As far as I understand, Buddhism (Tibetan Gelug is what I am most familiar with) holds that a mindstream is always individual. Is there any reason against the notion that one mindstream can separate into two (or that mindstreams can merge) ? Just like a river can separate into two, or many streams can merge into an ocean.

***How do we know attaining complete liberation from dukkha is possible?*** This is a question I’ve made to myself in multiple oportunities, especially after having explained the basics of (what I understand about) the Dhamma to people not acquainted with it. When in such circumstance, I interpret that thought (the question) not necessarily as doubt in the Dhamma, but as a question of “common-sense”. I have my own arguments that I’ve been buiding over the years about why I think attaining Nibbana is possible, but ultimately, it seems to be just a statement coming from faith and from the extension of a principle that until now has proven to be true, logical, compatible with evidence and useful (namely, the idea of the dukkha as a consequence of tanha, and that the diminishing of the presence of tanha leads to the diminishing of the presence of dukkha). But, what does assure us that such principle could be applied until the complete eradication of dukkha? It’s like thinking that just because the scientific method has shown itself to be useful in -apparently- understanding some aspects of reality (based on our ability to use the information gained through the application of the method to predict outcomes, to built technology to achieve some ends, and the ever growing power to keep understanding more and subtler aspects of nature), that would necessarily mean that understanding everything about reality is possible. Personally, I don't think that's the case, because I consider the possibility of reaching a point where our technology does not "expand" enough the power of our senses (i.e., we reach a practical limit of detection of events or presence of some entity or phenomenon), or that there could be stuff in Reality that do not interact with the things we can effectively interact (no matter how subtle or indirect the degree of interaction with such phenomena). Could it be the case that there is a physical, biological or spiritual (whatever that could mean) condition that could limit the application of the Buddhist method to the very end, just like what could happen with the application of the scientific method? Just in case, I don’t see any problem admitting to myself that faith in -what the suttas tell us about- the Buddha and in my own experience is what keeps driving me forward in this path. I think that science is not that different in this regard: through inductive reasoning, and assuming the reality of an external world, the possibility of knowledge of (at least) some parts of it, and the regularity of events, faith (or confidence in the reality of the assumptions) seems to be an useful principle when investigating nature. So, the question can be formulated as such: **what is the epistemic justification for having confidence on the possibility of complete eradication of dukkha? One can have confidence, but based, for instance, on [this definition of knowledge](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#WhatKnow) , how can we justify the belief about the possibility of Nibbana, beyond inductive reasoning and confidence?** I think this question could be particularly beneficial for putting to test the recurring idea of both Buddhism not contradicting knowledge gained (or possible to be eventually gained) through empirical means, and Buddhism as a “science of the mind”. I’d love to here your thoughts on this. **EDIT**: There's an ongoing discussion on this same question of *D&D-SuttaCentral*. There are very good answers and feedback in my opinion. If you're interested, [here you'll find the thread](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/how-do-we-know-attaining-complete-liberation-from-dukkha-is-possible/17357) . Kind regards!

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.

What is hasituppāda, the so-called rootless, mirth-producing, mind-consciousness element of an Arahant? What is its basis? What is its purpose, if any? Could someone provide me the details of the same with references from the Pāli Canon?

Quote from Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125 Paṭhamamettāsutta: > Firstly, a person meditates spreading a heart full of love > [...] > > If they abide in that, are committed to it, and meditate on it often without losing it, when they die they’re reborn in the company of the gods of Brahmā’s Host. > The lifespan of the gods of Brahma’s Host is one eon. **An ordinary person stays there** until the lifespan of those gods is spent, **then they go to hell or the animal realm or the ghost realm**. But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life. This is the difference between an educated noble disciple and an uneducated ordinary person, that is, when there is a place of rebirth. Why would an ordinary person, a worlding (puthujjano), go to hell after a lot of metta? I cannot believe this. My first guess was that this is probably meant to be a possibility, meaning lots of metta will not 100% prevent descending to lower realms forever. However, as I cannot read Pali, I compared other translations to modern languages, but none of them suggests the possibility. Instead they all seem to agree (at least by their grammar) on this direct chain of results: (a lot of) Metta -> gods realm -> one of the lower realms for a householder, at least. Disciples are better off. Grammatically, I fail to see any room left for interpretation as a possibility. I must be misunderstanding something with this sutta. What is it? Wording, context, translatation, missing background? --- Thanks for the answers so far. I understand your interpretation and I sympathize with it. But it seems I missed some explanation. Please let me try to clarify my question: A puthujjano is one who has not overcome the ten fetters. If, with a lot of metta, such a person is reborn as deva in Brahma realm, then - according to my understanding of the words of this sutte - this person **will** be reborn to the lower realms. The text doesn't say the worldling "can go", or "could go", or "will go, if something else". The sutta, literally, states: "metta .. worldling ... brahma realm ... then hell". This is against my intuition, which is that a worldling, after lots of metta, can be reborn as deva but still end up in a lower realm later for some reasons, e.g. if only concentration is highly developed, or for other karmic reasons. But the sutta does not suggest this result as possibility, only, but as direct result. I would assume that the next rebirth could be elsewhere, too, if karma it favorable, if mindfulness, equanimity, whatever needed, have been developed. But the sutta does not mention any other factor, except: worldling (will go to hell) or disciple (will go to cessation). My question is about the words of this sutta. Why do they go against this intuition. Blind guesses: Is it a translation error? Is Pali lacking forms like subjunctive, so pure possibility can't be expressed? Is this sutta a later addition to the canon? Did I miss context?

