This question may be related to the [Dr. Alexander Wynne question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/53914/8157) . The Visuddhimagga says: > This has been said by the Blessed One, “This dependent origination is profound, Ánanda, and profound it appears” (D II 55; S II 92). And the profundity is fourfold as we shall explain below (XVII.304f.); but there is none of that in simple arising. And this dependent origination is explained [by the teachers] as adorned with the fourfold method (XVII.309); but there is no [need of] any such tetrad of methods in simple arising. So dependent origination is not simple arising, since that (i.e., simple arising) admits of no profound treatment > > **It is ungrammatical: this word paticca** (lit. “having > depended”; freely “due to,” “dependent”), [being a gerund of the verb > pati + eti, to go back to], **establishes a meaning** [in a formula of > establishment by verb] **when it is construed as past with the same > subject** [as that of the principal verb], **as in the sentence “Having > depended on** (paticca = ‘due to’) **the eye and visible objects, eye- > consciousness arises** **(uppajjati)**” (S II 72). **But if it is construed > here with the word uppáda (arising),** [which is a noun], **in a formula > of establishment by noun, there is a breach of grammar, because there > is no shared subject** [as there is in above-quoted sentence], **and so it > does not establish any meaning al all. So the dependent origination is > not simple arising because that is ungrammatical.** > > [Page 356](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf) Alternative translation: > Because of a difference in word usage, the word paṭicca (‘depending > on’) ordinarily makes sense when used with the same agent and with > reference to an earlier time. For example: ‘**Dependent on (paticca)** eye and > forms, eye-consciousness **arises (uppajjati)**’ (SN II 43). But here, when it is > combined with the term **uppāda (‘arising’)**, which expresses the sense > of existence, since there is no common agent, the word changes its > usage and adds nothing to the meaning. Thus, even on the basis of word > analysis, paṭiccasamuppāda cannot mean simply ‘mere arising.’ What is Buddhaghosa's salient point in this text about paticca-uppajjati versus paticca-sam-uppáda?

In his video [The Different Accounts of Dependent Origination in the Mahatanha-sankhaya Sutta (MN 38)](https://youtu.be/4I3OUG5yycg?si=oZwl6JMmQCB2Aj8D) , some things Dr. Alexander Wynne says are: * Dependent origination explains continuity over lives without a soul (Atman). * There is also a focus on what is happening in the present to conquer your suffering. * MN 38 has three doctrines; three versions of dependent origination. * Sati understands Dhamma as Upanishadic essentialism; that this consciousness transmigrates. * Buddha puts Sati in place by explaining Dependent Origination. * **The core of MN 38 is Buddha explains the dependent origination of consciousness with fire similes.** MN 38 should/could end at this point. * There is a **mysterious hard to understand discussion about "what has come into being". The Buddha does not say what has come into being.** Later, Wynne says: "The Buddha is talking about consciousness that comes into being (bhuta; sambhava)" and says Buddhaghosa was wrong saying Buddha was referring to the five aggregates that comes into being. * It gets more difficult when four nutriments are discussed. This section jumps out away from present moment consciousness. Here, moved from the present moment focus to continuity over time. * Then there is a section where the "subject" of transmigration is named; an entity being reborn; the "gandhabba"; ordinarily a type of "god" in Vedic texts. * The closing of MN 38 saying "concise discourse"; yet the sutta is long therefore people over time added things due to its length. * How has the text been expanded? What has been added? Section 3 about the four nutriments has been added. Subtle conceptual difference. One tradition has been moved in from another tradition. Do we have any disagreements with Dr. Alexander Wynne? Which one's? Why?

I have seen some people doubting the reliability of the Tripitaka. They say it is not the Buddha’s word, since it was written down about 400 years after his death. What historical evidence can prove the **level** of reliability of the Tripitaka?

We can give examples of how things can continue without any permanent entity, like fire burning wood. It is not the wood, the fire, the space, or the floor that is fixed — everything is changing. But how can anyone demonstrate how karma, habits, and memories follow us? Where are they stored, if they are stored at all? If they are stored, are they unchanging? Did the Buddha give examples of where these habits or karma “stay” and follow us? I don’t see any examples for this. Can anyone describe it? This is something most people struggle with, and people from other religions often question. If there isn’t any solid explanation or way to demonstrate it, then it seems to undermine the idea.

