In this Partially Examined Life podcast , the presenters stated that when Buddhism moved into Chinese, it naturally was influenced by the pre-existing Taoist philosophy. This is uncontroversial. However, they went on to make a stronger claim: > it was the influence of Taoism that was responsible for the development of Mahayana. That is quite a claim and obviously the real position is more complex. However, is there any truth in that statement? Was Taoism instrumental in the development of Mahayana Buddhism?

In the Tevijja Sutta (DN 13 ), the Buddha addresses Brahmin students who are described as being learned in the Vedas and belonging to specific Brahmanical lineages. The sutta explicitly situates its interlocutors within the orthodox Vedic tradition, often identified within the Yajurvedic and Sāmavedic recensions:- > Even though brahmins describe different paths—the Adhvaryu brahmins, > the **Taittirīya brahmins, the Chāndogya brahmins**, the Cāndrāyaṇa > brahmins, and the Bahvṛca brahmins—all of them still lead someone who > practices them to the company of Divinity These Brahmins understood as followers of what I suppose were the Taittirīya and Chāndogya Upaniṣadic traditions of the time claim knowledge of the path to union or “company with Brahmā” (brahmasahavyatā). The Buddha responds by redefining the path to Brahmā not through birth, sacrifice, or Vedic recitation, but through the cultivation of the four brahmavihāras. > “So it seems that that mendicant is not encumbered with possessions, > and neither is the Divinity. Would a mendicant who is not encumbered > with possessions join together and converge with the Divinity, who > isn’t encumbered with possessions?” > > “Yes, worthy Gotama.” > > “Good, Vāseṭṭha! **It’s quite possible that a mendicant who is not > encumbered with possessions will, when the body breaks up, after > death, be reborn in the company of Divinity, who isn’t encumbered with > possessions.** Is the Buddha’s teaching of “Brahmasahavyatā” in the Tevijja Sutta intended as a normative soteriological teaching for Buddhists, or is it better understood as a skillful means (upāya) directed specifically at non-Buddhist Brahmins or Followers of Upanishadic traditions, reframing their own theological goal in ethical and meditative terms without endorsing it as final liberation (nibbāna)?

In the Aggivacchasutta (MN 72 ), the Buddha responds to Vacchagotta’s inquiry about the status of a tathāgata after the attainment of cessation by invoking the simile of a fire that has become quenched due to the exhaustion of its fuel:- > “But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire in front of you > that is quenched: in what direction did it go—east, south, west, or > north?’ How would you answer?” > > “It doesn’t apply, worthy Gotama. The fire depended on grass and logs > as fuel. When that runs out, and no more fuel is added, the fire is > reckoned to have become quenched due to lack of fuel.” > > “In the same way, Vaccha, any form by which a realized one might be > described has been given up, cut off at the root, made like a palm > stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A realized one > is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, > and hard to fathom, like the ocean. **‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not > reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn > nor not reborn’—none of these apply.** > > Any feeling … perception … choices … consciousness by which a realized > one might be described has been given up, cut off at the root, made > like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A > realized one is freed from reckoning in terms of consciousness. > They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. > **‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not > reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.”** I have questions about how this functions at a technical level within early Buddhist thought. 1. If the aggregates are indeed the sole conditions under which an individual can emerge and be identified, what is the precise significance of the Buddha’s negation of all four alternatives - reborn, not reborn, both, and neither? 2. Is the primary function of this passage to dissolve only to speculative fixation that obstructs liberation, or does it also imply a principled metaphysical account of why post-liberation or even post-mortem identity claims fail at the level of causal analysis? 3. Does the fire simile warrant the conclusion that once causal supports or aggregates are exhausted, questions framed in terms of existence or non-existence become category errors rather than unanswered questions?

Why are the three marks (consolidated) not directly included in the Satipatthana Sutta - supposedly the most important of all discourses? Not in the section of principles, but indirectly with regards to the body: > *They meditate observing the body as liable to originate, as liable to vanish, and as liable to both originate and vanish.* Perhaps it is due to the later historical ontological organization of those three messages? Any tangential ideas are welcome.

