Is it bad karma to think but not claim that one is enlightened, or just bad for your practice? With respect to the latter, the Surangama Sutra springs to mind, and its advice for dealing with unusual states during meditation. Similarly, Tientai taught that without understanding we unenlightened people are not yet Buddhas, our faith that we are does not work, and we do not experience sudden enlightenment. But is it actually bad karma, if we don't claim to others to be?

Imagine a human being born in 1982 weighing a few pounds at birth and labeled 'Melinda' by her parents. This little human being grows up - as little human beings tend to do - and by 2020 we imagine her as an adult no longer called 'Melinda', but rather change her name to 'Abigail.' If we examine the bodies of Melinda and Abigail down to the atom and perform a thorough and exact accounting we find that Melinda and Abigail do not share even one atom in common. Their brains are composed of entirely different atoms. Is the rupa skandha of Melinda and Abigail the same or different? Has it been reborn? What was the manner of its rebirth? How did it occur? How many times did it occur between 1982 to 2020? Is the same true of the other skandhas... have they been reborn? Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical laws or some combination? Did 'Melinda' *die* sometime between 1982 and 2020 and get utterly annihilated? Was Abigail *born* for the first time from scratch between 1982 and 2020 and just pop into existence from nothing? How is it possible that beings are reborn from moment-to-moment? In what manner and to what extent? What did the Buddha teach?

1. How do I deal with food cravings or craving in general? According to the four efforts I should replace craving with the disadvantages. Can loving-kindness also work? I feel like concentrating on impermanence and on the disadvantages, in the midst of an emotion, works not as effective. I guess one needs to strengthen one's conviction in both? 2. I read the Buddha saying about guarding the senses -- but I doubt that the Buddha meant not looking, not hearing (etc) at things. While it can be advantageous, I think perceiving them differently is much more important. Can someone answer what "sense-guarding" means, or "not grasping at the beautiful", and how do I do it?

In two schools of Buddhism, an important part of the practice is the repetition of special mantras which sound like simple expressions of honor or gratitude to those of us outside of the sects, but which have profound meaning to the practitioners. Is it possible to explain the deeper meaning of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo ("Homage to the Lotus Sutra") as Nichiren Buddhists understand it or Namu Amida Butsu ("Homage to Amida Buddha") as Jodo Shinshu Buddhists understand it or must these thing be understood only through experiencing them?

Nothing is satisfying. Everything feels shallow, meaningless. There is no joy in eating, sleeping, working, reading, entertainment, social media, relationships, or sexual pleasures. I don't know why I am doing all this? Maybe just for the sake of it. But surely all the glamour and attraction in the above things is very superficial. The ego is never satisfied. So what is the use of doing all this? I am trying to find something which never desires, is always satisfied, is Deep and meaningful. Or should I work on making these superficial things satisfying? I feel lost in this material world. Suffering more than I enjoyed. Suddenly everything seems bull shit. Desires have become a pain in the ass, making me do the things I don't want to do, at least I don't feel satisfied after doing them. Show the question comes up again, why am I doing these things? I would very much like to eliminate all this things in my life but they are a compulsion to human life. Other people are craving these things and satisfying themselves but for me all this has become stupidity. And on the other side I feel a lot of freedom of choice. And even after realising this I can't seem to get out of this rut. What do I do?

I read the following on the internet: > Here-and-now-view is one of the wrong views, DN1 Is here-and-now-view one of the wrong views in DN1? Please kindly provide some quotes about this.

On this site there are some users who claim that birth & death are mental phenomena, while other people argue that it's something physical. Contextually, the Buddha lived in a time where other sects believed in some sort of an afterlife and/or 'soul transmigration', so perhaps Buddhism borrowed these principles as well, due to social & cultural conditioning? Today, 'Atheists' & 'secular Buddhists' read the suttas with their modern 21st century understanding, which is not open for speculative, unverifiable things.They don't put the Buddha's context into account, where these things might have been quite important. On the other hand, the Buddha invites us to see for ourselves & to experience the teachings in the here-&-now. Since DO is about the origination of dukkha, how do we both see & stop *literal birth, death & aging*? Wouldn't this be completely in conflict with the here-&-now principle mentioned above? The aging & death part in the sutta is straightforward. To quote: > "Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various **beings** in this or that group of **beings**, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various **beings** in this or that group of **beings**, that is called death. In the quote above I cannot see any 'self-views' are subject to aging & death. Instead, I extrapolate from that quote that indeed something physical is happening (aging, decreptitude, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty). So my question is: How do we really reconcile "Here-&-now" teachings with speculative, unverifiable theories, such as repeated rebirths, agings & deaths?

I'm wondering why some people have many friends (lasting friendship like friends since kindergarten to college)while some has almost none. I understand that it would depend on situations in present. But if there's effect from past, what would these be? From buddhism point of view.

