In MN 44 is found an explanation of the terms 'kaya, vaci & citta sankhara' (which are terms also found in Anapanasati steps 4, 7 & 8 and in the 2nd nidana of Dependent Origination). Bhikkhu Thanissaro's translation is: > *Now, lady, what are fabrications (sankhara)?* > >*These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications (kaya sankhara), verbal fabrications (vaci sankhara) & mental > fabrications (citta sankhara).* > >*But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal > fabrications? What are mental fabrications?* > >*In-&-out breaths are > bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal > fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications.* > >*But > why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought > & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & feelings > mental fabrications?* > >*In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things > tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily > fabrications.* > >***Having first directed one's thoughts and made an > evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed > thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications.*** > >*Perceptions & feelings > are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why > perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications.* The explanation about the 'vaci sankhara' (which is bolded) clearly states thought is the **cause** of speech. If this is true, how can thought be the "verbal fabrication" when it is obvious that: (a) speech is the verbal fabrication and (b) thought is that which fabricates (or causes) the speech? Similarly, in MN 10, contemplating the 'citta' means observing to see whether the citta ('the mind-heart') has greed or not, hatred or not, delusion or not, etc. Therefore, how can perception & feeling be the "mental (citta) fabrication" when many suttas state it is feelings & perceptions that are the **cause** of mental states of greed, hatred & delusion (as shown below)? > *If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes > it or remains fastened to it, then one's lust-obsession gets > obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, > & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's > hatred-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of > neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is > present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback or escape > from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. MN > 148* In the English language, the term "fabrication" refers to something that is 'fabricated' (such as a 'building'). Therefore, should not the translation here of 'sankhara' mean something that fabricates (such as a 'builder')?

The term "non-emptiness" appears in the literature. For example from Chi-tsang (madhyamaka): > When the sutras speak of "the emptiness of visible form" this refers to its emptiness and lack of a true substantive nature; therefore it is called empty. It does not mean that conventional visible reality is empty (nothingness?). Since the substantive nature is an empty nothingness, therefore it is called empty. This is the real truth. The non-emptiness of conventional reality is called the worldly truth. I just mean the opposite of emptiness. Is non-emptiness empty, and in what way?

I often wonder myself if the buddhist teachings says that realms are mental states, realities based on external conditions or a combination of the two. Why is that? For example: > "There's the case, headman, where a certain teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who take life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell. All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' A disciple has faith in that teacher, and the thought occurs to him, 'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: "All those who take life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell." There are living beings that I have killed. I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell. > >SN 42.8 If realms are realities as I supposed before, then can someone be reborn in hell or even as an animal because of the feeling of guilty, even irrational guilty, while acting correctly in his life? For example someone who dies in agony or anger because he lives with a demanding and abusive person and becomes regretful about it? Or someone who suffer prejudices about his/her color, culture, religion, sexual orientation or appearance, with threats and phrases like "You'll be reborn in hell because of this or that", if that person holds onto those views, that could be the case? I also remember seeing somewhere, not sure if here, Quora or Reddit, about a case of a monk that did something very little like killing a gnat or a plant and because of his exaggerated fear, was reborn as a cobra. What about the opposite, that is, a mass murderer like Hitler or Stalin that firmly clings to the view that he's doing the right thing and because of that believes that he deserves a good destination, will his beliefs and thoughts overcome his deeds? Or the case of catholic inquisition with their brutal torture methods and other assertive means, if they believe that they're doing "God's work", or simply a psychopath that doesn't care about what he/she have done. Here's another passage: >"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell." > >SN 56.102-113 As everything is "suññatā", what is heaven or hell varies depending on context, culture, eras, individual, but I believe most of us will agree that being born in a place like Afghanistan, for example, would probably feel like hell, when our most basic needs aren't satisfied, living in a constant feeling of fear, angry and misery and it's not just me saying that, as we can see in , and . Let alone cases like Nigeria: People With Mental Health Conditions Chained, Abused. And I really want to be wrong when I think about even the remote possibility of being born on those conditions by accident, wrong view or thoughts. It's not like you're destined to suffering or pain living in places like these or destined to happiness living in Finland, but external conditions and environment definitely have an impact on our well-being. All of that is because the buddhist doctrine is the most down to earth one, with irrefutable teachings like impermanence, non-self, dissatisfaction and emptiness, that can be realized through logic and rational thinking even similar to that used in calculus and thus equip us with a more reliable and verifiable knowledge than the stoic logos, the christian god or the hindu brahma. So Siddarta at his time probably had struggled with the same questions and found his way to deal with them while maintaining peace of mind, he must knows what he's talking about, although I believe that as time passes and cultures changes, only the three marks of existence and four noble truths remains as a useful logic teachings. I don't consider myself a buddhist but even with it's secular approach, the philosophy there is undoubtful useful to our lives. I know I've been focusing too much on the negative side of life and world there, but if I can find a way out of these thoughts by logical and verifiable arguments, rather than just belief, I think it'll be worth it. I don't expect an absolute answer to this like a guarantee of a method of achieving good rebirths every time but at least some guidelines so that I can return to the common sense that situations like those I mentioned are rare and most of us fall in the intermediary, mediocre life situation, like phenomena in nature generally follows the mathematical normal distribution and that most of us will have the basic means to lead our life to something with the minimal dignity if we can do the very basic. That being said, I'm sorry for any mistakes or errors while making a question, as English is not my mother language and this is my first time using this site. Thanks in advance.

