A person at my sangha is both a dedicated Buddhist and a devotee of Isha Yoga and Sadhguru. Do you have opinions on him?

I know he's neither secular nor Buddhist, but this subreddit has been so damn good at answering my questions. I figured I could get good responses on someone Buddhist-adjacent. Mods, delete if this is too far off-topic.

I've only read the Wikipedia article on him and a few videos on his YouTube channel. I'm still note sure if he's:

• A total charlatan who's not worth researching.
• A useful source of education, but not someone to follow closely.
• A font of spiritual wisdom who we can learn from.

My sangha buddy leans toward the third choice. I'm inclined toward the first. I'd love to get opinions from people who've read about him or tried Isha Yoga.

Hi everyone! I'd like to get a general consensus on what secular Buddhism looks like for individual practitioners. I understand the textbook definition, but I want to know what it looks like in real, daily life.

I know that this topic tends to make people angry, so please read till the end before making a conclusion. Having read Foundations of Buddhism by Rupert Gethin and What the Buddha Thought by Richard Gombrich, both of which claim to examine Buddhist doctrine through an academic (non-biased) lens, they all say one thing: Buddhism takes a middle way between claiming that you have free will and determinism. Even the Buddha says that the doctrine of determinism, which some ascetics during his lifetime followed, is incorrect because it cannot be verified through experience and therefore leads to learned helplessness.

It’s one thing to claim that determinism is incorrect because it is false, and another to say that determinism is incorrect because it makes you feel bad. A common objection to Buddhism from Western audiences is that it’s pessimistic. Buddhists usually respond by saying that, in order to cure an illness, you first need to admit its presence. Fair enough, but this principle should apply not only to dukkha, but to free will as well. Or, to be more precise, the lack of it.

Just to clarify, I do not believe in free will even outside of Buddhist doctrine. However, I think Buddhist doctrines themselves can only be used to argue against the existence of free will.

Here is my definition of free will. I think free will is an incoherent concept, and attempts to redefine it (as compatibilists do) in order to preserve the notion of personal agency are ridiculous. If you do not agree with my attributes of free will, then you probably will not agree with the rest of my argument:

• Free will cannot exist if all of your actions are already determined before you make a decision.
• If free will exists, then you could have acted otherwise in the past under the exact same conditions.
• If free will exists, then you can be the conscious author of your decisions and thoughts.

If at least one of these attributes is false, then I am ready to reconsider my opinion. Now, let's turn to the Buddhist doctrine.

The doctrine of no-self claims that there is no soul that is the owner or controller of your experience. Instead, if you examine your experience during meditation, you will find that experience is composed of five aggregates:

• Form (your body, everything physical)
• Perceptions (being able to recognize apple as apple)
• Feelings (raw sensation of pleasure or pain)
• Mental formations (Volitions, thoughts, intentions, etc.). Remember that intentions are mental formations, we will need it later.
• Consciousness (subjective awareness. The fact that you are having an experience at all)

That’s all. There is nothing else in your experience that exists outside of these categories. The Buddha then explains why none of these aggregates can be considered a self. He gives two main arguments.

• First, all of these aggregates are impermanent. When people think about the self, they usually imagine something permanent. We tend to imagine that there is some observer sitting somewhere inside the body, a stable "I" that remains the same throughout life. Even though the body changes, thoughts change, emotions change, and memories fade, we still intuitively feel that there must be some unchanging core behind all of it: the self.
• Secondly, you do not actually own any of these aggregates. In other words, you do not truly control them. The Buddha gives the following argument: if your body were truly yours, or if you were identical to your body, then you should be able to say, “Let my body be thus and not thus,” and have it obey your will. But clearly, you cannot stop your body from aging, getting sick, changing, or dying simply because you want it not to. The same applies to the other aggregates. If feelings were truly yours, you should be able to decide to feel pleasure all the time and never feel pain, anxiety, or sadness. If perceptions were truly yours, you should be able to choose how you interpret everything at all times. If mental formations were truly yours, you should be able to decide which thoughts, desires, intentions, and emotions arise in your mind before they appear. But thoughts and urges simply arise on their own. You cannot know what thought will appear next until it appears. And if consciousness were truly yours, you should be able to remain conscious forever, never fall asleep, never lose awareness, and never die. But consciousness, too, changes according to causes and conditions rather than personal control.

