There seems to be two prominant websites/translations for learning the suttas: 1. accesstoinsight.org 2. suttacentral.net As I was going through DN15 I see that the translations of important words differ in the two, may be in certain context even change the meaning. So which one is the good translation to follow, read and learn the suttas?

Please provide references from the Pali suttas on nimitta. Are they mentioned in the context of jhana? In the article below, it is mentioned that nimitta is found in the Anapanasati Sutta , but I couldn't find it. Is it there? In the article "Stepping Towards Enlightenment ", Ajahn Brahm wrote about nimitta: > THE NINTH STEP OF the *Anapanasati Sutta* describes a very important > creature that comes to visit the still, silent mind—a *nimitta*. Pali > for “sign,” a *nimitta* is a reflection of the mind. This step is called > *citta-patisamvedi*, “experiencing the mind,” and is achieved when one > lets go of the body, thought, and the five senses (including awareness > of the breath) so completely that only a beautiful mental sign, a > *nimitta*, remains. This pure mental object is a real object in the > landscape of the mind, and when it appears for the first time it is > extremely strange. For most meditators this mental joy, is perceived > as a beautiful light. But it is not a light. The eyes are closed, and > the sight consciousness has long been turned off. Other meditators > choose to describe this first appearance of mind in terms of a > physical sensation such as intense tranquility or ecstasy. It is > perceived as a light or a feeling because this imperfect description > is the best that perception can offer.

Would you kindly give your input on these Pali text quotes and comments? They are derived from "[Questions on the Five Skhandas](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9983/254) ", specifically [Dhammadhatu's answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/17584/254) regarding the common reference "Consciousness is All." Specifically, here are the comments and responses: > "Vedantic teachings inevitably lead to the direct discovery that "consciousness is all." One of your quotes: > "Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness"; that: "a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications ...would be impossible." I am familiar with both traditions but find the definitional- semantic Vedantic and Buddhist use of the term "consciousness' different at times, causing confusion among Advaita Vedanta and Buddhist students. May I quote [The Five Aggregates: A Study Guide by Thanissaro Bhikkhu?](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html) From their commentary, they appear to make contradictory statements. Ultimately, the text differentiates between the use of the term "consciousness' and "Awakening Awareness" or "the deathless". The text, referenced above, says: > He (The Buddha)... discovered a reality — the Deathless — that no words could describe. The author speculates that Buddha had to "stretch" the use of various words to help teach the tools necessary to investigate the kkhandas. Some issues I would love to hear input on: First, the intransience/impermanence of all "things". As the text illustrates: > "Form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy with regard to the five aggregates." What follows is commonly discovered to be inexplicable. Here is the revelation of--perhaps--another term which might be equivalent to both traditions: > "....If passion and delight are entirely eradicated, though, all clinging is entirely abandoned, the intentions that fabricate khandhas are dropped, and the mind totally released. The bricks of the pavement have turned into a runway, and the mind has taken off. Into what? The authors of the discourses seem unwilling to say, even to the extent of describing it as a state of existence, non-existence, neither, or both (§§49-51). As one of the discourses states, the freedom lying beyond the khandhas also lies beyond the realm to which language properly applies (§49; see also AN 4:173). There is also the very real practical problem that any preconceived notions of that freedom, if clung to as a perception-khandha, could easily act as an obstacle to its attainment. Still, there is also the possibility that, if properly used, such a perception-khandha might act as an aid on the path. So the discourses provide hints in the form of similes, referring to total freedom as: The unfashioned, the unbent, the fermentation-free, the true, the beyond, the subtle, the very-hard-to-see, the ageless, permanence, the undecaying, the featureless, non-elaboration, peace, the deathless, the exquisite, bliss, rest, the ending of craving, the wonderful, the marvelous, the secure, security, unbinding, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, release, attachment-free, the island, shelter, harbor, refuge, the ultimate. — SN 43.1-44 Other passages mention a consciousness in this freedom — "without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning (§54). In this it differs from the consciousness-khandha, which depends on the six sense spheres and can be described in such terms as near or far, past, present, or future. Consciousness without feature is thus the awareness of Awakening. And the freedom of this awareness carries over even when the awakened person returns to ordinary consciousness. As the Buddha said of himself: > "Freed, dissociated, & released from form,the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness… birth… aging… death… suffering & stress… defilement, the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness" (§56). Would you kindly give your input on these Pali text quotes and comments? 1. Impermanence-- so what is it that is described above as "permanent", "deathless"? 2. What is it that is referred to as "unfashioned", "exquisite", "bliss", "the ultimate"? 3. What is the semantic difference between what is referred to by some traditions as "consciousness" and Buddha's exquisite, permanent "awareness of Awakening"--"without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — "lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning (§54)" 4. If not consciousness, what is the correct term for "consciousness without feature" that Buddha refers to? 5)How do you describe this " this freedom that carries over even when the awakened person returns to ordinary consciousness?