The previous years of my life feels like a dream. I was happily living, consumed with studies, learning things, watching youtube and stuff, enjoying a lot, mind was busy in various entertaining stuffs. But, I don't know how it started, but all those passions are waning. Its almost as if I've forgotten how to live. Live as in the previous ways of my living. I am now trying to find a way to live as I've lived in the past but can't seem to go back to the old ways. I mean I want to find something fun for my mind as I had in the past but I just cant bring up enough passion. What is happening to me ?

I am asking this in reference to the aircraft that crashed in India. Is there anything like collective karma, like the alayavijnana (Collective Consciousness)? ( I should not say this, but...) Like, sometimes the entire community suffers, like the Jews in the Second World War. Or sometimes there is an earthquake, natural disasters...If the dependent origination is correct, then should there be a reason behind the mass suffering?

In the Nikāyas, consciousness is often described as a dependently originated phenomenon. It arises in dependence on conditions such as nāma-rūpa and the sense bases. For instance - > "Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in > dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood > is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence > on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that > burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a > fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a > cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified > simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is > classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness > is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which > it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms > is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises > in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as > ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose > & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness > that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply > as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on > the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as > body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the > intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness." ~ MN 38 However, in DN 15 and many other suttas in descriptions of the formless attainments, the Buddha also speaks of a “dimension of the infinitude of consciousness”, which one enters after the dimension of infinite space. > “Having completely surmounted the base of the infinity of space, > (contemplating) ‘Consciousness is infinite,’ one enters and dwells in > the base of the infinity of consciousness. This is the fifth > emancipation. > > “Having completely surmounted the base of the infinity of > consciousness, (contemplating) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > dwells in the base of nothingness. This is the sixth emancipation. Given the standard teaching that consciousness does not exist apart from conditions:- If consciousness is entirely conditioned and dependent, how should we understand this “dimension of the infinitude of consciousness”? what does it mean to speak of a dimension of its infinitude? Does it come under the intellect-consciousness of MN 38 Or is it something different? Who or what is the one who “enters” these dimensions one after another? is it simply the stream of consciousness, or is there an implied experiencer with continuity beyond the aggregates? ---------- I am seeking canonical, commentarial, or scholarly interpretations that reconcile DN 15’s description of the “dimension of the infinitude of consciousness” with the early Buddhist principle of dependent origination. Is this dimension to be understood phenomenologically, as part of meditative experience, or does it suggest a more nuanced conception of consciousness that is distinct from the aggregates?

> 僧問藥山：「平田淺草，麈鹿成群。如何射得麈中麈？」山云：「看箭！」僧放身便倒。山云：「侍者拖出這死漢。」僧便走。山云：「弄泥團漢有什麼限？」 > > A monk asked Yakusan, “On an open plain with shallow grass, elk and deer form a herd. How does one shoot the Elk of Elks?” Yakusan said, “Watch the arrow!” The monk let himself fall. Yakusan said, “Attendants, please drag this dead fellow out.” The monk chose to walk away. Yakusan said, “Fellows who play with mud balls know no bounds.” Master Yakusan pretends to shoot an arrow. The monk in the story lets himself fall. Master Yakusan apparently was not happy with the monk’s response. What should the monk have done instead?

