > totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, > enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is > a pleasure that is finer than that. > MN 59

How do I interpret the term "realm" (*idha* ) in AN 10.63 ? It says one who has "seven rebirths at most" will conclude their path in "this realm". So, what is "this realm"? And what does this mean? Meanwhile "one who is extinguished between one life and the next" will conclude their path after "leaving this realm behind" (*idha vihāya *). What does this mean? > “Mendicants, all those who have come to a conclusion about me are > accomplished in view. Of those who are accomplished in view, five > conclude their path in this realm, and five conclude their path after > leaving this realm behind. > > Which five conclude their path in this realm? > > The one who has seven rebirths at most, the one who goes from family > to family, the one-seeder, the once returner, and the one who is > perfected in this very life. These five conclude their path in this > realm. > > Which five conclude their path after leaving this realm behind? > > The one who is extinguished between one life and the next, the one who > is extinguished upon landing, the one who is extinguished without > extra effort, the one who is extinguished with extra effort, and the > one who heads upstream, going to the Akaniṭṭha realm. These five > conclude their path after leaving this realm behind. > > All those who have come to a conclusion about me are accomplished in > view. Of those who are accomplished in view, these five conclude their > path in this realm, and these five conclude their path after leaving > this realm behind.” > AN 10.63 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

(pali + english, derived from b. Sujato trans.) http://lucid24.org/an/an07/an07-v05/index.html#s64 (b. thanissaro eng. trans) https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN7_60.html The passage in question: > “And further, an enemy wishes of an enemy, ‘O, may this person not > profit!’ Why is that? An enemy is not pleased with an enemy’s profits. > Now, when a person is angry—overcome with anger, oppressed with > anger—then even when he suffers a loss, he thinks, ‘I’ve gained a > profit’; and even when he gains a profit, he thinks, ‘I’ve suffered a > loss.’ When he has grabbed hold of these ideas that work in mutual > opposition (to the truth), they lead to his long-term suffering & > loss, all because he is overcome with anger. This is the third thing > pleasing to an enemy, bringing about an enemy’s aim, that comes to a > man or woman who is angry. b.bodhi has: > (3) “Again, an enemy wishes for an enemy: ‘May he not succeed!’ For > what reason? An enemy does not delight in the success of an enemy. > When an angry person is overcome and oppressed by anger, if he > gets what is harmful, he thinks: ‘I have gotten what is beneficial,’ > and if he gets what is beneficial, he thinks: ‘I have gotten what is > harmful.’ When, overcome by anger, he gets these things that are > diametrically opposed, they lead to his harm and suffering for a long > time. This is the third thing gratifying and advantageous to an enemy > that comes upon an angry man or woman. In the other 7 cases in the sutta, specifics are given so it's clear what the person who wants the enemy to suffer, how their anger sabotages their desire and tends to get the opposite result. In the case # 3 above however, it's not clear what the Buddha had in mind for specific examples. I can think of some hypothetical situations that would meet that criteria, but they would just be guesses. Anyone think they know exactly what is meant here?

I'm looking for Suttas or other texts that describe the triple gem (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha), preferably for laypeople. I'm mostly interested in Theravada Suttas, but also Mahayana Sutras, newer books, or other materials. Grateful for help!

I hope this finds you well and happy. I’m pretty sure I read it in the Pali Nikayas. It is probably one of the texts used as the basis of the idea of a ‘merit bank’ which I have found amongst ethnic Buddhists **especially**. It is the story of a person (prince/king?) who goes to the Buddha with a report of a repeated (?) nightmare, of people (monsters/ghosts/demons?) moaning and begging for food at his residence. The Buddha advises him that it’s because he didn’t share his own meritorious actions (puñña) with relatives (bandhu?) in the past. So, he should do so in the future to avoid this. best wishes Joe

How authentic is the buddhist text named Lankavatara sutra and what exactly is the acceptability of the text across various denominations of buddhism?