1. Is there some standard Mahayana doctrine about dreams and illusions? 2. How is the doctrine meant to be used -- assuming it's a view, how is it meant to be effective? 3. I ask because of [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/28998/254) : > Consider how it feels to wake up from a dream and realize that all you felt during that dream was, “just a dream.” All the passion you felt while dreaming would dissipate upon waking up with the certain knowledge that it was “just a dream,” right? > Now, what if you knew you were “just dreaming” while you were dreaming? Like in a lucid dream? The passion and zeal would dissipate right then and there as you would know it all to be unreal. I don't think I have the experiences of dreams, described above -- instead: - The feelings, the emotional content, of a dream -- how I feel towards a someone in a dream, or about the place or surroundings in dream -- is not very different from the emotional content of waking life: similar feelings whether I'm asleep or awake. There are some childhood nightmares I remember -- of falling out of a tree, or being chased by a dinosaur -- I still remember the fear ... I probably am (or could be) still afraid of being a young child chased by a dinosaur, even though I know that was/is a dream. - When I know that I am dreaming -- e.g. because I'm with someone in my dream who I know has died in waking life -- the passion doesn't dissipate. The passion is part of the dream, part of the memory perhaps, part of the fabrication you might say, just as much as the person's form (appearance, voice, character, actions) is part of the dream. The "lesson" I get from the experience isn't that passion and zeal dissipate -- instead the lesson is that experiences (e.g. views of people and relationships) are mind-made. I assume that to whatever extent they're mind-made in a dream, they're similarly mind-made in waking life. The experience even leaves me doubting (because it's contradicted by experience) whether sankharas (if that's what dreams are) are really "impermanent" -- or perhaps they should be called "attachments" or I don't know. In summary I don't get the impression that dreams are less real than waking life, I do get the impression that waking life is mind-made like a dream. I'm not sure these are the right "lessons" to derive from the experience though -- or are they? -- since they seem to contradict the answer quoted above. 4. Inaccurate/approximate portrayals of the word illusion might imply: "everything is an illusion, nothing exists, nothing matters" -- I think that's a kind of nihilist wrong view according to the suttas: how about in Mahayana? 5. Another problem I have with "dreaming" as a characterisation of or analogy for waking life, is that I think I'm quite passive in a dream: i.e. things happen to me, things come out of nowhere, unpredictable. I fear that may be an unhealthy, unwise, unskillful attitude to have towards waking reality -- is one supposed to be, instead, active (not just reactive) and intentional? What does "awake" mean, in context? --- I note that the above doesn't mention anatta -- which, to the extent that the above is a problem, may be part of the solution -- but maybe the above question makes some sense as-is.

> **the foot feels the foot when it feels the ground** I see this in a book. I cannot understand exactly what it means. what is the deep meaning of this Buddha's quotes.

Having read the following: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10247/are-actions-in-computer-games-bad-for-karma Background: I have watched the latest Doom Eternal gameplay, its brilliant in terms of Graphics and dynamics. The actions and details are more "real" than ever before. I used to be a fan of the doom franchise and enjoyed the game like any other gamer. Having touched Buddhism, it is the first time I question the origin of these games and the effects it brings onto the players, from a karmic perspective. I never had such thoughts and questions before I learned about Buddhism and the Dharma. My question: 1. What would be Theravada's take on this issue? If we know the in-game "killing" isn't real, will this create any negative karmic effects? 2. From a hypothetical perspective, are these cultures being carefully prospered by the ruling class of this planet to keep individuals chained to Samsara for as long as possible? (preventing enlightenment)

The following touches on the ability to know other people's thoughts at a much grosser level than developed through meditation: How we read each other's minds . What are the research based or scientific explanation on the working of Abhiññā / Iddhi? What kind of cues do Jhāna help pick up?

Consider an inventor who has nothing to do with spirituality but her innovation helped change lives of millions. Her innovation helps people even after her death. Further, innovations can be used for evil as well.

