I have a lot of trouble dealing with rebirth, mostly because of my previous "skeptic" past. However, buddhism has helped me a lot to open my mind and to get detached from any point of view that might be incompatible with the wisdom shown by the practice of the Dhamma. This aperture to new perspectives has made me reconsider the possibility of rebirth. Thus, my question. From the point of view of paticcasamuppada, ignorance and craving are prerequisites for rebecoming. But why would the universe and its underlying mechanisms and laws care about our ignorance, intentions and desires? Isn't this a kind of anthopocentric view? Why does uprooting ignorance and craving stop the rebirth process?

According to the Pali Canon, how are intentions and habits passed on from one existence to another without any material support? What do the texts tell us about rebirth and the transference of these material phenomena into inmaterial phenomena, and the back to material ones? More specifically, how is kamma transmitted from one life to the next. If we consider 'kamma' as intention and habits, how are these transfered from a brain which, as you observed, is destroyed and dissolved after the breakup of the body? Aren't intention and habits a function emerging form the conjuncted activity of brain cells? Thanks in beforehand.

Did buddha comment anything about the origin of universe and about origin of life? And if no WHY?? So far whatever texts i have read, i haven't come across any such statement. Though it is not very important for man to know about it and rather he must concentrate on the present time on his actions and thoughts but atleast for the sake of satisfying curiosity of man he must have told .

I constantly hear from buddhists that "happiness is inside of you" and that thinking you can get away from suffering by wanting to be somewhere else, or wanting to be with someone else or stuff like that, stuff that comes from the outside, is only misleading and will generate more suffering because once you satisfy some particular need, since you are a human being, other needs will arrive and with that new forms of suffering, but then I wonder, how is it possible to end suffering if we will always desire for certain things, as long as we exist in this material world? Can someone clarify this to me? I'm really naive into buddhism

From this site, I found the following saying of Buddha: > "You, monks, should not thus cultivate the  notion (samjna) of impermanence, suffering and non-Self, the notion of impurity and so forth, deeming them to be the true meaning [of the Dharma], as those people [searching in a pool for a radiant gem but foolishly grabbing hold of useless pebbles, mistaken for priceless treasure] did, each thinking that bits of brick, stones, grass and gravel were the jewel. You should train yourselves well in efficacious means. **In every situation, constantly meditate upon [bhavana] the idea [samjna] of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure** ... Those who, desirous of attaining Reality [tattva], meditatatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of **the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure**, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like that wise person [who obtained the genuine, priceless gem, rather than worthless detritus misperceived as the real thing.] > - The Buddha, Chapter Three, "Grief",The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra Now, as I know this saying is exactly monistic & found in some hindu philosophies like Advait Vedanta & Kashmiri Shaivism. This practice in Advait Vedanta is called *manana*; and in KS, *Shuddha Bhāvna/Vikalpa* under Sāktopāye - Herein you practice not to identify yourself with something (body, mind etc) **which you are not**. In other words I think it seems to teach the same as, > It is not with the body identification that you should sit for meditation. It is the knowledge "I am" that is meditating on itself. > - Nisargadatta Maharaj My question is why Gautam Buddha talked about "self" (that it is eternal, blissful, etc.)? I may not be getting context, so what's the context and explanation?

I am meditating for the last three months, about 30 mins a day (or a little longer than that). I followed Ajahn Brahm's "[Basic Method of Meditation](https://bswa.org/teaching/basic-method-meditation-ajahn-brahm/) " to bring the mind to be in the present relatively steadily (still it wanders, but not like when I started the practice). I started with trying to quiet the mind (too much internal thought etc.) by keeping my attention sometimes on the breath, sometimes on a sound without strictly sticking to a single meditation object. My understanding of Ajahn Brahm's description of the first stage was to bring the mind to the present and then make it quiet. Now I am kind of there, I am trying to figure out how to proceed. Meditation books recommend keeping your attention at the tip of the nose, but my mind is naturally drawn towards knowing the breathing as a whole (through most parts of the body, chest area, belly and sometimes the face also). I tried to go back to paying attention to the nose, but it made the meditation really hard. When I came back to the whole body experience, it was easier. Just wondering whether I am doing this wrong. If so, how should I proceed? I am particularly interested in knowing whether this way of meditation is what Buddha mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta when he says: "'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe out,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe in,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe out,' thinking thus, he trains himself.

>"And what are the six kinds of renunciation joy? The joy that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, stressful, subject to change: That is called renunciation joy. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.) Is this achieved by intellectual pondering about the six senses (and meditative insight into the three characteristics) or just pondering alone? I'd say the former, but then this Sutta is primarily directed towards Stream Entrants, no?

Like subtle "conceit"? I can't think of any others. I think there is a Sutta that is something like, "10 misperceptions of a somewhat achieved insight meditator". Bhante Yuttadhammo explained it somewhere. I thought I already asked this but I couldn't find it, maybe it was another forum.

