SN38.14 describes three types of duhkha: > “Reverend, there are these three forms of suffering. “Tisso imā, > āvuso, dukkhatā. The suffering inherent in painful feeling; the > suffering inherent in conditions; and the suffering inherent in > perishing. Dukkhadukkhatā, saṅkhāradukkhatā, vipariṇāmadukkhatā—These > are the three forms of suffering.” I have found a few instances that allude to vipariṇāmadukkhatā being the stress associated with being wrong, having wrong view, wrong perception, not knowing, etc. > Thag 21.1 “Your mind is on fire “Saññāya vipariyesā, because of a > perversion of perception. > > an3.117 It’s when someone has right view, an undistorted > perspective, such as: > > AN 10.85 ‘My dear friend, I didn’t lie or speak hollow words. But > I had gone mad, I was out of my mind.’ There are other like usages (see DN33 ). So why is vipariṇāmadukkhatā translated as stress of change or disappearance of happiness - these seem to be within the scope of saṅkhāradukkhatā (impermanence of conditions)? I have not found any usage that resembles the 'stress of change'. can you point it out?

I have been meditating for a month it happens because i needed to find truth and what is the real happiness.i am meditating 20 minutes(15-20) three times a day . I always thinking while meditating if i have any kusal(merit) please show me the path of truth.recently when meditating i feel only body exists every feeling in only on body.it is like controlling a robo(body) while on it. It was very hard to explain, but now i need to go out on my body and find what im searching . can anyone please explain something about this Actually, what i am saying is that true happiness is now. im too tired of my life every time i saw reality. Everything make me sad , and everything is temporary.

This is a question of practical interest. My personal practice is generally to feel guilty for bad deeds, but today I tried *admitting* fault and guilt without *feeling* guilty, and it was much less stressful. I do not know which is correct. Is there any textual evidence on whether the Buddha suggested feeling remorse or not? ---------- **Sutta 42.8** from the Samyutta Nikaya , *Sankha Sutta*, discusses remorse, but the following two translations seem to contradict each other, in which one mentions remorse is not useful, whereas the other mentions that remorse is part of reflecting on having done something not good. Is one of these translations more historically accurate than the other? ---------- The [Access To Insight](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.008.than.html) translation reads: > 'The Blessed One > in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and > says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have > killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was > not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed > of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right > then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life. ---------- The [Sutta Central](https://suttacentral.net/sn42.8/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=sidenotes&highlight=false&script=latin) translation reads: > But consider when a Realized One arises in the world… In many ways he > criticizes and denounces killing living creatures… And there’s a > disciple who is devoted to that teacher. Then they reflect: ‘In many > ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces killing living creatures, > saying: “Stop killing living creatures!” But I have killed living > creatures to a certain extent. That’s not right, it’s not good, and I > feel remorseful because of it. But I can’t undo what I have done.’ > Reflecting like this, they give up killing living creatures, and in the > future they don’t kill living creatures. ---------- (I’ve been trying to translate the Pali but I've only gotten so far as that one should "renounce" the evil deed.)

I have been ruminating about some existential questions...."what is purpose of life"...."is there a creator"..."what is the best work for a mortal to undertake in their lifetime"...."is suffering from unnecessary burden of study or job justified if they are not bringing satisfaction but are necessary for social survival"... etc, etc. In what sutta(s) has Blessed One talked about this matters? what solution Master gave to get out of this vicious cycle (referring to the vicious cycle of "ruminating about some existential questions.")which drains the energy?

Is it possible for a person to have sleeping disorders or problems with large durations of meditation? I know a few very big siddhas that have astonishing powers and they meditate up to 8 hours a day after office hours and sleep for 4 hours only. When I tried a long duration of meditation, I found a lack of sleepiness, and my sleep schedule was a bit altered. Is there any possibility of a large duration of deviation through meditation? What is the best way to manage that?

Point 8 of the [Noble Eightfold Path](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path) is "Right Concentration". According to Wikipedia and at least some of the (Theravada-leaning) books I have read, with Right Concentration the Buddha meant the first four Jhanas (Rupa Jhana). To what extent can one say that Right Concentration is the same as the Jhanas? * Does it depend on tradition? AFAIU the Mahayanas do not like to talk about the Jhanas so much, so they might feel such a statement to be too narrow. * Is there a Sutta which makes this connection clear?

In the twelve nidanas in the dependent origination it is said that through ignorance arises constructive activities (Sankskara). I do understand that. But the fact that I am still having trouble understanding is how Sankara causes the consciousness to arise and how consciousness cause the name and form to arise. I do understand that cause of name-form the consciousness arises as these two are very interdependent. But my question is as the above. 1. How does Sankskara cause consciousness to arise? 2. How does consciousness cause the name-form to arise?