The Nibbedhika Sutta: Penetrative (translated by Ven. Thanissaro) states the following: >"And what is the result of feeling? One who feels a feeling produces a corresponding state of existence, on the side of merit or demerit. This is called the result of feeling. What does this mean? If a feeling is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neither pleasant nor unpleasant, then isn't additional input required to determine merit or demerit?

One of my physics professors implied that Buddhism is false because, unlike the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism claims a cyclical cosmology. He argued that since the universe is expanding and its expansion is speeding up, the universe cannot be cyclical. I was under the impression that the idea of a cyclical universe was carried over from Hinduism into Buddhism implicitly and that the Buddha never made any claims regarding cosmology. Did the Buddha suggest a cyclical universe?

I've heard a meditation teacher mention that samatha is less likely to be done wrong while using a visual object. I've also read about how mindfulness meditation may sometimes lead to negative effects in the practitioner. What is the type of meditation that is least likely to cause such possible negative effects, or to be practised incorrectly? Am I right in thinking compassion meditation is more accessible and less likely to cause harm?

In Mahasi Sayadaw's meditation instructions, he says "you will find the abdomen rising when you breathe in, and falling when you breathe out. *The rising should be noted mentally as 'rising', and the falling as `falling'* " but in Practice Insight Meditation it says "*never verbally repeat the words, rising, falling, and do not think of rising and falling as words*". This seems to imply that we shouldn't label rising and falling at all, either out loud, or mentally. But when we note distraction we are instructed to give them a one-word label. So this seems to me to be suggesting that we know rising and falling with direct awareness only, but we label distractions. But, equally, how does one note 'rising' and 'falling' without using the word, at least mentally? So my question is. What should we label (if anything) rising, falling, and distractions? Or just distractions? Or maybe everything should just be noted with direct awareness?

In Majjhima Nikaya 63 , the Buddha says >So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. **And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'** ... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me. >**"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life.** They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me. What is the opinion of Buddhism on Cosmology, which tries to deal with these questions (highlighted in bold above) about the cosmos? Is pursuing cosmology discouraged in Buddhism? (Cosmology, in this question, refers to the branch of Science and not metaphysical speculations about the universe. It is understood that Buddhism discourages idle speculations about the universe. But what about the pursuit of the science of cosmology?).

A person I know has drawn the unwanted conclusion that the entanglement from the self is to be equated with erasing one's personality, feelings and connections in life. That to be extinguished in Nirvana means the complete loss of the contents and meaning of one's life and forever remaining in a state of unfeeling lethargy. I have not answered this person yet for I don't know how. It happens to most Westerners at some point. It's very hard to grasp Buddhist concepts. Could someone give me some advice on how to explain to that person what Buddhists mean by the extinction of the self?

What is moha (delusion)? What is avijja or avidya (ignorance)? What is the difference between moha (delusion) and avijja or avidya (ignorance)?

There is some information here at wikipedia I am curious to know if that came from Buddha himself or mentioned in any suttas. The 'sasana' concepts restricts appearence of solitary buddhas or Prateyakabuddhas or paccekabuddhas (as described in Isigili Sutta and Rhinocerous Sutta) without a Sangha. Any thoughts...

