Anki , is by far the most popular "spaced repetition tool" to enable long term retention of learned material in 2021. It does so using a scheduling algorithm which prompts the user to recall a piece of information at the time of optimal "desirable difficulty." Example: YouTube: Guide to Anki Intervals and Learning Steps In this fashion, it enables large amounts of information to be memorized (e.g. Pali language, Buddhist lists, Suttas, etc) with the optimal return on investment of time and energy. One advantage to having this information committed to memory, as the monks of 2500 years ago did, is that it can be instantly recalled and used in reasoning. In this fashion, memorization creates the conditions whereby deeper insights into the truth of existence can be extracted more quickly. I have a strong intuition that this might be part of the reason why arahats were more common at the time of the Buddha than they seem to be today. For this reason, I strongly suspect that spaced repetition practice would be helpful for those intent on mastering the skill of nibbana. I know that many Buddhists use this tool and that many shared decks exist. However, I have not been able to find any listing of Anki decks for Buddhism thus far. Where are the most common places to find Pali/Buddhism Anki decks in 2021?

I've heard of Vastu shastra, but what kind of dwellings are conducive to Buddhist practice and living and why?

It seems a significant and overlooked contribution of the Buddha, his redefining of various terms of his day into definitions more conducive to the ending of greed, ill-will and delusion/ignorance. What are (all) these redefined terms (if not listed elsewhere)?

From Wikipedia's Sutta Pitaka's list of ten fetters : > The Pali canon's Sutta Pitaka identifies ten "fetters of **becoming**". > > 1. sakkāya-diṭṭhi > 2. vicikicchā > 3. sīlabbata-parāmāsa > 4. kāmacchando > 5. vyāpādo > 6. rūparāgo > 7. arūparāgo > 8. māna > 9. uddhacca > 10. **avijjā** My best *guess* is that "becoming", in this context, has the same meaning that it does in the context of pratītyasamutpāda . > 1. **avijjā** > 2. sankhara > 3. viññana > 4. nama-rupa > 5. salayatana > 6. phassa > 7. vedana > 8. tanha > 9. upadana > 10. **bhava** 11. jati > 12. jarāmaraṇa Notice that **avijjā** is both (1) the last of the 10 fetters and (2) the first of 12 links of the dependent origination of suffering, This suggests that cutting the last "fetter of becoming" results in the dependent condition which gives rise and sustains the entire cycle of suffering to cease. Therefore, an understanding of avijjā and bhava and their inter-relationship will be of interest to many. Gil Fronsdal describes the first 9 steps of dependent of origination (preceding "bhava/becoming") thusly > 1: avijja: ignorance; the choice to ignore / avoid discomfort > 2: sankhara: intention > 3: viññana: attention > 4: nama-rupa: mobilization of "body and mind" in the direction of the attention > 5: salayatana: mobilization of the "6 senses" in the direction of the attention > 6: phassa: contact > 7: vedana: feeling tone > 8: tanha: craving > 9: upadana: clinging Source: 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination Notice that the choice to ignore / avoid the source of the discomfort conditions / shapes / influences our choice of intention. Our choice of intention, in turn, conditions / shapes / influences our choice of attention. Our choice of attention, in turn, conditions / shapes / influences how we are compelled to move in the world including our choice to believe that happiness depends upon the satiation of THIS desire for the THIS sensory experience. Our choice of what we cling to (updana), in turn, conditions / shapes / influences becoming (bhava) by creating the conditions for the formation of an identity capable of attaining the craved sensory experience to which we are clinging. For example, the pain of the perception of rejection might compel the formation of an identity to prove to ourselves that we are worthy of attaining the object of our desire. So the **meaning of becoming (bhava)**, in this context, is something like > *moving/acting with the aim/intention > to create the conditions whereby > our clinging to a craved sensory experience > can be satiated.* With regard to the last 3 steps of dependent of origination, quoting the comments under this answer : > “When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is > no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be ... So long as > the choice to pursue the sense-desire via becoming and birth is > rewarded with acquisition, ignorance [AKA "avoidance"] is rewarded, clinging to “wrong > view” is rewarded and we remain trapped in the cycle of suffering. > > Only when the unskillful choice of ignorance [AKA "avoidance"] is not rewarded by > acquisition does the mind feel forced to search for an alternative way > to alleviate the suffering. Only then will it feel compelled to think > more deeply about its unskillful choice to ignore the discomfort which > is feedback to be investigated for insight. An insight the mind > desperately needs to find to break the cycle of suffering." Gil also suggests that jaramarana (aging & death) is short for "aging, death, sorrow, lamentation and despair". Source: 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination This suggests that even if we attain that which we were clinging to, new rejections will arise to fuel the fires of greed, hatred and delusion and hints and that the subjugation of conceit (mana) is not only necessary to end the cycle of suffering, it is in direct opposition to becoming (bhava) which seeks to strengthen the identity to attain the craved for sensory experience which is being clung to. **What is avijjā?** In this context and considering that **avijjā** is both (1) the last of the 10 fetters and (2) the first of 12 links of the dependent origination of suffering, understanding the meaning of avijjā is crucially important. Being consumed by "sorrow, lamentation and despair" is compelling us to "ignore/avoid" something important and it is THIS choice to ignore/avoid which sustains the entire cycle of suffering. Therefore, if the aim is to end suffering, understanding exactly what is being ignored/avoided is of some importance. **So what exactly are we choosing to ignore/avoid?** From neuroscience we know that ... The sensory-motor brain evolved because it enabled beings to respond to sensory experiences with moves that improved the probability of gene survival. It does so by constructing and continually refining a sensory-motor predictive model of the world to guide movement. It does this by "knowing and seeing". Whereby "knowing" is making moves in the world as if the model were 100% correct and "seeing" is verifying if the sensory experience predicted by the model is (1) correct or (2) a misprediction. In the event of a "misprediction", beings respond by ruminating to discover the error in the predictive model (insight), reformulating the predictive model to improve its predictive power. i.e. Greater understanding (panna) enables us to move through the world with greater equanimity (uppekha) because our predictive model is constantly improving to make better predictions. The problem is that mispredictions are accompanied with varying intensities of pain. The biological purpose of "pain" is to provide the sensory motor brain with strong feedback that its predictive model of the world is incorrect and to keep the attention focused on the sensory experience until the source of the error in the predictive model has been discovered and corrected. But the problem is, if the intensity of this pain (first arrow) exceeds our ability to hold it in spacious non-judgmental awareness and investigate it for insight, we will feel a compulsion to ignore it; to avoid investigating it; to leave the error in the predictive model unfixed; in favor of the pursuit of sense-desires. The entirety of the dharma is oriented towards correcting this single unskillful decision by training the mind to turn towards the suffering and to search for the insight which leads to the correction in the sensory-motor predictive model of the world. In this context, becoming (bhava) should be corrected. This would explain why it is one of the 4 āsavas: > 1: kāmāsava > 2: **bhavāsava** 3: diṭṭhāsava > 4: avijjāsava https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asava But this is only a strong intuition. I lack certainty in this meaning. If you possess insight that can contribute to a stronger understanding, please provide commentary.

