I once was at a (theravada) mini-retreat where the teacher insisted that if one really watched carefully, one would recognize that it is not possible for the mind to pay attention to more than one thing at a time. I commented that in my experience it is possible to experience a lot of stimuli simultaneously. to see "whole picture" in one glimpse, just like listening to many instruments at the same time, but he kept insisting that this was due to the fact that attention shifted at a very fast pace between objects. And that if I kept practicing I would realize this. Is what he said in accordance with buddhist teaching? I have never heard it mentioned from any teacher other than him (but I remember it from some old perception psychology which I don't know if is out dated), and it really interferes with my mindfulness when I come to think of what he said.

The founder of the Triratna Buddhist Community, Sangharaskshita, stated that he thinks stream entry is realistic after twenty or thirty years > In fact, it would be surprising if, after 20 or 30 years of life in > the Order, you were not a Stream Entrant. It would seem to be very > surprising, if you have done all the other things - maybe you have > founded Centres and written books and given so many lectures and gone > on so many retreats, that you were not a Stream Entrant: why not? It's obviously a very bold statement. Does anyone else give that kind of timescale for stream entry or do any modern traditions give any kind of timescale at all. Or is Sangharaskshita a complete outlier with this kind of estimation. **Note**: Tiratna is my Sangha which I think is right to acknowledge in the question. That said it doesn't stop me finding some of Sangharaskshita's statements bold or even controversial and I'm always interested on outside perspectives on his statements.

For what reason did Dharmakirti argue that absences are conceptual constructions? I wondered if it was because real absences would have svabhava, would be essences, because they do not change in time? I can't find anything to cite now, but I believe he argued this. I mean everyday absences, such as a cow from a field, rather than anything technical about apoha, which I am not that familiar with.

Simple question, but I would like to know- what are the defilements, according to Theravada Buddhism? I keep hearing this term and would like to find out what it means, according to the original teachings of the Buddha. Thank you

In the Theravada tradition: 1. There is no self in all phenomena (including the five aggregates). 2. The five aggregates and the rest of nature and the world is always changing and not permanent (anicca). 3. Emptiness is only about the emptiness of self in all phenomena (including the five aggregates). The aggregates and the world definitely exist. These are not empty. 4. Suffering definitely exists (first noble truth). 5. The Theravada practitioner has to strive to become free from suffering. Nibbana exists, and is permanent and unchanging. Whereas, in the Mahayana tradition: 1. There is no self in all phenomena (including the five aggregates). 2. The five aggregates and the rest of nature and the world is always changing and not permanent (anicca). 3. Emptiness refers to the emptiness of everything (including Nirvana ) - the self, the five aggregates, the world, nature etc. 4. According to the Heart Sutra , "There is No Truth of Suffering, Of the Cause of Suffering,Of the Cessation of Suffering, Nor of the Path." 5. According to the Heart Sutra , "There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever." So, why should the Mahayana practitioner strive for anything at all, if everything is emptiness (nothing really exists), and there is no suffering at all, and there is no wisdom to be gained, and there is nothing at all to attain?

I'm looking for two suttas: (1) a sutta in which the Buddha says, I believe, that one is able to perceive the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, along with other pairs that one can perceive in the way opposite to what is natural. (2) A sutta in which the Buddha says that you shouldn't judge others since only he or one like him knows the full extent of people's kamma. I believe it is from the long discourses.

What has buddha told about dreams? Do dreams have any link with truths or realities? If a person understands something from his dream which he is asking in this world, than should such things considered as real? How is this world also one of the dream worlds among other infinite dream worlds/parallel universe? Is dream a type of meditation state?

A common teaching in Mahayana is that of the two extremes it is better to fall into eternalism rather than nihilism. This advice is given by many Mahayana or Middle Way teachers. I'm looking for Sutra references for this teaching or earliest known exposition of this teaching. I'm tagging this Mahayana as I know this is a Mahayana teaching, but if anyone could find references in the Pali Canon I would be very happy for you to share it :) Please don't use the question as a means to argue with the teaching... just looking for references.

