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.

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.