In Buddhism we classically have four stages of enlightenment : 1. Stream-enterer (Sotapanna); 2. Once-returner (Sakadagami); 3. Non-returner (Anāgāmi); 4. Arahant. My question, as stated in the title, is: can a person attain to any one of the four stages mentioned above without clearly recognizing it?

What are the names of the (semi)secret societies — any and/or all of them — that have influenced, are influencing (and, via common consent, may influence in the future) Buddhism?

There are lot of wrong views in other religions but there are even some Buddhist who have wrong views. They don’t believe in rebirth and karma. And they say that they are metaphors. They seems to be clinging to the annihilationist view. According to MN 117 and other suttas, right view is believing that there is the fruits of good and bad karma and this is this world and the next world. The next world is where you will go according to your karma after death. >"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view. > >"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path. > >"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. How do we help them abandon wrong views? If the Buddha was still alive then he could perform some miracles to show that there are more than just what we see with the eye.

Mum is regularly woken in the night by panic attacks which bring on uncomfortable physical sensations that she takes so seriously she has been known to ring the paramedics (always unnecessarily). After many months I am still unable to get her to even entertain the notion of 'staying with the discomfort, just as it is'. Does a Buddhist have any tools (metta/prayer/mantras - sorry I don't know the words) to manifest/stir-up a change in someone else’s approach? Or do I have to work on cultivating my own acceptance of the situation - however resigned that might make me feel?

With the Buddha teaching for 45 years before he passed into parinibbana, what is known about the methods and practices used to keep his teachings alive until they were written down? Do we know how many people were involved in this effort? How was such an extensive collection of teachings categorized?

Seeking physical and online resources; books; articles; etc. concerning the history, public (and private) images and (current) location of the root text sources comprising the Pali Cannon

Why do Buddhists believe there is no creator? Do Buddhists in general also believe there is no supreme being, or do they settle on that there is no intervening supreme being? Are these the Buddha's thoughts or a deductive conclusion from some type of logical reasoning? If they are mainly the Buddha's, how come they are generally accepted - as far as I understand it, he encouraged everyone to not take his word for anything, but instead seek the truth for themselves? As you understand I'm a total Buddhist noob, please correct me where I'm wrong and clarify where needed!

My question is related to the quote below taken from Chapter 29 of The Diamond Sutra. Can you provide any references for other explanations for this quote or can you provide your own explanation? > “Subhuti, if any person were to say that the Buddha is now coming or > going, or sitting up or lying down, they would not have understood the > principle I have been teaching. Why? Because while the expression > ‘Buddha’ means ‘he who has thus come, thus gone,’ the true Buddha is > never coming from anywhere or going anywhere. The name ‘Buddha’ is > merely an expression, a figure of speech.” As I understand from my current practise, there have been many instances I've been walking and I am aware that there is nowhere I'm walking to, and nowhere I'm walking from and no reference for somebody walking. I can then only discern beyond forms and see that there is only what I perceive to be a stillness in which there is neither time, distance and dimension. I don't know what is doing the perceiving in this instance or if anything at all is being perceived. If I am able to put this into a language there must be a perceiver beyond all forms or that my conceptual mind is doing this perceiving. In the latter case I would be being fooled by mental perceptions. Out of curiosity and using consciously directed thought I experimented with this experience by watching a seagull flying through the air. Within several seconds I removed the earth and the rest of the universe. The seagull was bouncing its wings and orienting on the spot. From this I deduced that form provides dimension, distance and time. Without form the seagull cannot move from one position to another and time seems intrinsically bound to distance and dimension. That's as far as I got. It may seem that I'm bordering on nihilism here, but on the contrary: there is the use of form to make the deeper discovery. Form seems to be the substrate to depth of knowledge but in this case it seems like I haven't learnt anything.

Does anyone know if one can fall asleep into a dream while in the process of mindful insight practice and still maintain mindfulness and concentration? This would be different than establishing mindfulness while dreaming.

I noticed a reply Andrei made on a post on the results of meditating, that you become aware in your sleep while dreaming, so that your mind knows it's a dream: - [Mindfulness during sleep](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/2855/254) - [Do Arhats sleep?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/92/254) This is a major confirmation sign of correct practice in Ancient Daoism (which i've been reading for years now, not knowing which is correct practice) -- and i would like Andrei's advice (and whoever else would like to share their insight) on practice technique and how you have managed to get to this advanced level.

I'd like to try and categorize the abhidhammic view into either as an internalist or externalist or know if it's possible at all, knowing how the historical Buddha himself even refused to either ultimately deny or agree with the usual problem that would easily decide this issue. As far as I understand my main problem is that cetasikas seem to imply an externalist view (citta comes into contact with something, they also rise and disappear with citta together) because according to externalism, for a mind content to arise, *it is necessary to be related to the environment in the right way*. Citta itself seems to be an intrinsic property though, as far as every agent is capable of knowing something. This strongly implies an internalist viewpoint (there are intrinsic and unique properties of agents that mental contents supervene upon), as *our contents are individuated by the properties of our bodies*.

Although the 5 aggregates seem to fully explain my experience, is it wrong view if I think that there might be more?