In reading this answer to another question I came across this link which is seemingly a Tibetan Buddhist site proclaiming the following: > In Buddhism the two beings that are often confused with the Christian > concept of the devil, Yama and Mara, are also Bodhisattvas. Lord > Yama’s job is to make sure beings receive the appropriate karmic > retribution in the appropriate hell realm. Which strikes me as completely antithetical to Buddhism, the Dharma, the Bodhisattva way of life, and well in just about every sense wrong and even *dangerous* idea about how karma works. This is certainly never been taught to me in the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and I would be quite shocked if any of my teachers (in the lineage of His Holiness the Dalai Lama) accepted any of this. As a student of Tibetan Buddhism, but not specifically the Vajrayana I would like to know if there is any defense of this from the viewpoint of Vajrayana? Does anyone follow this way of thinking? Personally, I would file this under *don't believe everything you read purporting to be Buddha Dharma on the internet.* There are ignorant people out there making all kinds of bellicose claims and surrounding themselves in the iconography and material trappings of Tibetan Buddhist culture all the while being shockingly ignorant of Buddha Dharma. This seems to me to be one of them.

Wikipedia says this about Vajrayana Buddhism : "According to several Buddhist tantras as well as traditional Tibetan Buddhist sources, the tantras and the Vajrayana was taught by the Buddha Shakyamuni, but only to some individuals." What precisely is the claim here? What rationale is given for the Buddha reserving teachings for "only some individuals"?

Two questions that may have an overlapping answer: - How and why the Buddha would praise simple living, the simple life of monastics? In which sutta (or vinaya texts)? - Are there any sutta in the Pali canon where the Buddha explains the advantages of a simple life (a life without too many material comforts)?

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?

Buddhist ethics centrally upholds the precept against taking life, But in modern society there are many professions such as soldiers, military commanders, police officers, and judges whose duties may involve lethal force whether directly (combat, armed enforcement) or indirectly (authorizing executions, issuing orders with foreseeable deadly outcomes). From a Buddhist perspective, how should we understand the karmic implications for individuals in such roles? According to canonical or commentarial sources, how is killing performed under state mandate classified in terms of akusala-kamma? Is it treated identically to private intentional killing, or do texts differentiate between personal motive and institutional role? How does the primacy of cetanā (intention) apply when one participates in lethal actions not out of personal malice but as part of an institutional duty? Furthermore Is there doctrinal room for someone to maintain sincere Buddhist practice while performing duties like the above that may involve lethal force?

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.

In the teaching of dependent origination, ignorance is presented as the initial condition from which the entire cycle of birth, suffering, and death unfolds. This raises a subtle but profound question: why is ignorance placed at the very beginning of this chain? Does this imply an absolute beginning in time, or is it pointing to a structural relationship in how suffering arises? In exploring this question, it may also be worth considering whether ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge, or if it refers to a deeper mis-perception of reality that underlies all conditioned experience. Clarification on how early Buddhist texts and later traditions understand this foundational role of ignorance would be appreciated.

Given that using the internet and its services, such as social networks and brokers, involves signing contracts, terms of service, policies, and so on, is it possible to use them without breaking the fourth precept? Indeed, most contracts are assumed to have been read and understood before signing. However, reading and understanding what is read can take dozens of hours in each case and requires considerable intellectual effort, even legal knowledge. Furthermore, these contracts often contain clauses that are difficult to comply with or even logically impossible. With the proliferation of these contracts, it becomes almost unmanageable unless one is willing to dedicate an excessive amount of time to them. So, how can we use these services without breaking the fourth precept?

What would the Buddha teach about how to respond if a dog starts hanging around your meditation hut (or wherever), initially seems friendly, but later—without warning—gets into aggressive moods and bites you severely enough that you need stitches?

It seems that often what one has difficulty with in attempting to hold onto some thing is some other which competes. Can what is effortful in attention be seen as a non-clinging to that which we don't want to attend to? In other words can what is effortful in attention be thought of as an excess of attachment? As if we were something sticky; is what is effortful in rightful adhering (to what is attended to) to be a matter of nonattachment? edit: To put it in Buddhist language is the vāyāma of sati anupādāna.

Both Theravāda and Mahāyāna accept a core early Buddhist canon, yet each tradition also relies on additional bodies of literature Theravāda on the commentaries (Aṭṭhakathā, Ṭīkā, and post-canonical works such as the Visuddhimagga) and Mahāyāna on sūtras not preserved in Pāli and often considered “later” by modern scholarship. On what doctrinal or hermeneutical grounds does each tradition justify the authority of its later textual strata? Are there explicit criteria within each tradition for discerning which later works are authoritative, semi-authoritative, or merely scholastic? How do traditional scholars within each school respond to the charge that the later texts introduce ideas not present in the early Nikāyas/Āgamas?

My question is subtle. When we meditate we move our body because of some physical pain . My question is why its so painful to keep my mind on breath . Its not physical pain then what type of pain we face when we try to keep our mind on beath away from distraction.

Early Buddhist history shows a rapid diversification of viewpoints, lineages, and monastic communities, eventually producing schools such as Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Mahāsāṃghika, and many others. What historical, doctrinal, social, or organizational factors contributed to this early schism? To what extent were these divisions driven by philosophical disagreements, regional spread, monastic discipline (Vinaya) issues, or broader political and cultural influences in ancient India?

I came across a gallery of Stupas from around the world and it made me wonder why some of them differ in shape considerably. Do they express different aspects of Buddhism or is the source of difference rather cultural/historical? I am aware that in Tibetan Buddhism there are 9 types of Stupas and they have a rather uniform shape. What I am interested in is why the ones found in, for example, Sri Lanka or India, have a much different shape and style.

