When Time is conditioned, when Space is also supposedly conditioned, when all ‘phenomena’, in the strictest philosophical sense of the word, are conditioned, how can the unconditioned Nibbāna be ever defined? When language itself is mired in conditionality, a slave to the world of perceptions and conceptualization, how can we even try to use it to convey the meaning of the unconditioned, asaṃskṛt Nirvāṇa? Isn’t it a semantic impossibility? Was Nāgārjuna right when he subjected Nirvāṇa to the catuṣkoṭi logic and came out with strictest and most comprehensive negative answer, the ultimate via negativa, apophatic explanation? Based on my understanding, I can thoroughly appreciate the following ‘definitions’: > "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 stasis; neither passing > away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support > [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress." — Ud 8.1 > "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If > there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there > would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made > — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an > unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born > — become — made — fabricated is discerned." — Ud 8.3 > Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do > not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, > darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, > has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss > & pain, > he is freed. — Ud 1.10” > > _(Courtesy, ATI) But this is what I find difficult to accept: > **"This is peace, this is exquisite** — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of > craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbāna." — AN 3.32 > There's no fire like passion, no loss like anger, no pain like the > aggregates, > **no ease other than peace.** > > Hunger: the foremost illness. Fabrications: the foremost pain. For one > knowing this truth as it actually is, **Unbinding is the foremost > ease.** > > Freedom from illness: the foremost good fortune. Contentment: the > foremost wealth. Trust: the foremost kinship. > **Unbinding: the foremost ease.** — Dhp 202-205 > The enlightened, constantly absorbed in jhāna, persevering, firm in > their effort: they touch Unbinding, > **the unexcelled safety from bondage**. — Dhp 23” > > _(Courtesy, ATI) Is a via positiva, cataphatic definition rationally, linguistically even possible? Could somebody help me understand Nibbāna better?

This is not a question about being a vegetarian. My question is since the Buddha didn't prohibit monks from eating meat, and since monks are supposed to be easy to maintain and take what is offered, how should/would a monk who has chosen to be a vegetarian handle being offered meat by a lay person? If they chose to refuse the meal would that make them high maintenance, proud or unappreciative? If they ate it, how would they reconcile that with their personal practice? I'm particularly interested in an answer from any monastic on how they have handled or would handle this.

Does regret / guilt help us to correct our faults? Doesn't the pain from our faults push us to the correct path?

Apologies, this question has been brewing for some time after observing so many expressions of suffering from maybe not so much as misinformation, but more misdirection. Are there any scriptures defining what "wholesome meditation" is with relation to all the Skandha and not just one? Wouldn't wholesome imply a working towards balance between all components that constitute an individual? Because every meditation is a technique of cultivation for the 'individual' to reach enlightenment...? Would this also mean enforcing one and neglecting the other four is not only counterintuitive, but potentially dilapidating for the cultivation of an individual? And such imbalance may shed some light on how there are so many questions regarding some form of suffering while meditating? *Watering a tree, but no offering of light, mineral rich food, interaction from the world or even foundational soil for constitution.* *Yet, plant the tree in the sun, near a creek in soil complimenting and feeding it's roots and birds to spread it's seed...*

If someone hires a person to kill another and the plot is discovered, both the hired killer and the one who hired him will be arrested and imprisoned. Yet, somehow, if a monk eats food given by others, no negative kamma is created, even though the monk is aware of and complicit in the process of killing, i.e. he knows someone else had to do the killing of the plant or animal for his ultimate benefit, even if it wasn't explicitly killed for him. Even worse, someone whose profession involves the daily killing of animals as is the case in a slaughterhouse, has to bear the mental consequences of this daily ritual as well as its kammic consequences. Yet a monk can avoid all this simply by waiting for someone to put the dead animal in his bowl. The morality of this doesn't make sense. I would think the only morally harmless situation would be for a monk to only eat an animal or plant that had already died naturally, either by scavenging for it or waiting for another to do so on his behalf. Question: Can a monk choose to eat only an animal or plant that had died naturally? This either by scavenging on his own or by waiting for others to offer this to him?