> The first level, the Realm of Formlessness (Arupaloka), consists of > four planes of brahmas who have no physical body, consisting entirely > of mind, but who may create a physical body if they want to be seen. > They are not completely free from the fetters of suffering (dukkha), > but the dukkha experienced here is much less intense than that > suffered in the Rupaloka. These brahmas are unable to hear the > teachings of the Buddha (dhamma) and they can never become > enlightened. Buddhist rebirth in different planes of existence Q1) What is the difference between Arupaloka and Nibbana except Nibbana has no incarnation, no dukkha and has Buddhism teaching ? Q2) Why brahmas unable to hear the teachings of the Buddha at Arupaloka? > These brahmas are unable to hear the teachings of the Buddha (dhamma)

Buddhism most basic perception is avoid killing. Assume the house is filled by termite and killing is unavoidable, assume house is too badly affected and without killing need the house to be left unoccupant for months and repair is very expensive. This is question is meant for normal lay Buddhist and not monk. How is Buddhism handle in this case ? There was a Mahayana Buddhist Scholar answered is to recite Mantra to the ants that been killed as much as possible n hope ants can incarnate to a better place.

In daily (secular) life, if you realize that you are being or have been losing (or forgetting) mindfulness of Bodhicitta and/or right view of Śūnyatā, what (most efficient practices) you will quickly do to recover/re-generate Bodhicitta and/or right view of Śūnyatā in you? 🙏 Thanks in advance for any possible answer and/or instruction for the question in this post you can and will give. 🙏 P.S. I am unsure having figure out a good title for this post so everyone is welcome to help.

Some Brahmins say Buddha endorsed caste system in kannakathala sutta

Dependent Origin or Pratītyasamutpāda is defined as > It states that all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other > dharmas And then there are these 12 causes one after another, each depending on the next one starting from Aging or decay, and death (Jarāmaraṇa) which depends on Birth, Rebirth (Jāti) and so on, which **finally ends in Ignorance, nescience (Avidyā).** But notice Avidya seems to be not depending on anything. But as a rule all dharmas should be dependent on another dharma. How is this contradiction reconciled? Source

Background: As the title suggests, I had an episode of psychosis this year. With medication and meditation I quickly recovered, and am basically back to normal. The doctors expect that I can eventually go off the medication if things continue as they have (very well so far). Apparently this can happen to some people, and a good percentage never have a return of any symptoms, it's just something that can happen to a person, from which they recover. Now for my question: I am particularly wishing to some day take ordination, and I am attracted to the thai forest tradition. Their website specifically says that if you have had psychosis in the past you cannot ordain or even go as a novice, since it would be a burden if your psychosis reappeared. I understand this, but where am I to go, then? Is there any school which sticks closely to the buddha's teachings, with a focus on meditation and the path of purification, where I can some day ordain? Or will I just have to live the rest of my life as a householder?

So , if someone defeats death and ends birth...actually achieves nirvana. What is that like pragmatically? Of course you have that old saying about carrying water and chopping wood but what is the actual experience of reality like for someone who has done this?

I've found a similar question; https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9687/are-theravada-monks-allowed-to-stay-in-lay-peoples-house However it was asked by a woman and nobody answered otherwise. What i wonder is if there are any restrictions on living in the same house as a male lay disciple and relying on the lay person for alms and requisites? Thank you.

While even most teacher today are ex-monks (someone who rejected the refuge and went back to the lower life), isn't it clear that such a person has own problems with his faith? How could one nevertheless rely on such people often "patiseit" the Gems? My person wonders if there is any reliable story of an ex-monk having become a , by the Buddha, by the Sanga and good people, praised Dhamma teacher. Can any reference in the history, beside of the modern degenerated, be found that one leaves the Buddhas religion (bond) by dis-jointing/robing, the Savaka Sangha, takes on "a wordily mission" and made even some merits while doing so? (Not that there are also those going back to lower life but still wearing the clothers of the Arahats. And there are those never weared the robe but lived the holly life a while who went back to lower life for "missions of gains in the world".) *[This question is not for trade, exchange, stackes or what ever bonds to the world given, but for cleansing and liberation, receiving and serving it]*