Across early Buddhist and later scholastic sources, sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa refers to the awakening of an arahant/Buddha during life, while the five aggregates continue to function. Parinirvāṇa (or nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa) designates the complete cessation of the aggregates at death. However they raise several questions - If the liberated mind is already free of defilements at sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa, what exactly “continues” until parinirvāṇa? Is it- - merely biological life-supporting karma? - non-karmic causal processes of the aggregates? - a conventional designation with no metaphysical content? - or something else depending on doctrinal school? Furthermore, 1. What specific causal theory does each major tradition (Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka) use to explain why the aggregates continue to arise after sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa? 2. If the arahant produces no new karma, what prevents the aggregates from ceasing immediately at awakening? 3. Do any schools argue that the distinction between sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa and parinirvāṇa is ultimately conventional rather than reflecting two ontologically distinct states?

Please give a clear simple example of how this looks in a practical way without quoting suttas. I just want a practical example. Thanks > The object of consciousness, or mind-object, that arises has to be of > ultimate reality, not conventional reality. We must be able to > differentiate between what is absolute reality, or paramattha dhamma > and what is conventional reality, or sammuti.

Vietnamese sentence: Như nói có linh hồn người chết, nói có Phật tánh, có thế giới siêu hình là nói dối, vì đó là cảnh giới tưởng, cảnh giới không có thật. AI version 1: For example, asserting the existence of souls after death, Buddha-nature, or supernatural realms is false speech because these belong to imaginary realms, which are not real. A.I version 2: For instance, asserting the existence of souls of the dead, Buddha-nature, or metaphysical worlds is lying, as these belong to the realm of imagination, an unreal realm. Thu: For example, saying there is the spirit of the deceased, saying there is Buddha-nature and a metaphysical world is false speech / lying, because there are realms of imagination, realms that do not truly exist. Loi: For example, saying that there are spirits of the deceased, that there is Buddha-nature, or that there are supernatural worlds is false speech, because these are imaginary realms that do not exist. Nhan: For example, saying that there are spirits of the deceased, that there is Buddha-nature, or that there are metaphysical worlds is false speech, as these are imaginary realms that do not truly exist. Lin Đa: For example, saying there are spirits of the deceased, saying there is Buddha-nature, saying there are metaphysical worlds is false speech, because these are imagined realms, realms that do not exist. As a native-English speaker, you read an English sentence and you can undertand the meaning of English sentence translated by Vietnamese people that helps you undersand the same Vietnamese text "Như nói có linh hồn người chết, nói có Phật tánh, có thế giới siêu hình là nói dối, vì đó là cảnh giới tưởng, cảnh giới không có thật"? I mean the structure, grammar and other things. You can get the Buddhism terminology and C2 and it will help you practice and understand Buddhism easily. Thank you very much for your reading.

Finding resources to better understand the meaning of the 12 links of dependent origination has been challenging for me. The best resource I've been able to find to decipher the meaning thus far is this dharma talk. 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination In it, the first 9 links are described in a fashion that makes sense and rings true but the last 3 are still fuzzy to me. 1: ignorance the choice to ignore that which is uncomfortable (i.e The biological purpose of "pain" is to provide the sensory motor brain with feedback that its predictive model of the world is incorrect. It contains a wrong view about the world which leads to unskillful movements in the world. This wrong view should be investigated and replaced with a more skillful view which makes more skillful movements in the world possible. e.g. You burn your hand on the stove. Within this context, the choice to IGNORE the discomfort, to cling to views, gives rise to suffering. Suffering is the persistent pressure by the sensory motor brain to pay attention to the feedback and correct the wrong view in its sensory-motor predictive model of the world.) ignorance is the condition for 2: unwise intention is the condition for 3: unwise attention is the condition for 4: unwise mobilization of body and mind is the condition for 5: the 6 sense bases directed to receive and interpret sensory input (perhaps unwisely) is the condition for 6: contact the sensory experience. which may be interpreted unwisely is the condition for 7: feeling tone (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) is the condition for 8: craving (to pull towards or push away) is the condition for 9: clinging is the condition for 10: becoming is the condition for 11: birth is the condition for 12: old age and death The speaker suggests that “birth and becoming” refer to the creation of an identity associated with suffering and that “old age and death” is a synonym for suffering. This is too fuzzy for my liking and I desire a clearer and more precise understanding. I *think* this means The wrong view that “happiness depends upon the satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience”, when clung to, gives BIRTH to an identity whose mission is to attain that sensory experience by BECOMING the identity required to attain it. So “birth and becoming” kind of make sense to me, though I am still somewhat uncertain if this is the meaning the Buddha intended. “Old age and death” however does not make sense to me. If this is just a synonym for suffering, why didn't the Buddha just say “suffering”. My impression is that he chose his words very carefully.

I have been a Vipassana meditator since 2001 and had a very strong practice and very good concentration. Last 2-3 years I started feeling a physical violation of space and then hearing voices. What interacts with me is some kind of demon or demons that have started harming with negative gross vibrations of all kinds and use very harmful language. They also harm physically and hurt around the spine and different organs of the body and the nervous system- to get your energy -some kind of energy vampires. They harm continuously and never stop. It is impossible to meditate or do anything else. They seem to know how to connect to human mind and body and somehow gain control the nervous system. I asked a lot of people for help including meditators even teachers but so far havnt found anyone who knows about this or wants to help. I don’t even know where to get the help. No drugs or medicines have helped so far, even tried to get some mantra tantra help. I have also read and listened to Ratana and Atanatiya sutta. Written to monasteries..I cannot give metta or practice Vipassana at all because I am constantly under attack. I am not delusional and these are not illusions. Really looking for some help or inputs that refer to any success stories through monks or healers or Vipassana teachers. Someone who really knows about this well.