It's obvious what stealing is when engaged-in often. You take the stuff of others while under a certain mental state, that mental state being marked and noticeable by an understanding that something isn't under your possession (but under another's), and physical effort to appropriate it regardless of the other person's wishes. So if someone is happy with you 'stealing' something, is that stealing? In general, no, as this would be a gift. On the other hand, we have situations such as copyright law, or other ideas where the line of 'possession' is inappropriately drawn. So here is the problem. What is the meter by which we can say something is stolen or not? It can't be the sweeping idea, 'this is my property', as that idea can be faked, as in the case of intellectual property. It can be a case where there is appropriate and inappropriate mental possession of items, and stealing only being the violation of the appropriate lines. Is it fully intent? Kamma = Intent, so if you do not engage in the intent of stealing, you will not experience the results. However, what if you are someone who considers smelling the flowers of another individual stealing? Surely that would not be considered stealing, yet to that person smelling the flowers would trigger the intent. Even though that coarse mental intent would arise, as far as I know that is not actual stealing, so the 'non-intent stealing' would not have an object. At which point can you say you are actually stealing, and at which you are not? It is really simple with coarse events but hard with complex contexts. Taking an apple from someone without asking is stealing, but what about abusing sales at a market? - what about when those sales are glitches, unintended, in the system? - what about liberally charging a corporate card? For our modern, daily situations a really subtle understanding of the precepts is required. So where is the subtle line of stealing?

My decrease in creativity does most likely not have anything to do with my feeble meditation attempts, because it is natural to have ups and downs, even when it comes to creativity. But still, meditation deals with ridding oneself of attachments by observing mind states objectively and I think that following through an idea and turning it into a finished piece of work requires quite a lot of attachment and devotion to the project. I suppose my real question is: is it possible to balance being a practicing Buddhist and a creative artist?

> “There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, > monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you > could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and > conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, > unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, > made, and conditioned.” ~ Ud 8.3 In contemporary discussions—particularly outside of Buddhist contexts, this passage is sometimes interpreted in a theistic or metaphysical sense, as pointing to an eternal, uncreated reality or an absolute ground of being that exists independently and “allows” for liberation.From this perspective, the statement “if there were not that unborn…” is read as implying a foundational ontological ground upon which conditioned phenomena depend. Within a Buddhist doctrinal framework, however, Nibbāna is often said to be neither a self nor a substance, and Buddhism explicitly rejects a creator God and eternal metaphysical essences. - Within early Buddhist doctrine, why is Nibbāna described using terms such as “unborn” and “unconditioned,” rather than simply as the cessation of suffering or defilements? - How should the conditional phrasing “If there were not that unborn…” be understood without reifying Nibbāna into an eternal substance or theistic absolute? - How do traditional Buddhist commentaries address or guard against eternalist or theistic readings of this passage?

Confidence, For a few weeks now, I have lost confidence in almost everything. Like doing even simple stuff. I feel like, I can't. Like, no future. Motivation, For few weeks now, I feel like sleeping or meditating in bed. Like being free from any work or doing any stuff. Why can't I be happy mentally only?. For reference, I did Samantha, Vipssana for the last 4 years, when I have time.

In the Cūḷasuññatasutta (MN 121) , the Buddha discusses a meditative attainment characterized by “nothingness” which is then used as a predicate in an analysis of emptiness. > Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of > infinite space and the perception of the dimension of infinite > consciousness—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of > the dimension of nothingness. Their mind leaps forth, gains > confidence, settles down, and becomes decided in that perception of > the dimension of nothingness. They understand: ‘Here there is no > stress due to the perception of the dimension of infinite space or the > perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness. There is only > this modicum of stress, namely the oneness dependent on the perception > of the dimension of nothingness.’ They understand: ‘This field of > perception is empty of the perception of the dimension of infinite > space. It is empty of the perception of the dimension of infinite > consciousness. There is only this that is not emptiness, namely the > oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of nothingness.’ > And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what > remains they understand that it is present. That’s how emptiness > manifests in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure. I am interested in an investigation that addresses such issues as: **Ontological status of “nothingness”:** ---------------------------------------- Is the sphere of nothingness presented as a phenomenal object of experience, a negation of specified classes of objects (e.g., form, infinite space, infinite consciousness), or as a structural absence of cognitive content? Phenomenological description: ----------------------------- In the Cūḷasuññatasutta, the meditator attends to the dimension of nothingness. How is it possible for the mind to intentionally “perceive” something that is, by definition, an absence? Does the sutta imply a particular structure of consciousness that allows an absence to be an object of experience? Nothingness and self-reference ------------------------------ In perceiving nothingness, does the meditator’s mind retain any self-referential awareness, or is subjectivity suspended? How does the sutta articulate the boundaries of selfhood and cognitive agency in relation to the sphere of nothingness? Temporal and spatial character of nothingness --------------------------------------------- The sutta uses the term āyatana, often translated as “dimension” or “sphere.” Does this imply that this nothingness has a kind of temporal or spatial extension, or is it entirely devoid of such characteristics?

