I listened to the lotus sutra as an audiobook. There I heard that when one presses the palms together in respect for the lotus sutra, it means that one has paid already homage to myriads of Buddhas in the past. Does that mean if I do this I am eligible to become a Buddha?

I was wondering if the samadhi of Patanjali Yoga meant the same thing as the samadhi of Buddhism? A Buddhist friend told me that no, and that Buddhism had higher states after the nirvikalpa samadhi of yogis. But at the same time when I read the descriptions of the two they look similar to me and the samadhi of Buddhism is also the last stage of the Noble Eightfold Path.

As a Buddhist, I believe devotion to mothers is very important if we want to have a good life. Since I was child I followed my mother's instructions until I became an adult. This included getting married and having a child. Now that I'm an adult, I think I need to become more independent, and to make my own decisions, both for myself and my son. However, my mother is very upset and thinks I’m arrogant because I’m no longer follow her rules. Am I wrong if I create my own rules for my life? Am I a very bad daughter?

What are the 7 Purifications in laymans terms and how is this practiced in daily life?

From what I have seen observing Kagyu ceremonies, the 17th Karmapa (either of them, actually) is treated with great awe, respect and reverence. However in their daily rituals, Kagyu buddhists usually visualize the late 16th Karmapa. I assume this is the result of a certain prescription within Karma Kagyu but I was unable to find explanations of this on the Internet. So, why do Kagyu followers visualize the late instead of the current holders of the Karmapa office? Does this have to do with the status of the late living Buddha as opposed to the living living Buddha?

Whenever I want to meditate (down to Nirvana), it seems that the whole world wants to confront me to stop me. Does reality fight back when you want to meditate? Have other people encountered this? i assume you know how anxiety affects our focus, The world always seems to find a way to disrupt my focus.

There is still considerable amount of controversy regarding Lord Buddha's dating and the dating of incorporation of Zodiac signs of Mesha, Vrishaba etc into Indian and Asian culture. Their mentioning in ancient Buddhist scriptures may help in dating both the events. Are there any mentions of Aries, Taurus resembling Mesha and Vrishabha in ancient and classical Buddhist scriptures?

Many times I've heard of Budai (pictured below) being associated with Maitreya, the future Buddha. Why is this so and how widespread is this belief? Wikipedia lists a short verse uttered before Budai's death: >Maitreya, the true Maitreya has billions of incarnations. Often he is shown to people at the time; other times they do not recognize him. Is there more to this association or was the simple utterance of that verse so long ago the sole reason for believing that Budai was the bodhisatta?

What verse that has actually meaning and carries value is similar in both Buddhism and Christianity? This may be closed as to broad but I think it holds value to have a verse that crosses between such distinct and different religions.

I have been practicing seriously for a month now. I'm mindful a lot of the time but not 100% yet and whenever I'm not I start thinking about metaphysical questions or what could be after death or if it is nothing etc. How can I stop this? Or how to stop thinking about something in general when you don't want to? For some reason I can't be equanimous with metaphysical questions. They run through my head like there's no tomorrow and nothing more important than that. It's quite annoying. Would noting help?

A Hindu site by the name "Agniveer" has claimed that Buddha never rejected the Vedas. To substantiate their claim, they have quoted a few verses from the Sutta Nipata to show Buddha's respect for the Vedas: > In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that: > > Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati > Bhooripanjo. > > People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high > and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands > Dharma and does not waver. > > Sutta Nipat 503: > > Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema ……. > > One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative, > intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits. > > Sutta Nipat 1059: > > Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam…… > > One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic > Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly > things. > > Sutta Nipat 1060: > > Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja….. > > I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards > the world and becomes free from sins. > > Sutta Nipat 846: > > Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso…. > > One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by > hearsay and delusions. > > Sutta Nipat 458: > > Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi > > I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets > success. > > Now people who post these on internet say that Gautam Buddha didn't > opposed Vedas he opposed the evil practices done in name of Vedas like > animal sacrifice, caste system Now, personally I have found many of the site's claims and quotations unreliable. However, I would still like to verify these verses so could anybody tell me if these quotations are true or fabricated?