Buddhists deny that this doctrine leads to nihilism or to the idea that you are allowed to do whatever you want. Nāgasena in the Milinda Pañha gives the following example: you cannot steal pears from a market just because the pears are not the exact same pears they were in the past. Even though they are constantly changing, they are still connected through cause and effect:

>“If a man should steal another man’s mangoes, would he deserve a thrashing for that?”

>Yes, of course!

>But he would not have stolen the very same mangoes as the other one had planted. Why then should he deserve a thrashing?

>For the reason that the stolen mangoes had grown because of those that were planted.

>Just so, your majesty, it is because of the deeds one does… that one is once again linked with another psycho-physical organism, and is not freed from one’s evil deeds.

This leads us to the doctrine of karma. You reap good fruits of your karma if you perform good actions, and bad fruits if you perform bad actions - we all know that. However, karma is not some magical cosmic justice system. Karma is simply cause and effect applied to intentional actions. The Buddha explicitly says: “It is intention that I call karma.”

But intentions are part of the aggregate of mental formations, and we have already seen that one of the reasons the Buddha denies that mental formations are a self is because you do not control them. Thoughts, desires, urges, intentions, emotions. All of them simply arise due to causes and conditions. You cannot choose your next mental formation before it appears. The intention to act arises first, and only afterwards do you become aware of it. In fact, what you're supposed to do during vipassana meditation, is to observe how these mental formations arise on their own.

You simply cannot combine the doctrines of no-self and karma while still claiming that people possess free will in any meaningful sense. The doctrine of no-self denies the existence of a permanent controller or owner behind experience. There is no independent self standing outside the causal chain and directing it. There are only five aggregates. Mental events arise dependently. In fact, everything arises dependently. This is precisely how Buddhists deny that no-self leads to nihilism: things still exist conventionally because they are connected through cause and effect. Karma itself is explained through causation. Intentions arise because prior causes produced them.

This is why responses such as “karma just means bad things happen to you, but you can choose how to react to them” do not solve the problem. You cannot freely choose how to react either. Your reaction is itself an arising mental formation. And according to the Buddha’s own argument for no-self, mental formations are not self precisely because they are not under your control.

Also, the response like "But actions can still be guided by awareness, reflection, training, mindfulness, and conditioning." also does not solve anything. Remember, there is nothing besides five aggregates. Everything in that list belongs to the aggregate of mental formations, they arise due to causes and conditions. So your awareness and reflection also arise due to causes and conditions.

Looking for someone with:

• a reasonably old reddit account (2y+)

• experience modding subreddits

• available every or most days to check the queue.

The sub is small, so not a big time commitment. 1-2 actions a day.

Caring about the topic and a significant history commenting or posting may accord preference.

Im so sick of the consistent non-answer avoidant defensive dismissive shifting goalposts accusatory behaviors of religious people. I made this post in r/theravada and only got like 2 kinda answers and a bunch of non-answers where they then disrespect me for asking a simple question without any intentions of disrespect.

Please tell me, am i delusional, am i being disrespectful, or is this seriously to be expected of the vast majority of any religious practitioners?

Is there a realistic practice or method which doesn't require extreme dedication for revealing devas or rebirth or kamma or hungry ghosts or anything else supernatural? : r/theravada

That’s a really common question when people first get into Buddhism: “Isn’t the desire for nirvana still a desire?” And it’s a fair point. To do anything at all, you need some kind of motivation, some kind of wanting. Even things we consider good, like helping others, clearly involve desire, just described differently (like compassion).

The Buddha doesn’t deny this. What you actually see in the Pali Canon is different words being used in different contexts. For example, taṇhā (craving) is consistently treated as something that leads to suffering, while chanda (intention, desire to act) is sometimes treated as something neutral or even necessary for practice.
So there are two ways of interpreting the Second Noble Truth. Either we should get rid of all desire, but that doesn’t really make sense because you wouldn’t be able to act at all, or we should get rid of the kind of desire that leads to suffering.

Let’s get precise with definitions.

Desire = any kind of wanting.

Craving = the kind of wanting that leads to suffering.

So all craving is desire, but not all desire is craving. How do we tell the difference? To answer that, it helps to look at two connected doctrines: Dependent Origination and the Five Aggregates.

Dependent origination explains how suffering unfolds. The 12 links are listed in the Pali Canon, but they’re not explained there, so different interpretations outside of Pali canon exist. There are even some inconsistencies and contradictions scholars point out, but the overall idea of dependent origination is clear enough.

You come into contact with something, that produces a feeling, and then craving arises in response to that feeling. That’s where suffering starts. A more boring way to say it: you can’t control what happens, but you can influence how you relate to it.

