In Madhyamaka and other Buddhist schools, emptiness (śūnyatā) is a central doctrine: all phenomena are said to lack inherent existence. But at the same time, many Buddhist traditions place significant emphasis on knowledge and valid cognition (pramāṇa), as developed in the epistemological works of Dignāga, Dharmakīrti, and their followers. This raises an important philosophical issue: if all phenomena including concepts, perceptions, and inferences too are ultimately empty, Would this not imply epistemological nihilism , where no knowledge of any sort of 'absolute truth' is possible? Are there specific texts or commentaries where Buddhist philosophers explicitly address the concern that asserting emptiness might undermine knowledge itself? I’m looking for explanations that clarify how Buddhism maintains a coherent epistemology without contradicting its central teaching of emptiness.

What does a Buddhist practitioner, based on the 8 fold path, and deepening practice contemplate to become a sotāpanna (a stream-enterer)?

In Hindu cosmology, time is divided into four Yugas (Satya, Treta, Dvapara, Kali), with Satya Yuga, the first epoch described as a kind of utopian golden age and Kali Yuga as an age of decline and moral degradation—the one we are said to be living in now. My question is: - Does Buddhism have a similar concept of cyclical ages, especially a notion of a "golden age" vs. an "age of decline"? - If so, how is this described in Buddhist texts?

The doctrine of anattā denies any soul or self, yet the suttas mention beings like petas, yakkhas which are supposed to be Ghosts and spirits. If there is no soul, what is said to persist as a ghost or spirit?

Is there an ultimate self according to zen masters such as Dogen? I think that in the scholastic tradition of the mahayana, that is not the standard interpretation of the sutras etc.. I guess I mean what I am all along, rather than something "fixed". The snake was merely a rope all along, rather than nothing whatsoever or nothing more than the illusion of a snake/myself.

I am curious whether Buddhist divination is known (like ancient Greek say) to produce "orphic" predictions, ones that are liable to be misunderstood because they are cleverly ambiguous. I believe I have found an example (in China in 328 AD) but I would like to know if this a general thing that has been discussed (like in the case of Ancient Greece).

While reading through the Buddhist suttas, I came across the detailed descriptions of the eight emancipations. These passages were deeply intriguing, but they also gave rise to some questions in my mind which I decided to ask before which let me cite the concerned passages - > “Ānanda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight? > > “**Possessed of form, one sees forms.** This is the first > emancipation. > > “**Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally.** > This is the second emancipation. > > “**One is intent only on the beautiful.** This is the third > emancipation. > > “**With the complete transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, > with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding > perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ one > enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space**. This > is the fourth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.** This is > the fifth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of nothingness.** This is the sixth > emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception.** This is the seventh emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation > of perception and feeling.** This is the eighth emancipation. > > “**Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward > order, in reverse order, in forward and reverse order**, when he > attains them and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he > wants, and for as long as he wants, when through the ending of > effluents he enters and remains in the effluent-free release of > awareness and release of discernment, having directly known it and > realized it for himself in the here and now, **he is said to be a monk > released in both ways. And as for another release in both ways, higher > or more sublime than this, there is none.”** ~ DN 15 Questions- 1. Why is “nothingness” (6th) distinguished from “neither perception nor non-perception” (7th), given that both involve retreating from mental activity? Or from the 8th which involves total cessation of perception and feeling? 2. What kind of experience is “neither perception nor non-perception”? Is it a liminal state — and if so, how does one know they have entered it? Can a mind in this state be said to ‘experience’ anything at all? 3. In discussions with scholars from eternalist backgrounds, such as vedanta a common challenge raised is that the Buddhist teachings on the eight emancipations seem to imply the existence of a continuous or eternal subject since someone appears to be progressing through these subtle states of consciousness. If there is no eternal soul or self in Buddhism, then who is it that experiences and moves through these emancipations? How would a Buddhist respond to this objection? 4. What is the significance of being able to enter and exit these states at will, as emphasized in the sutta? 5. Is the progression through these states ultimately teaching that liberation is not something to be gained, but everything to be let go including perception, feeling, identity, and knowing?

How would one explain when Buddha said in Mahānidāna Sutta, that "rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso" and "nāmakāye paṭighasamphasso". The meaning of this?

Please don't move this to the Philosophy stack unless absolutely necessary. My personal belief in an afterlife is based on: 1. Being indefinite about "what is now?" 2. I assume that "my death" is semantically precise in some way, it's clear what we all mean by that 3. Linking these two, in terms of the impossibility of vague identity. Some people might object to my version of time or death, so while I am more interested in understanding 'vague identity', I cannot yet get started rhetorically. What's going on here? Which of these moves are allowed in the language game?

In saccapabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:

1. Jāti is "khandhānaṃ patubhāvo" and "āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho".
2. Khandhānaṃ patubhāvo included viññāṇa-khandha.
1. Viññāṇa-khandha is viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda.
2. Rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda is rūpa-khandha.
3. Nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda is vedanā-, saññā-, saṇkhāra-khandha (cetana, phassa, manasikāra; see: sammādiṭṭhisuttaṃ).
3. Those nāma- and rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda are piyarūpa/sātarūpa.
1. 60 piyarūpa/sātarūpa: 6 outer āyatana, 6 āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda, and 42 nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda (6 vedana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 saññā-khandha, 6x5 saṇkhāra-khandha [phassa-paṭiccasamuppāda, cetanā-paṭiccasamuppāda, vitakka, vicāra, taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda]).

So jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is viññāna-paṭiccasamuppāda. The difference is: Jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is 5 khandha. So jāti is a conclusion of viññāna, nāma+rūpa, āyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna and bhavā-paṭiccasamuppāda. But viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is an explanation of jhāti. So sacca-pabba is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa Is Jāti And Paṭisandhi", right?

Is it consistent to identify as a Buddhist while setting aside belief in supernatural elements described in the Pali canon such as devas , asuras , heavenly and hellish worlds, petas (ghosts), reincarnation etc.? Could one still be regarded as a follower of the Buddha if one adopts the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the cultivation of insight, but considers devas, ghosts, hell realms and rebirth as allegorical or as cultural elements of ancient India rather than literal truths? Have there been respected teachers or schools that legitimized such a pragmatic or symbolic interpretation, and are there canonical sources that suggest the path can be followed to its end without subscribing to a literal acceptance of devas, ghosts, or rebirth? Or would such a position necessarily be viewed as heretical or heterodox within the Buddhist fold?

I've been going down a rabbit hole trying to understand the core logic of the early Buddhist path from a materialistic/agnostic standpoint, and I've arrived at a conclusion that feels both insightful and perhaps overly simplistic. I wanted to lay out my line of reasoning and see what you all think. My line of thought goes like this: The Goal is Nibbāna: The ultimate goal is the cessation of dukkha (suffering/dissatisfaction) and the end of the cycle of rebirth. Nibbāna and Annihilation: From an outside, secular perspective, Parinibbāna (the final Nibbāna after an enlightened being's death) looks like annihilation. The impermanent aggregation that an atheist/agnostic perceives as the "self" is gone and does not reappear. This taps into our deepest primal fear. The Doctrinal Solution is Anattā: The Buddha's core teaching to resolve this is Anattā (Not-Self). The argument is that it can't be annihilation because there was no permanent, solid "self" to be annihilated in the first place. What we are is an impermanent "congregation" of processes. The Training is Realizing Anattā: The entire meditative training, at its core, is about deconstructing our own experience to see this truth for ourselves—to move from intellectually accepting Anattā to directly realizing it. The Paradox for Both Believers and Atheists This creates an interesting situation. For a person who believes in rebirth, the ultimate goal of non-rebirth can seem frightening. Their instinct is often to desire a better rebirth, not an end to existence altogether. Conversely, for an atheist who already believes there is nothing after death, it might seem like they've already achieved the Buddhist goal of "no rebirth." However, the crucial distinction is psychological. The atheist may still fear the end of their existence out of instinct, while an enlightened person would meet that same end with equanimity. Therefore, for both the believer afraid of cessation and the non-believer afraid of their own mortality, the Buddhist meditative training serves as a tool to become psychologically at peace with the end of the process we call a "self." This leads me to my core idea: Is the entire project of Early Buddhism (and practices like the Thai Forest tradition) essentially just psychological engineering designed to solve the problem of death anxiety? It feels like the fear of personal annihilation is the "final boss" of human suffering, and the doctrine of Anattā is the specific weapon designed to defeat it. By training the mind to see through the illusion of the very "self" we're afraid of losing, the therapy is complete, and the fear is uprooted. I realize this might be a reductionist take. I'm curious how this framing sits with you all. Is this a fair, if incomplete, way to look at the central mechanism of the path? Or does putting too much emphasis on the "death" aspect miss the point entirely? Looking forward to your thoughts.

I'm writing an article comparing Buddhist accounts of perception with modern concepts in robotics (autonomous driving) and cognitive science (e.g., Andy Clark’s Surfing Uncertainty). I am particularly interested in the term *nimitta*, which Andriy Volkov describes as a “defining characteristic” of an object rather than the object itself (I'm not talking about *nimitta* that arises in the context of *kasina* meditation). Note: I've started to write up a document on nimitta where I try to be specific about the term and my intended use. I'll reference this discussion in the document. My questions are: 1. Does nimitta ever refer to the object itself, or only to its facets or identifying features? 2. Would it be accurate, within the framework of Buddhist philosophy, to describe nimitta as an “internal representation”?

It's a bit weird to explain. In daily life when I notice some though or emotion or when someone praises me or some other similar action and I notice that and don't cling on to it there is a inner voice praising myself for not getting attached. And if I "let that go" then again an inner voice praising that action and not getting attached to that feeling and this kind of creates a loop. It might sounds very weird or trivial but sometimes its very annoying. How should one deal with this? Just ignore it?

Is the systematic quality of something baked into intent? Suppose I systematically deceive vs a slip of the tongue: is it just as bad?