From the different answers that I have received on various questions that I've asked, I have come to the following ideas: According to Mahayana Madhyamaka emptiness (shunyata), all phenomena is empty of intrinsic essence (svabhava ), and even this emptiness itself is empty of intrinsic essence. However, this intrinsic essence appears to be the essence given to phenomena by reification or objectification-classification (papanca ). So this means that my mental idea of how some phenomena is, is not how it actually is. Now, Nirvana is not a sankhara (conditioned and/or compounded thing) but it is also empty, in the sense that it is empty of the essence given to it by reification. So this means that my mental idea of how Nirvana is, is not how it actually is. Even "emptiness is empty" means that my mental idea of how Mahayana emptiness is, is not how it actually is. This is interesting, because it does not mean that a chair, a dog and Nirvana are mind-independently unreal or non-existent according to Madhyamaka. Rather, the mental idea that I have of a chair, a dog and Nirvana is unreal or non-existent. Now in Theravada, all suffering is related to clinging. Clinging is always related to the self, as seen in this answer . According to Sutta Nipata 4.14 (below), the root of all reification or objectification-classification (papañca ) is "I am the thinker". > Seeing in what way is a monk unbound, clinging to nothing in the world?" > "He should put an entire stop > to the root of objectification-classifications (papañca ): > 'I am the thinker.' > > **Commentary (Thanissaro):** > The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the root of these > classifications in that it reads into the immediate present a set of > distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being; thinker/thought; > identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate into mental and > physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this perception thus forms > a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one must learn to examine > these distinctions — which we all take for granted — to see that they > are simply assumptions that are not inherent in experience, and that > we would be better off to be able to drop them. Also from MN 1 (below), an arahant who is fully liberated from suffering would see phenomena as they truly are, without reification where his mental idea of phenomena associates it with his self (of persons). This is apparently also known as tathata . > “Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has > lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, > reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is > completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows > earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not > conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he > does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth > to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he > has fully understood it, I say. According to the Suñña Sutta , the five aggregates are empty of a self (of persons), including that they have no association with self (of persons). All reified mental ideas are mental fabrications (sankhara), so they too are empty of a self (of persons). So, linking the Mahayana Madhyamaka emptiness to the Theravada emptiness, I can say that **all phenomena is empty of a mentally reified intrinsic essence, where this reification or objectification-classification is rooted in "I am the thinker"**. Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains this as "*the perception, 'I am the thinker' lies at the root of these classifications in that it reads into the immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being; thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate into mental and physical conflict.*" I take it here that "I am the thinker" creates a duality between self (of persons) and non-self (of persons) that creates mental and physical conflict. **So, since Mahayana emptiness says that all phenomena is empty of mentally reified essence, and since all reification is rooted in a self (of persons), and Theravada emptiness states that all phenomena is empty of a self (of persons), then these two definitions of emptiness could be logically linked in this way.** Furthermore, the enlightened one who sees the Theravada emptiness of all phenomena through wisdom, will also simultaneously see the Mahayana emptiness of all phenomena, due to having his reification (papanca) ended, due to having his fetters concerning a self (of persons) uprooted. So, the enlightened one sees things as they truly are, which apparently is called tathata . Both these emptiness seem to be connected together in Bahiya Sutta (Udana 1.10) : > "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the > seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the > heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to > the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train > yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the > seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in > reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the > cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When > there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When > there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the > two. This, just this, is the end of stress." I believe my description of the Theravada doctrine above is correct, but I am not sure if my description of the Mahayana Madhyamaka doctrine above is correct or not. So, my questions are: 1. Is the Mahayana Madhyamaka doctrine described above correct? 2. Would this linking of Mahayana Madhyamaka emptiness to Theravada emptiness according to the description above make sense to you, as a Mahayana or Theravada Buddhist? Or am I missing something?

I can find various modern English-language translations (and descriptions, explanations) of the four dharma seals (e.g. on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals) or on [Lion's Roar](https://www.lionsroar.com/buddhism-nutshell-four-seals-dharma/)) ; but -- - What's the earliest or original reference (scripture) in which the seals are defined? - What's the best and/or the most famous original description (if that's not the same as above)? - In which canonical language[s] are they defined? Are they (also) defined in Pali or Sanskrit? I'm ideally looking for all four seals together as a formula -- not e.g. the three characteristics as an early version of it, nor a text which only for example describes emptiness.

In relation to the comment in this answer '... regular Buddhism is college - Dzogchen is like a PhD.' Also, Sam Harris seems to endorse Dzogchen. I am reading online like the wiki page etc. Does not seem to be any massive difference or something out of ordinary. Can somebody please explain.

Starting ngondro practice, taking refuge in 3 jewels. As we know most of the Tibetan schools use the pretty common attitude. So if we are not talking about the differences, but the inner feeling and its development during each stage of the practice. What are they? Could somebody experienced walk us through it or refer to relevant text? Please try to avoid general answer - there is already plenty information in the literature. This question is about the essential experience which I consider as the key of the successful practice. Thanks in advance.

Is it correct to say that *dhammakaya* (the sum of all Buddha's teachings) is a synonym of 'the real nature of reality'?

A couple of months ago someone tried to convince me that arahants no longer have sati. He said that sati is like a raft in the sense that it should be given up as soon as the goal, arahantship, has been reached. To give more strength to his claim he also pointed out that sati is not one of the 10 parami (perfections). I myself think that his claim is absurd, I think that arahants have nothing but sati. But, I'm neither a scholar nor an arahant. So, I can be wrong. I also don't understand the link he makes to the 10 parami. Does someone have a reference or source from the tipitaka that would support or deny his claim without a doubt and put my mind at ease? And does someone understand the link he makes to the perfections?

Is Nibbana final? Or if you attain Nibbana, can you be reborn again in Samsara if you wish?

All happenings are phenomenon. Happenings are Anatta. Therefore I am not happening neither happening is myself nor am I the owner of happening. Give the above fact , is it true that I need to abandon the view that I am doing something or something was done by me or I am the work done or I am happening? In short , was something ever done by me?

