In SN 24.5, the Lord Buddha criticized the following doctrine called "natthikavādaṃ": > *There is no benefit in giving, sacrifice or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There is not this world or the > other world. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are > reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well > attained and practiced, and who describes this world and the other > world after realizing it with their own insight.* > > *This person is made up of the four primary elements. When they die, the earth in their body merges and coalesces with the main mass of > earth. The water in their body merges and coalesces with the main mass > of water. The fire in their body merges and coalesces with the main > mass of fire. The air in their body merges and coalesces with the main > mass of air.* > > *The faculties are transferred to space. Four men with a bier carry away the corpse. Their footprints show the way to the cemetery. The > bones become bleached. Offerings dedicated to the gods end in ashes. > Giving is a doctrine of morons. When anyone affirms a positive > teaching (atthikavādaṃ) it’s just baseless, false nonsense. Both the > foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body > breaks up and don’t exist after death.* According to SN 24.5, why did the Lord Buddha criticize natthikavādaṃ (the doctrine of disbelief)?

http://www.buddha-images.com/vessantara-jataka.asp > It depicts the life of prince Vessantara who gives away all his possessions, including his children to become servants of an evil spirited character. What can this say that Buddha encourages the laymen The Middle Way , while his act of donating children during the life of prince Vessantara seems quite extreme for a layperson? > Monks, these two extremes ought not to be practiced by one who has gone forth from the household life. (What are the two?) There is addiction to indulgence of sense-pleasures, which is low, coarse, the way of ordinary people, unworthy, and unprofitable; and there is addiction to self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy, and unprofitable.

During meditation lost connection between body and the thoughts. Body remains silent but thoughts stop arise that particular matter .which are arise remain as a flow.What is this experience?

When kamathanha disappears during meditation ?is it during sotapanna state or sakadagami state?

How are the aggregates affected by a person's becoming enlightened or more enlightened? I'm guessing that some aggregates (e.g. "form" perhaps) are not affected, and some are. I'm asking, hoping to better understand what an enlightened state of mind is, or in what way it functions differently. How does "mindfulness" affect the aggregates, what's the change (in the functioning of each aggregate) depending on whether or not you're being mindful? Is this a wrong question -- were/are the "aggregates" only taught in the context of their being something inconstant and not worth attaching to?

Under what conditions is it proper for Buddhists of one tradition to try and proselytize Buddhists from another tradition? Under what conditions is it improper? What harm can be done? What fruits can be gained? Can cross-tradition debate be a good thing? Is it ever a bad thing? What is the proper motivation to do so? What are improper motivations? What is skillful? What is unskillful? Is it desirable to grant a modicum of respect for all traditions? How should this respect be manifested? What are examples of disrespectful dialogue and how can/should the line be drawn? Note: I'd prefer if these questions are not used to proselytize or engage in debate about Buddhist doctrine... but rather to answer the questions above. ... and references to dharma teachings, historical events, or opinions/literature of noted teachers also welcome and encouraged!

I have been practicing meditation for quite a long time now and sadly I haven't entered any jhana(which I want to enter). I think the reason for me not progressing is because I switch between methods of meditation a lot, for example if I'm practicing meditation where I simply see my mind wandering and after a week or so I stop and look for another method, like focusing on nostrils and same happens for a week and then I start to look my muscles moving while breathing(I do that because I think I'm not good at this, maybe another one will work), as a result I don't get anywhere and day by day my faith that meditation is helpful gets less and less. I don't want to do that! But I simply can't get any sort of guarantee that I am practicing right mindfulness. So my questions: > 1) Is this the reason I'm not progressing? Do I have to choose a method and stick to it, when my mind tells me to change? > 2) While doing routine work, do I have to do work while being mindful or stick to my meditation object(nostrils, these days :((()? or being mindful and having focus on meditation object will have same effect?