I have a question about my current practice, but feel it's far too sensitive to share here. I do not personally know any person, teacher or guru who I could ask this question. What could I do in this instance?

Further to answers to this question , I am looking for any Buddhist organizations or charities that may offer to fund for pursuing a higher academic education in Buddhism, all over the world. I searched but I don't really get proper keywords. So if you know any such institution...

I was reading a book where author defined Mindfulness (sati) using these three analogies from different suttas: - > The Buddha compares mindfulness to a gatekeeper for a frontier fortress. [[Kimsuka Sutta]](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.204.than.html)
- > There’s another passage where the Buddha says that mindfulness is like a goad. Most of us have gotten away from animal husbandry and farming, and so we don’t even know what a goad is. It’s a long stick with a sharp point. You use it to poke your animals when they’re going the wrong direction, or if they’re standing still when they should be going. The implication here is that the ability to remember what’s skillful and what’s not, and to be able to give yourself a little push or a poke in the right direction: That’s what mindfulness does for you. > And sometimes it’s more than just a little poke. (May be he is referring to [Patoda Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.113.than.html) . But I'm not very sure because Buddha didn't mentioned Mindfulness in this Sutta. Please provide me correct sutta if there is.) - > There’s another passage where the Buddha says that when you see that something unskillful has arisen in your mind, then you act as if your hair were on fire. You do everything you can, as quickly as you can, to put it out. You’re relentless and mindful in being focused on putting out the fire, and nothing else. And other definitions which is written in Wikipedia: - > Mindfulness is the psychological process of purposely bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment without judgment. (Authour refers it as equanimity) But as I understand, I will only call Gate-keeper analogy as Mindfulness. And other analogies falls in the category of Right Effort and Right Resolve. If we look at [MN 117](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html#s1) : > "One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong resolve & for entering right resolve: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right resolve." Please correct me if I misunderstood this.

I read a course entitled ' Meditation without exertion' which was purportedly based on Tibetan teachings and methods. It discussed methods of developing concentration and imagination leading to Samadhi. Buddhism seems to present a practical method which leads to discipline and non attachment something which is lacking, at least in my experience, in the the western traditions. I'm looking for direction to these methods and ways of applying these methods to myself and my experience. Your guidance and input will be greatly appreciated

I have found two Suttas and I am a bit confused about Sariputta's death. In [DN 16](https://suttacentral.net/dn16/en/sujato) , there is a part about Sariputta being alive at the time of Buddha's death. (look at 4. Sāriputta’s Lion’s Roar in DN 16) In this sutta [SN 47.14](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.014.nypo.html) , Buddha talks about the death of Sariputta and Maha Moggallana. "This assembly, O bhikkhus, appears indeed empty to me, now that Sariputta and Maha Moggallana have passed away." What is the correct timeline? Why was Sariputta alive during Buddha's parinibbana in DN 16?

From the Crossing the Flood Sutta below, we read that the Buddha said that he crossed the flood (i.e. of suffering, of clinging to the world), neither by standing still, nor by struggling (or swimming). And that when he stood still, he sank, and when he tried to swim, he was swept away. What does this mean? What does standing still mean? What does struggling or swimming mean? If he neither stood still, nor swam, then how did he cross the flood of clinging and suffering? From SN 1.1 (Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation): > “How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?” > > “By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood.” > > “But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and by not straining you > crossed the flood?” > > “When I came to a standstill, friend, then I sank; but when I > struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this way, friend, that by > not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood.” From SN 1.1 (Bhikkhu Sujato's translation): > “Good sir, how did you cross the flood?” > > “Neither standing nor swimming, sir, I crossed the flood.” > > “But in what way did you cross the flood neither standing nor > swimming?” > > “When I stood still, I went under. And when I swam, I was swept away. > That’s how I crossed the flood neither standing nor swimming.”

I plan on calling the Metta forest monastery with this question shortly but have not had the opportunity yet to do so. In “With Each and every breath” and in many of Thanissaro’s guided meditations he talks about playing with the “breath energies” of the body in meditation. While I believe I have on occasion felt these sensations in my hands, I have struggled to feel them elsewhere in the body, particularly their movement from the base of the skull down the spine as he often stresses is the most important place to feel these energies. If anybody as any experience with this particular form of meditation and tips on sensitizing myself to the breath energy of the body I would be keen to hear. Thank you!

