Just expanding on this answer is the Buddhist path one of 'selfless offering of oneself and efforts' or of 'inner kindness' i.e. kindness to oneself. Or is it both or neither. I've come across both themes and both seem right but to me they contradict. Of course Buddhist is about many other things including outer kindness (to all beings) but right now I'm interested in these two aspects. Many thanks as always

According to the traditional Buddhist dogma the fourth noble truth or eight-fold path is the way to attain Enlightenment then again some sects in Buddhism accept karma as a factor. Not knowing (gnosis) what your karma was in your previous life and how it affects your current life to attain Enlightenment makes you wonder about the illusory nature of karma or Buddhism itself. What's the view Buddhism has on your own chances to obtain Enlightenment? Is it because Enlightenment is just like truth and there are different degrees of Enlightenment? Is it because Enlightenment is like a path or direction you take in existence like a boat that heads west but the wind (karma) sometimes prevents you from moving forwards? Is it because Enlightenment is just like a riddle the Buddha plays to tell you about that characteristic of perception that makes you realize something that was always there but you were unaware of, or perhaps Enlightenment is the ultimate version of that? Or perhaps there is no Enlightenment and it's just the pursuit of it that gives us purpose in life and therefore less suffering (as long as we take the middle way of course...)? > "There is no spoon" The Matrix

I've been searching around forums for the maximum time that is productive to do a single meditation sit. There are lots of comments around over 20 minute mark for effectiveness and sitting for the hour is the most I've seen anyone say they sit. But what is the maximum that one should reasonably sit for before it becomes counter productive or at least diminishing returns set in? As a side note I remember Jack Kornfield relating that a retreatant of his declared that he was going to sit for as long as it took to get enlightened. He didn't get enlightened and the whole episode didn't go that well for that individual

Kalama Sutta is a key part of the Buddhist teaching that tells you to question everything, not to blindly follow any dogma or teacher. This is one of the features that make this religion/philosophy so special however this view seems to be contradictory in many Buddhist circles. Many monks and Buddhists shave their heads and wear mallahs to identify themselves more with the doctrine (ego and attachment) or perhaps to fit in better within the "Buddhist gang" as if this dogma was the ultimate truth and they may get offended when you "dare" to question their "faith" or their idolized masters. They rarely question the Sangha with psychology, existential philosophy, other religions and they seem to fall in love with it following this process of dependency by illusionment/attachment/joy and ultimately doubt disillusionment/detachment/sadness which is clearly explained in the Buddhist sutra itself. Osel Hita (a Spaniard who has appointed by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of lama Yeshe) quit Buddhism and complained about how much suffering he had to endure during his childhood nevertheless this is rarely debated within Buddhist circles. In some Buddhist countries children are indoctrinated in the dogma therefore they see it as truth and don't question it therefore it is used as a political tool for the masses. It is true that the Sangha may have saved some peoples lives and so has the army, Scientology and the Christian Church but this has to do with psychology, purpose in life and mental health and it doesn't make Buddhism any better. Meditation has been proven by the World Health Organization to be beneficial for mental health nevertheless you don't hear much from monks that you don't really need to be a Buddhist to meditate. Some features of the dogma such us Bardos , Rebirth or (reincarnation), Samsara or even Enlightenment have vague definitions or are impossible to double check because they are based of the subjective experiences of masters or monks and it's up to the practitioner to believe them or not and have the same credibility has "original sin, virgin birth, Heaven, etc." and even less than the Simulation Hypothesis . Some people left Buddhism because their views on the oneness of consciousness or karma were not compatible with the view shared by the particular sect (Zen, Chan, Tibetan, etc). Siddhārtha Gautama was a dissident of believes the vedas to attain enlightenment and escape the wheel so Samsara so was Jesus Christ , and Lao Tse and the main spiritual figures in human history. **Isn't Kalama Sutta encouraging you to do just that? Isn't Kalama Sutta telling you that it's better to be a free-thinker than a Buddhist, at least in some cases? Isn't it Buddhistic to go beyond Buddhism?** *This question is an adaptation of the Reptilian Conspiracy vs Buddhism question which was not accepted in this forum and Criticism on the Buddhism from Wikipedia and both articles here and here .* > “A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he > generally believes to be true.“ Demosthenes 384-322 BC > > “Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want > their illusions destroyed.” Friedrich Nietzsche > > “You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not > based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe” Carl > Sagan > > “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at > least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” ― > René Descartes > > “My religion is based on truth and non-violence. Truth is my God. > Non-violence is the means of realising Him.“ Mahatma Gandhi > > John 8:32 “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you > free.” > > “There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not > going all the way, and not starting.” Buddha? (or not...doesn't > matter)

