What is the Buddhist view on crying? I don't remember hearing or reading about the Buddha ever crying. Is crying a consequence of "lack of understanding" of the ultimate reality?

so , a few days ago i have experienced weird phenomenon . you can call it something like supernatural phenomenon , etc. my Air Conditioner suddenly turned on without any action from me. as a Buddhist, i'm asking for answer to this occurrence. Thank you .

I'm attempting to bring the Mahasi Sayadaw method of *labeling*, off the meditation cushion, and into my everyday actions. But I'm encountering a few difficulties and contradictions hindering the practice. I've noticed that when I'm doing intricate or engrossing things, such as conversing, studying, working, or playing a musical instrument, it becomes *impossible* to be mindful, or have any awareness (or 3rd-party objectivity) of what I'm doing. If I tried to say "playing", or "lifting index finger" while playing a complicated piano piece, I would lose my place. Or if I'm deep in study or work, entirely engrossed in a subject, I have to discard mindfulness or any 3rd-party objectivity, and just do the work. If I were to say "reading", or "working out the author's thoughts on covalent bonding", I would lose the track, or be forced to come to a dead stop. Indeed, mindfulness seems to *oppose* mastery in action, and I have to discard it anytime an engrossing or intricate action is required. Then inevitably I have to wait until I'm done with the activity, then restore mindfulness when my body and mind can be more stilled. Mahasi suggests that actions should be done in a slow, deliberate way, as though one were physically limited. But I can't see how one could do something as engrossing as playing music, learning a language, or studying molecular biology in this way.

Does the middle way -- **between annihilationism and eternalism** -- apply to objects? Like a mountain, will it either exist forever or be destroyed, or is it too the middle way? > The expression “middle way” refers to the Buddhist understanding of > practical life, avoiding the extremes of self-denial and > self-indulgence, as well as the view of reality that avoids the > ***extreme positions of eternalism and annihilationism***. That is one way of reading the meaning of 'middle way'. Do objects -- supposing they exist -- we have consciousness of have substance, according to any Mahayana Buddhists? That seems to ask the same question, I'm not sure.

Science categorize physical world in to solid,liquid,gas and energy(thermal,kinetic,nuclear,radiation etc....) when it analyze, prove that nothing more than those three state of material and energy and science has already proven the interconnection of energy and matter(in nuclear technology). Also the three state of matter is conditioned by energy.E.g when you apply heat(energy) to ice (solid) it will convert into water(liquid) and further reach steam(gas). Once we consider four great elements patavi,apo,thejo,vayo; is it an equivalent of above scientific categorization?

How should a Buddhist respond to being bullied / bullying? Obviously there are many admonitions against bullying / related behavior in the suttas, but I'm looking for specific actions that should be taken in response to bullying. Some examples: - Being bullied at school by a stronger person. - Being harrassed at work by a coworker. - Being robbed / attacked in the street. - Dealing with racial/sexual/other forms of bigotry. - Dealing with neighborhood gang / police violence. - Dealing with colonialism / imperialism.

https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/80747 "POM1: Presume that other minds can be perceived. Then, they shall be like external forms and have no real existence. POM2: Presume that other minds can be perceived and still have real existence. This epistemic realism contradicts the idealist position held by the Yogācārins, insofar as there is one type of really-existed objects that can be directly given to one’s mind and this givenness is independent of one’s own mind. POM3: Presume that other minds cannot be perceived. Then, the doctrine of consciousness- only also becomes untenable, because there is one type of objects that falls outside of the scope of one’s experience." "Other minds are then perceived through the second-person perspective." **That is, when the Yogacarin communicates with other people, does he directly communicate with other minds? Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just imaginations created by his mind Thank you.**

I read this: > In Zen, it's generally understood that "When you meet the Buddha, kill > him" refers to "killing" a Buddha you perceive as separate from > yourself because such a Buddha is an illusion." Should we kill illusions of Buddha? I do wonder, in the time of Buddha, some people wanted to kill him — perhaps this too is a reason I ask, although that may have been for many reasons.

On researching Zen Buddhist literature I'm seeing a gap after Dogen's Shobogenzo in the 13th century, and before Hakuin's Commentary in the 17th century. Was there any notable Zen writing produced during this period? What was happening in Zen history during this time?

In Buddhism, bad Kamma begins with a bad intention. What can we say about animals, let's say a tiger or a lion that kills other living beings by instinct? They don't have the same understanding as we do as human beings and they simply cannot become vegetarians: so are they creating bad Kamma that might ripen in a next life? For instance, if I used to be a lion will I suffer bad Kamma consequences in this human life because I killed and ate living beings?

I asked this question in Philosophy and was advised to ask the question here on Buddhism as I may get better answers HERE. So I am pursuing Spirituality for quite some time now, I've had REALISATIONS but not the Proverbial Self-Realisation because questions remain. So was kinda wondering what is it EXACTLY that they realise. I've been told, you realise, "YOU ARE THE ONE" but it does nothing to me, no effect. So DEFINITELY IT'S NOT THE WORDS. What is it then?

Are beliefs in a permanent, unchanging soul / self considered detrimental to spiritual progress in Buddhism? If so, why? Please explain in detail.

I read the following on the internet: > Questions must be about Buddhism – any school of Buddhism – usually > about doctrine or about practice; or perhaps about history, culture or > art. What are the criteria of a 'school' of Buddhism? Is [Dhamma Dhatu](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/dhamma-dhatu) a school of Buddhism?