(Note that this is surely an experimental "question" for the usual use, although not different, just the purpose and circumstances) Today the Sangha of the eight directions was given, aside of other Dhamma-Gifts, "[Bhaddekaratta Sutta - Liberation teachings on an ideal seclusion](http://accesstoinsight.eu/en/lib/authors/dhammajiva/bhaddekaratta_sutta) ", teachings by Ven. U. Dhammajīva Mahā Thero (may all also take part in [rejoicing with the merits](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,9261.0.html)) "Lacking" an introduction and review for this gift -- as well as a biography and a picture portraying the author -- my person thought of sharing the possibility to give such information via an answer posted here. If wishing to make it an unbound gift toward the Sangha, with a complete text and material, feel free to make use of the pages linked for such -- also if looking for discussion on it -- and possibly link that into your answer. A short summary of the "question": - A review, criticism, and/or "teaser" for the teachings given in the _Bhaddekaratta Sutta - Liberation teachings on an ideal seclusion_ -- links to references elsewhere, or answers of your own posted here. - Biographical informations about the Ven. Dhammajiva -- links to pictures, relay-able sources -- possibly accessible to make use of it, since something bonded and not released toward Sangha can not really be used

There are Two Truths in Mahayana Buddhism Conventional and Ultimate. I can't understand how it works. For example: Two Mahayana Buddhists have realized the absolute truth: and one Buddhist tells the other that he has a headache. But how does another Buddhist perceive it according to absolute truth?

Buddha said "nowhere between the lowest of hells below and the highest heaven above, nowhere in all the ***infinite worlds*** that stretch right and left, is there the equal, much less the superior, of a Buddha. Incalculable is the excellence which springs from obeying the Precepts and from other virtuous conduct." - **Apannaka Jataka**

According to upaya, the doctrine of 'skillful means', as it appears in the Lotus Sutra, was the Buddha *lying* when he said that there are three vehicles? Presumably he knew there was only one: so why wasn't his deception evil? I am referring to the claim in e.g. the parable of there being three chariots, when there is in fact only one. Or Shariputra's claim that he thought he was "deceived" when believing he could not be a Buddha. I believe it's generally characterized as "deception" according to the scholastic tradition that is based on the lotus sutra.

I bow to you with hopes of happiness, peace, safety and health for you. And I come with a dire need for help! I am a practicing buddhist and I regularly visit a thai temple for chanting but I know no thai and they don't have their chanting written in roman alphabet and with translation so I can understand and chant. I have recorded the whole chanting and provide a link to the recording here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gxmUWA7XxR7OjhOZYXbPA6MxZvsP84kR/view?usp=sharing Could anyone please provide me or refer me to the chanting written in thai with roman alphabet letters ***and*** an english translation? If you provide me with links then could you please point out the exact parts of the texts that correspond to this chanting? This would be of great help to me because I can finally understand what we're saying and feel a greater connection to the teachings and to my fellow Sangha-members. Full of gratitude I bow.

What causes addictions and what is the remedy to break free from addictions according to Buddha?

I wanted to know if someone could reference passages from the canon where the Buddha teaches about mindfulness. If such passages exist that is. I was wondering about it because terms and explanations surrounding mindfulness can sound very modern and almost technical at times, depending on who explains it. Has mindfulness, as practiced in this modern age, any roots in the original teachings of the Buddha (as taught by Himself), or did this arise in more recent times? E.g. Vietnamese Monk Thich Nanh Hanh's school of mindfulness is an entire sect devoted to the practice of mindfulness. But is there any canonical, textual evidence? I couldn't find anything. Thanks.

- What is the "sensual desire" described as one of the fetters, which is: - Reduced or weakened in a once-returner - Abandoned in a non-returner - Are *kāmarāga* and *kāmacchando* used interchangeably? - Does it have a specific meaning, perhaps identified in a sutta or commentary -- or can we only imagine what it means by analysing the words (kāma, rāga, chanda)? For example, the words *micchacara* and *abrahmacariya* -- used in the two versions of the 3rd precept -- have explicit canonical definitions (or at least specific examples of prohibited behaviour) beyond what can be inferred from only the etymology of the words. - What about any "exceptions which prove the rule" in suttas which describe arahants -- for example the Buddha's experiencing discomfort of old age in [DN 16](https://suttacentral.net/dn16/en/sujato) : > Sometimes the Realized One, not focusing on any signs, and with the cessation of certain feelings, enters and remains in the signless immersion of the heart. Only then does the Realized One’s body become more comfortable. Are we to understand there's no "desire" associated with this? That it's not "sensual"? Or perhaps that it is if anything a desire for "neutral" feelings (i.e. for *not* feeling pain), and therefore within the scope of enlightened thinking? - If the senses are the All ([SN 35.23](https://suttacentral.net/sn35.23/en/sujato)) , are there any desires which aren't "sensual" -- even a preference for seclusion, for example, or for good health? Or even, for morality?