Wikipedia mentions the following translation of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19-20 without mentioning a source: > There is nothing whatsoever of samsara distinguishing (it) from nirvana. There is nothing whatsoever of nirvana distinguishing it from samsara. (That?) is the limit which is the limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara; Even a very subtle interval is not found of (between) them.[citation needed] Where does that translation originate from?

I watched a video of the Dalai Lama and he seemed to be saying that afflictive thoughts cause suffering and that people need to control their thoughts and cultivate wholesome ones etc. Outside of a retreat environment I can't see how it's possible. Everything is moving so fast. Hundreds of thoughts are just coming and going all the time. It's not even possible to be aware of them most of the time. I find myself suffering and have no clue about the thoughts that got me there. I mean they must have already happened and gone. It's not like I chose to think them. I'm not sure what I should do. Should I just try to cultivate more metta? Also we are taught to not analyse the content of thoughts arising during meditation but to just note them and return to the breath. I'm wondering how I get to know what is wholesome and unwholesome if I don't analyse?

The wikipedia page for [Buddhist Cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#Origins) has a section titled "Origins" in which the following sentence occurs: >No single sūtra sets out the entire structure of the universe, but in several sūtras the Buddha describes other worlds and states of being, and other sūtras describe the origin and destruction of the universe. I am interested in reading these sūtras, in which the Buddha describes other worlds and states of being, but I am not sure what they are. Does anyone know what sūtras the author of the article is referring to?

I am long time student of Chogyam Trungpa. Unfortunately, the current situation at the sangha (now Shambhala International) is in a state of chaos. I am interested in becoming B. Alan Wallace's student. I'm wondering if his path is similar to Vajradhatu, in other words, start with shamatha/vipassana, then ngondro, and then abhiseka. Thank you

What is the acceptability of the Jataka literature across various Buddhist traditions? Please answer with references from both traditional and modern perspectives if possible.

MN38 is a direct confontration between Buddha and the venerable Sati: > Then the Blessed One addressed a certain monk: “Monk, go and summon > Sāti Bhikkhu with my words: ‘Venerable Sāti, the Teacher summons > you.’” “Yes, Bhante,” that monk replied the Blessed One. He approached > Sāti Bhikkhu and said to him, “Venerable Sāti, the Teacher summons > you.” “Yes, Venerable,” Sāti Bhikkhu replied to that monk, and > approached the Blessed One. After approaching and venerating the > Blessed One, he sat to one side. When Sāti Bhikkhu was seated to one > side, the Blessed One said to him, “Sāti, is it true that this kind of > harmful perspective has arisen in you: ‘As I understand… and nothing > else’?” “Bhante, it is in this way that I understand the Dhamma taught > by the Blessed One: It is this very consciousness which wanders in > Saṁsāra, and nothing else.” “Sāti, what is that consciousness?” > “Bhante, it is what speaks and feels; it is what experiences in > various ways the results of good and bad actions.” “Foolish man3, for > whom do you recall the Dhamma having been taught by me in that way? > Foolish man, haven‘t I spoken of consciousness in many ways as > conditionally arisen, and that consciousness does not exist apart from > its cause? Foolish man, you misrepresent me using your own wrongly > held opinion. You damage yourself4 and accumulate much demerit. > Foolish man, this will lead to your long-term detriment and > suffering.” Why does Buddha suggest the view of consciousness transmigrating across lifetimes is a view that causes suffering? The fact that he says consciousness is conditional arising, how does holding the transmigrating view affect the liberating view? Since Buddha also taught > ‘This [consciousness] is not mine, I am not this, this is not my > self.’ na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ." So if we combine those two views ie. the above and Sati's view, are we in trouble for suffering? In addition, does Timsa sutta contradict the lecture to Sati? He says: > The Blessed One said, "From an inconceivable beginning comes > transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings > hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & > wandering on. What do you think, monks? Which is greater, the blood > you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & > wandering this long, long time, or the water in the four great > oceans?" >

1. What is your view regarding svasaṃvedana? Do you accept or deny (the existence of) svasaṃvedana? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svasaṃvedana https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Svasaṃvedana 2. Can a Buddhist know whether or not he/she have really genuine and firm bodhicitta **by him-/her- self**? If yes, then how? (Does this question have to do with svasaṃvedana?)

Do I intend to do something if I also intend to stop myself from doing it? Suppose I intend to eat the hamburger, but also intend to stop myself doing so. Is that intent in the Buddhist sense?