Buddha talks of becoming have a cause, is dependent on something other. Like Lamp's flame and light, shadow and real object, The sun and it's aura, object and mirage. The dependent origination generates the false 'I' which is nothing but the becoming. Then can one conclude the cessation of becoming is also carried out by reversal of dependent origination I.e Dependent Cessation? I think that's the way! Shadow can be ceased only when the real object is perceived, if not the shadow thinks it as real, even though it's unreal or non existing thing! Previously perceived snake was actually the rope, when the wisdom dawns upon. This shadow is false 'I', the illusion, the non-existant thing. But only when one sees it with eyes of wisdom! Can we say that? Some quotes of Saints have this testimony in common, √ Cure for Pain is in Pain!_ Rumi √ Samudayadhamma(origination) = nirodhadhamma(cessation)_ Buddha I believe the becoming and cessation are two opposite sides of the same coin! What do others have to say about this? Please don't bring here quotes of scriptures. Do we have here the seekers which can see with eyes of wisdom? I am asking them! Others please don't bother!

OK, religions just say: "be patient, trust god and never think revenge!" god takes your revenge or better you will see prize here or you will reach nirvana I mean big paradise prize in other world if you behave like jesus crist or prophet youself. I wonder if buddhism says the same things or something different? (please do not mention just trust karma or make yoga things here, cos I did not see any winner before in my life) I and my family are suffering about our bad life experiences that caused by some bad people. Moreover these are legal so we cant do anything other than enduring but that we did not deserve..

It seems that 'I' am between worlds. Sometimes the illusion is not there. Sometimes it seems that thoughts string together this sense of self. How can anatman be fully realised without this 'I' being recreated? The dictionary describes this as the self: a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action. How might this be true/untrue? How does the state of anatman begin to permanently remain without the magnetism of this self?

It often seems that ultimate reality is only available in the absence of thought, yet interactions, work and daily functioning requires thought. How does one curb thought when it is uncertain as to whether there is utility in the thought and that it is necessary to follow that thought to achieve something? Wouldn't this mean that ultimate reality can't be accomplished?

It is said that ultimate reality is only truly experienced at the point of the mind ceasing to identify and add its mental 'knowing' to any given phenomenon. How does one practically enter into the space of seeing something with the fresh curiosity of not entirely knowing what it is? I notice that it is very difficult to *see* anything at all. Immediately meaning is assigned as to what something or someone is - their behaviours, their familiarity, what might be expected - and then my reality seems dull. Is there a pragmatic practice that can guide me back to the authentic, unlabeled unknown?

There's a question regarding the Dhamma that I really wish to rectify and clear up with you and that's regarding the suicide cases of Channa, Vakkali and Godhika - When I first came across these cases, I was really disappointed and discouraged to practice the Dhamma because I saw Dhamma as the way to prevent people from committing such acts in the first place, but if by practicing the path of Dhamma and reaching Arahant stage and this is a possible blameless result, I became very disillusioned and anxious over the path, moreover hearing the cases of Bhikkhu Samahita and Bikkhu Nanavira also fuelled this, creating a fear that this may be a possible outcome of developing the path. My mental clarity and wellbeing plummeted since hearing these cases, since it raised a lot of doubts and confusions, esp because Dhamma used to be something that gave me hope and is foundational to me, but now there's a lingering sense of hopelessness if this is a possible result of the practice. When I ignore this topic I feel good again, but when it resurfaces again to my mind I feel quite hopeless and anxious again, I know there's so many people who have heard of these cases and who most certainly haven't responded to these cases adversely and in a negative way, so my question is, in light of such cases what is the best way that one should view/understand such cases so that one's own practice and wellbeing isn't affected and that one can continue to practice the path with security, hope, joy, contentment and composure, and walk the path correctly without falling into wrong-views? The ways I have tried to understand and view such cases is that they were cases of euthanasia and since they are highly debated as to whether those 3 monks were arahants before or after they committed suicide, I have realised it is better to instead focus on the 10 Great Disciples of the Buddha who embodied the Dhamma to a greater extent such as Arahant's Mahakassapa, Sariputta, Moggalana, Subhuti, Rahula etc, and hence are the best role-models for one walking the path, Sariputta in fact says "The Teacher has been served by me; the Awakened One’s bidding, done; 70 the heavy load, laid down; the guide to becoming, uprooted. And the goal for which I went forth from home life into homelessness I’ve reached: the end of all fetters. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time as a worker his wage. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time, mindful, alert." This quote is what has personally given me hope that those cases of Suicide are from non-Arahant monks - and thus I have learned to place my faith again by discarding these controversies, and listening to the Dhamma of every monk who have talked on this manner, who have all labelled it is as an akusal (unskilful deed) that must be removed from the mind. I feel like I've answered my own question in many respects, but I still would love to hear another Dhamma practitioner's perspective on this, so that I can reach a more holistic and objective understanding on how to move forward and best navigate myself through these knots & controversies in the Dhamma and not fall into wrong-views. Thank-you so much for taking the time to read this post, I really sincerely appreciate it.

