In the Dīgha Nikāya 15 (DN 15), the Mahānidāna Sutta, the Buddha outlines a a complex stratification of "seven stations of consciousness" and "two dimensions" > “Ānanda, there are these seven stations of consciousness and two > dimensions. Which seven? > > “There are **beings with multiplicity of body and multiplicity of > perception,4 such as human beings, some devas, and some beings in the > lower realms. This is the first station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings with multiplicity of body and singularity of > perception, such as the Devas of Brahmā’s Retinue generated by the > first (jhāna) and (some) beings in the four realms of deprivation.5 > This is the second station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings with singularity of body and multiplicity of > perception, such as the Radiant Devas. This is the third station of > consciousness.** > > “There are **beings with singularity of body and singularity of > perception, such as the Beautiful Black Devas. This is the fourth > station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings who, 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,’ arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of space. > This is the fifth station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings who, with the complete transcending of the dimension > of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ > arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.** **This is > the sixth station of consciousness.** > > “There are beings who, **with the complete transcending of the dimension > of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ > arrive at the dimension of nothingness. This is the seventh station of > consciousness.** > > **“The dimension of non-percipient beings and, second, the dimension of > neither perception nor non-perception. [These are the two dimensions.]** ~ DN 15 Is the Buddha here describing subjective, internal states of consciousness that can be directly known in meditation, or externally existing cosmological realms that other beings inhabit? This ambiguity is especially pronounced in the case of the “dimension of infinite consciousness.” Is this to be understood as a temporary mental perception - an internal expansion of awareness beyond form - or does it point to a more ontological reality in which consciousness itself is experienced as boundless? If so, what does this imply about the nature of consciousness: is it something objectively infinite by nature, or is any perception of “infinite consciousness” merely a constructed meditative perception, still within the conditioned world, and thus ultimately impermanent?

I have constant chronic pain. Would really like to be rid of it. Is this considered a negative desire in Buddhism? I remember in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the Buddha stated that the second Noble Truth is "craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming." I guess I interpreted the craving for non-becoming to apply to my desire for my pain to be gone.

As in, any perception of life being cheerful/serene/wonderful/nice to experience is indicative of some sort of undesirable over-indulgence, and that a sort of neutral unaffected experiencing is preferable. Does the Buddha ever warn of calling the world/life something positive? Does the Buddha himself perhaps ever ascribe positivity to the world?

It is often said that Nibbana is unconditioned. But isn't Nibbana to be attained through practice of the Noble Eightfold Path (abandoning desire, meditation, realizing paticcasamuppada etc)? Aren't those practices conditions for Nibbana? What am I missing here :) ?

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?

Does the Buddha ever instruct us to meditate for the sake of meditation's immediate and temporary benefits? If we see meditation as a car for gaining insights and understanding, but also as a tool for improving our focus or mood or (non)reactivity - does the Buddha ever explicitly urge us to meditate for the latter effects?

If there is no self in mental formations and volition, then who carries out mindfulness? I try to see that there is no self in things. Is it not therefore that I am? 'Being mindful you'll see that even the ambition to be mindful has no self' - who sees that?

Is there a tradition within Buddhism of praying in an easterly direction? If there is what is the oldest known reference to it. Sorry for the simplicity of the question, but I am not a Buddhist.