Buddhist scriptures describe numerous supranormal phenomena such as the existence of devas (gods), multiple cosmological realms such as heaven and hell, and the continuity of consciousness or reincarnation that are inaccessible to ordinary sensory perception and cannot be established through conventional inference. This raises a question about the nature of scriptural authority across Buddhist traditions. Do schools such as Theravāda, Mahāyāna, or Vajrayāna treat scripture or scriptural revelations as independent, authoritative proof of such phenomena, in a manner analogous to how śruti functions in Hindu Vedānta, where the text itself serves as an epistemic source? Or are these teachings primarily seen only as guiding principles for ethical conduct, meditative practice, and direct experiential verification, rather than as conclusive evidence of supranormal realities? References to classical texts, commentaries, or doctrinal discussions that clarify whether the status of scriptural proof in Buddhism is regarded as epistemically authoritative for realities beyond perception and inference would be especially illuminating.

After a week and a half long meditation retreat, I’ve had pinprick sensations around my body, mostly around the head area but also around the body. I can feel them much more during meditation and when I’m trying to sleep (probably because I am not moving and it is quiet) but also during daily life as well. I felt them much more intensely (almost painful) during the retreat. Sometimes I am in a situation that makes me anxious the pinpricks also comes in full force. This has been bad mostly because it makes it hard to fall asleep sometimes. I do not remember having these sensations before the retreat. From my research, it seems some number of people have experienced this, but mostly during meditation, and not in daily life. I have not found any appropriate western “scientific” explanation. How should I combat this, short term in making it affect my life less, and long term in potentially getting rid of it? How would you explain this phenomenon? Should I find a teacher to deal with this? If so, where could I find an appropriate one? I live in Canada, but if I could talk to someone through call I would gladly do this as well.

In AN1.51-52 , we find a description of the luminous mind. The Pali version can be found here . The description in 51-52 implies that it is pre-existing. It's just that the ordinary worldling doesn't discern that it's actually present. But the noble disciples discern that it's actually present. "yathābhūtaṃ " means "in truth; in reality; in its real essence." "pajānāti " means "knows clearly". We know that Nibbana is not conditioned (sankhara) and not impermanent (anicca). But from the description, it sounds like the luminous mind, which is pre-existing in both worldlings and noble disciples, is always there, just that it is obscured by incoming defilements (kilesa). Does this mean that the luminous mind is also not conditioned (sankhara) and not impermanent (anicca)? > “Pabhassa­ra­midaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. Tañca kho āgantukehi > upakkilesehi upakkiliṭṭhaṃ. Taṃ assutavā puthujjano yathābhūtaṃ > nappajānāti. Tasmā ‘assutavato puthujjanassa cittabhāvanā natthī’ti > vadāmī”ti. > > “Pabhassa­ra­midaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. Tañca kho āgantukehi > upakkilesehi vippamuttaṃ. Taṃ sutavā ariyasāvako yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti. > Tasmā ‘sutavato ariyasāvakassa cittabhāvanā atthī’ti vadāmī”ti. > > “Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming > defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t discern > that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that—for the > uninstructed run-of-the-mill person—there is no development of the > mind.” > > “Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming > defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns > that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that—for the > well-instructed disciple of the noble ones—there is development of the > mind.”

Dharmakīrti’s Vādanyāya is a well-known Buddhist treatise devoted specifically to debate theory and logical refutation within the epistemological tradition of Dignāga. Are there any other similar Buddhist manuals on debate, dialectics, or formal disputation from other philosophical schools such as the Madhyamaka tradition or others? Looking for texts that systematically discuss debate structure, methods of refutation, or logical reasoning in a detailed way comparable to Vādanyāya.

Does anyone know of a good summary of the Visuddhimagga? Is *"Loosening the Tangle" A meditator’s guide to the Visuddhimagga by Ian Rose* a good summary?

Psychedelic substances such as psilocybin or LSD often induce experiences described as "ego death," where the usual sense of self dissolves and a feeling of unity or boundlessness arises. Some interpret these states as glimpses of spiritual truth, potentially similar to Buddhist insights into anattā (non-self) or śūnyatā (emptiness). From a Buddhist perspective, are these chemically induced experiences considered valid insights into the nature of self and reality, or are they fundamentally different from the realizations attained through traditional Buddhist practice? Are there teachings or commentaries that address the nature or value of such experiences?