The important part is what comes after craving in the 12 links of dependent origination: grasping.

Grasping means trying to hold onto something, like grabbing it with your hand and not letting go. In the chain, craving leads to grasping, which means that craving isn’t just wanting, it’s wanting plus clinging. So to answer the question above, how we should differentiate between normal desire and craving:

Normal desire doesn’t involve grasping.

Craving involves grasping.

Why is grasping bad? That's where we come to the doctrine of five aggregates.

Buddhism says things are impermanent, so grasping onto them leads to disappointment when they inevitably change. That’s obvious, but it’s also kind of shallow. It goes deeper than that.

Buddhism analyzes reality in terms of the Five Aggregates: form (body), feelings, perceptions, mental formations (volitions), and consciousness. All five are impermanent and have no fixed essence. They arise together and pass away together.

A person, in this framework, is not a stable entity but a chain of events (aggregates) connected through cause and effect. What we call a “person” is just a label for this ongoing process.

The important point is that there is nothing beyond these aggregates. There is no soul, no fixed core, no separate observer. There isn’t a controller that stands outside and experiences them. There are only the aggregates, conditioning each other moment by moment.

So when we say “person,” we’re just naming a pattern. In reality, there isn’t a separate entity there, just processes interacting.

Another important point is control. You don’t actually control these aggregates. You’re not identical to them, but you’re also not separate from them in the sense of being able to direct them freely. You can’t decide to become conscious while you’re asleep. You don’t choose which thought appears next. You can’t stop feelings from arising. You can’t prevent perception from recognizing objects. You can’t stop your body from aging. These processes unfold according to causes and conditions, whether you like it or not.

By extension, what we call physical objects can be understood in a similar way. An “object” is just a continuation of the form aggregate through time, conditioned by causes and effects. There isn’t really an independent “apple,” just a process we label as one.

Once you see that, the idea of grasping changes. You’re not just holding onto things that will change. You’re trying to hold onto processes that are not yours to control in the first place.

There’s an obvious objection here: we know the universe is made of atoms, not five aggregates. But that doesn’t really change the structure of the argument. You can describe reality in terms of atoms instead, and the conclusion is similar:

A person becomes a collection of atoms across time, connected by physical laws. There’s still no fixed essence, no controller, just interactions. What we call a “person” or an “object” is still a label applied to a process. So whether you describe reality in terms of aggregates or atoms, the key point holds: there are only changing processes. No fixed self, no stable objects, just patterns we name.

So even if, at a fundamental level, reality is made of atoms, we can still use the Five Aggregates as a practical framework.

Imagine holding sand in your hand. You can grasp it as tightly as you want, but it will still slip through your fingers. That’s just how it behaves. That sand is a good analogy for reality, whether you describe it as aggregates or atoms. It’s a process, not something stable you can hold onto.

If you expect the sand to stay in your hand, you’ll be disappointed. When a child cries because their sandcastle is destroyed, it looks naive. But that’s exactly what we’re doing with everything else: health, relationships, achievements. We build our own sandcastles and expect them to hold.

Grasping is basically trying to treat these processes as if they were stable and under your control. It’s the assumption that “this is mine,” “I can keep this,” or “this will last.” But that’s not how reality works. You can’t hold sand in your hand, and you can’t make your happiness depend on things that behave like sand. If you do, disappointment is guaranteed.

Going back to craving vs normal desire:

You can have preferences. You can enjoy a hobby. You can work a job. All of that is fine. The problem starts when you shift from engaging with something to depending on it. So desire only becomes a problem when there is grasping behind it.

You can build LEGO as a hobby. That’s normal desire. You sit down, you enjoy the process, you like seeing something come together. If you stop, nothing really collapses internally. It was just something you chose to do. But the moment you need it in order to feel okay, the whole dynamic changes. Now it’s not just “I enjoy building LEGO.” It becomes “I need this to relax,” “I need this to feel in control,” or even “this is part of who I am.”. You're grasping onto your hobby.

From the perspective of the Five Aggregates, what’s happening is that you’re trying to stabilize something that is inherently unstable. Your enjoyment, your mood, your sense of identity, all of these are just changing processes. But instead of letting them change, you’re trying to anchor them, which is impossible, as we've seen above. Ultimately, you're grasping not onto the process of building LEGO, but to the aggregates that arise while you're doing it: good feeling aggregate, mental volitions (thoughts, idea of self), etc. You want to prolong those aggregates, you want to control them. And we've seen why grasping onto aggregates is a bad idea.

