>I have been trying to think about Buddhism, Scientology and Gaia religions. They do not focus on a God but rather the eternal inner spirit and reincarnation. The best so far I have come up with is “Spiritual” or “Letsism” . Letsism is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcended reality. Or even “Dianetics” a Set of ideals and practices regarding the relationship between mind and body. Not sure yet. This is a quote from a Quora answer to What is the term for those who believe in God, but not in religion? and it got me curious. I know this has been asked before in a couple of different ways, but what is Buddhism? https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/11042/17739 tells us that >Buddhism is a nontheistic religion or philosophy (Sanskrit: dharma; Pali: dhamma) that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha, commonly known as the Buddha ("the awakened one"). > >[...] > >The foundations of Buddhist tradition and practice are the Three Jewels: > > - The Buddha – One who attains enlightenment by oneself, then teaches others to become enlightened; > > - The Dharma – the theory and practice taught by a self-enlightened Buddha; and > > - The Sangha – the community who attained enlightenment following the teachings of Buddha. The answer also points out that Buddhist traditions can incorporate >**Devotional practices** – non-theistic objects of devotion include the Buddha, past enlightened followers of the Buddha, Bodhisatvas, angels, gods, and living spiritual teachers. This seems to contradict the Quora quote when it said that Buddhism does not focus on a God. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/24902/17739 points out through the answers that Buddhism can be seen as a religion, but... >The Buddha did not ask for anyone to take his word with respect to Dhamma - things as they are. He asked people to not blindly obey, to not follow ritual, to not ignore or go against what they directly observe. In this respect, Buddhism is at its core a scientific method. > >[...] > >Most major religions accept testimony of the wise, seers, prophets etc as truths, as well as others from the above link [pramanas ]. Buddhism does not. So, going back to the Quora quote, is Buddhism - a form of Letsism — an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcended reality? - a ​form of Dianetics — a set of ideals and practices regarding the relationship between mind and body? Or, - aside from "new age Buddhism ", is it just purely a spiritual teaching based on a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects?

I've been practicing it and it seems to work well. It seems that I can explain this in terms of nash equilibrium. I tend to see it that all of us are already physically able to achieve much and paying attention to some topic will subconsciously allow us to manifest what we want. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_attraction_(New_Thought) Buddhism teaches that there are laws that govern human nature. There are laws of living objects. There are laws of karma. Is the law of attraction one such law? By the way, I tend to see Buddhism as a way to understand life instead of as a religion. I am not Buddhist but I see that there is some truth in what Buddha taught. So that's my background.

What is nirvana if it is not just a beatific consciousness free from suffering in all meanings? I want to move away from that and the idea of the perfections (both seem slightly off). So there is meant to be no person to have found its happiness, and soon after nirvana is realised there is no longer even any aggregates to experience its bliss. We agree there is less suffering in the world when a aspirant attains any kind of buddhahood, right? One metaphor is the extinguishment of a lamp, its flame being, I suppose, a kind of burning. Do we look at it pseudo **objectively** (one less thing in pain in samsara), pseudo *subjectively* (the extinction of a particular painful cycle of rebirth), or some mixture of the two (e.g. it belongs to one consciousness but ***a reason for happiness for all***). So could you say it's not just a beatific sense of profound bliss, its the ground of all happiness that does not fool anyone? If so, if that's a fair characterisation (not at all sure it is), do Buddhists define that as a consciousness, and if so with what meaning?

Are there any Suttas, Vinaya or Abhidhamma explaining sīlabbata-parāmāsa **in detail**? Please kindly provide examples if knowing. Thank you

I read on the internet the following doctrinal statement regarding Buddhist Philosophy: > Furthermore, they believe that the dhammas are "not empty" because they are merely empty of "yourself." If the above is true, is there a "self" beyond "your self", such as "universal self", similar to Brahma or Atman?

I am wondering what is the buddhist view on Art and especially being an Artist? Meaning someone who creates something with an aesthetic quality that may or may not reflect the reality and express thoughts, feelings ideas etc. As I try to study the basics of buddhism I am encountering this strange conflict when, for example (in my case filmmaking), you like to create a fictional stories, character and even entire worlds, universes.. and that often leads you away from the actual reality. Of course all the thoughts, concepts, stories, songs, plays, paintings, movies etc. in most cases have some symbolic, deeper meaning that does not changed much from the early times. They are rather variations of the "big" questions, pain, love, suffering, live and such and therefore can have the ability to enrich the viewer, provoke thinking and feeling or any other response. But the creation process takes a huge amount of energy, and a lot of thinking about. I am not sure if that's such a good thing in the end...

I am studying Nagarjuna's work online and from the commentaries understand that in the Madhyamika Nagarjuna describe 'Shunayata' as > all phenomena are conditional and empty of any self essence I am not able to understand how is this any different than the doctrine of Anatta that the Buddha taught? > that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon.

Many people frequently make bold and confident claims about what Buddhism is or isn't with little or no humility or doubt. Their views are asserted to be correct, and anything contrary to their view is asserted to be simply wrong or a misunderstanding. My own doubts are sometimes the cause of suffering, but they also protect me from having fixed views which can be erroneous and leave no space for growth, adjustment and wisdom. My view is that the more confidently a view is expounded, the more likely it is to be wrong, and the more likely that self-clinging and self-cherishing are lurking in the mind, but even this view seems uncertain. Perhaps developing contentment with the uncertainty of reality is a part of wise practice, but I can't be too sure of that either.

There Can Only Be Two Types of Realities(Dharmas): 1.Conditioned Reality: Any reality that depends on something for its existence. For example, a Cow depends on its organs, the organs depend on cells, the cells depend on molecules, which depend on atoms,wich depend on electrons,wich depend on Quarks and so forth. This dependence is simultaneous at every moment the conditioned reality exists. 2.Unconditioned Reality: Any reality that is self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence. This is what is called “Brahman''(The one Spirit ''or ''Ishwara''(God). any conditioned reality depends upon another reality in order to exist by definition. Any conditioned Dharma, must depend upon: a finite number of conditioned Dharmas alone or an infinite number of conditioned Dharmas alone or a finite number of conditioned Dharmas and at least one unconditioned Dharma A conditioned Dharma cannot be caused by a finite series of conditioned Dharma: If there is a linear series of conditioned Dharma, what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something, and there is nothing before it, the whole chain ceases to exist. Thus a linear chain of conditioned realities cannot exist. Additionally, a circular finite chain of conditioned Dharmas could not exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality fulfilling their own conditions, which is against the definition of a conditioned Dharma. Conditioned realities cannot exist in an infinite Series either. A very large unlimited of number conditioned realities cannot exist,. As the number of conditioned realities in a series increases, the result continues to be non-existence. Continuously adding to the end of the chain would never allow for the conditions of existence to be satisfied, thus the entire infinite chain of conditioned Dharmas would never have its conditions fulfilled. If an infinite (I am granting You guys the notion that a actual Infinite can exist in quantity for the sake of argument,I do not Believe this)series of conditioned Dharmas could exist on its own, the complete set of infinite conditioned Dharma would be an unconditioned Dharma. However, this is impossible because an unconditioned dharma cannot depend upon an aggregate of conditioned dharmas . if this were the case, it would be conditioned. Therefore, a set of infinite conditioned realities is itself a conditioned reality, and fails to exist on its own. Since any model made up entirely of conditioned Dharmas can never have their conditions fulfilled, every conditioned Dharma must be caused by a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological Series) with an unconditioned Dharma. Thus it Seems that a intrinsic Existance does exist?So how can Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta be True?

When I read [this article on the tallest statues in the world](https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/photos-15-tallest-statues-world/574531/) , I was struct by how many of them were of important Buddhist figures: of the fifteen tallest statues six are of Guanyin (Kannon/Avalokiteśvara), five of the Buddha, and one of Kṣitigarbha, for a total of twelve out of the top fifteen! Why are such tall statues built? What significance does the height of these statues have in the religious lives of Buddhist adherents? Or are these statues not built for true religious purposes, but as an unofficial competition between nations, just like they compete over the tallest skyscraper? Nine out of the fifteen were built in the 21th century. Who commissions these statues? Statues of this size would be beyond the budgets of most temples. See also: [this question on why precious metals are used for Buddhist statues](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1747/11169) .

Am currently taking Tricycle course on Effortless mindfulness. The concept of being aware of awareness is difficult for me. Any ideas to help achieve being aware of awareness during meditation as a type of "advanced" basic mindfulness?

I masturbate to avoid having sex with other people. I've masturbated quite a lot. I don't want to have sexual intercourse with anyone else though I love sex. I've been keeping my body away from sexual desire with other men and found masturbation as a good feeling. I've never had any imagination of anyone else or rarely (if it does, it should be a person that I really like or dating with but I just keep desire away from him, again rarely). I also have known that masturbation could prevent sexual assaults. Is this a sin or not?

I need a list of all the people mentioned in the Pali canon who were in the story of the historic Gautama the Buddha. For e.g. Angulimal, Ananda etc. I did a google search for the same but did not find the answer. Also, if you can provide sutta reference for their mention that will be great.

Is there a phrase for speech which doesn't hurt someone's feelings, isn't gossip or malicious (meant to harm them in some way), but is in some sense still wrong speech? A sort of *indignant* speech? > feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair > treatment. Is it forbidden, bad karma? I understand that it is often *unhelpful*, but am unsure if it's neutral or wrong.

When does right or wrong view at death over ride the karma one has accumulated in life? I was just reading (googling) how right and wrong view when we be die *can* determine our next birth, rather than our karma in general. For genuine Buddhists, this may not be a problem, because that is also temporary. But it's an issue for me, so I wondered *when* that happens, when karma plays less of a role. ---------- Here is what I was reading > right and wrong view at the time of death can only temporary over ride (not eradicate) karma This seems to be the explanation for how evil doers with wrong view can end up with a good rebirth (and virtuous people with right view a poor rebirth): a momentary change of view. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html

**What is craving for fame in Buddhism?** I am aware that fame pertains to the eight worldly concerns and is detrimental. However I wonder: what *is* fame-seeking in Buddhism? I ask this because when I was younger I would fantasize greatly about fame, especially in link to a great theoretical realization. I still feel that way sometimes. I perceive fame in this case as attachment to a view mixed with self-valuing, but I mostly wonder if one should abandon this and how? How can one acquire equanimity towards this aspiration?

In the present context of the world, the chain of economics and happiness as I see it is, money is necessary to fulfill one's basic necessities (even if not luxuries), to earn money we need jobs, to make jobs we need to manufacture things, to sell things that have been manufactured, they have to be marketed and people have to be eventually 'desire' to buy these items and feel that they are happy to keep the chain alive. But because of this chain, for example the automobile industry, we have more cars on road, more pollution, more environmental and health issues and so on. So I was thinking if there is a better economic model which we can learn and devise from the teachings of the Buddha. Is there some other method we can adopt to reinvent this chain and relation between economics, happiness and consumerism? I do understand that real 'happiness' as taught by the Buddha and the happiness that one obtains by practising meditation is the way ahead to limit our desires and achieve a balance in the world. On these lines, I read something on 'Sufficiency Economics' briefly and felt it was a good topic. I wish to ask if anyone can provide references to any other topics or books that relate economics, consumerism and Buddhism that offer a practical solution to a really happy world.

There are many adaptations of a story about a brave little parrot (or other type of bird) who tries to put out a forest fire by dipping her feathers in a lake and shaking the drops over a raging forest fire. Does anyone know which number Jataka tale this originates from? Here is an example of the adapted tale. http://healingstory.org/the-brave-little-parrot/ Thank you.

So, I know prayer is a subject in Buddhism, but recently i started trying to learn about prayer in the Soto Zen tradition. I cant seem to find any posts that really help, or some that take me one way and another that takes me the complete other direction. I really just need some good solid place to start.

I've noticed in myself a tendency to pursue situations that cause a certain stress, in a somewhat compulsive way. This is a bit like people who are drawn to people who are bad for them. I have heard Thich Nhat Hanh saying teens drawn to spending all their time on computers feel empty inside. How are such "addictions" conceptualized in Buddhism? In other words, what would be the cause and nature of a behaviour that is bad for one, that depends on a kind of meaninglessness and self-sabotage? Lastly, what would remedy such internal afflictions? Are they forms of a kind of avoidance of suffering?