Historically, Buddha rejected the validity of the Vedas, I suspect there might be some differences in the way scripture is treated in Buddhism and other religions, especially Theistic ones. For for example does Buddhism treat its scripture as the final Authority on the nature of reality? Is something considered true just for the reason that it is said in Scripture? Can scripture be argued with? Is it, in some sense, eternal?

I have read various mythological and histories about curse where it has destroyed kingdoms and kings. Does curse have that power? If so, how it can be explained in relation to karma? What is Buddhism's view on curse?

After right concentration, how does right view change? Do you become completely convinced by right view, or was that already the case? Is right view in some other sense more pervasive? Or is it just as it was, and all that's changed is you have a deeper insight (and if so in what way?)? I've tagged this Theravada, but only because its path is easier to break down into right view etc., so welcome an answer from any tradition.

I'm having a really hard time. Not just in my meditation practice, but in my life in general. I've established a habit of 20 minutes of meditation first thing in the morning, then another 15 minutes in the early afternoon. I also try to take mindful breaks, I regularly take mindful walks, and I will meditate when I need a break or I'm feeling very stressed. I started meditating probably 3 years ago, and my routine has been pretty strong for the past 2 years. I usually use headspace meditations, and sometimes I just meditate on my own in quiet. I've read a few books about meditation, zen, etc, but I've never gone to a meditation retreat or anything hardcore like that - and given my work and young kids, I don't consider that an option. I think I started meditating in a healthy way. I wasn't trying to solve any specific problems, I just wanted to be more mindful in my daily life. But I did think regular meditation would be a healthy habit to adopt, and that it would be a safeguard of sorts against other ills. However, I now find myself really frustrated because I've actually started to get more anxious, and I've barely slept for the past month. I've tried to mindfully just accept my anxiety, not fight it, and I think that's generally fine, but the insomnia is debilitating. There is no major life event that I can think of that's causing this, I don't understand it, but I'm very disappointed that my meditation practice hasn't helped more. I've tried to increase my meditation recently to see if it would help, but I just keep getting worse. I'm very frustrated and I can't help but think what's the point of spending all this time meditating? Could I be doing anything wrong? Has anyone had any similar experiences? Any advice?

Which of the seven fold reasons does this fall under? - The conventional self is not different to all its parts (is composed only of parts) but not the same as any part (does not depend on any part) This seems to get around the first two reasons, as well as being a reasonable description of my perceptual life; and, arguably, is a reason to think that the self cannot be destroyed (there is always another part to lose), given it lacks substance and cannot be annihilated. It seems to be completely coherent, so I can't imagine for a moment that no-one a Buddhist has ever argued with has conceived of the self this way. So, why is it wrong: and has any Buddhist claimed the conventional self is like this? ---------- Not just that every part has a part, but that every part is one part only.

From the Yuganaddha Sutta , there are four paths described: 1. Development of insight preceded by development of tranquility 2. Development of tranquility preceded by development of insight 3. Tranquility developed in tandem with insight 4. **Mind's restlessness concerning the Dhamma well under control** From my understanding, the first three are about vipassana (insight) and samatha (tranquility). Questions: 1. How does the fourth path work? Please elaborate on the fourth path. 2. How does one practise that? Please provide details. 3. Why is vipassana and samatha not required on the fourth path? > Ven. Ananda said: "Friends, whoever — monk or nun — declares the > attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of > one or another of four paths. Which four? > > "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by > tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the > path is born. ..... > > "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity > preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight, > the path is born. ..... > > "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in > tandem with insight. As he develops tranquillity in tandem with > insight, the path is born. ..... > > "**Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness > concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under > control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, > settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. In him the path is > born.** > > He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the > path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his > obsessions destroyed. > Yuganaddha Sutta

I wonder if the Anagarika period is always a pre-requisite to samanera & bhikkhu ordinations in this TFT tradition?