Normal desire says: “I like this. I’ll do it while it’s there.”

Craving says: “I need this. Without it, something is wrong.”

Is there a definitive end to enlightenment? Does the process of awakening conclude once one reaches Nirvana, or is it an ongoing deepening?

I won't give specific examples because I want to avoid debates and speculation about names, but for instance, some enlightened people seem to be at a different stage than others. If someone isn't a fraud, are they expected to be as enlightened as the Buddha? Some spiritual teachers also claim that this process is infinite. I'm confused. Toughts?

Disclaimer: I originally posted this on r/buddhism. Since the topic is related to "Secular Buddhism," I am reposting it here specifically for those who might not be interested in r/buddhism due to the more or less dogmatic attitude expressed there. Because I have also been accused of using AI to generate this, the answer is a clear no; it took me several hours to conduct the research, find the right sources, and finally conceptualize it. If you are already familiar with the topic, feel free to skip it; if not, enjoy the thread.

Hello from Wiesbaden, Germany

“Pragmatic Dharma”

This is something I came across several times, and I have to admit, I was blissfully ignorant of what it is about. To make my motivation clear from the start: this thread is not meant to dismiss or diminish this or any other attempt. Rather, it is to clearly show why it is at best problematic and in the worst case, dangerous.

If I ever had to describe my own approach to Buddhism, it would also be as "pragmatic"; however, it is as rigorous as possible:

Serious study of the different Canons, especially the Abhidhamma.
Meditation grounded in the Visuddhimagga (Vimuttimagga).
Application in real life—not "McMindfulness," but asking: do my deeds represent Dhamma?

Because it is not grounded in any single tradition/lineage, my approach could be called syncretic and eclectic. Furthermore, it requires a solid understanding of Physiology and Neurophenomenology (Varela / Thompson / Metzinger).

In contradiction to this, “Pragmatic Dharma” is more or less based on:

Ingram, D. M. (2018). Mastering the core teachings of the Buddha: An unusually hardcore dharma book (Revised and expanded ed.). Aeon Books.
→ https://www.integrateddaniel.info/book/
(If curious, this book and several other materials are free for download. I honestly appreciate the generosity.)

Education: He received his MD from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1994.
Specialty: He was a board-certified Emergency Medicine physician.
Status: He practiced for many years but is currently retired from clinical medicine to focus on his research and the EPRC (Emergent Phenomenology Research Consortium).

His main publications, from the perspective of academia, are the following papers:

Lomas, T., & Ingram, D. M. (2023). "Exploring the Varieties of Meditation-Related Experiences." This is his attempt to enter the "Varieties of Contemplative Experience" (VCE) world pioneered by Willoughby Britton.

Ingram, D. M., et al. (2022). "The Emergent Phenomenology Research Consortium: A new model for interdisciplinary research on spiritual emergence and emergency."

The "Strength"

His MD gives him a veneer of "scientific authority" and "clinical sobriety." He frames himself not as a mystical guru, but as a hard-nosed scientist/doctor who happened to "accidentally" get enlightened.

Ingram as “Steelman”:

→ The Physician's Perspective: He isn't claiming magic; he claims a predictable neurobiological result of specific sensory training. He argues that he is a "sensory technician."

→ The Transparency: Unlike many gurus, he is brutally honest about his own life (divorces, frustrations, health issues). He claims Arhatship doesn't make you a perfect human; it just changes the "perceptual baseline." This is his defense against the "Arhats must be saints" argument.

→ The Data Advocacy: He is one of the few voices in the meditation world advocating for better tracking of meditation-related injuries, which aligns with concerns regarding physiological reality.

Critique:

Anālayo, B. (2020). "Meditation Maps, Attainment Claims, and the Adversities of Mindfulness." Mindfulness, 11, 2102–2112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01389-4

→ Fabrication of Experience: Anālayo argues that Ingram’s specific method (high-speed "noting") doesn't reveal reality; it constructs a specific type of experience. He suggests Ingram has essentially "trained his brain" to produce the very "vibrations" and "cessations" he then claims as proof of enlightenment.

→ The "Dark Night" as a Methodological Error: Anālayo suggests that the terrifying "Dark Night" symptoms are not universal stages of human insight (as Ingram claims), but rather a side effect of Ingram's aggressive, penetrative technique. In other words, the "Dark Night" isn't a stage of growth; it's a sign you're doing it wrong.