No one can deny that a rainbow is as real as the term can be defined in any meaningful way. You can point to it so that others can see it and you can even photograph it. If a rainbow was a mind created phenomenon, then a camera, which has no mind or consciousness, would not be able to photograph it. Yet, if you got into a helicopter and traveled into the rainbow, all you would find would be atmosphere, moisture and sunlight, i.e. the elements of the rainbow. You would no longer perceive the rainbow itself. Yet, someone further away would see both the rainbow and the helicopter you were in, so even though you no longer perceived the rainbow because of your proximity at such close scale it would not mean that the rainbow ceased to exist or that it was never existent in the first place. Similarly, a meditator might perceive a dissolution of the self into its constituent elements and thus conclude that the self does not truly exist, yet it wouldn't mean that it actually did not exist, only that the meditator's awareness of it had ceased. As a comparison, if one is asleep and dreaming, one loses awareness of the body and the external world, yet both still exist for others, one of whom could wake up a sleeping person and return them to the world and body they had become unaware of. Thus, only awareness would have ceased, not the objects of awareness. Is the affirmation of a self somehow analogical to the affirmation of a rainbow ,is it just as real and not-real in that sense?

I have come across multiple instances where famous people or mainstream media have treated Buddhism and its culture in a derogatory manner, though I like to think most of the time it was because they are ignorant and not deliberate. This is not limited to famous ones of course. I will note 2 popular examples here. The first one: SNL or Saturday Night Live (an American weekly television show) did an episode titled **Rude Buddha** , which was about the rude mentality of Lord Buddha. It consisted of a famous celebrity acting as Lord Buddha and being condescending and rude towards his followers, including sexual innuendos. Now, it's obviously a humorous dig at Lord Buddha's life. And I am not going to deny, I found it quite hilarious. There's another example where the famous Portuguese footballer Cristiano Ronaldo uploaded a photo to his Instagram where he seems to have **one foot resting on the base of a statue of Buddha's head** . Fans were outraged and the photo was met with severe criticism. However, despite the incident being as old as from 2016, the photo still can be seen in his Instagram. It seems like the sentiment of Buddhists is not taken seriously enough for this photo to be removed. While I found the SNL episode funny, I do not view this in the same sense. He could have obviously taken it down considering how insensitive it is to Buddhists as a whole. I believe no religion should be excluded from criticism. It enables people to engage in intellectual discourse on religions. However some incidents lean more towards mockery. Most of the comments in the SNL video (it's available on YouTube and I have provided the link above) are about how most Buddhists would find this funny and move on. However, I always wonder, to what extent should we tolerate these? My moral dilemma is, how far can we be okay with our religion being mocked or treated insignificantly? Do we always have to **give the benefit of ignorance when someone disrespects Buddhism and its culture**? And how should **a good Buddhist react to incidents like these**?

> Say one reflects on the beauty of one's children, the beauty of one's husband or wife, the beauty of one's house or garden, or the beauty of a flower, and other such things: that is rooted in greed and delusion. It is a perverted perception (*sañña-vipallāsa*), based on unwise attention. If one has habitually looked upon such objects with such unwise attention, it will be very difficult at death suddenly to reflect upon them with wise attention. ...If one dies with such consciousness (rooted in greed and delusion,...) one cannot avoid being reborn in a woeful state. Quoted from the book "The Workings of Kamma" by The Most Venerable Pa-Auk Sayadaw. My question: so should we not reflect on the beauty of something? It's not a bad karma, right? So I thought it will just create attachment (that bounds us to samsara), but I didn't think it would lead to a rebirth in the lower realms? P.S it's not that I have doubts about this book, I'm just a little confused and need some explanation.

I heard from some brotherhood from Mahayana said Theravada also will do some chanting for eating meat. Is it true ? I have only able to find the Mahayana Mantra but not Theravada info as below https://drukpachoegon.org/meat-blessing-mantra

Through reading books on Buddhism I get the idea that existence is conditioned. The faculties (mind, consciousness, etc.) through which we try to attain Nirvana are also conditioned. So, how is it possible to attain the Unconditioned through conditioned faculties?

I've done regular meditation for over a year using a chair and later tried to switch to more traditional meditation postures. I am rather tall at 6′4/194cm and very inflexible - can barely touch bottom of my knees. I've had some success in sitting seiza using a couple of blankets but my shins go numb after 20min or so. I've been doing regular stretches for the last month or so and hope to be able to stretch enough to do Burmese sitting in the future. Any advice on whether it's worthwhile to try to reach Burmese or should I rather focus on getting better at seiza? Any equipment you can recommend? I'm pretty sure the stack of blankets I need to comfortably sustain seiza is a lot taller than the 6 inches most zafu cushions are advertised as. Thank you very much!

