If I have the idea of an "apple" or its taste, - is the idea as real as the apple itself? Specifically - do the objects of the 6th consciousness depend on anything except the 6th consciousness? In normal philosophical terms - does the idea depend on the mind having the idea, in order to exist? I think these are all equivalent questions, because causation is the conventional truth - ideas, the ultimate - no causation, and the middle - the buddha nature or mind-body.

Is there poetry in Pali, and where can I read it, in translation and in original? If so, who are the most important Pali poets, and is anyone still writing in it?

Quoted below is from 'A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life' by Shantideva For a western reader, I mean someone familiar with Greek Philosophy, the objective emptiness Shantideva expound with regards to atoms is not new. Zeno of Elea posits exactly the same idea. However, what the Greeks don't say is that 'the mind that reason the emptiness in the visible and the imagined is itself nothing' which Shantideva say @ 103 below and the commentary expounds. For example, Socrates says something like the following about the mind: > the mind is like the eye: when resting upon that on which truth and > being shine, the mind perceives and understands and is radiant with > intelligence; but when turned towards the twilight of becoming and > perishing, then she has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and is > first of one opinion and then of another, and seems to have no > intelligence? > > as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole > body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of > the whole mind be turned from the world of becoming into that of > being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the > brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good. So the questions are: Is the samsaric mind the mind when viewing samsara only? Is the knowledge of the unborn accessible to the samsaric mind? Or to put it differently, does an enlightened being samsaric mind access the knowledge of the unborn to guide other sentient beings. I know there is a lot of duality in the above statement, but my question is once the Arhat attains the unborn, how do they descend to human affairs? ---------- A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life' by Shantideva --- 86. Even the parts can be divided into atoms, and an atom itself can be divided according to its cardinal directions. The section of a cardinal direction is space, because it is without parts. Therefore, an atom does not exist. 354. Tibetan:"... Since the cardinal directions have no parts, they are like space. Therefore, atoms do not exist 87. What discerning person would be attached to form, which is just like a dream? Since the body does not exist, then who is a woman and who is a man? 88. If suffering truly exists, why does it not oppress the joyful? If delicacies and the like are a pleasure, why do they not please someone struck by grief and so forth? 89. If it is not experienced because it is overpowered by something more intense, how can that which is not of the nature of experience be a feeling? 90. [Objection:] Surely there is suffering in its subtle state while its gross state is removed. [Madhyamika:] If it is simply another pleasure, then that subtle state is a subtle state of pleasure. 91. If suffering does not arise when the conditions for its opposite have arisen, does it not follow that a "feeling" is a false notion created by conceptual fabrication? 92. Therefore, this analysis is created as an antidote to that false notion. For the meditative stabilizations that arise from the field of investigations are the food of contemplatives. 93. If there is an interval between a sense-faculty and its object, where is the contact between the two? If there is no interval, they would be identical. In that case, what would be in contact with what? 94. One atom cannot penetrate another, because it is without empty space and is of the same size as the other. When there is no penetration, there is no mingling; and when there is no mingling, there is no contact. 95. How, indeed, can there be contact with something that has no parts? If partlessness can be observed when there is contact, demonstrate this. 96. It is impossible for consciousness, which has no form, to have contact; nor is it possible for a composite, because it is not a truly existent thing, as investigated earlier. 97. Thus, when there is no contact, how can feeling arise? What is the reason for this exertion? Who could be harmed by what? 98. If there is no one to experience feeling and if feeling does not exist, then after understanding this situation, why, O craving, are you not shattered? 99. The mind that has a dreamlike and illusion like nature sees and touches. Since feeling arises together with the mind, it is not perceived by the mind. 100. What happens earlier is remembered but not experienced by what arises later. It does not experience itself, nor is it experienced by something else. 101. There is no one who experiences feeling. Hence, in reality, there is no feeling. Thus, in this identityless bundle, who can be hurt by it? 102. The mind is not located in the sense faculties, nor in form and other sense-objects, nor in between them. The mind is also not found inside, nor outside, nor anywhere else. 103. That which is not in the body nor anywhere else, neither intermingled nor somewhere separate, is nothing. Therefore, sentient beings are by nature liberated. *355* 104. If cognition is prior to the object of cognition, in dependence on what does it arise? If cognition is simultaneous with the object of cognition, in dependence on what does it arise? 105. If it arises after the object of cognition, from what would cognition arise? In this way it is ascertained that no phenomenon comes into existence. *335 According to the Panjika, pp. 245-246, the mind that is not in the body nor somewhere else outside the body, that is neither intermingled between those two, the body and outside thing, nor separate from the body and present somewhere else, is ultimately nothing, that is, it does not truly exist. It is only presented by mental fabrication. **The samsaric mind** appears like an illusion because it lacks an intrinsic nature. For that reason, sentient beings are liberated by nature, because the natural nirvana (prakrti-nirvana), which has the characteristic of the absence of intrinsic nature, is always present in the streams of consciousness of all sentient beings.*