Where should we go for the rest what is the rest ? In mundane life living is so tough , facing sorrow , troubles and need to struggle for achieve something physical things and we get hurt because craving. As I'm doing myself I'm feeling nothing and restless because craving and got nothing after craving and everything is over . So where to focus , what is aim of one Buddhist. I never practice and now I don't understand from where to start, not feeling to start.

If there is afterlife and sentient beings revolving around life after life in 3 different realms, and there is cosmic law that liberates all living beings and actually is eager to do so, then beings must be given ability to observe and realize the truth about samsaric worlds. However all Buddhist text books(eg. DN16, 22) indicate that only after one reaches fourth jhana one is able to acquire special wisdom to penetrate the reality of revolve around. Moreover the 4th jhana is known very hard to reach unless so much of effort should be put on. I seriously doubt the theory of samsara. Can anyone point out any flaws in my understanding and show how samsara could be real?

As explained here Buddhism does no belong into pantheism because God can be interpreted no as oneness but a creation of the mind as the fourth aggregate explains (eg. "an invisible man who lives in the sky who is separated from you etc") that implies something separated from you. Nevertheless the third mark of existence "Anatta" tells you that there is no self that is to say the idea of you (ego) is illusory. Is is right from a Buddhistic point of view to say that you and me are the same because there is only **one consciousness** playing different minds(egos, personalities, psychologies, etc) and bodies of all sentient creatures at the same time. Eg. "the same driver driving all the cars at the same time in present, past and future"

In this article , it has mentioned that; >During the time of the Buddha there were two ways by which one could understand the Dhamma and realise the path to Nibbana. One is called “paratoghosa paccaya.” Hearing the true Dhamma from others who know it. The other is called “sammasati” or practice of meditation. Would anyone please give me reference from Pali canon or any other book for the above statement?

A while ago I attended a Tibetan Buddhist group. They were very nice but I just couldn't get on with the visualisation practices. I find it reasonably clear how mindfulness of breathing becomes an insight practice and metta bhavana. But I just couldn't see how an intricate visualisation practice would lead to an understanding of conditioned existence, suffering, no fixed self or any of it really. How do visualisation practices relate to insight? Additional detail - the practice involved the Buddha in a bright blue sky on a throne and I remember there were snow leopards under the throne and light was going out of the Buddha.

Supposed that respect, veneration and any kind of wisdom has gone missing; and that the Sangha has become a group of householder wearing robes; and the leaders of the Sasana are all but householders. In that case, should the Noble Sangha, the Savaka Sangha, let go of their heritage, like one with Sila would give up a book that has become a target of white ants? It's a serious question. While the Buddha did not allow his monks to give up Sangha heritage, generally he allowed it in case thieves and robbers would destroy things and harm in cases the monks would hold on it. Is that, the degeneration, actually the reason why such as householder movements became that popular? Spoken in numbers, there are about 99% of laypeople (incl. those in robes) who are engaged in depriving the Dhamma from the Sangha, making a livelihood from it; and somewhat 1% who dedicate their sacrifices toward the gems, and respect the recluses. I doubt that any at large had understood the meaning of "making the Dhamma your own", yet, with total confusion, running after it out of context. Should the Noble Sangha let them follow their inclinations which brings not only them long time suffering but for many? Resting simply in "Beings are heirs of their kamma..." or still share as much as compassion as possible to keep those able away from doing really grave wrong doings?