Practice Ven . Mahasi Sayadaw tradition --------------------------------------- I spend most of my unproductive time (traveling , when nothing special to do ) on reading Dhamma books using my iPhone. These moments are not appropriate for sitting or walking meditation , so I follow "daily life" instructions can be found here http://www.sirimangalo.org/teachings/how-to-meditate/chapter-six-daily-life **But when I try to make a clear thought "reading" while reading I find it interfere with reading . How should I use clear thoughts to be mindful when reading ?**

Jarāmaranam, Jāti, Bhava, Upādāna, Tanhā, Vedanā, Phassa, Salāyatana, Nāma-rūpa, Viññāna, Sankhārā, Avidya. I believe they operate inversely and wanted to see further how this inversion is illustrated in the Pali canon.

Let us suppose there is something (i.e. nirvana) unarisen and eternal. How can we conclude and trust that it is indeed unarisen and eternal ? Because in order to find out whether it is unarisen, we will have to go into its infinite past; and to find out whether it is eternal, we will have to go into its infinite future. Nirvana is said to unarisen and eternal. So my question is : How do we know something is unarisen and eternal ?

I noticed recently that for some odd reason, none of my resolutions and efforts have come to fruition. My attempts to diminish junk food, social media, and other such negative behaviours have remained similar, and my attempts to meditate and exercise have lacked success. **Q1. What could be responsible for such a lethargic and demotivated approach to training oneself? Is there a mental factor simply lacking from my practice?** I suspect effort may be a mental concomitant necessary for improvement regardless of the insight I may have otherwise. **Q2. Is effort, as resulting from sitting formal and consistent practice, a prerequisite for growth? Is *truly* effortless practice a myth?** (I ask question two because I know that some Dzogchen and Mahamudra techniques are described as effortless.)

For two years there has been daily meditation. For 10 months there has been the addition of satipathanna practice and present moment awareness. 4 months ago the self was seen as a creation of imagination. There followed two hours of laughter and joy. Later that day there were demon images in the mind. Inwardly smiling they disappeared then the body became electrified and there was a sense of being in the precise moment. One week later occured a formless jhana in the shopping centre. It appears three awakenings or major shifts happened in the space of one week. It seems like an unknown force is guiding things now. Troublesome thoughts can be dismissed very easily. Suffering has reduced by about 60 percent. There has been strong desire for women and feeling bad towards family members. This is where the sense of self seems strongest. After the unfolding of Sotapanna which is massively transformational, does the Buddha suggest a change in practice?

I'm looking for an online reference to **AA.i.254** mention at the bottom of this page : > No woman can become a Cakka-vatti (the reasons for this are given at AA.i.254). Either an English or Sinhala translation would be preferable

Will the action of praying to / worshipping gods for something be fruitful according to Buddhism? Is there any reference where a god (deva) has helped a person who has prayed to / asked help from the deva ? In Jainism, it is said that if the followers insist on praying to god, it's advised that they should pray (ask for help) only for the knowledge that leads to Nirvana. **Edit:** I asked this **NOT** because I wanted help from god or believed in god. I asked this because, Buddha said that there are heavenly beings (gods) with powers, but are themselves mortal too.. So, I just wanted to know, why Buddhists pray to those gods (I've seen many Buddhists praying to god, not all Buddhists). Is that even fruitful?

In a large number of religions, 'good' and 'bad' are defined by some all-powerful diety who either sends a representative or himself to tell us about what exactly they want us mortals to do. In Buddhism, instead an enlightened individual basically worked it all out. So the basic question is - why does that happen? What decided that killing (even if your intentions are good*1) will cause something negative ? What about the other actions? There is no 'final judge' to confirm or deny we've followed a particular path - so why does the universe (?) act this way? And what makes us sure that we're correct? *1 - It's an impression I got from reading some other answers, if I'm wrong on this please do correct me)