I'm asking this question based on this comment and this question . It is well known that the goal of Buddhism is to end suffering. However, it is popularly mistaken (as seen in the cited comment and question) that Buddhists have to rush towards destroying their sense of self, skipping over the balanced wholistic practice of the Noble Eightfold Path . I think this is not correct. The ten fetters have the eradication of the identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) as a lower fetter, that has to be done in order to become a sotapanna or stream winner. However, a stream winner, has still not yet eradicated the fetters of sensual desire, ill will, material-existence-desire, immaterial-existence-desire, conceit and ignorance. I take it that total eradication of the sense of self happens with the eradication of the higher fetters, especially ignorance (avijja). After all, if the sense of self has been totally eradicated by the stream winner, it does not make sense that he could still have conceit, right? So, my question here is, if eradication of the lower fetter of identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) is not the complete eradication of a self, then what is it really? Is it an intellectual understanding of not-self? Or is it more? Is it an opinion? Is it a belief? Is it an experience? **How is the eradication of the lower fetter of identity view different from total eradication of the sense of self?**

Does anyone know anything about Tsem Rinpoche? I watched a few of his talks on Youtube recently, and found him to be incredibly charismatic.

What if i cant chaant on a regular basis ? I want to increase my number of hours and i don't understand how to do it ?

In this following context, how should I assume the concept of 'a perfect non-entity' Is it 'non-consciousness' or 'non-existence' or 'non- perception' or 'non- ego'? I think it refers to 'non-perception' according to this passage. But I'm not sure what should be taken here. let me know your idea. Thanks All. > When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so > long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. And > were all my perceptions removed by death, and could I neither think, > nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate after the dissolution of my > body, I Shou’d be entirely annihilated, nor do I conceive what is > farther requisite to make me a perfect non-entity Source: BUNDLE THEORY OF THE SELF: Unit 2: Metaphysics by David Hume

Based on the River Sutta below, I can definitely understand assuming the self to be the body. So, when the body becomes old, diseased and approaching death, one assumes that "I am" becoming old, diseased and approaching death. If his body dies, he ceases to exist. This makes him suffer. However, I need much better examples for the other four aggregates. For example, if one assumes the self to be perception, it could be like she assumes the beauty of her body to be her self. "I am this beautiful woman". So, if she loses her beauty due to ageing or disease or accident, then she would suffer. Is this assuming self to be perception (about the body) or is this assuming self to be the form? Or both? Or is this mental fabrications? Another case is let's say, there is a priest of a religion that is strongly based on the belief of God. So, this priest assumes his self to be the "God believer and servant of God". He often prays, "Oh God, may I never stray away from believing in you." Then what if one day, he discovers that God actually doesn't exist? So, does this make him suffer because he assumes his self to be his mental fabrication of "God believer and servant of God"? Is this right? Or how about another case of a renowned surgeon who assumes his self to be the "surgeon"? If one day, he gets Parkinson's disease (while he is still young and at the peak of his practice) that causes his hands to not be steady, then he cannot practise surgery anymore. This makes him suffer. This would be assuming the self to be the mental fabrication of "surgeon". Is this right? What about feeling? If a person loves to listen to music, then he assumes his self to be this "music lover", but if one day he loses his sense of hearing due to disease or accident, this causes him to suffer. Is this right? Consciousness may not be be too hard to understand. If one assumes his self to be the being that continuously is aware and senses the world around him, then idea of death and non-rebirth would cause him to suffer, because he thinks this would cause him to stop being aware of his surroundings. Is this right? But then again, assuming self to be mental fabrications can be reframed in this way: If one assumes that "I think, therefore I am ", so if anything could cause him to stop thinking as he does now, like death or coma or brain injury, then he suffers from worrying about that. Is this right? Or, perhaps, all these examples indeed fall into multiple categories simultaneously? Maybe I cannot easily isolate a case of assuming the self to be only one aggregate, and not the other? From the River Sutta (SN 22.93) : > At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, suppose there were a > river, flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift, > carrying everything with it, and — holding on to both banks — kasa > grasses, kusa grasses, reeds, birana grasses, & trees were growing. > Then a man swept away by the current would grab hold of the kasa > grasses, but they would tear away, and so from that cause he would > come to disaster. He would grab hold of the kusa grasses... the > reeds... the birana grasses... the trees, but they would tear away, > and so from that cause he would come to disaster. > > "In the same way, there is the case where an uninstructed, > run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not > well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men > of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — > assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing > form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. That form tears > away from him, and so from that cause he would come to disaster. > *(and the same applies to the other four aggregates - feeling, > perception, mental fabrications and consciousness)* The sutta goes on to say that the five aggregates are inconstant and impermanent, and should be seen with the right discernment: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' Seeing thus, the noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the five aggregates.