In Mudita meditation or Joy Meditation I am supposed to experience Joy for all beings. But I don't know which aspect of living beings is worth celebrating. My question is : How should I express Mudita or Joy for all beings? EDIT: To support my mental dilemma I quote Maiterya. > Just as there can be no pleasant fragrance in a cesspit There is no > joy among the five classes of beings. > > – Maitreya > > Uttaratantra Shastra, IV, 50

Does the noble eightfold path fits a lay life perfectly? Or is there any part of it that cannot be followed/accomplished by a lay buddhist? If that's the case, what part(s) doesn't have fit with lay life?

It might have been from easiest cultivatable brahmavihara to the most difficult. Such that equanimity is the hardest and metta being the easiest. Is there any indication in the sutta to answer this question ?

[Here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/28498/254) I summarised, and [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9595/254) I referenced, this little essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi: [Dhamma and Non-duality](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html) (the first four paragraphs seem to be about Advaita Vedanta, the remainder about "Mahayana Buddhism"). The first time I referenced it was for a question about non-duality, and the second for a question asking whether "enlightenment" (which I took to include, "nearly enlightened behaviour") is the same for all schools of Buddhism -- because it seems to contrasting Mahayana with Theravada. I guess it's likely that what Ven. Bodhi wrote is partly true, but written from a Theravada point of view. I was wondering whether you could read and critique the essay (or if that's too much, especially the bits of it which I quote below); for example: - Is it (or are bits of it) misleading or wrong? - Are bits of it unclear, could be better expressed? - Does it focus on (put undue emphasis on) the wrong thing, e.g. "non-duality")? Or does it concentrate on atypical examples, or on outliers that it's better to ignore, e.g. "crazy wisdom"? --- At least [one or two people here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9594/what-does-nonduality-correspond-to-in-buddhism/9595#comment36654_9595) thought it was wrong: > Bhikhu Bodhi views on Mahayana are false and denigrate Mahayana. In fact, emptiness in Mahayana is empty itself. Therefore in **Virtue** it doesn't reject rules, but only shows their conditional (empty) nature. In **Meditation**, it doesn't refute that causes lead to effects, it only shows their conditional (empty) nature, which helps to abandon them, for example, instead of keeping attempts to battle them. So Mahayana doesn't refute the truths of Buddha, it only shows better ways to their realization. In **Wisdom**, true reality is NOT the One. "The One" is just an illusory idea. Be careful. I'm not sure I understand all of this comment/explanation though; for example, does it suggest that the rules of virtue are empty (conditional)? Does it say that causes are empty, or that effects are empty, or is it that Pratītyasamutpāda itself is empty, and what exactly should be abandoned? Does "abandon that which is empty" suggest that the rules of virtue too should or can be abandoned, and if so isn't that partly (or even mainly) what Ven. Bodhi seems to be complaining or puzzled about? --- Here's a quote from [Wings to Awakening](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/index.html) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: > The regularity of the Dhamma, here, denotes the causal principle that underlies all "fabricated" (saṅkhata) experience, i.e., experience made up of causal conditions and influences. Knowing this principle means mastering it: one can not only trace the course of causal processes but also escape from them by skillfully letting them disband. The knowledge of Unbinding is the realization of total freedom that comes when one has disbanded the causal processes of the realm of fabrication, leaving the freedom from causal influences that is termed the "Unfabricated." I understand that to mean: - Observe (fabricated) phenomena - See the causal processes - Make choices which lead toward cessation To that extent I thought that Pratītyasamutpāda itself isn't empty nor abandoned -- instead it's used. And the whole doctrine is dualistic -- things are skilful or unskillful, wise or unwise, right or wrong, attentive or inattentive, leading to cessation or not, etc. So, for example, this time from _Dhamma and non-duality_ again: > When we investigate our experience exactly as it presents itself, we find that it is permeated by a number of critically important dualities with profound implications for the spiritual quest. The Buddha's teaching, as recorded in the Pali Suttas, fixes our attention unflinchingly upon these dualities and treats their acknowledgment as the indispensable basis for any honest search for liberating wisdom. It is precisely these antitheses — of good and evil, suffering and happiness, wisdom and ignorance — that make the quest for enlightenment and deliverance such a vitally crucial concern. The bits of the essay where he seems to me especially critical of (or misunderstanding of) what he perceives as a non-dual doctrine of Mahayana are: - Virtue: > Such distinctions, it is said, are valid only at the conventional level, not at the level of final realization; they are binding on the trainee, not on the adept. Thus we find that in their historical forms (particularly in Hindu and Buddhist Tantra), philosophies of non-duality hold that the conduct of the enlightened sage cannot be circumscribed by moral rules. The sage has transcended all conventional distinctions of good and evil. He acts spontaneously from his intuition of the Ultimate and therefore is no longer bound by the rules of morality valid for those still struggling toward the light. His behavior is an elusive, incomprehensible outflow of what has been called "crazy wisdom." - Meditation: > Since, for the non-dual systems, distinctions are ultimately unreal, meditation practice is not explicitly oriented toward the removal of mental defilements and the cultivation of virtuous states of mind. > The meditative themes that ripple through the non-dual currents of thought declare: "no defilement and no purity"; "the defilements are in essence the same as transcendent wisdom"; "it is by passion that passion is removed." - Wisdom: > In the non-dual systems the task of wisdom is to break through the diversified appearances (or the appearance of diversity) in order to discover the unifying reality that underlies them. [...] For such systems, liberation comes with the arrival at the fundamental unity in which opposites merge and distinctions evaporate like dew. > In the Ariyan Dhamma wisdom aims at seeing and knowing things as they really are (yathabhutananadassana). Hence, to know things as they are, wisdom must respect phenomena in their precise particularity. Wisdom leaves diversity and plurality untouched. It instead seeks to uncover the characteristics of phenomena, to gain insight into their qualities and structures. It moves, not in the direction of an all-embracing identification with the All, but toward disengagement and detachment, release from the All.

