In the sutra it says: > “And what is the cause by which effluents come into play? Ignorance is > the cause by which effluents come into play. … “And what is the result > of effluents? One who is immersed in ignorance produces a > corresponding state of existence, on the side of merit or demerit. > This is called the result of effluents. … “And what is the cessation > of effluents? From the cessation of ignorance is the cessation of > effluents; and just this noble eightfold path—right view, right > resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, > right mindfulness, right concentration—is the way leading to the > cessation of effluents. Is buddha only being nice (compassionate) to call the result of fermentation - taints, corruptions, intoxicating bias - both merit and demerit? I recall buddha praises heightened virtue, so this seems like a contradiction to me. Only virtuous quality could lead to merit, so is buddha calling for an end to all mentality, i.e. all mentality is essentially not good.

There is a theory that our planet might actually be alive. The sun, moon, atmospheric cycles, geological plates, etc constitute the life of our planet. Or for that matter the Universe actually might have its own consciousness, its own life, and life cycle. Is there any meditation technique to tap into the consciousness of Earth or the Universe? I am not aware of the implications of this theory from the Buddhist perspective, maybe I am being absurd here, but just in case if you subscribe to this hypothesis of Life beyond biology can we connect?

The Buddha said that clinging is stress. Also, that there are four kinds of clinging: "Monks, there are these four clingings. Which four? Sensuality clinging, view clinging, habit-&-practice clinging, and doctrine-of-self clinging." But basically, they are all **view** clinging. A useful view in one context can be a harmful one in another. How can one "know" the difference? How can one "know" that one is not just *clinging* to a preference? What's the difference between having a view and clinging to a view? P.S. Some very interesting answers, but *no references* yet. I was hoping for some insight from the Buddha, or possibly a contemporary Dhamma master.

I know its an imponderable or unconjecturable to us putthujjanas, but do any of the 31 realms have corporeal existence or are they states of mind (mind-made) or a mixture of both? For example, does tusita heaven physically exist, or is it purely a state of mind? If tusita does exist physically then how can one get there? Is the earthly plane and the laws of physics also mind-made?

The Buddhist way to see the Samsara, or the circle of life and death, is, according to my understanding: **Innumerable causes and effects.** Is this right? Is there a special *meaning* conferred by this, to the practitioners of Buddhism? What does it mean to Buddhists? In comparison, in my opinion, Hinduism delivers more *meaning* to its practitioners, with regards to Samsara, as seen in this Bhagavad Gita quote: **BG 7.14: My divine energy Maya, consisting of the three modes of nature, is very difficult to overcome. But those who surrender unto Me cross over it easily.** It gives a *meaning*. The existence is reflecting a super-consciousness, which is not unreal or trivial, it is a super-consciousness that reflects our actions, our feelings, our nature which create obstacles and mirror all craving for material world as the way routing far from the beginning point, the point inside a circle, the center, indeed. I cannot perceive a reality that I should refuse for the nature of emptiness while I am living in this very reality, without at least a *meaning* of what it is. After all, If it has no meaning, why would Gautama Buddha appear in this world, then disappear without saving all people inside the Samsara itself? Isn't this a contradiction? I would like to discuss the above peacefully. This is not a provocation. I'm sure Buddhism has a logical explanation for this and I would like to hear it from this forum.

A few years ago, I listened to a dharma talk given by Ajahn Succito. In it, he said that we can think of the mind as having three aspects to it: awareness, feeling, and thinking (thinking includes memory ability). And I think that it was in the same talk where he casually threw out this statement: *Thinking is basically just measuring and comparing.* It's a rather humbling statement, isn't it? He didn't expand on the statement, so it comes back to me every once in a while, and I wonder: Can it really be that simple? I don't know, but it does seem right to me for some reason. Not sure it matters much, but I do think he included the word "basically", as I quoted above. What do you think? Is there anything important missing from his statement?

Can *kamma* and *sankharas* be considered as synonyms? And if not, which are the differences between both? Which is the relationship between them?

I read the description of Cakkavala in the tipitaka, and it is translated to the term "world system". It is said there are infinite Cakkavala's and light rays emanating from its sun can illuminate the whole Cakkavala, whereas light rays emanated from the Buddha can illuminate all Cakkavala's. Wow!!! And each Cakkavala has a sun, a moon and a mount sineru. I have few questions around this: 1. Does this imply that a Cakkavala is equivalent to a solar system as per the modern cosmology? 2. Why the description of Cakkavala does not take into account other planets in the solar system? 3. Is mount Sineru visible only to those who have advanced mental faculties and have gained the divine eye? Just wondering how come an entire mountain is not visible to us? 4. If mount Sineru was visible to all, then it should be visible to the naked eye from a person living anywhere in India, right?