→ The "Old Switcheroo": Anālayo points out that Ingram redefined "Arhat" to fit his own experience, then claimed he attained it. He argues that Ingram’s description of his internal state contradicts the early Buddhist texts (EBTs) so fundamentally that the term "Arhat" no longer means anything in Ingram's mouth.

→ Clinical Irresponsibility: He explicitly warns that promoting these "maps" can lead to "adversities"—meditation-induced crises that are then misdiagnosed by the "Pragmatic" community as "progress."

The rebuttal to this can be found in the podcast:

Guru Viking – Ep73: Dangerous and Delusional? - Daniel Ingram
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbJiy6EJLsI

My criticism is from Neurophenomenology and is built on Metzinger:

Metzinger, T. (2003). Being no one: The self-model theory of subjectivity. MIT Press.

Metzinger, T. (2024). The elephant and the blind: The experience of pure consciousness and the concept of the self. MIT Press. https://thomasmetzinger.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Metzinger_MIT_Press_2024-1.pdf

Category Error:

→ Being a doctor does not make one a Neuro-Philosopher.
→ Describing a "Cessation" (a gap in consciousness) is not the same as explaining the Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC).
→ Ingram’s "data" is entirely hetero-phenomenological (based on reports), but he treats it as auto-phenomenological truth. So-called “anecdotal evidence” is like “cool story bro”; it should not be misunderstood as anything but anecdotal, which, under scrutiny, is hardly ever evidence.

Before I am criticized for misrepresenting the Ingram approach and his circle, I am very aware of the differences, and I am by no means trying to straw man him. However, in circles like the “Dharma Overground Forum” and its successors, Ingram’s ideas are being taken literally as shortcuts and bypassing "hacks" toward enlightenment.

“Folk Psychology” & “Lifehacks” have their eligibility as long as they are not handled like dogma. The main issue here is that if problematic mental or physiological states are seen only through the lenses of a checkbox list or the "next hack," it can lead to severe states, which are well documented:

The "Varieties of Contemplative Experience" (VCE) Study:

Lindahl, J. R., et al. (2017). "The varieties of contemplative experience: A mixed-methods study of meditation-related challenges in Western Buddhists." PLoS ONE.

→ The Gist: This is the foundational paper for modern "meditation harm" research. Britton and Lindahl mapped 59 categories of "challenging" experiences.

→ The Punchline: It proves that things like depersonalization, loss of agency, and executive dysfunction are not rare "glitches" but documented features of intensive practice. The crowd is playing with fire.

The "Meditation-Induced Psychosis" Review:

Lambert, D., et al. (2021). "Adverse effects of meditation: A review of observational, experimental and case studies." Mindfulness.

→ The Gist: This review focuses on the "non-clinical" crowd and catalogs hallucinations, delusions, and derealization triggered by meditation.

→ The Punchline: It highlights that the "valence" of an experience (whether you think it's "Stream Entry" or "Psychosis") often depends entirely on the social script you are following. The map itself may be inducing the pathology.

So, as for me, I find the Ingram material palatable only with a solid spoonful of skeptical scrutiny. Since “Pragmatic Dharma” seems to be larger than I imagined, what are your thoughts on it, regardless of whether you are pro or con?

a fighter (an AI image)

Fighters become fighters because, early in their lives, someone bullied or harassed them for a prolonged period, often in their school classrooms. This mistreatment is not random; it occurs due to past-life karmas. They harmed living beings in previous lives, and now they face suffering from other people or by other means as a result.

To fight an opponent and strike them until blood flows requires a mind consumed by hatred. Without intense hatred, one cannot harm another living being. According to Dharma, as taught by the supreme Omniscient Buddha, sinful karma arises when the mind is associated by one of the three evil natures: craving, hatred, or ignorance. These thoughts generate sinful karmas, and fighters accumulate them. After death, they are reborn in one of the four hell realms types.

In training and fighting, their mindset is filled with hatred: “I will learn this skill to destroy my opponents. I will break their arms, punch their faces, and strike them until blood comes out. I will win by crushing my opponent.” These thoughts are hateful, and the supreme Omniscient Buddha explicitly warned against them, as they create sinful karmas that lead to rebirth in hells.

Examples of fighters with incurable sicknesses:

Furthermore, those who participate in fighting competitions and defeat their opponents often suffer from incurable illnesses, such as cancers and other diseases with no clear cause. Examples of this karmic result include:

• Ronda Rousey (famous female MMA fighter), who publicly stated, “I break people’s arms. Since I was a little girl, I have been trained to break arms.”
• Muhammad Ali (famous boxer)
• Mike Tyson (famous boxer)

Not only fighters but also those who organize fighting tournaments and competitions suffer the same fate. A clear example is Dana White, a prominent fighting competition organizer, who has faced severe incurable health issues.