I am trying to find Buddha's word about Five Niyamas in Sutta. Or does it exist only in commentaries?

Yogacara and Vasubandhu etc deny that matter exists by itself but rather that is comes from awareness and is merely a perception of the mind.what are the arguments Yogacarins make to prove their main thesis?

> the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not > there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said > that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is > to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of > Buddhist practice impossible. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that the skandhas can be identified as a self, as long as they aren't then taken to be in any way unchanged from moment to moment Encyclopedia of Buddhism, By Damien Keown, Charles S. Prebish - So I was wondering if that above silence means that any dharma can fulfill the role of that empirical self. ---------- An example would be: **Adam tastes the apple** Supposing this "taste" can be considered a kind of self, then if Adam sees smells touches feels nothing, just tastes the apple, there is "continuity" and he's *still Adam*. But as long as he does have other senses, and from moment to moment, the taste of apple doesn't make him who is he. I've never read any commentary which claims this is what the empirical self is in Buddhism, so would be really surprised that this ***counts*** as a categorical denial of substantial self .

Which of the five hindrances does '**comparison**' come under? I mean when the mind starts chattering, "***he is better than me, he succeeded where I failed, he got this and I got nothing, he got better of me***" etc etc. I don't have ill-will or hate or resentment towards the person, just plain comparison. And, how to get over this hindrance? I try to develop **mudita (empathic joy)** but does not find that enough. Any and all suggestions are welcome.

That's the question. Is there any advantage in being a lay Buddhist over being a Monk who has gone forth, that is in as far as following the Dhamma-Path to Nirvana is concerned?

Like all religions, there are different branches, traditions, whatever you want to call them. Why would you choose one over the others? Do you think one is right and the others are wrong? Does one fit with your lifestyle? I can see being born into one you might not have a choice. If they are all the same thing at heart, why have the differences? What if you choose the wrong one?

My question tag is similar to this one but I am asking a different question. I am reading DN15 the mahanidana sutta where the Buddha says; > Suppose there were totally and utterly no rebirth for anyone anywhere. > That is, there were no rebirth of sentient beings into their various > realms—of gods, fairies, spirits, creatures, humans, quadrupeds, > birds, or reptiles, each into their own realm. When there’s no rebirth > at all, with the cessation of rebirth, would old age and death still > be found? > "No, sir.” “That’s why this is the cause, source, origin, and > condition of old age and death, namely rebirth. ‘Continued existence > is a condition for rebirth’—that’s what I said. And this is a way to > understand how this is so. Suppose there were totally and utterly no > continued existence for anyone anywhere. That is, continued existence > in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, or the formless > realm. When there’s no continued existence at all, with the cessation > of continued existence, would rebirth still be found?” “No, sir.” Suppose in a hypothetical scenario in which all sentient beings which the Buddha mentions attain Nirvana and there is no rebirth here on planet Earth, wouldn't life as we know it vanish (Except for the trees)? If there is no life, there is no Dhamma and no Buddhism. In that case wouldn't lifeforms emerge and evolve all over again on Earth or on some other habitable planet as they came to being in present form and all cycle of samsara and suffering and birth of Buddha all over again leading to absurdity of the whole endevour? In that case wouldnt Buddhism be an effort to finish the sentient life and act against lifeforce as it is an effort to finish rebirth?