Can you quickly explain "everything is impermanent"? Is it metaphysical or ontological claim, that nothing that "exists" will exist forever? Or is it a claim that nothing can always be (meaning having that nature, rather than 'exist') anything? If not that latter, does Buddhism universally agree that there is no *awareness* of something being what it is, without existence? ---------- Can I be aware of, for example, a shape being red without existence and "permanently" in the standard way of using that word, even if "everything is impermanent"?

In Islam the God is Allah, in Christianity the God is Jehovah and Jesus Christ. Is the God in Buddhism Buddha? I think it is very misleading to say that the name of the God in Buddhism is Buddha! Buddha is not a God's name but Buddha is rather an enlightenment condition. Does Buddhism have a particular God? My ultimate question is whether Buddhism was made by God or humans.

Sujato's translation of MN 72, similar to other translations of MN 72, says: > That’s why a Realized One is freed with the ending, fading away, > cessation, giving up, and letting go of all conceiving, all churning, > and all I-making, mine-making, or underlying tendency to conceit, I > say.” > > Tasmā tathāgato sabbamaññitānaṁ sabbamathitānaṁ > sabbaahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayānaṁ khayā virāgā nirodhā cāgā > paṭinissaggā anupādā vimuttoti vadāmī”ti. > > “But worthy Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where > are they reborn?” > > “Evaṁ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṁ upapajjatī”ti? > > “‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” > > “Upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”. > > “Well then, are they not reborn?” > > “Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī”ti? > > “**‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply**, Vaccha.” > > “**Na upapajjatīti kho**, vaccha, **na upeti**”. > > “Well then, are they both reborn and not reborn?” > > “Tena hi, bho gotama, upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatī”ti? > > “‘They’re both reborn and not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” > > “Upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”. > > “Well then, are they neither reborn nor not reborn?” > > “Tena hi, bho gotama, neva upapajjati na na upapajjatī”ti? > > “‘They’re neither reborn nor not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” > > “Neva upapajjati na na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”. > > [MN 72](https://suttacentral.net/mn72/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) Why are Arahants not 'not reborn'?

I'm a young woman who questions a lot in life. A couple of years ago I started to get this weird feeling as if i wasn't meant to be here. It's hard to describe what i mean by that. It's as if I'm living in a dream 24/7. Not too long after this feeling started I got these weird dreams that felt so real that i woke up with the last feeling i had in my dream. In my dreams I'm a young Asian man (teens to early 20's) and most of the time I'm at some sort of red bridge, but occasionally I'm in a forest. My most recent dream was the forest one. I remember strolling through the forest with a feeling of overwhelming sadness. In this particular dream i get attacked by three men, i think they were wearing black and they had a face cover on the bottom half of their faces. I distinctly remember the feeling of being slashed with some sort of knife of the back of my lower right arm, probably about half way between the elbow and wrist. After that i get attacked more and then my vision goes black and the dream ends. I woke up the day with pain in the same area that was cut in my dream. After this dream I started to remember things, memories that weren't mine... One dream consisted of me as the Asian man hanging out with another Asian man around my age, i don't want to say that we were lovers but it felt that way. I also remember what he looked like, as well as what i looked like. I don't really remember my name or his name, but i have a strong feeling towards a name Junseo, it makes me think that this was at least an alias of my if not my real name. I also feel great anger about the events pertaining my death. I have hopes of reuniting with my lover, even if I'm not longer me. This is the only memory i have of him. I drew myself so that i could remember. That being said i also lived in a trailer as a kid, it was definitely haunted. I would hear footsteps when nobody else was home and i would hear voices talk to me at night while i was in bed. There was a man who would watch me sleep, and the one day he wasn't there a four legged creature jumped at me from the corner of my room. I refused to sleep in my room from that day on and the voices stopped whispering to me at night and i never saw the four legged creature again. If i remember my past life then why are ghosts real? Are ghosts simply people who never got reincarnated or is it deeper than that? I am not a religious person, so i'm simply trying to come up with a logical reason. Is my mind simply playing tricks on me and or am i just insane?

