Lord Buddha said that we should practise Asubha sanna (perception of the non-beautiful). Does it mean that we have to let go Subha sanna (perception of the beautiful) completely ? Are there anything that is Subha in this world? As I know, The world is a Asubha thing. We can not find any subha thing in this world at all. So anything that is not related to the world is Subha. Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha help us to get rid of this world. That means they are Subha things. The conclusion is that we shouldn't have any Subha sanna towards anything other than Triple jems. Am I right?

Does samsara exist? Or does samsara not exists and it just looks to us that it exists, but in reality it is all the same "thing"? Here's the updated question, to make it clearer: **UPDATE** Nibanna is the cessation of all that is conditioned, i.e. samsara. As I understand it, when you attain Nibanna which is unconditioned, then you are out of samsara. Does this mean, that when you attain Nibanna, samsara: 1. does not exist but it exists for other beings in samsara? 2. does not exist, and neither it exists for the other beings in samsara, because Nibanna is unconditioned, so there is no samsara, and consequently there are no beings? Which one is it? 1 or 2?

I've been reading through the newest version of the code of conduct of the company I work for, and I've been weighing each rule against my Buddhist ethics, and it has brought up some interesting questions for me. One thing the code of conduct says is that if one witnesses something improper, and does not report it, that constitutes a violation. I think, for most serious offenses this is in line with the Buddha's teachings (for example, sexual harassment, violence, etc). But for certain other offenses, it's not very clear to me whether reporting them would be considered divisive speech, i.e. wrong speech. The Buddha defines unskillful verbal action, in part, thusly: > What he has heard here he tells there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he tells here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus breaking apart those who are united and stirring up strife between those who have broken apart, he loves factionalism, delights in factionalism, enjoys factionalism, speaks things that create factionalism. — [AN 10:165](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_165.html) So, two questions pertaining to two very concrete examples: 1. Suppose one witnesses corruption. If one reports it to the police, is that considered divisive speech? Could it be said that one is setting up the police against the perpetrator? 2. Suppose someone confides in one about a relationship in the workplace (not disallowed by the code of conduct, _unless_ it goes unreported). Could it be considered divisive speech if one reports the relationship to the company's ethics body?

I remember this phrase but I have not been able to locate it in the texts. I do not recall the correct words but it's something like this: *"Meditate/practice as if your hair is/were on fire"*. I have searched on Buddhism SE and on Google and found the phrase mentioned a couple of times but no solution to the origin of it. This article mentioned by Matthew says; > "Practice like your hair is on fire! > >A traditional aphorism, which probably goes back to Buddhism in India. Gelek Rinpoche makes it the theme of his recent article in Buddhadharma. And it shows up in the Zen tradition and elsewhere." And this article says: >Zazen makes waiting into a science. I'm intrigued by the Zen injunction "Sit as if your hair were on fire." Still no solution to the origin of the phrase. I'm looking for valid sources such as the *Theravadan, East Asian and Tibetan texts*. Thank you for your time.

Vasubandhu seems to make arguments [in this article](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vasubandhu/#DisSenObj) against the concept of atoms to prove all is appearance in consciousness. But doesn't this go against modern science,even if his arguments are logical? I mean modern science says that atoms exist.

Recent exchange here got me thinking. Nagarjuna's karika, 1.3 (Batchelor) > Na hi svabhāvo bhāvānāṃ pratyayādiṣu vidyate > > Avidyamāne svabhāve parabhāvo na vidyate > > The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on. > >If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist. There is a venerable tradition of different interpretations of Nagarjuna, based on "the two truths". ***Can that phrase be read to mean*** **emptiness does not exist in non-emptiness: if and only if an own thing does not exist in non-emptiness then an other thing does not exist in emptiness** So the first phrase says that emptiness is empty in the sense that the absence of svabhava does not exist in things. After that, that whenever a self caused thing cannot be found, then there is no other empty thing. I don't think it's a normal interpretation? ---------- For the purposes of my philosophical question elsewhere (a neat argument for karma and rebirth) I have rendered 'empty' to mean 'analytic' and 'non-empty' to mean empirical. > *Definition of analytic. Of or relating to analysis or analytics > especially : separating something into component parts or constituent > elements.* >*Definition of empirical. Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.*

Can a lay person observe the ten precepts on uposatha days? I ask this because I want to observe the eight precepts on uposatha days and I don’t need to use money on those days anyway so I might as well observe the ten precepts instead of eight. So is it ok for me to observe the ten precepts or should the ten precepts be only observed by novices and nun?

I have been practicing Vipassana in S.N. Goenka's lineage for two years. I have read some of Mahasi's and Webu's Sayadaw writings as well. The biggest hindrance I've thus come across is Doubt. Every now and then I find myself full of questions regarding the technique, especifically about the way it works in pavimenting the path to liberation. I would like some pretty direct answers to questions as... 1. 'why noting and paying attention to the movement of the stomach helps creating understanding' or 2. 'how not reacting to sensations throught the body leads to insight' or 3. 'how restraint of the senses and mindfulness leads to liberation' 4. etc. I'm aware that I may have read satisfactory answers to those questions in the past. But I really would like to get something directand easy to come back to, instead of reading full long texts full of heavy explanations. Thanks.

Have you come accross anything that deals with stalking behavior in the texts? Looking for something where one is stalked by another but anything close to the theme is good enough.

Did buddha accepted Brahman. The supreme reality according to hindusim. Or any perfect Supreme God.