As far as I understand it, according to the theory of momentariness (*Kshana- Bhanga*, or *kṣaṇa*) the cause does not exist in the effect. A perishes before B arises. It arises from nothing. Even if we take the Zero energy universe model, shunyata is seen as emptiness of emptiness, and the Zero energy universe is more akin to Nirguna brahman than Shunyata. Nothing arises from nothing. My question is -- even if we say that the cause creates the effect, with what material does it do so? For example, if A gives rise to B, where did B come from? Is it the same substance/thing as A in a different form? If not, how did B arise from A? Even if A exists after or until B arises, how can a new B arise from A (unless B is A in a different form like water turning into vapor or unless A divides its substance/material into different parts)? Things cannot arise ex nihilo can they? If we assume that things are created anew, that is actually ex nihilo (and is also a problem that many Theists have with their God creating things from nothing). In actuality new things cannot be created, we see one root substance being transmutated into different components and forms but the root substance remains the same. Things cannot infinitely divide themselves. A cannot divide itself to become B, because the material would become infinitely smaller. No new materials are created. From what would they be created by? Actually new things in actuality cannot arise from existent things, let alone when such existent things have already perished before their effect arises, as in the case of khshana-bhanga. In nature we just see one substance being transmutated into different forms but the root substance remains the same. I think that materialism makes more sense than the theory of momentariness for this reason? The theory of atoms perishing and then giving birth to new atoms makes no sense. Even if Atoms didn't perish until new atoms were created, this would still be impossible as new things cannot arise substantially or materially as there is only transmutation/transformation in nature.in materialism that would be eternal subatomic components.

If everything exists for an instant only, as with Sautrāntika Buddhism, then doesn't that mean everything dies at the exact same time it is born? Isn't that impossible? I am not asking for an analysis of the sutta pitaka, but to understand how anyone could hold those two positions. Did it ever come up in historical debate?

I can't remember, perhaps it was a dream, a vague recalling at best...where does Buddha ask ‘do you want to be a dumb animal?’ I’m not accusing Buddha of calling animals dumb, I’m assuming he thought some animals are dumb…like some person (animal), but that other animals are smart, like some person. Anyway, does he say this?

Is there a term or concept for 'feeling' like there's a "me", or for 'feeling' like something "belongs to myself"? Recently I was able to distinguish between two types of feelings, one where the feeling is just there and everything is fine, and another where a "me" is involved that "has" the feeling. The latter comes with a sensation, so I wonder if Buddhism has a notion of this sort of feeling that there's an identification or self that is involved.

As a lay person, I’d like to find resources online to practice phowa because of a lack of masters I can meet in person where I live. Are there any good resources on the internet to achieve phowa? And has anyone here done the phowa practice?

Psychedelic substances such as psilocybin or LSD often induce experiences described as "ego death," where the usual sense of self dissolves and a feeling of unity or boundlessness arises. Some interpret these states as glimpses of spiritual truth, potentially similar to Buddhist insights into anattā (non-self) or śūnyatā (emptiness). From a Buddhist perspective, are these chemically induced experiences considered valid insights into the nature of self and reality, or are they fundamentally different from the realizations attained through traditional Buddhist practice? Are there teachings or commentaries that address the nature or value of such experiences?

I am practicing Vipassana meditation and I want to know is it possible to practice samadhi/anapana and pragya/Vipassana without following Sila.

The Buddha advises that the middle way be taken. The discussion around the middle way sounds to me like a "it is not needed to be so krass" type view on asceticism. But is it still beneficial for enlightenment? Or does the Buddha actually mean to say that asceticism will hinder you from approaching stream entry?

Cartels in Mexico force people to join and if they try to escape they kill them. Why don't people who achieve Nirvana care to make everyone in the world like them?

I am going for minor operation. Should I ask for anesthesia or do without it(seeing the unpleasant sensation equanimously) ? And when I have orgasm or very tasty food it's very difficult to see the sensation equanimously. What to do? Any tips to remain in equanimity in orgasm ?(too difficult!) Isn't anesthesia same as alcohol ? (numb your consciousness )

Sometimes the meditation is good and sometimes it is chaos. I follow the eightfold path as much as I can. I feel the progress is solely dependent on 'samma samadhi'. I dont have ill will or anger or hatred or sorrow anymore. Still I think progress in meditation is measure of how much one has progressed on the path of dhamma. But this is frustrating as I am not able to reach the elusive jhanas. How do I comfort myself that I am making progress each day on the path of dhamma?

The three kinds of suffering as mentioned in SN45.165 : > [1] Suffering caused by pain, > [2] suffering caused by the formations > suffering due to change. Does the EBT (and elsewhere) suggest, or give examples of a mixture, or juxtaposition of the three types of dukkha? Sallatha Sutta: The Arrow might fit the bill, but where else?