Due to impermanance of everything, Are there anything to be happy or sad about ? Even about **dhamma** ? If something seems like to be happy, there are some reasons to not to be happy. 1. It is impermanant for sure. but also, 2. That **happiness make sadness in the future (future includes next lives)** (I need to be sure about this sententce, please mention about this in your answer) Are enlightened people happy ? Or neither happy nor sad ?

Buddhist teachers say things like > Do not expect anything from anyone, and also: > Do everything with good heart and expect nothing in return and you > will never be disappointed. Such a wonderful lines to get peace and never get disappointed. But as a human, it becomes very tough for us to follow this. Can someone throw light on this please? How we can remove the greedy nature? When we do a lot for someone, we at least expect basic thing in return. It is hard to accept disagreements or carelessness in return from whom where you have done/thought a lot for him in past.

Does a state called "Antarabhava" an existence between death and rebirth exist? Traditional Theravada sources, highly respected scholars and texts in Abhidhamma directly decline this as there is no such thing in the Dependant Origination. Arahat Moggaliputta Tissa Thero has also rejected this in the 3rd Buddhist Council. Bhikkus who support the claim that "Antarabhava" exists takes examples from suttas such as Tirokudda Sutta the first few verses, Kutuhalasala Sutta the last paragraph where Buddha states that a being who has left the present body but has not reborn in another body is sustained on craving (Tanha).

How much is the minimal time for practicing Vipassana in daily life for achieving better mindfulness? Is 30 minutes enough? I ask this question because I currently have some trouble being mindful, and (I think) it has become the source of many problems. If 30 minutes is not enough, perhaps you can give some suggestion based on your experience or the suttas.

I have recently given some interest to NDE stories. After reading a hundred of them, it seems pretty credible that people are telling at least some level of truth in their experience. One thing that seems to come back is that they meet their deceased loved ones, they feel a great feeling of peace/love and a huge increase in their consciousness / mental abilities. Its a bit of "lalaland" and I have several issues with that : Most of them seem to imply that death instantly "upgrade" you to a level of well being/ spiritual knowledge / awareness. They also say that the most important thing in life appears to be their relationship, how they treated others (christian term of "love"). That everything is surrounded in love and blabla it's all fine in the end if your life is hellish since when you die everything is fine. Life on earth as a human would be some kind of a choice, an experience to "expend" your consciousness. I would tend to disagree with all of these things. I don't see any point to life and the suffering that goes with except getting over it by increasing your understanding and knowledge of the self, in order to get over those problems. I would never chose freely to incarnate to experience pain and suffering. To me life is a problem you have to solve. Sometimes the problem are pretty down to earth, like with medical conditions. People used to die because of tooth decay. Now they don't. How is that improving you as a being? I tend to have more faith in the buddhists views that beings are stuck in the cycle of existences, and for most of them they experience unpleasant things/realm due to poor mental setups. To me existence is absurd, in the sense that all the pain is something we have to get over and be done with it. How would experienced buddhists view all these NDE stories? What credit would you give to them and how would you reconcile them with the idea of the cycle of existences?

Perhaps with the exception of Laozi, most sages, founders of religion, & great thinkers from virtuous tradition do not leave us books authored directly by them. In most cases what we have is books written by their followers or commentators. Some did say why they don't want to write. Did the Buddha say why he prefers oral transmission? --- Thank you for the responses and historical references, it's hard to believe that the cause for not writing a book to be lack of written script or writing material, India wasn't that lacking, they even had some intriguing advanced mathematics compare to other civilization and writing did exist by the end of the Vedic period which aligns with Buddha time... But perhaps, as @Andrei noted the oral tradition was more advanced and the preferred method. I asked because I thought maybe the Buddha, the same as other thinkers, saw writing as an incorrect way to transmit his message. For example, Socrates compared writing to dead painting as quoted below, but his view is not directly applicable to Buddhism and in a wider sense to Vedic oral transmission, because the method (i.e the oral transmission) is not about dialectic rather repeating the exact word and phrase. So, for an external observer is an excellent candidate for writing. > The painter’s products stand before us as though they were alive. But > if you question them, they maintain a most majestic silence. It is the > same with written words. They seem to talk to you as though they were > intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say from a > desire to be instructed they go on telling just the same thing forever .

