I was thinking about [this comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28545/as-a-buddhist-how-shall-we-make-sense-of-the-notion-that-there-is-no-such-thing#comment47970_28548) ... > Yes, my target is to abandon the three fetters completely. I can make sense of 'Doubt' and 'grasping at precepts+practices', getting rid of the identity view is the hardest. ... and wondering about what "completely" means. I thought [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9424/254) implies that identity view (abandoned at first stage) and conceit (abandoned at last stage) are somewhat on a continuum. In the context of the four stages of enlightenment would it be right to say that, without identity-view, there's no such thing as an "enlightened person": instead there are maybe "enlightened moments" or moments of enlightenment? I think that the Abhidhamma talks of "moments" (thought-moments), but that the suttas don't, so ... (knowing little of the Abhidhamma) I'm not sure whether this ("enlightened moments") is a good description. There was [also this](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/28506/254) ... > The definition of a path is: A virtuous mind conjoined with renunciation. ... which, put me in mind of different moments (places, instants) along a path. If "enlightened moments" *is* a good metaphor e.g. for a sotapanna, I was wondering what the difference is between that and the "higher" stages of enlightenment -- and how to achieve or progress towards those, what (what practice and/or realization) is required? Is it right to say that the difference is more a matter of degree than a matter of kind? Something [like](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment#Path_and_Fruit) ... > - A Once-returner (Sakadagami) has greatly attenuated: 4. Sensual desire 5. Ill will - A Non-returner (Anāgāmi) is free from: 4. Sensual desire 5. Ill will ... suggests this may be gradual, progressive? Does the "dhamma-eye" being associated with stream entry imply that "the Dhamma" is already seen at that stage, and thence can only become more ever-present (more of the same)? Is it 'only' that 'enlightened moments' become more continual, regular, longer, normal, without intervals? If that's so then is that related to so-called "mindfulness" -- which I imagine might mean "the ability to (more or less continually) remember the dhamma" and also "guarding the senses (to avoid getting carried away)". So, lastly, why does [Right Concentration (*samma samadhi*)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/index.html) talk exclusively about [jhanas](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html) ? Are they, how and/or why are they, at what point or stage are they, relevant and necessary for any (further) progress? Can you outline any connection between practising jhanas and living/acting/thinking in the world? Or are they unrelated, is a "seclusion" the only path and the ultimate goal (or at least through, i.e. up to and including, non-returner)?

It was intense suffering which bought me to the path of Dhamma. But now as I practise I see that I have started defining my life through the lens of suffering. Even if I practise non-attachment and remind myself of ancicca which destroys craving and clinging I feel bad about my life. 1. Should we feel good about our lives? 2. What are the reasons to feel good about it? 3. Can we be both happy about our life and pursue Nibbana? 4. If we only look at life as suffering and unsatisfactory does this not make us masochist?

I cry, I don't know why. I just feel things so deeply and want to solve everyone’s problems I don’t know but I can’t help it, it’s just in me, I can’t distance myself from their suffering, because we all suffer. It makes living life really hard. If I get too carried away I desire to deny being compassionate and having connections with people because they hurt. Then I picture my life as always worrying about sad things and the problems of others and then there’s no more me. How can I live life knowing other people work so hard for so little and people and animals suffer?

I'm just starting the study of Buddhism and I'm really interested in the whole philosophy of Buddhism. Can someone please suggest some books for beginners ? Thank you.

The three marks of existence is: Impermanence, Suffering, and No-Self. If there is no-self, then there is no Soul. Our cognitive abilities is the result of the physical (Brain organ) and the non-physical (five Skandhas) In meditation, we are taught to observe the changes of our thoughts, which I presume is the result of the five Skandhas as well. The question is, if there is no-self and no soul, then who is observing my thoughts? Am I wrong to say they are my thoughts? Who am I? And who is answering my question in this forum?

I think this question is distinct from those asking what is reincarnated . I understand the distinction between the mindstream and a soul, and the *simile* of passing on a flame. I also understand that an association is made between a mindstream and human form, most often in the womb. What is it that makes and maintains this mental-physical association endure throughout a human lifetime? Why is there a tendency for the association to result in a first-person perspective/sense of self?

After focusing on my breath during my meditationsessions a couple of years I desided to start practisiing Vipassana. I will like to add that I have never been on a Vipassana-retreat (yet). Im still very interested of practising it, but after some months of doing it I have some questions about my practise: I tend to struggle to be aware of my tougths as they ocour and when I become aware of that Im following a train of thougths later I "Choke" them or supress them(?). They will stop instantly. This will go on and on during my sessions and it leaves me confused if I am practising this in a productive way. I guess I still have alot to learn about this way of meditation, but Im still interested to see what you think about this and if you got some advise. Thanks!

Is there a sutta which answers where a nirvanaised consciousnesses is after death and comapres it to a fire going out? I thought there was, but can't find it. Sounds like Vacchagota mashed up with the fire sermon . I'm asking because I like the image, and it almost appears in some modernist poetry. Failing a sutta, any zen discourses. Failing that, anywhere in the canon. Failing that, any important Buddhist, living or dead. Failing that an academic.