These sinful individuals, after their short human lives, are reborn in hells to endure the weight of their accumulated sinful karmas. After an extremely long time, when they are released from hells, they may be reborn as humans. But even then, they will be unfortunate, plagued by incurable illnesses and constant suffering.

Long life, good health, beauty, strength, wealth, high birth, and wisdom are results of good karmas. Short life, poor health, ugliness, weakness, poverty, low birth, and stupidity are results of sinful karmas. When discussing karma, one must understand that its effects do not end in a single life or even in several lives. If a karma is powerful, its consequences may manifest over thousands of lifetimes, or even more.

What the Buddha taught about this:

The supreme omniscient Buddha explains in the Cula‑Kammavibhanga Sutta these things:

“Student, beings are owners of their karmas, heirs of their karmas; karmas are their progenitor, karmas their kin, karmas their refuge. It is karmas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority.”

“Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings — murderous, bloody‑handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such karmas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he is reborn in the human state, he is short‑lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to short life: namely, to be a killer of living beings — murderous, bloody‑handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings.”

“But here some woman or man, having abandoned the killing of living beings, abstains from killing, lays aside the rod and the knife, is considerate and merciful, and dwells compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Due to having performed and completed such karmas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of reappearing in a happy destination, in the heavenly world, he is reborn in the human state, he is long‑lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to long life: namely, to have abandoned the killing of living beings, to abstain from killing, to lay aside the rod and the knife, to be considerate and merciful, and to dwell compassionate for the welfare of all living beings.”

“Here, student, some woman or man is one who harms beings with his hands, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Due to having performed and completed such karmas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If instead he is reborn in the human state, he is sickly wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to sickness: namely, to be one who harms living beings with one’s hands, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.”

“But here some woman or man is not one who harms beings with his hands, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Due to having performed and completed such karmas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. If instead he is reborn in the human state, he is healthy wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to health: namely, not to be one who harms living beings with his hands, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.”

Also, the supreme omniscient Buddha explains in his Yodhajiva Sutta like this:

“A professional military fighter came to the Buddha and said, ‘Lord, I have heard from my teachers and other fighters that when a fighter goes to battle and is killed on the battlefield, that dead fighter is reborn in a heavenly world. What does the Buddha say about this?’ The Buddha replied, ‘Enough, fighter; do not ask me this question.’ But the fighter asked the question three times, and then the Buddha said:

‘When a military fighter strives and struggles in battle, his mind is already low, degraded, and misdirected as he thinks, “May these sentient beings be killed, slaughtered, slain, destroyed, or annihilated!” His foes kill him and finish him off, and when his body breaks up, after death he is reborn in the hell called “The Fallen.” If you hold the view that “Suppose a military fighter, while striving and struggling in battle, is killed and finished off by his foes; when his body breaks up, after death he is reborn in the company of the gods of the fallen,” that is a wrong view. An individual with wrong view is reborn in one of two places, I say: hell or the animal realm.’

When the Buddha replied thus, the fighter (soldier) wept, very sad. Seeing that he was saddened by the Buddha’s truthful words, the Buddha said further, ‘That is why I told you not to ask me that question.’”

Three past lives of the Buddha himself:

Also, the supreme omniscient Buddha explains in his Pubbakammapilotika Sutta like this:

“Monks, in one of my past lives I was a clever wrestler. One day, when I was wrestling an opponent, I caused him great pain. Because of this sinful karma I committed in that life, today I have an incurable back pain.”

“Monks, in one of my past lives I was a king who ruled a kingdom. One day I killed a man with a weapon. Due to that sinful karma, after death I was born in a hell realm and suffered extreme pain for a very, very long time. Furthermore, because of that same karma, in this present life my leg was bruised.”

“Monks, in one of my past lives I was a boy in a fishing village, and I saw fishermen kill many fish; seeing that, I became happy. Because of that sinful karma I committed in that life, today in this present life I have an incurable headache.”

How Modern Farming Practices Fuel Farmer Suicides:

Another group who often die young are modern farmers who use poisons to kill the animals and insects that destroy their crops and harvests. When farmers apply insecticides with the intention of killing, those actions create sinful karmas. Farmers who perform such work frequently face shortened lives. The insects killed on farms are beings who were once men and women the former farmers (those who did this same living beings killing thing) in past lives who, after passing through hell realms, returned as insects.