I am doing meditation as narrated in following steps by Ajahn Brahma to attain to Jhanas. 1. Present moment awareness 2. Silent Present moment awareness 3. Silent Present moment awareness on the breath 4. Fully sustained awareness on the breath 5. Fully sustained attention on beautiful breath 6. Experiencing the beautiful Nimmita 7. Jhana I have reached the stste of **Fully sustained awareness on the breath** for last couple of days now. But the pitisukha or delightful or beautiful breath is not occuring. Am I lacking ekkagata or concentration? Its getting boring to remain in this state for half an hour. Also, at what stage does the sense of body disappear? Any suggestions?

I doubt that anybody has asked this question before, which is why I thought to write it down. Since I was thirteen-years-old, I have saved a lot of photographs from the internet on the cloud (i.e., like how someone would save 'likes' to their Twitter profile). The reason at the time was that I was trying to find myself as a person. Now, I have spent four years doing this and I know myself better. I have been trying to remove everything unnecessary from my life. I downsized my room and finished writing a manuscript that I began four years ago. Now, I have to go through all of my photos and see which ones are important because a few of the photos do help me to better visualise a healthier lifestyle sort of like iconography. The issue is that, unlike fixing my room or manuscript, I have realised that visual images are a very complex category, both in genre and subject. I feel like this is the last part of my old life that I need to put in check, but I have been trying on and off for 2 months now in quarantine. How do I make sure that I am only saving things that will help my spiritual practice and how do I get rid of unhelpful or unnecessary images that perhaps look nice or so on? I am new and I apologise if I have misunderstood anything, but this seems a bit like a desire and I am wondering about the middle way. Please, do not be shy. Any and all answers would be helpful.

I am asking the Vajrayana/Mahayana view as I already know the theravada view.I heard that Buddhas only have jnana and not vijnana wich means they are inert like rocks but 'act' based on past merit and deeds , > > there is a sutra passage cited in the Yogācārabhūmi viniścayasaṃgrahanī that states: > > "Bhagavān, how should the mental factors of the tathāgatas be known?" > > "Mañjuśrī, the mind (citta, sems), intellect (yid, manas) or > consciousness (vijñāna, rnam shes) of tathāgatas are indeed not > differentiated in discerning wisdom, but the mind of a tathāgata > arises without formations, and should known to be like an emanation." > > "Bhagavān, it being the case the dharmakāya of the tathāgatas is free > from all action of formations, on the other hand, do mental factors > arise without the action of formations?" > > "Mañjuśrī, it is due to past cultivation of method and wisdom. > > Mañjuśrī, one awakens [from sleep] because of the power of past > formations, but though there are no formations for arising in the > concentration on cessation, one arises [from concentration] only > through the power of past formations. Just as like the mental factors > of sleep and the concentration on cessation, the mental factors of the > tathāgatas should be known to be formations of past cultivation of > method and wisdom." > > "Bhagavān, do the emanations of the tathāgatas have minds or not?" > > "Mañjuśrī, Though they do not have minds, they are also not mindless, > because minds are neither independent nor dependent." so they're like robots.How true is this?and if it is true,isn't suffering but existing for all intents and purposes better than not existing and not suffering?.

Was the Buddha a bodhisattva before his awakening? Are there references from the suttas which point to when (possibly in past lives)? > Bodhisattva is the Sanskrit term for anyone who has generated > Bodhicitta, a spontaneous wish and compassionate mind to attain > Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. The following appears to suggest that the *four immeasurables* may have been present in the Buddha's past lives: > The early Buddhist texts assert that pre-Buddha ancient Indian sages > who taught these [four immeasurables ] were earlier > incarnations of the Buddha. > I apologize if the answer is obvious, but I haven't found a direct answer from the suttas.

The Buddha taught that he was the Bodhisattva Śvetaketu who resided in the Tushita heavans, before being born as the human Prince Gautama. where is this passage coming from?