The thirty-six states (6 x 6 classes of contact) to which beings are attached are described in Salayatana-vibhanga Sutta ; I have made a caricature while reading each state as below, states 1, 2, 4 & 5 are easy to understand, however, I'm straggling to clearly identify the two type of equanimity and how they differ. Quoted below is the definition given for each equanimity states in the Sutta, but it’s not clear to me how the foolish deluded householder equanimity is any different from the other. How do these two people react to a given situation? I will give an example for the householder equanimity and If possible please try to use the same situation to represent the state of the renunciation equanimity and if possible beyond renunciation equanimity (atammayata) in which there is no act of intention, not even the intention underlying equanimity is said to be present. For example, a householder loses his beloved son or a wife he could reason and say ‘I know I was only in love with a mortal and what has happened is natural’ and he remains calm without suffering. This equanimity, I take it, doesn’t go beyond form. With a wide open eye as I caricatured his state, he looks into pain and pleasure even death with equanimity without reasoning beyond form. Let them change he is just looking. Many thanks. > "And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity > that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill, > untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results > of action & who is blind to danger — sees a form with the eye. > Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called > household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile > sensations, & ideas.) > > "And what are the six kinds of renunciation equanimity? The equanimity > that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, > their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as > it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, > stressful, subject to change: This equanimity goes beyond form, which > is why it is called renunciation equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, > smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.) > > "And what is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on > multiplicity? There is equanimity with regard to forms, equanimity > with regard to sounds...smells...tastes...tactile sensations [& ideas: > this word appears in one of the recensions]. This is equanimity coming > from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity. > > "And what is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on > singleness? There is equanimity dependent on the dimension of the > infinitude of space, equanimity dependent on the dimension of the > infinitude of consciousness... dependent on the dimension of > nothingness... dependent on the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception. This is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent > on singleness.

In Theravada, I know there is union in understanding that the Buddha taught two types of meditation: vipassana (insight) meditation and samatha (tranquility) meditation. However, I have come across various types of these meditation methods over the years, either with an emphasis on samatha meditation, vipassana meditation, or both, all filled with various interpretations. My question is the following: **Putting aside the modern methods of meditation taught by members of the later Sangha and their interpretations as well as going back to the Buddha and his early Sangha, what was it that the Buddha originally taught in regard to meditation (samatha and vipassana meditations) and what instructions did the Buddha give as to how one practices them?** *PLEASE REFERENCE THE TIPITAKA OR SOURCES STRICTLY USING THE TIPITAKA.* -Apannaka

What is the meaning of the word *atammayata*? Is it Pali or Sanskrit? I couldn't find it in any Pali-English dictionary. Where is it used and in what context? Please provide references from suttas and/or commentaries. From a Google search, I found various translations like "unconcoctability" or "non-identification" and one person suggested that it's a synonym for "not-self". Is that the case? How is *atammayata* different from not-self? In this question , it was translated as "renunciation equanimity". Why is *atammayata* important? I discovered it in this answer .

What is the difference between Nirvana with residue and non-abiding Nirvana? Both these states apply to a Buddha while still alive and come to an end when the physical life of a Buddha comes to an end.

After quite some time of daily meditation, I feel less like having a real separate, permanent self (specific details see below, but it's a general question), which, in my opinion, could be regarded as a step on the path to enlightenment. However, it also matches the criteria of a depersonalization disorder as defined by psychiatry more or less. I wonder whether that's an issue and how to approach it. As a distinguishing feature, one could think that it feels good and liberating in the case of enlightenment, but negatively speaking a source of suffering in the case of a disorder. As a non-enlightened being I don't always feel good, so it's not that clear, and I think there can be more serious doubt in moments or phases when one feels bad (e.g. due to unpleasant nyams in meditation). The feature of social functioning also doesn't seem clear to me, since one could argue, for example, that seeking solitude/retreat for meditation is a socially impaired behaviour, especially when I talk to people who are not familiar with Buddhism. I suppose talking about feelings of no-self sounds rather crazy – which isn't a problem in itself, but it might impair my ability to have a positive influence on their lives or in charitable organizations. So I wonder: - How would you distinguish between the (partial) feeling of non-self as a step towards enlightenment and a depersonalization disorder (or a similar mental disorder)? - (How, in which cases) would you speak openly about non-self-experiences with others? Some details about my personal experience if relevant: Instead of a permanent self, it feels more as if mental events rise and pass without being mine or controlled by "me“. I feel less like having permanent character traits. I don't feel very connected to my past or possible future - "my“ body feels like an arbitrary vessel of consciousness. In deep meditation I feel like an abstract, spacious awareness (which is peaceful, vivid and benevolent). While I'm not completely free of mental afflictions, I think attachment, desire, aversion, fear, and so on, are significantly weaker than before I started meditation and then in many other people (up to a point that others don't understand some of my behaviour). Meditation method: shamatha awareness of awareness according to Alan Wallace.