Is cross-legged sitting better than chair sitting for meditation. If yes why ? What is the reason to keep ur back straight during meditation?

Why is it difficult, if not impossible, to read your way to freedom from suffering(Nirvana)? What if you read the advanced Abhidhamma teachings? Is there such a thing as naturally occurring mindfulness in people that lack a mindfulness practice but read the Dhamma all the time?

Many practising Buddhists that I know also have strong ecological concerns. Is this concern for 'green' issues part of Buddhism or do the two things just attract the same kind of people i.e. people that like Buddhism also like green issues. Specifically does concern for the environment have any basis in canonical texts or commentaries or is it a modern development?

I read another answer here which discussed avoiding actions that lead to "contradictions" (such as lying, stealing), which are considered "evil". The answer was in response to someone else's question about where does the concept of morality come from in Buddhism. A contradiction means "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another". I'm not really sure I understand what the "contradiction" is with stealing, for example.

Since for my last question , I did not get a satisfactory answer I am reducing the question to its barebones. What is the difference between 'Witnessing' and 'Mindfulness' from the context of meditation? I mean when I am looking at the sunset without any thoughts in mind and feel a oneness, am I witnessing the sunset or I am being mindful of the eye-consciousness? In the Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta MN 10 the word mindfulness is used, can I replace it with the word, 'Witnessing' without changing the meaning?

In western philosophy the distinction primarily goes like this: Philosophy - The rational investigation of human reason. Religion - Similar but has its basis in faith rather than 'rationality'. What I was primarily wondering was, does Buddhism make the same kind of explicit distinctions like in western philosophy? Do they view philosophy and religion as the same thing? And, if so what do both Buddhist texts and contemporary scholars say about it. **Not asking whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy**

If you have fully '" arrived" at non duality is there a threat that you won't have ambition? Isn't ambition a driving force in human life ?

S 14.7 The Discourse on the Diversity of Perception says this: > Dependent on the mind-object element, there arises the perception of > mind-object; Dependent on the perception of mind-object, there arises > the thought regarding mind-object; Dependent on the thought regarding > mind-object, there arises the desire for mind-object; Dependent on the > desire for mind-object, there arises the passion for mind-object;Dependent on the passion for mind-object, there arises the searching for mind-object. i want to know if clinging to perception aggregate is causing thinking to occur. i am not interested in thinking (sometimes, more than not, interal verbalization). it's unhappy, tiresome, stressful, etc. if so, how am i clinging to perception aggregate? i am not aware of clinging to this...is it an unknown mind- object? can knowledge be a mind-object?

Here is the movie: [Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring 2003](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1GG6o-hPEA) The plot is that the student having attachment to a woman, leave the temple and marries her. Years fly by, and the student returns because he kills her, after her affair. The master helps him to let the anger out before being caught by the police, and then he immolates himself. After that, he leaves some [śarīra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Aar%C4%ABra) . My question is: why would the master cries before the immolation? (source: [i2.wp.com](https://i2.wp.com/macguff.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Spring-Summer-Fall-Winter-And-Spring-Movie-Still-3.jpg)) My answer is that he disappoints with the student. But isn't that disappointment an attachment?

In "The Sublime Attitudes " the word "release" appears multiple times. What is meant by "awareness-release"? What is meant by "release of awareness"? Do both have the same meaning? Do they mean escape? As in, from becoming aware, I am released (from something). Do they mean potential attention (awareness), become manifest? Both, neither? Twice in the sutta the translator uses the phrase "no higher *release*" (without the word *awareness*). Is this significant? Help! :-)

Imagine a journalist writing about the crimes of a mafia boss or corruption in a dictatorial government, and other people pounce on history and share it on social media. Is what the Jornalist and/or those who spread his articles do divisive speech? Keep in mind that this type of news is mainly read for entertainment and will cause ill will against the perpetrators in most readers. On the other hand, this type of journalism is an important mechanism that ensures that corruption does not spiral out of control. Bonus question: Is journalism right livelihood?

How do Buddhists account for unhappiness without negative vedana? Is there no way to do so except future feeling (and so moral agency) and enlightenment? e.g. while there's a lot of things I want to change, there's nothing much I would say I'm "unhappy about" in addition to that: does that latter claim mean anything more than feeling? What about unhappy relationships, groups and ideologies, are they just vedana and enlightenment?