For a long time I've been really into the space of longevity, both radical lifespan extension through biotechnology and the optimization of quality of life during old age (healthspan extension) through currently available protocols on diet, exercise, sleep, meditation, etc. I'm really interested in the Buddhist perspective on this movement, especially how different schools (Thai Forest, Soto Zen, Plum Village, IMS/IMC, Chinese Chan, Chinese Pure Land, Tibetan Vajrayana, and Sri Lanka Theravada) might perceive it differently. My #1 core value is to live as long and healthy as possible, both physically and mentally. I got into Buddhism, because it seems like a comprehensive and effective framework in supporting individuals' mental well-being, especially during old age. I think that if you are not going to have any children, then you have to embrace some kind of spirituality system to offset the very real and catastrophic effects of loneliness and stress on your health and lifespan. Your mind won't be kind to yourself as you get older, and you have to love something other than yourself to be sane. Which Buddhist tradition do you think is the most compatible with this very new kind of value (life is good and I wanna live as long and healthy as possible) that has emerged in a community only very recently, thanks to technology and urban life enabling such a person? (r/longevity, r/peterattia, and r/Biohackers) Thai Forest, Soto Zen, Plum Village, IMS/IMC, Chinese Chan, Chinese Pure Land, Tibetan Vajrayana, and Sri Lanka Theravada? I know some aspects of Buddhist philosophy are very much contradictory to this goal (think The Five Remembrances in Buddhism, contemplations on impermanence: that we will grow old, that we will get sick, that we will die, that all that is dear to us will change and we will be separated from it, and that our actions are our only true belongings, and we will inherit their consequences). So one of my concerns is that if I'm practicing with a tradition that emphasizes those aspects, it would eventually lead to cognitive dissonance/internal conflicts, creating additional stressors in my life. I know I tend to get very hysterical/neurotic and compulsive about these things, so it's good to give these extra thoughts to it before deciding.

How do I interpret the term "realm" (*idha* ) in AN 10.63 ? It says one who has "seven rebirths at most" will conclude their path in "this realm". So, what is "this realm"? And what does this mean? Meanwhile "one who is extinguished between one life and the next" will conclude their path after "leaving this realm behind" (*idha vihāya *). What does this mean? > “Mendicants, all those who have come to a conclusion about me are > accomplished in view. Of those who are accomplished in view, five > conclude their path in this realm, and five conclude their path after > leaving this realm behind. > > Which five conclude their path in this realm? > > The one who has seven rebirths at most, the one who goes from family > to family, the one-seeder, the once returner, and the one who is > perfected in this very life. These five conclude their path in this > realm. > > Which five conclude their path after leaving this realm behind? > > The one who is extinguished between one life and the next, the one who > is extinguished upon landing, the one who is extinguished without > extra effort, the one who is extinguished with extra effort, and the > one who heads upstream, going to the Akaniṭṭha realm. These five > conclude their path after leaving this realm behind. > > All those who have come to a conclusion about me are accomplished in > view. Of those who are accomplished in view, these five conclude their > path in this realm, and these five conclude their path after leaving > this realm behind.” > AN 10.63 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

I read that the Buddha said this: Whatever your personal experience tells you is helpful, is more important than the Buddha's teachings. Did he really say that, and if so where?

Does according to Buddhism can someone become a deity or god or any god type controller being? I'm new to Buddhism don't know much about it. So just curious to know.