There is a conventional self, so is anything conventionally permanent? Answer from any reputable tradition.

As a lay Buddhist, given that it is terribly difficult to attain to Nimmata or the Jhana and at point when Nirvana seems to be just a wishful thinking able to be attained by superhuman ability and exertion, **how does one motivate oneself to continue?** Every single meditation seems like a postdated cheque in a non-existent bank, how to keep going? I come from a non-Buddhist background and ask myself why should one continue if the path itself is full of suffering?

I came across this interpretation of Buddha's teaching that suggests that the Buddha ultimately sought a dissociative state, rather than one of freedom. > the buddhistic mindfulness meditation does not ... (a) stress genuine freedom, peace and happiness ... and (b) does not eliminate the genetically-encoded instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire (the root cause of human bondage, malice and sorrow) ... and (c) does promise a mythical ‘freedom’ in an imaginary life-after-death (‘Parinirvana’) ... and (d) is not a new, non-spiritual method ... and (e) does not produce an actual freedom from the instinctual animal passions, here and now, on earth, in this lifetime ... and (f) does not offer a step by step, down-to-earth, practical progression to becoming actually free of the human condition of malice and sorrow ... to be both happy and harmless. > > More to your point, however, Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s **mindfulness meditation is primarily about detachment/ dissociation from life** – all existence is Dukkha due to Anicca (impermanence) and Dukkha comes from Tanha (craving) for Samsara (phenomenal existence) – and any meditation technique which stresses involvement with such is anything but what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan taught. So my question is: is anyone that practices mindfulness, as advised by Buddhist teachers, heading towards developing a sort of **dissociation** from their feelings? If not, how can anyone explain the fact of enlightened Buddhists still getting angry without referencing psychological dissociation? **Clarification 1** Some people expressed confusion over that question at the end. My clarification follows. We can agree that Buddhist enlightenment does not guarantee extirpation of emotions (like anger). Thus, feeling angry (for example) does not invalidate someone's enlightenment. Enlightened beings can feel angry. Now, Richard says -- and this has been confirmed by the actually free people -- "I" am "my" feelings, and "my" feelings are "me" (i.e., emotions and self are the same thing). So if enlightened Buddhists claim to be free from illusion of self, and if emotions still remain and occur, how can that be explained as anything but dissociation (i.e., dissociation of a covert part of self from the overt rest of the self)? Hope that is clear enough.

How close is English to Pali? If you look at the etymological pages in wiktionary, for English words, it often includes a "Proto-Indo-European" root, and sometimes mentions Sanksrit too. Take e.g. 'mad' https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mad#Etymology > From Middle English mad, madde, madd, medd, from Old English ġemǣdd, > ġemǣded (“enraged”), past participle of ġemǣdan, *mǣdan (“to make > insane or foolish”), from Proto-Germanic *maidijaną (“to change; > damage; cripple; injure; make mad”), from Proto-Germanic *maidaz > ("weak; crippled"; compare Old English gemād (“silly, mad”), Old High > German gimeit (“foolish, crazy”), Gothic 𐌲𐌰𐌼𐌰𐌹𐌸𐍃 (gamaiþs, > “crippled”)), **from Proto-Indo-European *mey- ("to change"**; compare Old > Irish máel (“bald, dull”), Old Lithuanian ap-maitinti (“to wound”), > **Sanskrit मेथति (méthati, “he hurts, comes to blows”**)). Is there anywhere I can read about Pali as a language that has influenced the etymon, development, of English today?