I am a Vipassana meditator and in the last 2-3 years am noticing that someone is playing with my aura/heat and sensations all the time. I have no idea where to get help. It is coming in the way of my meditation practice. I know it is a person who is playing with it ... Looking for help for where I can connect with. Thanks Archana

This question is in context of practicing mindfulness in one's day-to-day activities (e.g. walking, talking, washing dishes etc.), where one is supposed to be "aware of" / "observe" / "be mindful of" these activities. But how does one be "mindful" during thinking, since the very act of "observing" thinking would interrupt the thought process? And, say, if the thought process is about solving a specific problem, the very act of "being aware of /observing" the thoughts would result in one being unable to effectively solve that problem - when compared to not observing/ not being mindful about those thoughts. Or, be unable to solve it all. The same question for when reading something very interesting, or studying, where one is fully engrossed? Wouldn't being mindful about these activities interrupt the reading/study? New to mindfulness here. Apologies if the question sounds foolish, or irrelevant due to my misunderstanding of mindfulness. Thanks in advance.

I had a dilemma for a long time and I need your help please. I’m from India, 29 years and belong to a conventional Indian family, staying with my parents. Since last 4 years, I have wished to renounce my conventional life and go somewhere to meditate deeply (vipassana meditation). Its a calling, a constant calling. Two years back I told my parents but they were shattered to hear this, they were shocked and broken. Since then I quietly resumed my life. They are also concerned about their future, as they are not fully financially independent and may need my help, but it’s not like if I renounce, they cannot manage, they can definitely manage by cutting a few corners, they can live without my financial help, they have that much savings. I have been contributing to the house expenses heavily, almost all my salary so that their savings remain intact. Its like they have enough to live for another 10 years, but what after that if I’m not there. It’s very tricky. They are concerned about their old age and future. My parents are both in 60s. Every now and then I deeply wish to renounce and pursue deep meditation. I get confused, is my role to serve them by being there by keeping them financially secure and being there for them in their old age, but this is not contributing to their mind at all, or is my role to uncover wisdom within so that I can inspire them to do the same for their own self. Should I be there for them in the next few years and once they are no more, then pursue my meditation or should I renounce right now, and walk the path of wisdom so that I can inspire them to believe in and uncover the wisdom inside themselves? Its an either / or situation. Either I keep them comfortable in conventional life, and let them move to their next life, or should I challenge myself right now so that even they can challenge themselves spiritually. (they are not that inclined towards spiritual progress) What is my role as a son? This is a constant dilemma every day of my life for last many years. I am neither here nor there. I can’t fully function in the conventional life also because of this. Which way should I go, or is there any middle way? Please help me. Kind and humble request. Thank you.

I'm looking for more friends on the Buddhist path and would there for like to ask: **Are there any social networking sites for Buddhists**? Some features that I'm looking for: * Friends list * Seeing online status of friends * Sending direct messages to a friend * Chatting with a friend * Open forums * Sharing images * News feed Grateful for help! Kind Regards, Tord

I am hearing contradictorary things.Is the alayavijnana shared in yogacara?And is it momentary and subject to Kshanabhanga?What does vasubandhu say and the early yogacarins?Please cite sources.

I know that as long as someone isn't enlightened, thoughts will continue to arise in one's mind, including bad thoughts. And the only way to prevent bad thoughts from arising is through meditation. So does "not wanting to meditate" counted as bad karma? Because there's an intention to not want to meditate (meanwhile meditation is the only way to prevent bad thoughts from arising). So not wanting to meditate = letting bad thoughts to arise = bad karma(?) Can someone clear this for me? Thank you.

Is the upasakasila sutta based on the Tipitaka (Pali Canon) or is it based on the Mahayana teachings? Also, I understand that Buddhism doesn't condemn LGBT, but in the Upasakasila Sutta, it is written: > "If sex is practised under the inappropriate times (times not allowed by precepts), [at] inappropriate place[s] (places not allowed by precepts), with non-female[s], with virgin[s], with a married wife, if sex relates to self-body, it is known as sexual misconduct." Does this mean being gay (or lesbian, or being a part of LGBT) is considered sexual misconduct and therefore violated the 3rd precepts?

What has historical precedent to teach and what is your opinion?

Maybe a strange question, but I wonder if emptiness (sunyatta) is also a characteristic of the state of nirvana?