Since I have started reading Buddhist texts and trying to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, my life is happier and 'easier' **but why is this**? I believe it to be 'common sense' and the innate human nature that doing good is easier than doing bad but it can also be the reverse with certain conditions in this world. In a nutshell, I've taken the optimistic stance on this philosophical debate . To understand the context of my question, let me describe my thought process on trying to understand this: What if in our ultimate beginning (if there was one), we were all in an unconditioned state but then somehow became conditioned which lead to becoming (think of the story of Adam & Eve). Since this becoming, our ultimate objective is to return back to that unconditioned state and because we were in that unconditioned state, if one were to follow the Noble Eightfold path it would be innately/instinctively accepted to work. I believe those that follow the path and through practice accept it to be logical but also to be innately/instinctively accepted. (Since this is a Buddhist forum, *I believe users here can agree on this opinion*). **Question**: My question is based on the premise that the above is somewhat logical and in accordance with Buddhist teachings; if so is there any Buddhist literature that can elaborate on why it is ‘easier’ to follow the path or if its the total opposite. I believe ‘easier’ here can be subjective but I believe through my elementary understanding of Buddhist text, once you realize what is right in front of you; it is/can be easy. If my logic is incorrect or you see a confusion in my question, please show me the correct way with references to Buddhist literature as well.

Someone who likes to ask rhetorical questions on the internet once questioned whether it was appropriate to describe “consciousness” as a reification since in one sutta (MN 43) it is said that consciousness and wisdom/enlightenment were conjoined: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26807/if-consciousness-is-a-reification-how-does-a-buddha-attain-the-truth An apparent contradiction arises when looking at another question offered by the same person: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26367/why-did-the-lord-buddha-criticize-natthikav%C4%81da%E1%B9%83-moral-nihilism The OP seems to like the answer to the second question which stated: > “When … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises” of moral nihilism.” Could it be that this *“insisting on consciousness”* as an objective real thing leads to unethical behavior (moral nihilism) just as the Buddha warned and others concurred: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26814/13375

I read the following comment on the internet ([reference](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/82510/discussion-on-answer-by-dhammadhatu-if-buddhists-believe-that-life-is-just-suffe)) : > *By existing you are attached to this reality. If I die then I won't exist according to Buddhism. Therefore I won't be attached to reality. > How then does killing yourself not free yourself from attachment? How > can I possibly be attached to reality if I am dead? How was the Buddha > free from attachment if he wrote a book and made a religion? That > means that he was attached to reality. You can only be not attached to > reality if you don't exist.* Is the existence of life a form of attachment? Is the teaching of the Dhamma (of non-attachment) a form of attachment?

There is one reality which is eternal and that is Nirvana. Nirvana had no beginning nor has an end yet it exists. Nirvana and the world are closely linked up. The one who is in the world can attain Nirvana. If we say world has a beginning then Nirvana predates that beginning. Only Nirvana existed and then world came into existence. Which means World came from Nirvana as world is not unconditioned and before world there was only Nirvana.Which means world must have come out from state of Nirvana. But that is impossible. Therefore can we at least conclude that cause or causes behind the world are without beginning? **update:** I knew Buddha has said that it is undeclared whether whether world is eternal or not ,but people in this forum and elsewhere have declared Nirvana to be eternal.If Nirvana is eternal and permanent then we can say something existed for an infinite time in the past. Clearly Nirvana provides an eternal timeline to discuss upon. for example : In the infinite time in the past when Nirvana was there did world exist or not? Now @ChrisW asked what did I mean by world ? By world I mean any reality in which experience of suffering can arise. So to rephrase my question : Was there any point in the past when there was no suffering at all or has the suffering existed forever like Nirvana ? I know the gravity of this question as Buddha chose not to answer it. I dare to take up the question in order to provide some new insight to my fellow Buddhist men who think in order to believe in Buddha or Dhamma or Sangha one doesn't need to blindly believe in Buddha or Dhamma or Sangha. I believe I will also ultimately conclude that one should left such questions undeclared but I would like give one last try based upon the conclusion we have made so far like Nirvana is eternal. Given the infinite timelime ,if Suffering (or the world ) had a beginning then what was before that beginning ? It was Nirvana. What was the cause of the suffering to arise at the beginning? Since Suffering is always conditioned and before beginning there was only Nirvana , clearly it means Nirvana was the cause of arising of suffering. But that is impossible. Because that would mean Nirvana is unstable, Nirvana is impermanent. Therefore conditioned suffering existed infinitely in the past independent of Nirvana. The cause of suffering (or the world) was impermanent but was/is a permanent feature of the world or existence or suffering which appears to be permanent. I can assure you that this question is not meant to lead you astray from the path but make us understand why we are not concluding what Buddha concluded, to know what is incorrect in our line of thinking.