Many farmer deaths occur by suicide or similar causes rather than by a natural, peaceful death. Modern farmers face a significantly higher risk of suicide compared with the general population. Scientific studies have found that farmers are among the occupational groups most likely to die by suicide.

Examples and findings:

• India: In 2022, 11,290 persons involved in the farming sector died by suicide; in 2020, over 10,000 agricultural workers ended their own lives.
• Australia: Research reports suicide rates among farmers up to 94% higher than non-farmers; on average one farmer dies by suicide about every 10 days.
• United Kingdom: About one farmer a week dies by suicide.
• France: About one farmer every two days dies by suicide.
• Scotland and Northern Ireland: Studies show elevated rates among farmers.

Rural farmers are the backbone of many nations. For example, United States of America agriculture produces roughly $389 billion in products. Yet farmers in many countries do not experience long, peaceful lives. Farmer suicides are a global crisis, reported in countries including the United States, China, Pakistan, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Guyana, South Africa, Germany, Austria, Suriname, Sri Lanka, Japan, and Ireland.

Real-life examples of fighters who died young:

The life of a fighter in the human plane is very short. Those merciless fighters came to the human plane from hell worlds, and after their death they return again to hells. Here are some examples; none of the fighters listed below had a normal, peaceful death:

• Canaan Bower (wrestling champion died at age 18)
• Victoria Lee (female MMA fighter died at age 18)
• Chris Von Erich (wrestler died at age 21)
• Jeanette Zacarias Zapata (female fighter died at age 18)
• Alfredo Castro Herrera (MMA fighter died at age 15)
• Janet Wolfe (female wrestler died at age 18)
• Bruce Lee (world famous fighter died at age 32)
• Kira Rubel Cababa (female fighter died at age 17)
• Guma Epfane Vasconcelos (BJJ fighter died at age 29)
• Hana Kimura (female wrestler died at age 22)
• Emiko Kado (female wrestler died at age 23)
• Yang Jian Bing (MMA fighter died at age 21)
• Leandro Pereira do Nascimento Lo (BJJ 8 times champion fighter died at age 33)
• Jessica Lindsay (female fighter died at age 18)
• Asahi (female wrestler died at age 21)
• Nancy Elizabeth Benoit (female wrestler died at age 43)
• Katy Collins (female MMA fighter died at age 32)
• Erich Kulas (wrestler died at age 22)
• Georgia O’Connor (female fighter died at age 25)
• Rocksan Biggerstaff BellaDonna (female wrestler died at age 39)
• Christian Lubenga (MMA fighter died at age 25)
• Daniel Michael Quirk (wrestler died at age 22)
• Édouard Beaupré (8 feet tall wrestler died at age 23)
• Ramin Zeynalov (MMA fighter died at age 27)
• Dom Travis (wrestler died at age 31)
• Saeideh Aletaha (female fighter died at age 26)
• Dominika “Mina” Elischerova (female fighter died at age 23)
• Marie Dina DeStefano (female wrestler died at age 42)
• Christopher Jonathan Bauman Jr (wrestler died at age 23)
• Jesús Javier Hernández Silva (wrestler died at age 21)
• Jordan Parsons (MMA fighter died at age 25)
• Diego Braga (BJJ fighter died at age 44)
• Justin Levens (fighter died at age 28)
• Mike Von Erich (wrestler died at age 23)
• Daniel Moody (wrestler died at age 39)
• Mike Mittelmeier (MMA fighter died at age 20)
• Dustin Jenson (MMA fighter died at age 26)
• Josh Samman (MMA fighter died at age 28)
• Rey Celestial (wrestler died at age 22)
• Bruno Inácio Nunes (BJJ fighter died at age 37)
• Ryan Jimmo (MMA fighter died at age 34)
• Blas Avena (MMA fighter died at age 32)
• Steven Nicolas Romero (wrestler died at age 30)
• Matt Travis (wrestler died at age 25)
• Chyna Joan Marie Laurer (female wrestler died at age 46)
• Justin Eilers (MMA fighter died at age 30)
• Shane Shamrock (wrestler died at age 23)
• Ashley Nichols (female MMA fighter died at age 37)
• María Jesús Rosa (female fighter died at age 44)
• David Von Erich (wrestler died at age 25)
• Jake Sendler (MMA fighter died at age 21)
• Sam Vasquez (MMA fighter died at age 35)
• Becky Zerlentes (female fighter died at age 34)
• Freeda Foreman (female fighter died at age 42)
• Rondel Clark (MMA fighter died at age 26)
• Tyrone Mims (MMA fighter died at age 30)
• Jimmie Lee Banks (wrestler died at age 26)
• Kurtis Chapman (wrestler died at age 26)
• Joseph Carl Bailey Jr (wrestler died at age 27)
• Bertha Faye (female wrestler died at age 40)
• Masakazu Fukuda (wrestler died at age 27)
• Vince Steele (wrestler died at age 39)
• Reid Flair (wrestler died at age 25)
• Shannon Claire Spruill (female wrestler died at age 46)
• Jeff Peterson (wrestler died at age 21)
• Shane del Rosario (MMA fighter died at age 30)
• Booto Guylain (MMA fighter died at age 29)
• Gino Hernandez (wrestler died at age 29)
• Thomas Russell Haas (wrestler died at age 27)
• Louie Spicolli (wrestler died at age 27)
• Bobby Shane (wrestler died at age 29)
• Elizabeth Ann Hulette (female wrestler died at age 42)
• Christopher J. Taylor (wrestler died at age 29)
• Trent Acid (wrestler died at age 29)
• Art Barr (wrestler died at age 28)
• Lance Cade (wrestler died at age 29)
• Clarence Whistler (wrestler died at age 29)
• Becky Zerlentes (female fighter died at age 34)
• Aya Koyama (female MMA fighter died at age 45)
• Takayuki Okada (MMA fighter died at age 30)
• Ricky Lawless (wrestler died at age 28)
• Zubair Jhara Pehalwan (wrestler died at age 30)
• Pierre Lefebvre (wrestler died at age 30)
• Richard Emmett McGraw Jr (wrestler died at age 30)
• Johnny Perry (wrestler died at age 30)
• Larry Sweeney (wrestler died at age 30)
• Plum Mariko (female wrestler died at age 29)
• Sara Lee (female wrestler died at age 30)
• Chiemi Kitagami (female wrestler died at age 22)
• Ray Lin Byron (female wrestler died at age 36)
• Mateus Fernandes (MMA fighter died at age 22)
• Maiquel Falcão (fighter died at age 40)
• Justin Levens (MMA fighter died at age 28)
• Ashley Marie Massaro (female wrestler died at age 39)
• Marianna Komlos (female wrestler died at age 34)
• Douglas Dedge (MMA fighter died at age 31)
• João Carvalho (MMA fighter died at age 28)
• Michael Kirkham (MMA fighter died at age 30)
• Jeremy Williams (MMA fighter died at age 27)
• Ryan Gracie (MMA fighter died at age 33)