I want to understand the nature of rebirth. If one says that the next rebirth would depend on the degree of identification, does that mean that if I am not identified with body I will be reborn without a body or as mind only? Or does it just go to a higher being overall that keeps that degree of overall identification and not restart from scratch? Or the rebirth just restarts all the identifications and the path has to start all over again? What also caught my attention is if there is complete dis-identification even with the inherit "I" self existing independently, and that now existence itself realized that it is not this limited "I" because it can't be that "I" realized but what is before that which is nothing and everything and no birth will occur, doesn't that mean "I" will never exist again and just dissolve into existence? Or rebirth can happen as a completely dis-identified being by default?

I'm novice to meditation and Buddhism. Apologies if this is silly question I've been practicing antipasti meditation for few months. While I watch/understand my breath, when a thought arise I use 6 Rs and let it go and come back to breath. However when meditation gets bit deep while the mind is somewhat still, I come to a deep realization. It's like everything's zoomed in. - Is this an early levels of Vipassana? Then I get confused that this is a call from my monkey mind so I go back to 6Rs. Is my practice correct? Bit confused over my approach. Also I don't have a meditation teacher. Appreciate your feedback :)

Buddha arises. In the past there were several Buddhas. And it is said that in the future there will be at least one. My question is under what conditions does a Samyaksambuddha arise?

I feel very guilty when I break the vinaya / shila. Now it became a couse for suffering. Some times I feel very bad about people who not follows vinaya. How do I get out of this ? How to follow vinaya without attaching to it ?

Does Pure Land Buddhism ever have a Buddha other than Amitābha as the object of devotion? Or is Pure Land Buddhism by definition a devotion to Amitābha and an aspiration to be reborn in his pure land? I'm aware there are a lot of other Buddhas so I just wondered if they were ever the focus of this tradition.

According to Buddhism, one's self is made of 5 agregates. But these agregagtes should dissolve at death, because according to neurosciences,feeling, perception, thinking and conscience are just functions of the brain, which is destroyed at one's death. So what links the new human B that is considered a reincarnation of human A ?

Elements of Buddhism can be rationally accepted such as the suffering that arises through attachment, the benefits of meditation, and even the acceptance of anatta, or non-self. It seems, however, that a belief in rebirth cannot be accepted *rationally*. A believer must suspend rationality to accept a theory that describes the migration of some level of consciousness across a lifetime. A common analogy used is the light emitting from a candle. Nothing *substantial* transmigrates, however something passes over from one life to the next. This theory cannot be directly perceived. Therefore, it cannot be tested, or verified rationally. It is simply a metaphysical inference. Buddhism encourages debate and questioning of its theories, and to not accept everything on face value. How then can a Buddhist test this theory? Can one disregard this element of Buddhism? Is it an *essential* aspect of the philosophy?

In Mahasi Sayadaws "Progress of Insight", Chapter 12. Insight Leading to emergence (vutthanagamini-vipassana-ñana), a reference is made to Milindapañha. >Also in the Questions of King Milinda it is said: "His consciousness, while carrying on the practice of bringing to mind (i.e., noticing), passes beyond the continuous occurrence of phenomena and alights upon non-occurrence. One who, having practiced in the correct manner, has alighted upon non-occurrence, O king, is said to have realized Nibbana." Where is this paragraph or its correspondent, in the Milindapañha english translation of Bhikku Pesala? http://www.aimwell.org/milinda.html

I'm an older male, actually a grandfather, and a Western convert to Buddhism. I came to Buddhism through meditation and interest in 60's mysticism - Alan Watts, D T Suzuki and the like. I read many books and for many years maintained a regular daily sitting practice, which has rather fallen by the wayside of late. But I think the meditation side of Buddhism was very important to me, I'm naturally drawn to mysticism and feel I intuitively understand it, even though most people think it's just nonsense. I discovered a Pureland (Jodo Shinshu) sangha in my neighborhood about mid last year. I have gone to the service regularly since then. Actually the Venerable is very pleased to have a new convert as it seems to me converts are very few and far between. I very much like the Teacher and the aesthetics of the liturgy and ceremonies, albeit much is in Japanese (although some teachings are always given in English too.) It seems to me that if you accept this path, though, you basically give up Buddhism as a kind of D-I-Y path to enlightenment. Pureland is very critical of meditation, which is 'self-power' and doomed to fail - 'only one in a million' can follow the 'path of sages'. Basically part of the message is, don't do it. A recent dharma talk made an explicit point of this. The thing that drew me to Pureland is that I know I am not a virtuous sage, but just a flawed human with bad habits and problematical behaviours. I actually do believe there is a life beyond (and a life previous) and that I have allowed myself to become corrupted by the culture into which I've been born. But the obstacle I have with Jodo Shinshu is that in this sense it's very like the Christian religion that I thought I had left - it requires unswerving faith, but you will never know, this side of death, whether the Western paradise is a reality and not simply a cherished belief. It was exactly that which caused me to leave Christianity. One of the reasons I chose to study Buddhism in the first place was that one could arrive at a higher understanding through meditation, even though I have since found out I have an indelible tendency to sabotage my own aspirational goals. Accordingly, the notion that we're bombu, spiritually inept individuals who can never succeed under their own power, definitely rings true. So it's a bit of a quandary at this point. I have a small Buddhist altar which is my practice place, I have been endeavouring to practice with a Sōtō Zen type of attitude. I feel as though I should continue to make the effort to sit zazen. Not because I will succeed through it, but 'sitting just to sit', as I've always done. It's not so much a question, as the need to discuss some of this with other practitioners and get their perspectives.