My understanding is that the Buddha is said to have "rediscovered an ancient path" which, presumably, formed the core of his teachings. Source: Gil Fronsdal’s Introduction to the Dhammapada. My question is: Why was it lost to begin with? And why is it that the teachings of the Buddha are so voluminous and contain so much redundancy? UPDATE: I am absolutely convinced that the Buddha's 8-fold path leading to the end of suffering does so by training the mind to respond to the pain of unskillful moves caused by unskillful predictions by (1) restraining the hindrances and (2) investigating with the intent of processing the feedback for insights to improve the predictive model of the sensory-motor brain so that more skillful predictions leading to more skillful moves will be made. Why does this lead to the end of suffering? Because although pain is inevitable, suffering is a choice. Specifically, suffering is the choice to cling to wrong views because doing so leads to the descent into the hell of uncertainty. As the world descends into chaos, those who cling to views will descend into chaos along with it because they are refusing to "see things as they actually are." In other words, clinging to "wrong views", views which do not correspond to the evidence of sensory experience, is unskillful. Accordingly, please offer only answers that do not violate the scientific method of inquiry. For example, claiming that a human being lived for 80,000 years without offering evidence to support this extraordinary claim is not desired.

In which text first time "Gautama leaving Yashodhara for searching truth" story is found to be written? This text was written how many years after death of Buddha?

According to Abhidhamma, following four conditions must be satisfied for the arising of eye-consciousness. 1. Eye-door should be good 2. Visible object must be present 3. Light must be present 4. Attention must be present So my question is, how do we perceive pitch-dark? Do we perceive pitch-dark with mind-consciousness?

Requesting sutta references mentioning "sacrifice" along with pali words commonly (and uncommonly) translated as "sacrifice" along with thoughts and commentary please

In the Pali commentaries, there is a contradiction regarding the name of Thera Anuruddha's father. Somewhere he is said to be the son of Sukkodana, and somewhere of Amitodana. Both Sukkodana and Amitodana were Suddhodana's brother. So, in any case, Anuruddha was surely a cousin of the future Buddha. But his relation with Thera Ananda becomes controversial. Everywhere Ananda is said to be the son of Amitodana. So he might be either a cousin or a brother of Anuruddha. Most modern Western scholars seem to prefer the latter alternative albeit insisting that they were probably step-brothers from different mothers "as the texts do not refer to the two as brothers and imply that they grew up in different households." If that is the case, why not accept Anuruddha as the son of Sukkodana? Are there more weightage in the claim of Amitodana? Can someone answer with commentarial references?

What is the (commentary) source for Buddha's five-part daily schedule, as mentioned at The Buddha's Daily Routine (Buddhanet) and A Day in the Life of the Buddha (YouTube video, Bhikkhu Bodhi).

**Purpose:** Find out the origin (reference) of this story. **Situation:** I got to know this Scorpion story from these websites. - Dare to the Motivation - The Nature of Things The summary of this story is like this. The scorpion stung the man but he saved the scorpion. Because even though to sting is the scorpion's nature, his nature to save won't change. **Problem:** Unfortunately, neither one have the reference to the story. It could be a fake story and I want to find out if it is a true Buddhism story or not. I sent messages to both of the administrators. But I got no replies. **Comment** Does anyone know the original book of this story? Thank you.

I am interested in Theravada Buddhism. **What are some concrete reasons as to why one should become a Buddhist?**