In the Tevijja Sutta (DN 13 ), the Buddha addresses Brahmin students who are described as being learned in the Vedas and belonging to specific Brahmanical lineages. The sutta explicitly situates its interlocutors within the orthodox Vedic tradition, often identified within the Yajurvedic and Sāmavedic recensions:- > Even though brahmins describe different paths—the Adhvaryu brahmins, > the **Taittirīya brahmins, the Chāndogya brahmins**, the Cāndrāyaṇa > brahmins, and the Bahvṛca brahmins—all of them still lead someone who > practices them to the company of Divinity These Brahmins understood as followers of what I suppose were the Taittirīya and Chāndogya Upaniṣadic traditions of the time claim knowledge of the path to union or “company with Brahmā” (brahmasahavyatā). The Buddha responds by redefining the path to Brahmā not through birth, sacrifice, or Vedic recitation, but through the cultivation of the four brahmavihāras. > “So it seems that that mendicant is not encumbered with possessions, > and neither is the Divinity. Would a mendicant who is not encumbered > with possessions join together and converge with the Divinity, who > isn’t encumbered with possessions?” > > “Yes, worthy Gotama.” > > “Good, Vāseṭṭha! **It’s quite possible that a mendicant who is not > encumbered with possessions will, when the body breaks up, after > death, be reborn in the company of Divinity, who isn’t encumbered with > possessions.** Is the Buddha’s teaching of “Brahmasahavyatā” in the Tevijja Sutta intended as a normative soteriological teaching for Buddhists, or is it better understood as a skillful means (upāya) directed specifically at non-Buddhist Brahmins or Followers of Upanishadic traditions, reframing their own theological goal in ethical and meditative terms without endorsing it as final liberation (nibbāna)?

> “There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, > monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you > could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and > conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, > unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, > made, and conditioned.” ~ Ud 8.3 In contemporary discussions—particularly outside of Buddhist contexts, this passage is sometimes interpreted in a theistic or metaphysical sense, as pointing to an eternal, uncreated reality or an absolute ground of being that exists independently and “allows” for liberation.From this perspective, the statement “if there were not that unborn…” is read as implying a foundational ontological ground upon which conditioned phenomena depend. Within a Buddhist doctrinal framework, however, Nibbāna is often said to be neither a self nor a substance, and Buddhism explicitly rejects a creator God and eternal metaphysical essences. - Within early Buddhist doctrine, why is Nibbāna described using terms such as “unborn” and “unconditioned,” rather than simply as the cessation of suffering or defilements? - How should the conditional phrasing “If there were not that unborn…” be understood without reifying Nibbāna into an eternal substance or theistic absolute? - How do traditional Buddhist commentaries address or guard against eternalist or theistic readings of this passage?

In the Cūḷasuññatasutta (MN 121) , the Buddha discusses a meditative attainment characterized by “nothingness” which is then used as a predicate in an analysis of emptiness. > Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of > infinite space and the perception of the dimension of infinite > consciousness—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of > the dimension of nothingness. Their mind leaps forth, gains > confidence, settles down, and becomes decided in that perception of > the dimension of nothingness. They understand: ‘Here there is no > stress due to the perception of the dimension of infinite space or the > perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness. There is only > this modicum of stress, namely the oneness dependent on the perception > of the dimension of nothingness.’ They understand: ‘This field of > perception is empty of the perception of the dimension of infinite > space. It is empty of the perception of the dimension of infinite > consciousness. There is only this that is not emptiness, namely the > oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of nothingness.’ > And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what > remains they understand that it is present. That’s how emptiness > manifests in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure. I am interested in an investigation that addresses such issues as: **Ontological status of “nothingness”:** ---------------------------------------- Is the sphere of nothingness presented as a phenomenal object of experience, a negation of specified classes of objects (e.g., form, infinite space, infinite consciousness), or as a structural absence of cognitive content? Phenomenological description: ----------------------------- In the Cūḷasuññatasutta, the meditator attends to the dimension of nothingness. How is it possible for the mind to intentionally “perceive” something that is, by definition, an absence? Does the sutta imply a particular structure of consciousness that allows an absence to be an object of experience? Nothingness and self-reference ------------------------------ In perceiving nothingness, does the meditator’s mind retain any self-referential awareness, or is subjectivity suspended? How does the sutta articulate the boundaries of selfhood and cognitive agency in relation to the sphere of nothingness? Temporal and spatial character of nothingness --------------------------------------------- The sutta uses the term āyatana, often translated as “dimension” or “sphere.” Does this imply that this nothingness has a kind of temporal or spatial extension, or is it entirely devoid of such characteristics?

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?

In Kd 6 , We come across the following:- > On one occasion a monk was possessed by a spirit. His teacher and > preceptor who were nursing him were not able to cure him. He then went > to a pigs’ slaughterhouse to eat raw meat and drink blood. As a > result, he became well. They told the Buddha. > > “For one who is possessed, I allow raw meat and raw blood.” I had never heard of this before. I only encountered it because a polemical blog quoted it in an attempt to criticize Buddhist scripture by highlighting passages that seem negative or problematic when taken at face value. Since their intent of quoting the above was obviously hostile I’d like to understand the background of these from those familiar with the Vinaya:- My questions are: 1. Is the translation accurate? Does the Pali genuinely say that the Buddha allowed raw meat and raw blood in such circumstances? 2. Is this passage considered authentic and canonical within mainstream Theravāda? 3. If both of the above are true, How is this interpreted by traditional Buddhists today? Is it taken literally, regarded as a narrowly defined medicinal or exceptional allowance, or understood in some other way? And if it is accepted, how is it justified within Buddhist ethics and discipline?