If brain cease to function all phenomenon also cease to function as well. Body including brain is so vulnerable to break up and Buddha emphasized that no one should cling to this body and its function to avoid all sufferings. Evolution is truth and all religions are mere fantasy which originated from ignorance to the scientific findings. Everything which is brought about should perish in no time. That's the essence of Buddha's teaching(Dhamma).

If all of us are re-incarnations of prior human beings, how do we account for the growing population? Where do “new” humans come from?

This is really confusing to me. Buddha himself was an ascetic, and his teachings seem to imply that the path to nirvana is attained through renouncing one's worldly possessions. Isn't this in direct contradiction to the Middle Way?

I recall a story that goes something like this > A Buddhist monk was giving a lecture on Buddhism. At the start he said > 'Who hasn't yet started on the Buddhist path?' Half the audience > stands. He continues 'To those people I say if you haven't started > then do not start. Please go to the entrance and your entrance fee > will be refunded'. Half the audience then leaves. He says 'to those of > you who are left who have started on the path I say you must continue. > Do not stop.' This is paraphrased but that's the essence of it. Has anyone heard of this and get the reference, the exact story and who said it. Is it true at all? Many Thanks as always

I have few doubts in buddha teaching. Just wondering my mind since i start reading the various teachings. 1. Lets assume we all achieve the enlightenment then what will happen to world? No one will exist .. no life will exist... that will be the end of this universe. 2. If we really know the path then why even one percent leaves behind and could not achieve nirvana. 3. Buddha says we lose what we cling to. But he talks about love too. Loving your son or wife will bring attachment for sure. What one should do when a person rapes/molest your close one in front of you? Anger and emotions will take over.

What is exactly meant by "Material rebirth lust", and how is it properly abandoned?