Not having a quality, not seeing a quality in oneself, people get annoyed, even angry -- and use 1001 excuses to escape the first training. Now, one who is stingy and not even willing to master it, can such a person expect to be able to grow in Dhamma? Could he even understand teachings a little in right way, and open to the next step, i.e. right moral virtue? *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertaining binding here, but for an exit for debt)*

Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa. Even though it may at first hand appear to be a shallow subject and inquiry, I happen to find it of relevance to the practice and wondered about it. How prevalent was the Buddha's smiling ? As I was starting to read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "The Buddha Smiles ", it is stated : > The Pali Canon has a reputation for being humorless. And it’s easy to > see why. In some of its passages, the Buddha seems to regard humor in > a bad light. For instance, in the Wailing Discourse (AN 3:107) he > refers to “laughing excessively, showing one’s teeth,” as a form of > childishness, and counsels that a monk, when feeling joy in the > Dhamma, should simply smile. His instructions to Rāhula in MN 61 note > that one shouldn’t tell a deliberate lie, “even in jest.” A passage in > the Vinaya (Sk 51) tells of a monk, formerly an actor, who made a joke > about the Saṅgha. The Buddha, in response, made it an offense for a > monk to tell a joke not only about the Saṅgha, but also about the > Buddha or Dhamma. > > There is also the famous verse in the Dhp 146 that seems aimed at > squelching all forms of merriment: > > "What laughter, why joy, when constantly aflame? Enveloped in darkness, > don’t you look for a lamp?" > > **And then there’s the fact that the Buddha himself rarely smiles in the > Canon, and when he does, the reasons for his smile are never > hilarious.** (the emphasize in the quoted passages is a making of mine) Yet, I started to also read Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha taught" in which I can read the following : > The Buddha was never melancholy or gloomy. He was described by his > contemporaries as **‘ever-smiling’ (mihitapubbamgama)**. In Buddhist > painting and sculpture the Buddha is always represented with a > countenance happy, serene, contented and compassionate. There seems to be a divergence in the two quoted passages as to whether he was "ever-smiling" or only in rare occasions. In Bhante Vimalaramsi's teaching the act of smiling within one's practice is quite present yet I cannot recall from what I read in the suttas the mentioning of smiling. I'd appreciate learning more about it. (If such a question is indeed irrelevant please kindly let me know and I'll delete the question). With metta.

Sometimes some visual or auditory sense perception gives the taste of no-self. Like, the ego dissolves for a moment and you feel tremendous oneness with existence. For e.g. while looking at the sunset or the night sky, or listening to the rain. But such states don't last for long. So just want to understand what might be happening. I think what happens is that you perceive but there is no reification, but that is what I think. Is it possible to have perception without reification? And is this state the same as "***Yatha-bhuta-nana-dassana***"