Scientist have already done research on Karma and have discovered it is accurate, real and true. Read this book titled "Scientific Evidence for Reincarnation, NDEs, and Karma with Personal Stories" a publication of Open Research Consortium that has information about Karma scientific research by scientists & what they discovered that is available for free on Bing, Yahoo, Duck Duck Go, Yandex, Brave and Google.

So an update on my previous post, I had such a wonderful and wholesome time during my service, and gave me more assurance that this is the right path for me. The temple museum itself was beautiful, surrounded by elaborate statues of the Sakyamuni Buddha and different figures of the bodhisattvas and Buddhas from different Pure Land realms.

We had a lecture of the Kalama Sutta, in which the presiding monk used science and facts based pointers to interpret the reading. Then during the short break, we had free snacks of chocolate porridge, and I was able to grab three books about the introduction to Buddhism, Ambidhamma psychology and The Infinite Life Sutra respectively.

Then we had an English language puja where we did chanting for an hour in the meditation room surrounded by beautiful handcrafted statues of bodhisattvas, before the monk talked about his experience accepting the inevitability of human mortality and how we can experience our final days more peacefully.

I plan to have a one-to-one councelling session with the monk to further my path to Buddhism. Regardless, I'm happy with my decision to try out communing with one of the Sangha and complete my initial refuge of the Three Jewels.

Hello. I'll be attending my first Buddhist temple service this Saturday, where there will be a sutra reading followed by an evening puja.

While I consider myself a follower of secular Buddhist philosophy rather than a religious devotee, I do have deep respect for traditional Buddhist beliefs, and I would like to try partaking in the sangha/community, learn from the monastics, practice communal meditation, and gain access to their education resources on Buddhist history, scripture and practices. The temple I'm going to seems to be welcoming and advertises themselves in focusing on compassion, education and humanitarianism.

I would like to know if anyone here attends/have attended a service, and what do I usually expect especially as a secularist entering the world of Buddhism.