There are the four noble truths and we know who and how he found and taught them. There are philosophical questions like where did the first Karma come from and so on, that are not quite conceivable to us beings. But out of curiosity I came upon another question and I don't know if there is an answer to it. Every being is born and feels pain and acts on it and more or less identifies with it at least in the way of "I am the one who feels pain". And by feeling, perceiving and thinking it learns the ways of the world and how to sustain itself until it dies. If this is the way the world is turning on and on how come there is a way to realize this and be free of it? If everybody is more or less caught up in it from birth how can one use this life to realize it is "fake"?

Been meditating for some years, been doing most anapana & also a bit of Goenka-vipassana. Have had certain experiences, samadhi states and jhana (although I'm still far from being able to stabilize and consistently maintain them). In recent years, certain things transpired in my life such that I began a daily mantra practice. I now practice the mantra but I wonder if theres a point to it if I can already attain to samadhi states via anapana. I've heard conflicting views regarding this; some say that mantra is just a way to concentrate the mind, and once you get samadhi you don't really need the mantra anymore. Others say mantra grant specific worldly benefits which make your practice in this human life more efficient, depending on the root deity/mantra being chanted. **Is there a value to mantra chanting over breath meditation?** If my goal is to go towards liberation (or at least stream entry) as a layperson.

I am searching for a Zen monastery in India. My google search returns Vajrayana Tibetan monasteries. Please let me know if you know a Zen monastery in India.