It's said that gods/devas experience more superior sensual pleasures than human beings. Human beings who keep Buddhist five precepts will be able to take rebirth in heavenly realm. Sensual pleasure is associated with greed (lobha), superior sensual pleasure means high level of greed & lust. If one wants to take rebirth in heaven, does it mean one has to practice five precepts and he also has to have high degree of greed & lust? For example, a person who often visits prostitute has both the quality of keeping five precepts and high degree of lust/greed. Does that increase his chance to be reborn as deva? > *Suppose, Māgandiya, a householder or a householder’s son was rich, with great wealth and property, and being provided and endowed with > the five cords of sensual pleasure, he might enjoy himself with forms > cognizable by the eye…with sounds cognizable by the ear…with odours > cognizable by the nose…with flavours cognizable by the tongue…with > tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired, > agreeable, and likeable, **connected with sensual desire and provocative > of lust. Having conducted himself well in body, speech and mind, on > the dissolution of the body, after death, he might reappear in a happy > destination, in the heavenly world in the retinue of the gods of the > Thirty-three; and there, surrounded by a group of nymphs in the > Nandana Grove, he would enjoy himself, provided and endowed with the > five cords of divine sensual pleasure**. Suppose he saw a householder or > a householder’s son enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the > five cords of human sensual pleasure. What do you think, Māgandiya? > Would that young god surrounded by the group of nymphs in the Nandana > Grove, enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of > divine sensual pleasure, envy the householder or the householder’s son > for the five cords of human sensual pleasure or would he be enticed by > human sensual pleasures?”* > >*MN 75*

> According to Nagarjuna, the second causal link (sankhara, motivations) > and the tenth causal link (bhava, gestation) are two karmas through > which sentient beings trigger seven sufferings identified in the > Twelve Nidanas, and from this arises the revolving rebirth cycles. The 7th link is from contact with the world, and is called Vedana: > Feeling or sensations are of six forms: vision, hearing, olfactory > sensation, gustatory sensation, tactile sensation, and intellectual > sensation (thought). In general, vedanā refers to the pleasant, > unpleasant and/or neutral sensations that occur when our internal > sense organs come into contact with external sense objects and the > associated consciousness. So I take it that when the light [or equivalent in Buddhism] from an object makes contact with the eye organ, it generates Vedana. Is it, then, incorrect to say that the object itself has karma: if the contact and feeling of it is karmically conditioned? ---------- I'm asking because I wondered whether, when the meditator is in the fomrless absorption, or is reborn in a formless realm, she or he still experiences what most people [I know I would] class as the shape of visual consciousness, because this itself is not form, or consciousness, but itself karma.

I've been a Vipassana meditator for some time (2 10-day retreats and regular meditation on a near-daily basis). I've found it tremendously helpful and life changing. I'm also a type-1 diabetic. I sought the advice of a good Ayuverda doctor near me and started following his guidelines for what to eat/not to in accordance with my "prakriti". I eat mostly vegetables and rarely ever touch meat. I've been eating very healthy and have noticed a lot of improvements in overall wellbeing. However, I have been experiencing some bizarre things in my meditation. Extremely intense emotions and sensations began to arise in my body and it makes me wonder if a cleaner diet had anything to do with it. I feel a constant clenching and tightness in my whole neck which goes up to the left side of my head up the jaw. I feel much more from the left side of my chest. Various sensations have begun to arise from there and it makes me wonder if this is a natural evolution when one goes along the path. I am constantly in touch with my healthcare team and have a clean bill of health even after many years with diabetes. I feel much more in my body, but cannot describe it to my doctors as i feel this has something to do with my awarenss gained from meditation. Unfortunately, I use cannabis (trying to quit) and feel that the cannabis greatly intensifies very unpleasant sensations, particularly in the chest area where I even feel some stabbing pain and burning. Does eating vegetables increase the "sharpness" of meditation? Should I quit drinking coffee/using cannabis? I am intrigued by what is happening in my body and have no clue which person I should consult about these sort of things. I am a vata/pitta individual living in the Netherlands.