Yesterday, I went on a psychedelic trip and felt loved and held by a divine presence, not lost, but ultimately belonging. It was so wonderful. I want to secure that feeling in my heart. I'm drawn to the idea of Jesus Christ, a savior, a personal relationship, a friend who loves me, always listening, a friend who always loves me. I want to integrate that feeling into a Buddhist framework. Should I recite Namo Guanshiyin Pusa or Namo Amitabha, which is more similar to the feeling given by Jesus Christ of having an intimate personal relationship with a divine presence that loves you and holds you and you are with them and you belong to them? EDIT: I read both the Universal Gate Chapter and the Short Amitabha Sutra and definitely felt avalokitesvara’s message hitting closer to home. However, I felt more emotinal impact when chanting Namo Amitiofo and also felt his visualization more concrete and powerful (the golden Buddha of infinite ligh) then Guanyin. So I’m kinda torn.

I read the following excerpt from a text on the internet - > Hindu philosophers generally classify all tattvas or categories into > 36 or 96, **of these the lowest 24 are the elements , Tanmatras , > Karmendrya , Jnanendrya , Antakarana (Chitta , Manas , Ahankara > and Buddhi ). As it is, the 24th is Buddhi tattva .** > > **It is this Tattva which the Buddhists affirm as the only truth and as > the highest truth- Beside and beyond this there is no other reality > higher or lower. All the 23 that are below the 24th tattva are only > phenomenally or momentarily true. If anybody were to assert that there > was anything higher than the Buddhi tattva, the Buddhist would regard > him as telling an untruth, as suggesting a fiction.** In the table of > Skandhas, Vijnana-skandha is one of them; but this Vijnana-skandha is > merely the six kinds of sensations or knowledge perceived by the five > external senses and Buddhi as the sixth sense. **As such this Vijnana is > only derived from Buddhi and what would be regarded as born of Maya or > matter. To confound therefore this material Vijnana with the Vijnana > of the Upanishads as meaning the non-material Atma is highly > unscientific.** Passing beyond the 24th tattva, the Hindus postulate > Guna which means attribute or quality. This is the quality of the > Mulaprakriti. This guna is divided into Satva, Rajas, and Tamas and > when the soul is clothed with these three gunas it attains its > distinctive individuality. Though this guna gives him the peculiar > individuality, the soul in its own nature is distinct from the three > gunas. Is the quoted claim that Buddhists treat something equivalent to Buddhi-tattva as the highest truth a correct represenation of the Buddhist position or does it strawman the position of buddhism? Based on my limited knowledge, Buddhism too seems to have its own hierarchy of meditative attainments such as sphere of infinite space, sphere of infinite consciousness, sphere of nothingness, and sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception etc beyond all of which is Nirvana. So shouldn't the buddhist nirvana be beyond any form of conditioned intellect (Buddhi-tattva ) as is being claimed? Correct me if i am wrong

Some descriptions of Dharmakaya in Mahāyāna Buddhism portray it as ultimate,formless unconditioned reality. This sounds similar to how Brahman is described in Advaita Vedānta as the absolute unchanging ground of all existence. Does this means both concepts are essentially positing the same thing?

Buddha has taught that Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. I agree, however being an ignorant fellow, I believe I am body, I am eyes, I am intelligence, I am consciousness, my wife is mine, my son is mine. What do you find as you, yours, or yourself, honestly? (This question attempts to find out depths of our ignorance)

This summer I got the chance to spend 20 days at Pa-Auk Tawya forest meditation center in Myanamar and I did Anapana-Sati for 20 days. Now I'm back at my university, but when I look back I see that during those days at Pa-Auk even a single talk of 2 mins would make my practice weaker as samatha practice requires strong concentration. \ Given that in our daily lay life we have a lot of interactions and distractions, I think it would take decades to even reach first jhana in samatha meditation. **Is it really possible to make progress (attain jhana) in samatha meditation in our day-to-day lay life in a realistic way? Has any lay person had profound experience in samatha practice?**

I’m in Drikung Kagyu and have a lama in that lineage and find the Gelug approach to emptiness to be extremely helpful to viewing emptiness. I know all these philosophies in Rime point to the same truth, but I still wonder how its viewed to hold philosophical positions from another lineage but of course keeping the practice your lama outlines for you? I’ve read Tulku Rinpoche book on Rime and in the beginning it says to keep integrity of lineages, but obviously now many lamas receive teachings from multiple lineages. Am I ok in viewing emptiness from a Gelug pov as a Drikung Kagyu if it’s helpful for me?