I am looking for connection between lust, hatred, and delusion, and craving. Craving is more fundamental than lust, hatred and delusion: it is the craving which leads to lust, hatred and delusion. But how ? My question is -- how does the craving lead to lust, hatred and delusion? --- - "craving" -- *taṇhā* - "lust, hatred and delusion" -- *lobha*, *dosa*, *moha*

I am young, today I turn 23, and my life is fast. I am a research student where my work is enjoyable, changing constantly and so invoking that I lose myself in it. My friends are family are fairly supportive, money is not a huge issue and I am in good health. Even though things appear good, a life-situation that I would think is ideal, does not feel ideal, in fact it feels as empty and unforgiving as a bad life-situation. Commonly I feel as though I am not living. When I am consumed by my research projects I am defiantly not self aware. When I am not doing research, I feel a dread that I am currently not *awake*, and that I am almost never *awake*. The only times I feel truly awake is in deep sadness; sometimes the sadness has no cause it is just weltschmerz . Do other people feel this? Is this what being young feels like; if so, does it go away? Would Buddhism or meditation make me feel wholesome rather than empty in moments of reflection? Is this okay to feel?

Lets keep the rebirth concepts aside for a moment. Is there a way we can die consciously? (i.e.) Being aware of our death. And can we still meditate after death without a human body? If yes, then in what thing we concentrate on. Let's say we are on concentrating on breath while we are alive. But after death we don't have breath and also we don't have any bodily sensations too... What happens to the awareness after death, Does it still exist? Is the awareness eternal? Is the after life awareness is called soul? Do we need a human body to meditate?? I suddenly feel weird getting this idea? So is there any concepts based on this???

If a person **B** does an intentional harmful action on person **A**, and so **B** does a bad karma. As a result of that karma, it happens that a person **C** ends up hurting person **B**, intentionally or unintentionally. So what is the result of the action of person **C**? Does her action account for Karma? Does she even have any choice to hurt B or not hurt B? If **C** hurts **B** intentionally does that account for bad karma, but **C** did in because she had to as it was **B**'s karma? If this continues, this whole sequence will never ever end.

What is the definition of "Sathpurisa/Sathpurusha" according to the Buddha? Please provide sutta references. Metta.

In MN 28 following was said : > Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent > origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent > origination.” My questions are : What is meant by the above statement? & Is dependent origination not a Dhamma ?

There are several things which Buddha asked us to abandon before we can abandon craving finally. For example Buddha asks us to abandon five fetters and hindrances. My question is : Is there a complete list of things to abandon before abandoning craving ?

Searching the Pali Canon for the "root of suffering", we find the direct definition only occurs in a few suttas: * delight is the root of suffering (MN1 ) * attachment is the root of suffering (MN105 , MN66 ) * desire is the root of suffering ([MN42.11]) * what is greed? ... that which is...root of suffering (Vb17 ) We also have that ignorance is simply one product of dependent origination (SN 22.81): > And that craving, that feeling, that contact, and that **ignorance** are also impermanent, conditioned, and dependently originated . Ignorance does indeed result in suffering, but to claim it as the *root of suffering* feels a bit misleading. **Can one assert “ignorance is the root of suffering?”** **Can one assert “ignorance is NOT the root of suffering?”** In your answers, kindly include actual sutta references, preferably from the Pali Canon. This is necessary to avoid arguing about personal interpretation since supported translations are provided by ordained and well-respected monks. As a Sangha, we have to respect and uphold the Dhamma. 🙏

How irony and sarcasm are seen in Buddhism? For example, are they considered wrong speech in all ocasions?

According to the Anapanasati Sutta it is this practise that leads to liberation but how does the destruction of (a) fetter(s) exactly happen? Let's take the stage from once-returner to non-returner. The latter one has removed sensual desire and anger. How did this exactly happen during Anapanasati?

Namo Buddhaya. Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Form is Anatta too. Meaning form is not worth identifying as myself, me or mine. Does that mean that I should identify myself as formless ? Am I in form or am I formless or I do not exist ? Similarly for feelings and consciousness. Should I identify myself feelingless? Should I identify myself consciousless( i.e. I will become without consciousness) ? I am pretty confused.

Ignorance is the cause of suffering. Buddha says in SN 12.2 : > “And what, bhikkhus, is ignorance? Not knowing suffering, not knowing > the origin of suffering, not knowing the cessation of suffering, not > knowing the way leading to the cessation of suffering. This is called > ignorance. Note that Buddha says "not knowing".And what is knowing ? Knowing is for example I know my name. I know my house address. I know history etc. Now that I 'know' suffering. Now that I 'know' origin of suffering. Now that I 'know' cessation of suffering. Now that I 'know' the way leading to the cessation of suffering. My ignorance should be removed and my suffering should end. But that doesn't happen , which means there is some mistranslation from Pali. Actually I guess the wording should be :Ignorance is not knowing suffering , not knowing the origin of suffering , not knowing the cessation of suffering ,not **walking(or applying or practicing)** the way leading to the cessation of suffering. My question is : Is there a mistranslation of definition of ignorance?