Among the various pramāṇas, or means of valid knowledge in Indian epistemologies, it is generally accepted that Buddhism recognizes two pramāṇas. As stated thus :- > Many schools of Buddhism posit two forms of pramāṇa: > > **direct perception (pratyakṣa) and > inference (anumāna)** > > **Direct perception is a non-conceptual cognition that directly > apprehends an object, and inference is based on reasoning.** However, this approach of reliance on only two pramāṇas, coupled with the rejection of scriptural or Vedic testimony (śabda-pramāṇa), has over the time drawn criticism from numerous rival schools among which the most prominent have been the Vedāntic commentators and theologians. This may be seen for instance from a brief study of some Anucchedas of the Tattva-sandarbha, a work of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī, a Vaiṣṇava theologian and Vedāntin of the Acintya-bhedābheda school. In the relevant section, while elaborating on the epistemology of his tradition he lists the flaws with all other means of knowledge such perception and inference. Tattva Sandarbha Anuccheda 9 Therefore owing to these defects, the only valid sources of knowledge about the Absolute (the ultimate truth or God) are the Vedas or Vedic scriptures, which are considered by tradition to be apauruṣeya (authorless) since they are supposed to have manifested directly from God, perfect, and transmitted through an unbroken paramparā (disciplic succession). Further, in order to establish the superiority of scriptural authority (śabda-pramāṇa) over logical reasoning or inference, a number of proofs are cited. In the Lengthy commentary to the 10th anuccheda, it may be seen in particular that the criticism is directed at the Standpoint of the Buddhists - > The Vedas (sabda-pramana ) are the only effective means for acquiring > transcendental knowledge. **The Vedas inform us about the soul's > existence beyond the body**, about the planets of the spiritual world, > and about the Supreme Lord, , His pastimes, and other matters. All > these subjects are beyond the reach of our sensory and mental > faculties. > **Philosophers such as the Buddhists, who do not accept the Vedas, > cannot justifiably say anything positive about transcendence, let > alone the way to attain it without sabda. Sabda-pramana (i.e > Vedic/Scriptural testimony) is so important that although Vaisnavas > count Lord Buddha among the incarnations of the Lord on the strength > of Vedic testimony, they reject His philosophy because it is not based > on sabda-pramana.** ~ Commentary to Anuccheda 10 Similarly the Buddhist View of the momentariness of consciousness too is criticised Elsewhere in the same work as - > **The Vedanta explains that when a person looks at an object there > arises a particular mental state, called vrtti, which the soul > perceives. The mental state itself is not the perceiver. But the > Buddhists, lacking all knowledge about the soul, mistake this > temporary, ever-changing vrtti, which is noneternal ever-constantly > changing, for real consciousness.** This point is further clarified with > the analogy of the life air. Air is one, but air within the body has > various names, such as prana, apana, and samana, according to the > function it performs. Similarly, the soul is one, but while in the > body it manifests consciousness, which appears many-branched and > ever-changing. For example, sweetened cow's milk gives rise to > different mental states when perceived with different senses: to the > eyes it is white, to the tongue sweet, and so on. So it is only the > mental state, affected by varieties of sense perception, that appears > and disappears. The living entity is a fractional part of the Supreme > Lord, and since the Lord is conscious and eternal, the living entity > must have these qualities as well, in as much as a gold nugget shares > the qualities of the mother lode. The purpose of explaining the > conscious and eternal quality of the soul with logic and personal > experience is to help us develop an understanding of the Supersoul. ~ Commentary to Anuccheda 53.3 ---------- With respect to the Above citations, I would now like to pose some Questions:- - Given that perception and inference are indeed fallible and prone to error, how does the Buddhist tradition establish a reliable epistemological foundation for knowledge of ultimate reality (e.g., Nirvāṇa or Sunyata)? - What is the Buddhist position on scriptural authority in general, and how is reliance on an external scripture claimed to be authorless and coming directly from God via a disciplic succession, viewed in light of Buddhist pramāṇa theories? - How would Buddhist philosophers identify the main shortcomings or philosophical weaknesses in the Vedantic insistence on Vedic knowledge as the sole valid source for understanding the Absolute? - Is there an alternative epistemic framework in Buddhism that addresses the same problem of cognitive fallibility without relying on a fixed scriptural authority?

Thoughts about mine and things should be in this way,about children ,husband and relatives,it's the personality view. That is developed in our own mind.so we inflicted our own wounds. So we were in our own prison. So when this thinking stops personality view has destroyed. Isn't it?

Until now I thought that Buddhism teaches that a sense of self is bad in all cases. Now I read that developing a sense of self around good actions can increase motivation for our spiritual development, and that we can choose to see 'not self' in bad past actions, and see 'self' in beneficial past actions. From this I gather that it could be beneficial to develop a sense of self. In my practice I don't really have a sense of self around good deeds yet. In general I don't really have much of a sense of self, perhaps low self esteem. Should this change? Does Buddhism encourage a sense of self around skillful actions to be developed?