This may be primarily for the Tibetan style practitioners. Also, my question assumes that "rebirth" etc are *not* metaphors. Since non-human animal existence is lower down in the six realms, why wouldn't killing them (painlessly) be considered a good thing, since it then allows the being rebirth and maybe it will be reborn as a human? For example, in "Seven Years in Tibet ", earthworms were saved from death. Isn't that in some sense cruel, since saving an animal prolongs the time it has to spend *as* an animal? I *think* I know the answer; namely, that karmic effects need to be worked out and if we kill an animal prior to that point, then it's simply going to be reborn as another animal until it's paid whatever "karmic debt" is involved. Therefore, killing an animal *doesn't* serve to give it a chance of a higher rebirth. But that's a guess. Any ideas? (And again, I know some people think the whole "rebirth" thing is just a metaphor. Fine. But this question is predicated on that not being the case, so in this particular case, please keep yer metaphors to yerself :-) )

In Mahayana Buddhism, do they expect everyone to become a Buddha? If so, how can any Buddha help anyone attain enlightenment? Isn't the whole point of becoming a Buddha to help others to attain enlightenment? It's like asking everyone in the country to become kings. Then there won't be any countrymen left to rule. To give another analogy, imagine patients refusing to follow doctor advice saying that they want to become doctors first to help cure others. Then those future patients they are hoping to help would also have to refuse their help to try to become doctors themselves. At the end of the day, no patient makes use of any doctor and no doctor cures any patient. So why become a doctor in the first place?:)

Wikipedia includes [this (unreferenced) sentence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81ramit%C4%81#Tibetan_Buddhism) : > According to the perspective of Tibetan Buddhism, Mahāyāna practitioners have the choice of two practice paths: the path of perfection (Sanskrit: *pāramitāyāna*) or the path of tantra (Sanskrit: *tantrayāna*), which is the Vajrayāna. Would you say a bit more about that (for someone who hasn't been taught Mahāyāna practice or Tibetan Buddhism)? For example, some related questions include: - Is the quoted sentence more-or-less true? - Is this a good high-level view of (introduction to, or taxonomy of) Tibetan Buddhism? - What are *pāramitāyāna* and *tantrayāna*: - What is the goal of each? - What is the purpose of each (do they tend toward the goal)? - What (or how) is the practice of each (how, for example, is the purpose implemented)? - To what extent is it true that "practitioners have the choice"? On what basis should or do they choose (e.g. which practice path is suited for, or available to, what practitioners)?

in John Haspel's book, '_Becoming Buddha_', the following quote is attributed to MN 11: > “Magandiya, when you hear the true Dhamma, ... When released from > clinging **the mind is without feature or surface, limitless, outside of > time and space,** freed from the six-sense base.” Here's a larger quote: > While meditating with tranquility, allow insight to arise and have a direct experience of the Buddha’s teachings leading to abandoning clinging and the cessation of suffering. Experience awakening through unbinding the Five Clinging-Aggregates. > > > “Magandiya, when you hear the true Dhamma, you will practice the Dhamma correctly. When you practice the Dhamma correctly, you will know & see for yourself: ‘This is where confusion and suffering ceases without trace. With the cessation of my clinging comes the cessation of becoming. With the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress.” (Majjhima Nikaya 11) > > The Buddha describes a mind free of clinging and freed of association to the five clinging aggregates: > > > “**released from clinging the mind is without feature or surface, limitless, outside of time and space, freed from the six-sense base**.” (Majjhima Nikaya 11) > > (*This text was copied from Becoming-Buddha.com. If you found this helpful, please visit our website for more Dhamma articles. All content is copyright 2017 by John Haspel and is distributed under a Creative Commons 4.0 license. Here is a link to the full article: [The Five Clinging Aggregates | Becoming Buddha](https://becoming-buddha.com/the-five-clinging-aggregates/)*) However I don't see this phrase, that verse about the nature of the mind, in translations of MN 11. Because the quote mentions Magandiya, I looked in MN 75 as well, but don't see it there either. Is that verse anywhere to be found in the Pali Canon? Thanks for your much appreciated help.

Namo Buddhaya. Buddha talks about walking meditation at several places in the suttas for example [here](https://suttacentral.net/an5.29/en/sujato) . However he doesn't mention it in the Long discourse about the ways of attending to mindfulness . There are 4 ways of attending to mindfulness but none of them mention walking or walking meditation. My questions are : Why doesn't Buddha mention about the walking or walking meditation in the long discourse about the ways of attending to mindfulness? Is there any sutta where Buddha talks about the technique of walking meditation?

What would motivate an enlightened person to continue living? It seems like once somebody attains enlightenment, other than teaching, there would be no reason to continue living.