Does 'karma' mean that everything that happens to us is under our control, or only that we are responsible for it? I thought that only substantial beings could be completely in control of everything that happens to them, and not just because things are impermanent. Also, conditioned things are a result of past karma, which is often said to be an unconscious process of seeds becoming ripe. So surely it would only be under out control over the course of very many lives, at least? The Points of Controversy -- theravada -- refute the claim that everything is from karma, including karma, of the rajagirikas and siddhatthikas. But it does not show that for anything but new karma. The sautrantikas taught that there is no life faculty sustaining events between life and death, because karma alone is "sufficient" to account for all destinies. > this is accepted by all Buddhists... theravada or mahayana The Lioness in Bloom, p33 Further, Bodhidharma exhorted > the practice of following conditions, sentient beings lack a self and > are all whirled around by conditions and karma; **suffering and joy are > to be equally accepted, for both arise from conditions. If I > encounter excellent karmic recompense, such as honor and so forth, it > is in response to causes in my past lives**. Even if I should encounter > such recompense in the present, the necessary conditions for it will > exhaust themselves, and it will again cease to exist. What is there > to be joyful about in its existence? Gain and loss follow conditions. > Mind has neither increase nor decrease. Unmoved by the winds of joy, > one is mysteriously in accordance with the path. Therefore, it is > called the practice of following conditions. - Bodhidharnma, *Two Entrances*

(I know there have been some questions about this same topic but each one is a particular issue) I have started taking the buddhist path not long ago, less than three years. Life felt too heavy and it felt like it was pushing me towards not wanting to *play the game* anymore. So buddhism seemed like the way to go. I was pretty excited about it for quite some time, hearing about the mystic expeciences, the idea of feeling the float from releasing from ego and the satori experience itself - but only as long as it was a distant, remote possibility. As soon as I started digging deeper into this reality, investigating it for what it **really** is, things changed. I started feeling afraid of it and then terribly afraid. I can't forget the first time I faced the idea of vanishing from this existence forever, the true death; never being able to come back once I 'saw it'. Nevertheless I kept investigating. Then I contemplated the idea of being trapped in this. Existence has no way out, anywhere you go there is still existence. In other words 'What if it has been like this for millions, billions of years, maybe even for eternity? What if I am stuck in this illusion, completaly alone, unable to get anything out of it, for the eternity, and this is what the whole, me, ultimately is?'. Having seen this brought me to an unforgettable state of total dispair. Some months have passed and now the whole thing feels weird. The more I look at reality, the more weird it gets and if I look hard enough it becomes dreadful. How strange is this thing we call death, or enlightenment, or time or self. I can't put in words how weird life feels for me. Sometimes when I wake up in the morning there is a strong sense of feeling weird to have hands and to move and to be in a body. Indeed, the **I** does not make sense, nothing makes sense. And I am afraid of being stuck in this forever. But if enlightenment is the only scape, I am afraid of never being able to come back. I am afraid everything is just an illusion, that there aren't others, just images and I'm alone. Sometimes I fear there isn't even enlightenment to save me. My question is: Am I going crazy? Am I getting it all wrong? I just wanted some light. Also, I am asking here because I know other people won't understand what I am talking about. Sorry for the long question.

Do some, all, or no Mahayanists claim that we are all "bodhisattvas"? Obviously, those influenced by the Lotus sutra claim that we are all -- at least potentially -- Buddhas. But I'm unclear about the word "bodhisattva", whether anyone at all can rightfully claim they are a bodhisattva. For example, I think I'm aware of some ch'an Buddhists, which was deeply influenced by the 'one vehicle', saying that we progress through stages, only being bodhisattvas after abandoning the three vehicles. But perhaps this is skilful means, and not at all the case?

There’s one issue that seems to be very divisive in my conversations. And I realize that it is because of me and my own aversion & anxiety. I have done drugs. But one drug that always bothered me since I was young was cocaine. My father abandoned my mother when I was young and was very much involved with it as an abuser and a seller. For this reason I was always sure to not use it. I’ve been around it a few times & each time I get extremely uncomfortable. Not only that, but when somebody close to me talks about it in a nonchalant way, it tends to make me so uncomfortable that I can’t help but get defensive & agitated. I feel very hypocritical because I have done other drugs like acid and mushrooms and feel no aversion to that. And I feel like I am being very judgemental in my reactionary ways when it is discussed. Is there any Buddhist guidance when it comes to how to deal with our aversions & judgements? I’m mostly sober now & plan to stay that way, but just because I’m on my own path, I feel that I shouldn’t judge others on theirs.