Is there any thing that Buddhism can add to a Stoic Pursuit? Below is a friendly laid-back discourse between a Stoic and a Buddhist, which could be used as a guide to what I’m trying to compare. Buddhist: *Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.* Stoic: *Yes, if you attach yourself to what is not given you will sure suffer. These five aggregates you counted must have been something not in your power. Have you nothing which is in your own power, which depends on yourself only and cannot be taken from you, or have you any thing of the kind?* Buddhist: *what do you mean, there are only five aggregates there is no I or mine* Stoic: *what? Is any man able to make you assent to that which is false or compel you to desire what you do not wish?* Buddhist: *No* Stoic: *In the matter of assent and desire then you are free from hindrance and obstruction?* Buddhist: *Yes* Stoic: *So, if we let go of the body which is subject to revolution of the whole and withdraw from externals, turns to our will to exercise it and to improve it by labor, so as to make it conformable to nature, elevated, free, unrestrained, unimpeded, faithful, modest, and virtuous will we not achieve tranquility and avoid suffering.* Buddhist: *Well said, training an act of will is a noble did, but until you learn that there is no “I or my-self” you would remain in cycle of rebirth.* Stoic: *what do you mean?* Buddhist: *But what is that you call my-self or I?* Stoic: *Sir, it’s my soul. If you ask me what is a soul I can’t say this or that, but I have just told you an attribute of mine which is not bound by suffering. Will you be kind enough to show me that my act of will is not mine?* Buddhist: *If that you call mine is the volitional formation you should know that it has ignorance as conditions and he who assume volition to be the self will surely be afflicted in mind.* Stoic: *I do not understand, you seem to me to be talking very obscure, you surly do not mean that the all wise will not act?* Buddhist: *No, I’m saying you should not say volition is mine.* Stoic: *Why?* Buddhist: *Perhaps you will understand if you look at it from another angle. Answer my question, by acting virtuously and by wisdom you are training the will towards the good?* Stoic: *Yes* Buddhist: *When the will become all virtuous, all wise and attain the good with no trace of ignorance will you claim that all wise will to be yours.* Stoic: *Far from it, there is but only one wise. If at all possible to reach of what you speak without quitting the body then the act of will be one with the one.* HE

I picked up these two statues today. I have been searching for an hour or two, to identify them or learn anything at all I can about them. I've searched through thousands of images, been comparing Buddhas from different countries, etc. I found this website and saw the [tag:statue] tag and now feel relieved. Please someone tell me anything you can about these. I hope I'm not posting this in the wrong place. Thanks so much

Are the five aggregates all saṅkhāras -- are they impermanent and dependently originated? I guess that "perceptions" and "feelings" are perhaps dependent on sensual contact. Is there anything else they're dependent on? Are "form" and "consciousness" dependently originated, and what (conditions or causes) do they depend on? Does "eye consciousness" exist when there's no contact? In a blind person, for example? If all five aggregates are indeed saṅkhāras, then what is the aggregate called "formation" (saṅkhāra)? What is the difference in the meaning in the word "saṅkhāra" when it's used to identify that one aggregate, as opposed to when it's used to characterise all aggregates? Is it right to call e.g. the doctrine of the "four noble truths" a dhamma instead of a saṅkhāra? Is the doctrine unconditioned and not subject to decay ... or is this a theory about Dhamma (i.e. a meta-dhamma) proposed by some schools and not others? Is awareness of (e.g. perception of) the dhamma a saṅkhāra, which depends on contact (e.g. contact between mind-object and mind-consciousness), and impermanent?

I had someone ask me this afternoon: > If Buddhism teaches that all things are impermanent, then how can it > make absolute assertions such as **there are 5 aggregates** or **there > are 4 noble truths**? Since I am very new to all of this I had to honestly answer, "I don't know". I would appreciate any insights on this question.

I am searching if Buddhism can be studied in Universities academically. I searched for PhD positions, most are in US with ambiguous postings. There are programs in Thailand but most of the postings look expired. So, can you help me know if there is any way to be an Academic Buddhist scholar? Are there any universities you know offering Buddhist studies? Any other suggestions in this direction.

Counterfactual definiteness is, "is the ability to speak "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed." The classic question to illustrate is, "When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and no animal is near by to hear it, does it make a sound? Why?" Another classic example is Einstein asking Bohr whether he really believed that, "the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it?" What does Buddhism have to say about these questions if anything at all? The standard procedure for understanding anatta is to investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined. However, doesn't this procedure implicitly rely upon the supposition that existing things can be found if one investigates and looks for them? That which can't be observed must not truly exist? Couldn't someone relying upon counterfactual definiteness just say that even though we can't observe the self that it still truly exists just like an unobserved tree in the forest that falls still makes a real sound?

My new understanding (based on this post ) is that the self is not permanent and is always changing. However, I still can't make the logical assertion that **the self does not exist at all**. At this point, it makes more sense for me to say: "there are multiple versions of the self that pass through time, each of those selves being slightly different than the ones before. So, I am self version 1.0.1, self version 1.0.2, self version 1.0.3, etc". In short, here are my present assertions: 1. a configuration of energy and matter intersects with the 4th dimension of time over and over again, producing the by product is what we understand as self. 2. if some version of self did not exist, then the subject of knowledge could not be observed. Example: without a self, there would be no one to respond to this post. Are my assertions correct? **Does Buddhist philosophy teach that the self does not exist or merely that it is impermanent**?