I've just started to use AI and it making my mind very scared & frightened. Firstly, the Pali GPT Translate I am using is far superior & far more nuanced than any Pali dictionary. It has made all of those begrudging tight fisted internet monks & scholars, who won't help you with Pali, except on their interpretational terms, second rate & redundant. Secondly, I just uploaded a new paper about non-returner & once-returner to [Academia.Edu](https://independent.academia.edu/DhammaDhatu) and an automatic podcast was created as though the speaker had already read my paper and then paraphrased what is written within in their own words. This was super scary to listen to. Immediately, your ideas are being taken, processed & interpretated by a piece of technology. Since my impression is ChrisW is a tech guru, my questions are: 1. How is all of this done? How are various (a multitude) of valid interpretations for Pali words & phrases, often very obscure, programmed into a GPT Translate? 2. How is an instantaneous paraphrased Podcast created as though the audio speaker knows my broader intentions?

I came across a Vaishnava critique of Buddhism which questions whether Buddhist ethics can have a stable foundation without having the concept of devotion to a supreme God. Quoting the excerpt from here > **what is the problem with Buddhism?** > > Before the advent of Sri Shankara Acharya, Lord Buddha (Sriman > nArAyaNa Himself on the authority of srimad BhAgavata PurANa) has > given an illusory theory for the people of material consciousness and > made them adharmic with His excellent philosophy (Lord is beyond our > perception and His actions are in-conceivable without guidant of > Acharyas). He gave a philosophy based on moral laws, athiesm, denial > of vedas and illusory "nirvANa(viodness)". His instructions are somuch > attractive that any person who is not adherant to vedas and devotion > unto the Lord gets easily carried away. He lures unintelligent men by > saying only intelligent men can understand His philosophy. That > enables people not to investigate His philosophy critically and > accept. Moreover, on the surface, one cannot find fault as it is based > on moral laws like non-violence and truthfulness. Even today many > people think philonthropic actions and being good is ultimate purpose > of life. But they miss the critical point why should one do either > philonthropic or good works. They have no clue what actual good is. > The purpose of all good actions is to attract the attention of the > Lord and get pure devotion unto Him. > > When we do not develop love for the Supreme Lord, we lose all our > morals and dharma at some point or the other. We are never independant > of Him. As we can see today, in countries like china, people lost > their own religion, forgot all good (their own moral laws), consume > more meat (including frogs and snakes) than any other country, and > work day and night like machines to improve material comforts. This > proves, how it is most important to have mercy of the Lord for the > living entity to have ethical life and subsequent desire for eternal > bliss (liberation). Lord doesnot allow selfish people to serve Him, > for He accepts only unselfish, unbroken devotional service. We should > know from this example that acting in all good ways is only to develop > love for the Lord. According to this critique, without divine guidance and devotion, ethical conduct eventually collapses, and moral laws lose their meaning. How would Buddhists respond to this critique and provide a solid basis for morality and ethical behavior within their philosophical framework, given that Buddhism does not ground ethics in pleasing or serving a personal God?

There is no permanent unchanging self. Are past actions therefore "not self"? In my practice I find that seeing past actions as not self allows me to contemplate on them better.

I came across this article on Indica Today which argues that traditional Buddhist chronologies (e.g. placing the Buddha’s nirvāṇa around 500-483 BCE) might involve a significant error, and that his historical period could be shifted by as much as 1200 years. The article mentions contradictions between Theravāda chronologies, Puranic records, and historical/archaeological data. Questions:- - How do Buddhist traditions themselves explain or reconcile these discrepancies in dating the Buddha’s life? - Is there any textual or archaeological evidence from within the Buddhist tradition that supports such a large chronological shift (e.g. Buddha at 1704 BCE rather than 500 BCE)? - How do Buddhist academicians assess these claims in comparison with the Ashokan inscriptions and other historical anchors?

Some Scholars like R.S Bhattacharya claim that while Buddha rejected the Karma-kanda portions of the vedas, he spoke Highly of the Followers of Jnana-marga or nivritti-marga of vedas in the Brahmanadhammika Sutta. Is this really true? And Does This mean Buddha indirectly approved the Upanishadic philosophy of Atman-Brahman?