Daniel Brown, on p. 6 of *Pointing Out the Great Way*, says this (emphasis added)... > **The Pali word typically translated as “suffering” is dukkha, which > could also be rendered as “reactivity.”** For, as we experience events > unfolding in our stream of consciousness moment-by-moment, the > ordinary mind reacts based on ingrained habits. If the event is > experienced as pleasant, the mind habitually gravitates toward the > event. If it is experienced as unpleasant, the mind pushes it away. In > Buddhism these automatic reactive tendencies are referred to as > clinging and aversion, and lapses in the continuity of awareness are > called nonawareness, or ignorance. Together these “three poisons” mark > every moment of ordinary experience. They are habitual. They obscure > the mind’s natural condition from us and in so doing become the > fundamental cause of everyday unhappiness. In other words, Buddhism > defines everyday unhappiness in terms of a habitual dysfunction in the > way we process our experience. Seen in this way, it can be identified > and corrected, and the root of everyday unhappiness can be eradicated. **My question: Is there a *linguistic* or *philological* basis for translating "dukkha" as "reactivity"?** Or is Brown being a bit loose here, reflecting the dynamic that he explains -- reactivity underlies dukkha.

In Abhidharma (“abhi-” roughly means “meta-,” so Abhidharma can be understood as meta-dharma, or “one level above dharma”), there is a concept called kṣaṇabhaṅga, or “momentary decay.” It holds that all existence lasts only for a split second, and this includes human beings. A related term is ēkacitta, or “one unit of consciousness,” according to which consciousness arises in discrete units rather than as a continuous stream. Under this understanding, is it fair to say that each person dies and is reborn from one split second to the next?

Is metta contained in the compassion practices of Zen and if so, does that mean that compassion is loving kindness in Zen? How does Zen approach the Bramha Viharas in comparison to Theravada and Vajrayana?

Definitions: - I want to emphasize the mind, the body doesn't ache, isn't sore, isn't itchy, nothing at all; that is the 'an lạc' of the body (bodily ease/well-being). - 'Thanh thản' (serenity) is when our mind doesn't ponder, isn't busy at all; that is 'thanh thản'. - 'Vô sự' (actionlessness/nothing-to-do) is doing nothing at all; the body also does nothing, and the mind also doesn't ponder, meaning it does nothing; that is 'vô sự'. It is normal, very normal like a normal person, yet doing nothing at all. That is: the head/mind doesn't work, and the hands and feet also don't work; that is 'vô sự'. As for the mind that doesn't ponder, doesn't worry about anything at all, that is 'thanh thản' (serenity). As for the body that doesn't ache, isn't sore, itchy, nothing at all, that is 'an lạc' (ease); it is normal. Just like right now, [if] our body has no aches or pains, that is the 'an lạc' of our body. That is the state right now; it's not anything strange or different. It is the normalcy of a normal human being. Therefore, once you recognize that normalcy, now you just need to use the method of Right Thinking (Như Lý Tác Ý), guide it [the mind]: > "A mind unshaken, serene, at ease, and free from involvement.” You just fear it [the mind] will move and ponder about this and that, so you remind it: ‘Mind immovable, serene, at ease, actionless,’ and then just sit relaxedly/idly like that. So, can I use "unshaken, serene, at ease, uninvolved" as a mindful reminder throughout my day to make my mind feel better?

Temporary blockage of sexual excitement, given knowledge that there's no permanent soul, body and mind consciousness are impermanent. Arising and cease. Sankhara and upadana were impermanent. Is this understanding wisdom? While doing walking meditation without hearing external sounds and thinking could follow the walking? Is this enough to balance the five spiritual faculties and free from rebirth in lower realms?