To better see the relative, insubstantial nature of phenomena, maybe it is helpful to think about this another way, that is, seeing what is *not* relative, not conditioned, not empty. It has been said that all phenomena are conditioned, not intrinsically real, empty of independent, self-existence. What *is* intrinsically real? Is nibbāna intrinsically real? > O bhikkhus, what is the Absolute (Asaṃkhata, Unconditioned)? It is, O > bhikkhus, the extinction of desire (rāgakkhayo) the extinction of > hatred (dosakkhayo), the extinction of illusion (mohakkhayo). This, O > bhikkhus, is called the Absolute When the terms *unconditioned*, *absolute*, and *ultimate* are used, as in the above and below quotes, do they not mean the same as *intrinsically real*? Does *un*-conditioned not mean "independent of conditions" and hence self-existing? > Bodhicitta literally means “awakened heart.” On the relative level it > is compassion, expressed in the bodhisattva vow to save all beings; it > is the aspiration to awaken from ignorance in order to live one’s life > for the benefit of all. On the ultimate level, bodhicitta goes beyond > the concepts of self and other. It is the empty, aware nature of the > mind itself. ---------- The first draft of this question was partly motivated by the question, "is compassion real?", however, from reading One Dharma: The Emerging Western Buddhism (Joseph Goldstein) , my understanding is now that compassion is relative (not intrinsically real), i.e. as Joseph Goldstein puts it: > I realized that the relative level is the expression of the ultimate: > compassion is the activity of emptiness. Since that part of my question has been answered, it has now been revised.

According to Kutuhalasala Sutta (SN44.9) , translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: > **Vacchagotta:** "And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its > sustenance then?" > > **Buddha:** "Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for > craving is its sustenance at that time." Alternative translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi here : > **Vacchagotta:** “And, Master Gotama, when a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, what does Master > Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?” > > **Buddha:** “When, Vaccha, a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, I declare that it is fuelled by > craving. For on that occasion craving is its fuel.” In the Theravada tradition, the orthodox doctrine based on the Abhidhamma states that there is no intermediate state between births, that rebirth-linking consciousness instantaneously results in a new birth without any gaps. However, the above sutta implies that it is possible to have an intermediate state that is sustained by craving. So, my question is: does SN44.9 imply an intermediate state between births, or is there an alternative interpretation for it?

Have Buddhas escaped samsara? Obviously there is the mainly Chinese term "non-abiding in nirvana". I'm interested in an answer from any tradition at all, and for enlightened non-Buddhas, too. To be specific, I would like to know if when a Buddha dies they then *suffer* death, or whether their death is somehow something over and above the suffering of samsara. I'm asking just because I think that's how I'd like the near eternal rounds of rebirth to end, perhaps with a little regret. Cheers.

I'm not sure whether it has been poorly taught by a monk but as far as I know the Buddha never really taught to just merely watch the hindrances, right? The sixth factor of the N8P is right effort and it calls us to do something about the hindrances. But why then does the Buddha at other times say that we have to see the impermanence, the unstability (non self) and the unsatisfactory nature of thoughts, feelings, emotions etc? Should we do both approaches or mainly right effort?

I've been meditating on-and-off for years. However, the non-attachment preached by the Buddha conflicts with the environment around me. I'm in a large urban center in North America. Achievement is valued; I feel like I'm contributing to the world in a small way. I feel like it makes me better at my job to dream big and get attached to goals big and small, whether it's mentoring someone junior or committing years to a project that has an uncertain payoff. This puts me at odds with my meditation practice, where "letting go" is emphasized. The best resource I have found specifically addressing this question is Stephen Batchelor's book "After Buddhism". In it, Batchelor lays out one possible interpretation of the scriptures, in which the Buddha and his disciples are very much 'in the world'---businesspeople, merchants, town doctors, etc.---this was refreshing to read and made me feel more at ease. Am I asking to eat my cake too? I value Buddhism and meditation, but I also value my Western individualist roots and feel egoistic achievement is necessary for progress in science and technology. Thank you!

Can karma be destroyed by other Niyamas? Can the other four niyamas from the "Five Niyamas" remove a person's karma? Or just affect it?

Many physical and mental illnesses are genetic or hereditary, whether partially or completely, the contributing factor is genetic, nevertheless. For example, you are born into a family that has genetic illness e.g. anxiety disorder, compulsive disorder, cancer, diabetes, to name a few. The question is, since genetic or hereditary illness will then pass down to your children. If you get married and have children, as parents, are you doing bad kamma?