I don't mean disrespect to anyone else with this question, I'm asking on my own behalf as someone with neurological & psychological problems caused by a brain injury at a young age. I know all brain injuries etc are different too, and I guess this question also relates to neurodivergent people. My injury affects my memory, ability to concentrate, intrusive thoughts, emotional stability, ability to hear, and also makes it much more difficult to hold good posture for any length of time (15 mins is the best I can do after practicing for years)- having (or not having) these things are required to meditate properly, right? **Can someone with normal intelligence, but whose brain is injured, practice meditation effectively?** Or will I hit a "glass ceiling" where my missing function limits my ability to progress? I've seen some benefits from meditation in the long term, but I worry that only someone with a healthy brain can meditate "properly". **Did Buddha say anything about practicing while disabled?** metta

There has been a rich history of debate between Vedantists and Buddhists. One main method the Vedantist uses disprove every other sect which doesn't hold Vedas as true, is to first prove that Vedas are authorless, then say that authorless Vedas have to be 100% true because the defects of lies and incomplete knowledge cannot be there in authorless, and therefore that whatever in Vedas must be 100% true and any sect which goes against the Vedas must be false. These are the two steps 1. Apourusheyatva (Authorlessness) 2. Swayam Pramanya (Default Validity) I have heard that various Buddhist scholars like Dharmakirti etc have tried to refute the claim of authorlessness of Vedas and its validity. Supposedly one such argument is there in first chapter of Pramanavarttika, which I couldn't find. >The first chapter discusses the structure and types of formal inference and the apoha (exclusion) theory of meaning. Dan Arnold writes that apoha is: "the idea that concepts are more precise or determinate (more contentful) just to the extent that they exclude more from their purview; the scope of cat is narrower than that of mammal just insofar as the former additionally excludes from its range all mammals in the world that are not cats." In the latter half of this chapter, Dharmakīrti also mounts an attack on Brahmanism, the authority of the Vedas, Brahmins and their use of mantras, and the system of caste (see Eltschinger 2000). He also discusses the role of scripture, which he sees as fallible and yet important for their discussion of “radically inaccessible things” (atyantaparokṣa) such as karma. Dharmakirti critiques the Brahmins thus: > > "The unquestioned authority of the Vedas; the belief in a world-creator; the quest for purification through ritual bathing; the arrogant division into castes; the practice of mortification to atone for sin— these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men." So -- what were Buddhist arguments against Vedic validity because of its authorlessness? I'm interested in logical syllogism of Dharmakirti and the like -- in response to the authorlessness of Vedas. --- Edit -- My question is specific: Vedantists have given a syllogistic argument to prove that the Vedas are authorless, and many eminent scholars of Buddhism like Dharmakirti etc have tried to refute those syllogistic arguments by logic ... what are those arguments? Please don't answer this question in a general or a philosophical way.

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 was just wondering if it’s bad karma if you were just waiting for someone to die? For example, let’s say you asked your parents for permission to become a monk but they declined so you decided to wait until they leave this world before ordaining. Is it bad karma if you do this?

All our feelings depend on conditions... it is said that conditions are impermanent.... is it possible for us to create conditions for us to have good feelings forever ? If not , why ? I am not saying good feelings can exist eternally ... I am saying can we create conditions for good feelings? For example by earning money we can ensure that a perpetual supply of food is available.... we fulfill the conditions of money accumulation and in return I get food. Similarly is it possible to work for something which ensures us good feelings forever or at least till we last ?

How do I deal with my mind accusing me of something I’m not doing? For example, if you are walking, and your mind tells you that you are killing insects or bacteria, how do you deal with it? Or For example, if your skin gets itchy and you want to scratch but your mind tells you that you are killing ants or bacteria that might be causing your skin to be itchy. Your original intention was to scratch your skin because it’s itchy but your mind tells you that you are going to kill insects or bacteria that might be on your skin, you don’t listen to your mind and scratch your skin anyway. Is this bad karma? Sorry if this is hard to understand. I try to make it clear.

The question 'What is the purpose of life? ' has been asked before. What I understood is that if I were to set a purpose to life, once I achieve my goal, life becomes meaning less. There is no single thought great enough to spend an entire lifetime. So, life has no intrinsic meaning. In everyday life, we try to plan things. Setting goals provide clarity about what exactly to do, what's important and what's not. Reaching goals help building self-confidence and motivates to move forward. It also helps to work efficiently while dealing with big tasks (Makes big tasks into smaller, more manageable units, Helps good decision making that are inline with the final goal). Both sound reasonable to me but they also seem contradictory. Then how should a lay man approach his life to be productive and at the same time seek liberation from the sufferings of samsara?

In a comment to an answer on this site I saw this: > To the folks who insist on downvoting, please note that downvoting is > extremely unhelpful and actually qualifies as divisive and harsh > speech. Do others agree? Does downvoting an answer necessarily qualify as divisive and harsh speech? I've thought of it as a form of feedback. Of course, if it is possible to elaborate and provide more constructive feedback then by all means... Does downvoting violate the precept on correct speech?

In DN 27 , the Buddha said that the Brahmins make bad karma for speaking falsely. > “Actually, Vāseṭṭha, the brahmins are forgetting their tradition when they say this to you. For brahmin women are seen menstruating, being pregnant, giving birth, and breast-feeding. Yet even though they’re born from a brahmin womb they say: Only brahmins are the first caste; other castes are inferior. Only brahmins are the light caste; other castes are dark. Only brahmins are purified, not others. Only brahmins are Brahmā’s rightful sons, born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’ **They misrepresent the brahmins, speak falsely, and make much bad karma.** So my question is do you get bad karma if you say something you thought was true but turned out to be false?