Given what I assume was the predominant view of the time, I would not be surprised if there are many Suttas that deal explicitly with resurrection (as opposed to rebirth which seems to be a more recent word used to delineate the concept), but I am interested in finding out in which sutras did Buddha Shakyamuni deal explicitly with annihilationism (ucchedavāda) which, as I understand it, is the position of the dissolution of the self after death (of which materialism would be a subset). I am aware of the following Suttas: - Brahmajāla-sutta -- which covers a large array of positions of wrong arguments against annhilationism, but doesn't seem to go into too much detail on how it is a wrong view. - Alagaddūpama-sutta -- in which The Buddha instructs on how to defend his position from being confused with annihilationism. - Pālileyya-sutta -- not sure exactly how to interpret this, but it seems to be about assuaging the fear of annihilation. - Achela Kassapa-sutta -- where the Buddha states the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism. - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta -- where The Buddha separates his view from all conventional views. - Kalama Sutta -- where The Buddha explains the benefits of the path even if there is nothing after death. Are there any glaring misconceptions here? Are there any other Suttas dealing with this topic?

I-laden Mantras that seek to 'influence' or 'implant' thoughts, like - i am peaceful - i am silent - i am loving especially in the face of unskillful thought, are supposed to purify the mind, but are adding thoughts and a sense of self. Nibbana is defined in part as the absence of unskillful thought, but Anatta is also part of it. Also, there is much advice not to fight thoughts. If we create an I-ness around one side of the aisle (love), and thoughts arise that stand in it's shadow (hate), have we not set ourselves up for suffering, or an identity crisis? Are such mantras and chanting therefore unhelpful, or at least, promoting an infight, perhaps even an I-ness? How does buddhism reconcile this?

# Which mantra would be most beneficial for my specific recovery situation? I'm a college student dealing with eating disorder patterns, childhood trauma, and social isolation. Currently in therapy + medication, but want to add a daily mantra practice as complementary support. **Background on my struggles:** - **Eating patterns**: Cycles of restriction → binge → shame that developed during adolescence. Food was used as both comfort and expression of care in my family, but within an otherwise difficult dynamic. - **Past trauma**: Experienced physical discipline/violence during childhood for minor mistakes. Still have nightmares and hypervigilance. Even though family relationships have improved significantly, I struggle to trust the changes are permanent. - **Current state**: Social isolation, constant threat-detection mode, negative self-talk patterns. Eating episodes get triggered by perceived social rejection or academic stress. I find myself scanning environments for potential threats. - **Spiritual background**: Currently practicing with a local Plum Village group (Thich Nhat Hanh tradition), so I'm already in the Zen/Mahayana space. **The three mantras I'm considering:** 1. **Om Mani Padme Hum** - Compassion cultivation 2. **Medicine Buddha mantra** - Healing focused 3. **Green Tara mantra** - Protection from fears **My question**: Given my specific trauma pattern (broken safety/protection system leading to hypervigilance and self-hatred), which mantra would likely have the most therapeutic benefit? I think Green Tara would be beneficial for my core issue of feeling fundamentally unsafe in the world, which then triggers the binge cycles when I perceive social threats. But I also wonder if the self-compassion work of Om Mani Padme Hum might be more foundational. Has anyone with similar trauma/eating disorder patterns found one of these particularly helpful? I know this isn't a substitute for therapy - just looking for what might work best as a complementary daily practice. **Note**: I'm already doing weekly therapy + SSRI medication + daily mindfulness meditation. The part in the 12 Step program where you are specifically required to trust in a "higher power" inspired me that maybe I need something like this to. So I wonder if there's anything within the Buddhist framework that could fill that gap. I'm worried about sectarian conflict, though. Is it even okay to practice these Tibetan chants if I'm practicing in a modernized, engaged, mindfulness-focused version of Vietnamese Zen?

When we study with concentration and our mind gets distracted we bring back to the very subject we study. The same thing we do it in meditation,when mind gets distracted we bring it back to breath . So isn't Studying is also meditation

I was attempting to find suttas that use the term 'kusala' in a mundane context, such as: > In some past lives, past existences, past abodes the Realized One was > reborn as a human being. He firmly and persistently undertook **skillful** > behaviors such as good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, > giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due > respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the > elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful > behaviors. > > Yampi, bhikkhave, tathāgato purimaṁ jātiṁ purimaṁ bhavaṁ purimaṁ > niketaṁ pubbe manussabhūto samāno daḷhasamādāno ahosi **kusalesu** > dhammesu, avatthitasamādāno kāyasucarite vacīsucarite manosucarite > dānasaṁvibhāge sīlasamādāne uposathupavāse matteyyatāya petteyyatāya > sāmaññatāya brahmaññatāya kule jeṭṭhāpacāyitāya aññataraññataresu ca > adhikusalesu dhammesu. > > Due to performing, accumulating, heaping up, and amassing those deeds, > when his body broke up, after death, he was reborn in a good place, a > heavenly realm. > > So tassa kammassa kaṭattā upacitattā ussannattā vipulattā kāyassa > bhedā paraṁ maraṇā sugatiṁ saggaṁ lokaṁ upapajjati. > > [DN 30](https://suttacentral.net/dn30/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=pts¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) Are there others? If so, please list as many as we know.