I am asking moreso the mahayana/Vajrayana view as I know the theravada one. do buddhas have any functional kind of awareness at all,or are they inert like rocks?a mahayanika told me that Buddhas have no awareness at all and no contact.yet another told me they have limited awareness.a Vajrayanika said they have jnana but not vijnana,wich would mean theyre inert and percieve nothing at all.

I thought id ask how you would explain what is commonly referred to as "Zeno' Paradox of Achillies racing the turtle" in Buddhist terms. For those who aren't familiar the paradox is like this [Youtube Animation](https://youtu.be/NCtw5f6XPF4) ; - Achillies is supposed to race a turtle. - Achillies gives the turtle a head start of say 10 meters. - Achillies runs at 10 meters per second. - The Turtle runs at 2 meters per second. - Achillies starts the race from the point A as the turtle starts the race from point B which is B=A+10meters. - By the time [+1 second] Achillies reaches the point B, the turtle will have moved from the point B at a speed of 2 meters/second and after 1 second will have reached the point C=B+2meters, moving B to C and remain ahead of Achillies by 2 meters. - By the time [+1.2 second] Achilies moves A to B and B to C, reaching the point C; the turtle will have moved from the point C at a speed of 2 meters per second and after 1.2 that it took Achilies to cover the 12meters going first from A to B then from B to C, the turtle will have moved from B to C and further from C to D wherein D=C+0.4meters, still ahead of Achilies by 0.4 meters. - By the time [+1.24 seconds] Achillies reaches the point D, the turtle will have moved from the point C at a speed of 2 meters per second and after 1.24 seconds that it took Achilies to cover the 12.4 meters going first A to B, then B to C and furthermore from C to D; the turtle will have moved B to C, C to D and furthermore from D to E wherein E=D+0.08meters, still ahead of Achilies by 0.08 meters. - This is then supposed to go on indefinitely with Achillies paradoxically never reaching the turtle due to infinite division of space & time into smaller intervals. The reason i am asking is because i have not seen Buddhists do this before, am curious as to whether someone here can provide a comprehensible explaination and want to develop an answer myself even tho i have an idea of how id answer this. Let's just assume for simplicity sake that it's just a thought experiment and a ground for confusion rather than a "true paradox" of some sort. I want substantiated answers based on texts know to be true such as the sutta-pitaka but it's not a requirement.

What is Panchang Pranam in Buddhism and what is the correct way of doing it and its significance? Is it some sort of chanting?

Thinking about the two kinds of goodness in giving, and about debt when we receive a gift (*guṇā*), my person just thought to ask if there is a Sutta which points the different kinds of debt to those two kinds of giving? One kind of (debt) giver is perhaps best embodied by Mara: e.g. enemies disguised as friends, or the strings of sensuality (*kāmaguṇā*). The other kind of (debt) giver (who gives debts torward debtlessness: end of *upādāna*, entertainment) is the *Bhagavatā*, the One who can Give, the Liberal, along with the other gods (starting by parents, teacher, admirable friends). Just thought, next to the many Suttas around this fact, if there might be one direct pointing out the two kinds of *guṇā* and the debts in receiving the given, the inclination to certain destination by association and increasing debts. Of course given, free of the first kind of *guṇā* (without wordily strings), Dhamma given in line with Dhamma, is preferred, is possible acceptable. (For those possible not so familar with the use of the word *guṇā*, it's used as "goodness" in dhammic countries, for example "person of goodness"/"figue of merits" when speaking about people who one by dhammic law owes debts, like parents, leader, teacher... While the word is also used for the givers of sensuality.) *[Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]*

I heard that "grasping a sign" is considered a bad thing in Buddhism. Why is that so and what does that refer to? We know that "attachment to views" is a bad thing too. Are these related? (signs and views)? Does Buddhism say anything about broad generalizations vs. careful analysis? Is this topic connected with signs and views, too? Does all of the above tie to suffering somehow?

When there is reduced thinking in a one door out of five sense doors ,which means if you have seen a pleasant thing and if no thoughts arise regarding them,Whether that apply to the other doors as well?what is that samadhi?in that case what is the middle way of it?

What is the meaning of "in and of itself" in the [Maha-satipatthana Sutta DN 22](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN22.html) ?

I've read an article that mentioned something like _neutral_ Karma, and it seems it is no more/less than no Karma. Does anything differentiate neutral Karma from no Karma?