I read the following in the internet: > Right View and Right Aspiration, would be part of Sila, as Dr Rod > Bucknell 1984 and I have confirmed by comparative studies of > teachings. At least the Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa also appears to include the mind in its CHAPTER I Description of Virtue (Sila): > 25. (v) Now, here is the answer to the question, HOW MANY KINDS OF VIRTUE ARE THERE? > > .17. As virtue of Pátimokkha restraint, **of restraint of sense faculties**, of purification of livelihood, and that concerning requisites > > (a) The virtue described by the Blessed One thus: “Here a bhikkhu dwells restrained with the Pátimokkha restraint, possessed of the [proper] conduct and resort, and seeing fear in the slightest fault, he trains himself by undertaking the precepts of training, (Vibh 244)” is virtue of Pátimokkha restraint. (b) That described thus: “On seeing a visible object with the eye, he apprehends neither the signs nor the particulars through which, if he left the eye faculty unguarded, evil and unprofitable states of covetousness and grief might invade him; he enters upon the way of its restraint, he guards the eye faculty, undertakes the restraint of the eye faculty. On hearing a sound with the ear … On smelling an odour with the nose … On tasting a flavour with the tongue … On touching a tangible object with the body … On cognizing a mental object with the mind, he apprehends neither the signs nor the particulars through which, if he left the mind faculty unguarded, **evil and unprofitable states of covetousness and grief might invade him**; he enters upon the way of its restraint, he guards the mind faculty, undertakes the restraint of the mind faculty ([M I 180](https://suttacentral.net/mn27/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=main¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin#15.1)) , is virtue of restraint of the sense faculties. > > [Page 18](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf) However, when examining [M I 180 (MN 27)](https://suttacentral.net/mn27/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=main¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin#15.1) cited by Buddhaghosa, the impression is Buddhaghosa misread the text. In a sentence, [MN 27](https://suttacentral.net/mn27/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=main¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin#15.1) appears to summarize sila together with sense-restraint, although does not appear to say these practices are the same thing (i.e., types of sila), as follows: > They refrain from... mutilation, murder, abduction, banditry, plunder, > and violence. They’re content (santuṭṭho) with robes to look after the > body and almsfood to look after the belly. Wherever they go, they set > out taking only these things. When they have this entire spectrum of > noble **ethics** (ariyena **sīla**kkhandhena), they experience a blameless > happiness inside themselves. > > When they see a sight with their eyes, they don’t get caught up in the > features and details.... They act with situational awareness when > going out and coming back... > > When they have this entire spectrum of noble ethics (sīla), this noble > contentment (santuṭṭhiyā), this noble sense restraint > (indriyasaṁvarena) and this noble mindfulness and situational > awareness (satisampajaññena), they frequent a secluded lodging—a > wilderness, the root of a tree, a hill, a ravine, a mountain cave, a > charnel ground, a forest, the open air, a heap of straw. > > [MN 27](https://suttacentral.net/mn27/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=main¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin#15.1) Is thought included in 'sila' (ethics) anywhere in the Pali Suttas? Note: this question is explicitly about 'sila' and not about 'kamma'.

Does anyone have a commentary, source, YT video of teachings or any sort of explanation of the actual method for meditations of the four immesurables (Brahmavihara) Either Mahayana or Theravada. I don't mean sutta sources, but actual explanation of the method of meditation practice. I did search the questions but could not find an adequate explanation I am seeking. Feel free to close the question and provide source if one had been provided in questions before. Though again I am looking for actual explanation of method, not just concept or translations of suttas.

I have done S.N.Goenkas Vipassana and Anapana sati meditation. In both the cases my mind remains active and I have lot of thoughts while meditating. I learnt from Eckhart Tolle that the sensory perception can be portal to silent present moment awareness. In other words being aware of sensory perceptions can lead to meditative states of no-thought or no-mind. When I remain aware of sound, I am in the present moment as sound can only be heard in present moment. So, currently I am meditating on sounds that I hear. I am doing lot of progress as i am having less and less thoughts. Also, after some time i can hear a humming sound which is uncreated which I learnt on youtube is called Anahat Naad, but there is no such reference in Buddhist scriptures on Anahat Naad or any formal sound meditation instructions. I have two questions. Firstly, am I doing right meditation by being aware of the sounds. And secondly, is there any scriptural reference of meditating on sound. thanks.

You will often hear reference to the three poisons in Buddhism, What are they referring to exactly when they talk about the three poisons?

Why use a word thought by some to be offensive even if the meaning isn't meant to be offensive? There is no other word that can be used? Would using another word (or phrase) be compassionate towards those who might get offended by it's use even if the intent wasn't to offend or provoke? Is "Hinayana" so sacred, useful and descriptive that it must be used even when talking to an audience that likely has people in it who would be offended?

Is there a compelling reason, those that draw diagrams for visualization of pratityasamutpada (dependent origination), don't want to include anusaya/asava, obviously not to misrepresent Dhamma? Because from my search, only MN9 details these hidden layers of anusaya/asava as conditioning ignorance, vice-versa? > Ignorance originates from defilement. Ignorance ceases when defilement > ceases. The practice that leads to the cessation of ignorance is > simply this noble eightfold path …” > Defilement originates from ignorance. Defilement ceases when ignorance > ceases. The practice that leads to the cessation of defilement is > simply this noble eightfold path,

The hindrance of vicikitsa,vicikicchā(Pali) is related to 'doubt in Buddha'. What a vague phrasing, right?If you can, I am looking for the sutta where Buddha describes the difficulty of teaching to those of diverse backgrounds.