One of the recurring themes in the teachings of the buddha is the noble eightfold path; the basis for achieving nibbana. Oftentimes the components of it are presented as their "wrong" counterparts, and usually a row of examples is provided for what some instances of those "wrong" counterparts are. I am specifically curious about what kind of practical basis (as many of the teachings have some) the instances of "wrong livelihood" might have, with regard to the historical context of when the teachings were formed. In DN.10. "Subhasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato" the following phrase can be found: **(emphasis mine)** > There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong livelihood. **This includes rites for propitiation, for granting wishes, for ghosts, for the earth, for rain, for property settlement, and for preparing and consecrating house sites, and rites involving rinsing and bathing, and oblations. It also includes administering emetics, purgatives, expectorants, and phlegmagogues; administering ear-oils, eye restoratives, nasal medicine, ointments, and counter-ointments; surgery with needle and scalpel, treating children, prescribing root medicines, and binding on herbs.** They refrain from such unworthy branches of knowledge, such wrong livelihood. … This pertains to their ethics. Some of these are easily explained, such as performing mystical rites for luck and blessing, but the examples of medical practice and administering "...nasal medicine, ointments..." leave me somewhat confused. What could be a historical reason for why these practices are considered "wrong livelihood", and more generally, what is the core traits that define "wrong livelihood"?

Almost every Buddhist I've met sincerely believes in non-existence of self or soul. Especially, the vipassana practitioners say that *scanning* the body and finding no atman or *self* in it is proof that self doesn't exist. But what about the practitioner himself who is scanning or performing the vipassana? Doesn't that imply that he himself is the soul? Also, I found today that [Buddha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions) himself stayed unanswered on this matter: > The Buddha states that it is unwise to be attached to both views of having and perceiving a self and views about not having a self. So, how can you argue that soul doesn't exist when Buddha himself didn't deny it (or accept it either)? Are there any branches of Buddhism that *believes* in existence of soul?

I read that atman is pure bliss I read that anatta is pure bliss >-Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day? > >-Is atman the same as anatta in anyway? If yes/no then why? > >-Is anatman the same as atta in anyway? If yes/no then why?

In relation to the question: "*Is there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation?*", I read the following quote from SN 36.5 on the internet: > A mendicant who sees pleasure as pain, one who has seen the pleasant as painful, who sees the pain in happiness, Yo sukhaṃ dukkhato adda, > > and suffering as a dart, the painful as a dart, views the painful feeling as a thorn, dukkhamaddakkhi sallato; > > and that peaceful, neutral feeling adukkhamasukhaṃ santaṃ, > > as impermanent, addakkhi naṃ aniccato. > > sees rightly; sa ve sammaddaso bhikkhu, > > they completely understand feelings. parijānāti vedanā; > > Completely understanding feelings, So vedanā pariññāya, > > they’re without defilements in this very life. diṭṭhe dhamme anāsavo; Not necessarily adhering to the literal translations above: 1. What is the meaning of the Pali in verse above from Datthabba Sutta? 2. Does the Datthabba Sutta support the idea: '*there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation*'? 3. How does the above verse in the Datthabba Sutta reconcile with the Pali verse: "*Nibbanam paramam sukham: Nibbana is the supreme happines*s"? 4. Are any of the translations above of the three Western monks accurate so to inspire faith in these ordained Westerners?

I recently attended a tea ceremony, and was reminded of how it is considered polite in Asia to handle everything with two hands. My first dharma teacher was from Hong Kong, and did this, but I notice it is not done or understood by most Western practicioners. I've been reading about Takuan , and got a copy of The Book Of Tea , and it's got me very interested in how ideas about the aesthetics of how we act and behave shape our minds. It seems like having a clear sense of how to move smoothly and stably helps cultivate positive qualities. Especially in regard to interacting with the altar, and moving in the dharma room, I feel it would be useful to have a better understanding of this. Does anyone have any guidance or suggested texts towards this?

I am new to buddhism and this is my first question here. I hope I can provide something of value and that I am clear in my phrasing. So I have recently started learning about the teachings of the buddha, principally through the book The Basic Teachings of the Buddha by Glenn Wallis. I have decided that there is value to the practice but have not figured out to what extent I want to apply it, but I'm leaning towards not becoming a monastic, instead continuing on my current path but with a buddhist mindset. Today, I decided to buy a tea kettle. This might sound ridiculous as a jumping off point but it made me consider my attraction to certain products rather than others. I really want a kettle that is well designed aesthetically and that has more advanced functions like temperature control, but it feels like this is a form of grasping of sensory pleasure. Both for the aesthetic appeal of the design itself and for the flavour of the tea it will be used to brew. At the same time I believe that beauty, and minimalism in particular, are worthwhile in some regard. I do not want to become an ascetic (I seem to be joined by the majority of buddhist practitioners in this), but ascetiscism seems like the logical conclusion which the denial of the value of beauty leads to. So what does my desire for a nice kettle say about me as a buddhist, and is it compatible with buddhas teachings? Edit: Thank you all for your thoughtful answers! I am hesitant to pick one answer as these types of questions rarely have a definitive one, but I'll accept the highest voted one to make the question answered.

In a previous question I asked whether the Theravada posits the selflessness of phenomena? Where the best answer I understood to essentially state that it does not. At least, it did sound like there was an important difference between the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena. That is, Theravada regards the self of persons as not truly existent while the self of phenomena may or may not be. Further, the latter is not deemed an important question. This is not in agreement with the Mahayana madhyamaka schools AFAIK who I think near uniformly disagree. > In my opinion, the Theravada view according to the Pali suttas imply > that: > > 1. The self (of persons) is not truly existent. > > 2. Whether non-self phenomena are truly existent from its own side or > not, is (probably) not important towards the path to the end of > suffering. (See the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, Parable of the > Simsapa Leaves and the Discourse on the Unconjecturables) However, in a comment to this recent answer it was asserted by the same that 'papanca' of objects is essentially equivalent to what the Mahayana schools call the selflessness of persons. I'm confused as this seems to be in tension with the previous. What is the solution or is it just my misunderstanding? Is there any crucial difference between the emptiness of persons and emptiness of objects where the former is to be regarded as definitely non-truly existent while the latter question is not important? Is there some Pali suttas which will illustrate this difference in emptiness between the two selves? Is the 'papanca' of the self of persons different from the 'papanca' of the self of phenomena? What am I missing? Isn't it the case that SN 22.95 is talking about this 'papanca' of phenomena? Doesn't it compare it to an illusion? If so, then on what basis is it concluded that whether phenomena are truly existent is immaterial in Theravada?

According to Wikipedia , in the Sutta Pitaka of the Pali canon there are 10.000 sutras. According to tradition, Ananda recited by heart all 10.000 sutras after the death of Gautama and they have been memoriesed and recited regularly by monks, for many centuries, before they were written down. So my questions is: how is it possible to memorise and recite regularly 10.000 sutras? Is it realistic to think it happened like that or is there another explanation about how the sutras have been transmitted and written down? I hope the question is clear. I’m asking this because if I try to image today’s monks memorise and recite 10.000 sutras it seems something out of reality. My guess is that only very few people would have the ability to do that. So I struggle to imagine how they could have done it for centuries. But maybe I am missing something and there is an explanation that I cannot see.

I just learned of the [Abhidharma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidharma) . What was their original or early language they were written in, and do they exist online in copy/pastable (non-PDF or image) format anywhere for free? Is [this](https://pitaka.lk/books/abhidharmaye-mulika-karunu/index.html#2) of any use? So far people have listed some Theravada Abhidhamma links. What about the other schools of Abhidharma? Sarvastivada is supposed to be the only other school that has preserved a complete set of Abhidhamma, also with 7 books like Theravada. What languages are the original Sarvasitvada Ab. available in? And are there English translations?

Are lives of people who have, by birth or design, large amounts of money, worth more to the Buddha, than the poor? I don't actually know enough about the history of Buddhism to answer that question!

When command the mind to does something it was done what had commanded. If thought about more happy today next moment less happy. After sitting meditation feel empty. Is it mindfulness?where is the meditation,according to visuddhimagga?

Is the conventional self "conventional" in the same way as dharmas are? So if the conventionality of dharmas means that they arise and disappear each moment, or that they don't exist from their own side, or that they leave no trace of themselves, or that they always have parts (etc., etc.) does the same apply to the conventional self? I understand that both lack "substance": but does that mean the same thing here? **I'm interested in anyone having said "no".**

What's the difference? I'm having difficulty thinking of any real neutral feelings I actually experience. For example, there's eating a food that is perceived as pleasant, and eating a food that is perceived as unpleasant. If your senses were unguarded, you would then experience respectively a pleasant or unpleasant feeling. But, when I eat something that is bland or that could not be considered pleasant or unpleasant, then even thinking back to when I didn't remain mindful and guarded, I can't remember ever feeling neutral about it. I didn't feel *anything* about it. I just ate it. Is it simply a matter of how I'm using and understanding the word "feeling" itself? Edit: It seems what I was getting hung up on was simply a translation/language/connotations issue. This page explains that it's somewhat different from the common way the word feeling is often used in English. Thank you for your responses.