'Reification' is making something real, bringing something into being or making something concrete. The Pali suttas say about the relationship between consciousness and wisdom/enlightenment: > *Discernment (wisdom; panna) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the > other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one > discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. MN > 43* Is the Enlightenment or Wisdom of a Buddha a Reification?

When experience a cittarupa understand arise if no thoughts come regarding them self will disappears. What is that experience?

**On the matter of Vegetarianism** I am aware the Theravada canon states that Buddha allowed monks to consume meat on the basis that they did not see, hear, know or suspect have been slaughtered for them. However Mahayana Sutras state that the Buddha forbade eating meat for example in the lankavatara and Surangama sutras. Which position would be more authentic, and how do we know whether the Buddha taught Vegetarianism or not?

Gudo Wafu Nishijima (incidentally Brad Warner's teacher) the soto monk, claimed that sentient beings in pain are just in hell, and hell is a supposition. I take this to mean that pain occurs without rebirth, already in this life, andt hat we cannot know that we will suffer pain after death: so I'd conclude that rebirth that isn't painful. What I think I'm adding to his exact words is just that facts like suffering are all or nothing, nothing real is incomplete. That may seem crazy, but I like it. I'm highly skeptical that we need to experiecne more pain to experience the dharma. Even if sentient beings do (and do not!) experience the result of their evil acts. Is there any basis in the sutras? Not to my conclusion, but his claims about pain. I've read that zen teachers are often ambivalent on their students belief in rebirth, but I mean something more than that, that to experience the result of bad karma is either in this life or not what we usually mean by "painful".

In this answer there is a quote from The Buddhist Monastic Code 1 - The Patimokkha Rules Translated and Explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, which reads in part > only when one is possessed by non-human beings In that book there are several references to being possessed by spirits or non-human beings, such as this from page 44. >State of mind. The bhikkhu must be in his right mind. Any statement he makes while insane, delirious with pain, or possessed by spirits does not count. My question is, **who or what is doing the possessing**? Is there a belief in Buddhism that some being (a hungry ghost or something else?) would actually take over the mind of a human? Is that type of cross realm interaction possible? How literally is possession by spirits to be understood? Thank you.

According to dependent origination , ignorance is at the root of suffering. What are the various ways in which we can get rid of ignorance?

Where are the 70 verses of Nagarjuna from? Is it from Mulamukhyamakakarika or elsewhere? Is it a reconstruction of other works or original?

I read the following in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/49852/254) : > Snp 5 is a great example in usage that proves kāya in meditation > context is rūpa-kāya by default. > > https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/10/kn-snp-5-buddha-knew-about-ambiguities.html [Snp 5.7](https://suttacentral.net/snp5.7/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) says, per Sujato translation: > “As a flame tossed by a gust of wind,” > > “Accī yathā vātavegena khittā, > > replied the Buddha, > > (upasīvāti bhagavā) > > “comes to an end beyond reckoning; > > Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ; > > so too, a sage freed from mental **phenomena** > > Evaṁ munī nāma**kāyā** vimutto, > > comes to an end beyond reckoning.” > > Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ”. > > I ask the Sakyan about knowledge for them; > > Ñāṇaṁ sakkānupucchāmi, > > how should one like that be guided?” > > kathaṁ neyyo tathāvidho”. [Snp 5.15](https://suttacentral.net/snp5.15/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) says, per Sujato translation: > said Venerable Posāla [to the Buddha], > >(iccāyasmā posālo) > >Consider one who perceives the disappearance of **form**, > > Vibhūta**rūpa**saññissa, > > who has entirely given up **the body**, > > sabba**kāya**ppahāyino; > > and who **sees nothing** at all > > Ajjhattañca bahiddhā ca, > > internally and externally. > > **natthi** kiñcīti **passato**; > >......... > >“Viññāṇaṭṭhitiyo sabbā, > >said the Buddha, > >(posālāti bhagavā) > > “all the planes of consciousness. > > Abhijānaṁ tathāgato; > > And he knows this one who remains, > > Tiṭṭhantamenaṁ jānāti, > > committed to that as their final goal. > > Vimuttaṁ tapparāyaṇaṁ. > > Understanding that desire for rebirth [**coming to be**] > > **Ākiñcaññasambhavaṁ** ñatvā, > > **in the dimension of nothingness** is a fetter, > > Nandī saṁyojanaṁ iti; Where/how do Snp 5.7 & 15 prove kāya in meditation context is rūpa-kāya by default?