There is plenty of evidence in the Early Buddhist Texts common to both the major schools of Buddhism, that the Noble Eightfold Path was an accepted teaching, by the "Third" Buddhist Council at least, but it is only from the time of that Council that we have archeological evidence likely linking to this version of the Path. That is, by the likely supposition, that the 8 spoked wheel in Asokan pillars is representing this version of the Path, as the traditions hold. The eight spoked wheel has not been found in Earlier Buddhist art. Right View is known not to be Wisdom, from comparison of the Noble Eightfold Path with what can be called the Noble Tenfold Path, which differs only by having the extra two steps at the end: Right Insight and Right Liberation. Insight is known to be synonymous or at least directly related to Wisdom. Thus the 'Tenfold' Path fits perfectly the Three Trainings and one does not have to change the order either of the steps or the Three Trainings, as done by Bh. Dhammadinna [MN 44](https://suttacentral.net/mn44/) , which is followed by the commentator Bh. Buddhaghosa in his Visuddhimagga. The Three Trainings are accepted in both Mahayana and Theravada as a summary of the Path. The Noble Eightfold Path is only one of over 50 ways of presenting the Path in the Pali Early Buddhist Texts and there are only six others, which do not include the Training in Wisdom - [2025 path analysis lists (spreadsheet)](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pyv1FOOqmRhHil-FXT6ejuKlMUtSude-/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116204971514462608468&rtpof=true&sd=true) - [50+ Possible Variations of the Gradual Path In the Early Pāli Suttas](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acDIhERcjDfGYof2v45tqdXOipIh09_OYUfHwXWpVTY/edit?usp=sharing) The Buddha reportedly said he does not have a secret teaching, or the closed fist of a teacher ([DN16](https://suttacentral.net/dn16/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin#2.25.9)) and he only teaches what is necessary ([SN 56.31](https://suttacentral.net/sn56.31/)) . Therefore, the Three Trainings are all necessary and he would teach them to everyone. That is what we see in the other over 40 ways he taught the path, with all the Three Trainings, to lay people and mendicants (see links above). Therefore those 7 ways of presenting the Path, could not be from the Buddha. Early Buddhism, by the time of the 'Third' Council and still today in some Buddhist countries, only really teaches Ethics and Generosity as the practice of the layperson. We can see this was established by the 'Third' Council, as I have not found the Noble Eightfold Path, taught to any layperson in the Pali Early Buddhist Texts. Therefore it was taught to mendicants only, which supports the theory that the second and third training, had lost their relevance by the 'Third' council. Hoping for other clear evidence, not just closed minded claims, sectarian propaganda, or restating the point I already made that there would not much or no evidence before Asoka. The tradition teaches the Buddha taught in different ways, but these days we only hear of the Noble Eightfold Path. According to it's own records, the Pali tradition does not follow the instructions the Buddha gave for holding councils in order to keep his teaching pure (in DN 29). That is to recite in harmony *and* to compare phrase by phrase. The only example I have found of the Buddha doing this is in the Discourse on Mindfulness with Breathing, where he compares the 16 steps with the Four Foundations of Mindfulness and shows that following either teaching means you have followed the other and have walked the path (of both Calm and Insight). This shows these two teachings are yet another two ways he taught the whole Path. My theory is the Noble Eightfold Path was created after the Buddha passed away and likely close to the time of the Asokan Council, probably after which he made the edict mentioning specific texts. It seems to me that this was a time that the understanding of the Path had degraded, as there is no Wisdom training in the Noble Eightfold Path and I can't find a specific teaching of it to laypeople. So, even the second Samadhi training was thought to be for mendicants only. As I see the Path generally taught in Ethnic Buddhist circles, they are really only taught Ethics, equated with the 5 Precepts, which I see as the Third Fetter, and dana - generosity to support the mendicants, generally interpreted to be Sangha, the Third Refuge, instead of the noble ones in the four assemblies of monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen. Best wishes Joe

They say perception and inference are valid ways of knowing. Can you explain the diagram: