My mother grows organic vegetables so she doesn't spray pesticides. I warned her that killing snails would add to her karma of taking life; she said, "If I don't kill them, what will I eat?" So she no longer smashes the snails on the ground to kill them — she puts the snails into a plastic bag and throws them in the trash. Is that the right way to handle it?

Let me help you with both: Your English question - corrected: "Is this a natural English sentence, and would native English speakers feel there are any minor mistakes? "To speak incorrectly about something is to lie." Please correct my question if it would make me look foolish on an English Buddhist website!" Claude helped below but I dont know which one is the best? Please help me!

I find it reassuring to be able to turn to the pali suttas for answers. I happened across comments by users that disparage against turning to the suttas for answers, one describing how it makes one come off as "Buddha's teacher's pet". Some amount of ego-hurt, but also genuine curiousity, makes me question if turning to the suttas for advice and certainty could be counter to reaching attainments. Would appreciate any perspective.

Buddhist scriptures describe numerous supranormal phenomena such as the existence of devas (gods), multiple cosmological realms such as heaven and hell, and the continuity of consciousness or reincarnation that are inaccessible to ordinary sensory perception and cannot be established through conventional inference. This raises a question about the nature of scriptural authority across Buddhist traditions. Do schools such as Theravāda, Mahāyāna, or Vajrayāna treat scripture or scriptural revelations as independent, authoritative proof of such phenomena, in a manner analogous to how śruti functions in Hindu Vedānta, where the text itself serves as an epistemic source? Or are these teachings primarily seen only as guiding principles for ethical conduct, meditative practice, and direct experiential verification, rather than as conclusive evidence of supranormal realities? References to classical texts, commentaries, or doctrinal discussions that clarify whether the status of scriptural proof in Buddhism is regarded as epistemically authoritative for realities beyond perception and inference would be especially illuminating.

I currently try to get better at returning focus and attention from thoughts to breathe. I do this in daily life. I would appreciate if there were suttas on focusing on breathe in daily life outside meditation. I would see it as encouragement. I know that the Buddha focuses a lot on craving and ill wishes and cruel thoughts. These things helped me a lot, they help to return to breathe. Then there is a sort of lightness, as opposed to the heaviness of suffering. I identify a shifting of focus from thoughts to breath as a victory of having applied Buddha's teaching. Unfortunately, I don't have clear wording of the Buddha that this is a sign of cessation on suffering. I'm like a son that needs validation. Are there suttas that talk about breath, as opposed to just talking about contemplating on thoughts?

Does the Buddha acknowledge that some people, without the Dharma, suffer more than other people, without the Dharma? I remember a monk talking about how it's a fact that some people are more skilled, better looking, more innately peaceful than others, and that especially those lacking in material attributes should seek to transcend their suffering. I wonder if there's a basis for this opinion in the suttas.

While reading through the Buddhist suttas, I came across the detailed descriptions of the eight emancipations. These passages were deeply intriguing, but they also gave rise to some questions in my mind which I decided to ask before which let me cite the concerned passages - > “Ānanda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight? > > “**Possessed of form, one sees forms.** This is the first > emancipation. > > “**Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally.** > This is the second emancipation. > > “**One is intent only on the beautiful.** This is the third > emancipation. > > “**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,’ one > enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space**. This > is the fourth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.** This is > the fifth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of nothingness.** This is the sixth > emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception.** This is the seventh emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation > of perception and feeling.** This is the eighth emancipation. > > “**Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward > order, in reverse order, in forward and reverse order**, when he > attains them and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he > wants, and for as long as he wants, when through the ending of > effluents he enters and remains in the effluent-free release of > awareness and release of discernment, having directly known it and > realized it for himself in the here and now, **he is said to be a monk > released in both ways. And as for another release in both ways, higher > or more sublime than this, there is none.”** ~ DN 15 Questions- 1. Why is “nothingness” (6th) distinguished from “neither perception nor non-perception” (7th), given that both involve retreating from mental activity? Or from the 8th which involves total cessation of perception and feeling? 2. What kind of experience is “neither perception nor non-perception”? Is it a liminal state — and if so, how does one know they have entered it? Can a mind in this state be said to ‘experience’ anything at all? 3. In discussions with scholars from eternalist backgrounds, such as vedanta a common challenge raised is that the Buddhist teachings on the eight emancipations seem to imply the existence of a continuous or eternal subject since someone appears to be progressing through these subtle states of consciousness. If there is no eternal soul or self in Buddhism, then who is it that experiences and moves through these emancipations? How would a Buddhist respond to this objection? 4. What is the significance of being able to enter and exit these states at will, as emphasized in the sutta? 5. Is the progression through these states ultimately teaching that liberation is not something to be gained, but everything to be let go including perception, feeling, identity, and knowing?

Given what I assume was the predominant view of the time, I would not be surprised if there are many Suttas that deal explicitly with resurrection (as opposed to rebirth which seems to be a more recent word used to delineate the concept), but I am interested in finding out in which sutras did Buddha Shakyamuni deal explicitly with annihilationism (ucchedavāda) which, as I understand it, is the position of the dissolution of the self after death (of which materialism would be a subset). I am aware of the following Suttas: - Brahmajāla-sutta -- which covers a large array of positions of wrong arguments against annhilationism, but doesn't seem to go into too much detail on how it is a wrong view. - Alagaddūpama-sutta -- in which The Buddha instructs on how to defend his position from being confused with annihilationism. - Pālileyya-sutta -- not sure exactly how to interpret this, but it seems to be about assuaging the fear of annihilation. - Achela Kassapa-sutta -- where the Buddha states the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism. - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta -- where The Buddha separates his view from all conventional views. - Kalama Sutta -- where The Buddha explains the benefits of the path even if there is nothing after death. Are there any glaring misconceptions here? Are there any other Suttas dealing with this topic?

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)

In the west it's more or less common knowledge that when you try to suppress something, it arises stronger. For example, in this Psychology Today article , it is written: > This effect was shown with the classic “white bear” study. In the > study, people were told not to think of a white bear. Simply being > told not to think about a white bear—to suppress these thoughts—led > these people to think of white bears far more frequently (Wegner, > Schneider, Carter, & White, 1987). This research helped us see that > suppression is an ineffective way to decrease negative emotions. Even in buddhist circles, it's often said that walls shouldn't be built internally, referring to the cognitive behavior of shunning certain aspects of ourselves. Yet, in Suttas like mn19 , the Buddha says: > Whenever a thought of sensual desire arose in me, I abandoned it, > removed it, did away with it. How to reconcile?

In MN 19 , the Buddha advises us to contemplate on whether thoughts cause harm. > I understood thus: ‘This thought of sensual desire has arisen in me. > This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the > affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and > leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I considered: ‘This leads to my own > affliction,’ it subsided in me; Does this also apply to emotions like fear or anger (non-thought mental formations)? Example: This emotion has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction [...] Would appreciate relevant Suttas.

Is there any sutta about how actions should have conscious intention (that we should not be on autopilot)?

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?

Udāna 8.1 describes what appears to be a radically transcendent “dimension” — one beyond the elements, the formless attainments, and even beyond movement, time, and dualistic perception. It is characterized entirely by negation, culminating in the phrase: "just this is the end of stress/suffering."- > There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; > neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, > I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither > passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support > (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress. Have any advanced practitioners, past or present, claimed to have directly realized this dimension? If so: - How was the realization described? Was it marked by total cessation, a kind of knowing without content, or something altogether ineffable? - Was there awareness during the experience? Or did it resemble the cessation of perception and feeling (nirodha-samāpatti), with no consciousness during and only retrospective insight after? - How was the transition into and out of this dimension understood? Did it feel like a gradual absorption, a sudden drop, or a shift beyond all experience? - Did practitioners interpret it as a momentary event or as the uncovering of a timeless truth? In other words, is this dimension entered, or is it recognized as always already the case? - What changed after the experience? Were there shifts in perception, identity, or sense of reality that aligned with the description of “no coming, no going” and “no this world or another world”? ---------- I understand that language may fall short in describing such a realization, but I’m curious whether any teachings or testimonies exist that give practical or phenomenological insight into what this “dimension” might entail — and whether realization is framed as a momentary insight or an ongoing mode of liberation.

The wikipedia page for [Buddhist Cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#Origins) has a section titled "Origins" in which the following sentence occurs: >No single sūtra sets out the entire structure of the universe, but in several sūtras the Buddha describes other worlds and states of being, and other sūtras describe the origin and destruction of the universe. I am interested in reading these sūtras, in which the Buddha describes other worlds and states of being, but I am not sure what they are. Does anyone know what sūtras the author of the article is referring to?

> Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hatred, with the fire > of delusion; burning with birth, aging, and death; with sorrow, > lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair, I say. > > Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences > revulsion... Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through > dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the > knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘**Destroyed is birth**, the > holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is > no more for this state of being.’ What does "destroyed is birth" refer to here, especially regarding a supposed person that manages to overcome, let's say, hatred. The person has a Eureka moment and proclaims "destroyed is birth". What do they mean with that, or rather, **what are they trying to express about their life**?

What are the actual suttas in which the Buddha described how to meditate? A list of all such suttas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Aside from the Agganna Sutta, are there other Buddhist texts that discuss how the world or the universe came into existence?

Not vinaya information like the 13 questions, but things like a householder who has children should not ordain, or one should only ordain after being able to maintain sila for X amount of time, or when one has weakened desire enough that longing for X sensory pleasure no longer causes a burden. I did see a user "sankha" mention in a question here some information on when is right to ordain, but no sources. > When you become dispassionate in continuing the lay life or when you get enough confidence that you can successfully fend off the temptations of lay life, it is worth considering ordination. I am interested on what the Buddha said on who should, who should not, when, when not, who cannot etc ordain.

DN 15 mentions the following eight kinds of emancipations: > “Ānanda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight? > > “Possessed of form, one sees forms. This is the first emancipation. > > “Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally. This is > the second emancipation. > > “One is intent only on the beautiful. This is the third emancipation. > > “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,’ one > enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. This > is the fourth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of > space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and remains > in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. This is the fifth > emancipation.** > > “With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of > consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is the sixth > emancipation. > > “With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one > enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception. This is the seventh emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception > nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation of > perception and feeling. This is the eighth emancipation.** > > “Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward order, > in reverse order, in forward and reverse order, when he attains them > and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he wants, and for as > long as he wants, when through the ending of effluents he enters and > remains in the effluent-free release of awareness and release of > discernment, having directly known it and realized it for himself in > the here and now, he is said to be a monk released in both ways. And > as for another release in both ways, higher or more sublime than this, > there is none.” The Chāndogya Upaniṣad describes Brahman-realization in the following terms: > यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमाथ > यत्रान्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पं यो वै भूमा तदमृतमथ > यदल्पं तन्मर्त्य्ं स भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि यदि वा न > महिम्नीति ॥ ७.२४.१ ॥ > > yatra nānyatpaśyati nānyacchṛṇoti nānyadvijānāti sa bhūmātha > yatrānyatpaśyatyanyacchṛṇotyanyadvijānāti tadalpaṃ yo vai bhūmā > tadamṛtamatha yadalpaṃ tanmartyṃ sa bhagavaḥ kasminpratiṣṭhita iti sve > mahimni yadi vā na mahimnīti || 7.24.1 || > > **Sanatkumāra said: ‘Bhūmā [the infinite] is that in which one sees > nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows [i.e., finds] nothing > else.** But alpa [the finite] is that in which one sees something else, > hears something else, and knows something else. That which is infinite > is immortal, and that which is finite is mortal.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, > what does bhūmā rest on?’ Sanatkumāra replied, ‘It rests on its own > power—or not even on that power [i.e., it depends on nothing else]’. Chandogya Upanishad 7.24.1 similarly, > यदा पञ्चावतिष्ठन्ते ज्ञानानि मनसा सह । बुद्धिश्च न विचेष्टते तामाहुः > परमां गतिम् ॥ १०॥ > > yadā pañcāvatiṣṭhante jñānāni manasā saha . buddhiśca na viceṣṭate > tāmāhuḥ paramāṃ gatim > > When the five instruments of knowledge(senses of perception) stand still, together with the > mind and when the intellect does not move, that is called the parama gati (Supreme > State). Katha Upanishad 2.3.10 Would the realization of Brahman or the attainment of the highest state as described in these Upaniṣadic passages correspond to the eighth emancipation in the sutta, particularly as it pertains to the cessation of perception? If not, is there a more accurate mapping within the eightfold scheme : perhaps one of the immaterial attainments or an earlier emancipation?