I’ve been reflecting on ***the slide*** of the practice—that threshold where the "Doer" or the "Agent" seems to fall away and you’re just left with the flow of the process. Suttas like **AN 11.2 (the Cetana Sutta)** describe this beautifully. They show the path as a series of mental qualities that "flow on and fill up" through dhammatā (natural law), without needing an act of will (cetanā) to push them along. It's one thing to know the "map" of these links intellectually, but I'm curious about the specific point where that knowledge flips into a direct "Aha!" moment—witnessing the mechanics run themselves. How do the Suttas (or the broader tradition) describe this shift from just knowing the mechanics (ñāṇa) to actually seeing them unfold (dassana)? Is there a specific term for that tipping point?

Why is consciousness not discussed as internal and external in the Dhathu-vibhanga sutta (MN 140)? > "And what is the space property? **The space property may be either internal or external.** What is the internal space property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space property & the external space property are simply space property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and makes the space property fade from the mind. > > "**There remains only consciousness: pure & bright.** What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure. When sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of pleasure.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of pleasure that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure — ceases, is stilled.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. When sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain — ceases, is stilled.' > > https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

As per title. To be more specific: The rule, or the working way of Karma - is it part of the world and thus uniquely determined within the formation of our world? Or is the working way of Karma some superior rule higher than the formation of our world, that all worlds (we know Buddhism believe there are many parallel worlds in time and space) follow a same set of Karma rule? Take as an example, SA 527 , which says: > a novice monk stole monk's 7 fruits, so he was punished by Karma, that he fell into hell for many lives, and even if he reincarnate into a human after these sufferings, hot iron bullets will penetrate his body from time to time Is such karmaphala penalty for stealing monk's fruits (i.e. falling into hell and later becoming a human penetrated by bullets), - (a) the same or similar across all worlds, or - (b) unique of our world, or - (c) unique only to Sakyamuni Buddha's era in our world? There is a similar question but not well-answered either. ------------------- Note this question is not "is Karma part of materialistic world". Karma itself is obviously bound with sentients in this world, but I want to know whether the rule of Karma also bound to us.

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? What other alternatives are there?

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?

In AN 8.70 , the Buddha lists eight causes for an earthquake. The passages read as follows:- > Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one > side, and said to him, “Sir, that was a really big earthquake! That > was really a very big earthquake; awe-inspiring and hair-raising, and > thunder cracked the sky! **What’s the cause, what’s the reason for a > great earthquake?”** > > “Ānanda, **there are these eight causes and reasons for a great > earthquake**. What eight? > > **This great earth is established on water, the water is established on > air, and the air stands in space. At a time when a great wind blows, > it stirs the water, and the water stirs the earth. This is the first > cause and reason for a great earthquake.** > > Furthermore, there is an ascetic or brahmin with psychic power who has > achieved mastery of the mind, or a god who is mighty and powerful. > They’ve developed a limited perception of earth and a limitless > perception of water. They make the earth shake and rock and tremble. > This is the second cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the being intent on awakening passes away from the > host of joyful gods, he’s conceived in his mother’s belly, mindful and > aware. Then the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the third > cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the being intent on awakening comes out of his > mother’s belly mindful and aware, the earth shakes and rocks and > trembles. This is the fourth cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One awakens to the supreme perfect > awakening, the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the fifth > cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One rolls forth the supreme Wheel of > Dhamma, the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the sixth > cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One, mindful and aware, surrenders the > life force, the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the > seventh cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One becomes fully extinguished in the > element of extinguishment with no residue, the earth shakes and rocks > and trembles. This is the eighth cause and reason for a great > earthquake. > > These are the eight causes and reasons for a great earthquake.” Seven of these eight causes are clearly supernatural (e.g., divine beings, psychic powers, events related to a Buddha) while the first and the only natural explanation of earth resting on water stirred by cosmic winds being the cause of earthquakes does not align with what we understand today as the geological and entirely naturalistic explanation of earthquakes. My question is:- How do Buddhists, especially those who identify with traditional or orthodox readings of the suttas understand these earthquake causes today? Do they:- - Reject the modern scientific understanding of earthquakes and accept the sutta’s description literally? - Interpret these causes allegorically or symbolically? If so, how? I’m curious how different Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, etc.) approach this apparent conflict between scripture and modern scientific understanding.

I often see the Abhidhamma referenced as a framework for interpreting the teachings of the suttas. However, opinions vary widely: some say it is essential for proper interpretation, while others argue that it is a later analytical system not required for understanding the early discourses. How exactly does the Abhidhamma function within Buddhist hermeneutics? Do canonical or commentarial texts explicitly state how the Abhidhamma should be used to interpret other teachings? And if yes How do traditional commentaries justify its authority? Furthermore Are there examples where Abhidhamma exegesis diverges from sutta usage? If so How do scholarly commentators resolve such differences?

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.

I have read some early Buddhism sutras where the Buddha says birth doesn't make one noble, conduct does. Is there any sutra in Mahayana Buddhism that explicitly rejected "noble" status just by birth? Or at least rebuking casteism? I have found verses that conform to the caste based society like for example Lalitavistara Sutra that says Bodhisattvas are only born in upper two castes (Priest and Warriors). It does not say a person who rises to become a king, no, he should be from a "royal lineage" (caste). I have found no which eases the caste tension.

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?

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 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.

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.

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?