On Buddhist forums, I read reincarnationists accuse or demonize truthers as being "materialists", similar to Zionists accusing truthers of being "antisemitic" or Americans accusing traitors as being "communist". In the Pali suttas, I have heard the word 'rupa' means 'material' or 'physical'. Did the Lord Buddha ever refer to a doctrine literally called 'materialism' or accuse those of wrong views as being "materialists"?

Is being homosexual a result of poor karma? Or is it because of the person's habit in his/her past life? Or perhaps it's because the person likes and supports same-sex couple in his/her past life?

I am curious about vinaya regulations & accounts otherwise relevant to a householder's attending to the bhikkhusangha. Of interest are lay attendants in particular, how far one can go in being useful, what makes a good lay-attendant as to ideal & minimal qualification. Not particularly interested in the circumstance of an anagarika or a novice's circumstance, although i would appreciate a delineation of differences very much. References & general thoughts on the matter are welcome.

When we make a mistake, how do we forgive ourselves? I know that bhikkhus must confess in front of the Sangha if they break a certain Vinaya (monastic rule). But what about lay people? Do we have to do some kind of confession in front of other people too?

The Abhidhamma acknowledges the Suttas define 'birth' ('jati') as follows: >1. The Section Derived from the Discourses > > 1.11. Definition of Birth PTS cs 235 Herein, what is ‘with continuation as condition: birth?’ > > For the various **beings (sattanam)** in the various **classes of beings (sattanikaye)** (there is) > birth, being born, appearing, arising, turning up, the manifestation > of the constituents (of mind and bodily form), the acquisition of the > sense spheres. > >Tattha katamā bhavapaccayā jāti? 17.2Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti, khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo, āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho— 17.3ayaṁ vuccati “bhavapaccayā jāti”. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs235 However, the Abhidhamma says it defines 'birth' ('jati') as follows: >2. The Section Derived from the Abstract Teaching > > Herein, what is ‘with continuation as condition: birth?’ > > That which for various **things** (**dhammam**) is birth, being born, return, > turning up, manifestation: this is said to be ‘with continuation as > condition: birth’. > >Tattha katamā bhavapaccayā jāti? Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ dhammānaṁ jāti sañjāti nibbatti abhinibbatti pātubhāvo— ayaṁ vuccati “bhavapaccayā jāti” > > https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs281 Are there any Suttas referring to the "jati" of "things" rather than the "jati" of "beings" in relation to dependent origination?

If homosexuality is okay because it is never explicitly stated in the canonical texts, then how about zoophilia, or necrophilia? Those aren't explicitly stated in the texts too, so are those 'okay'?

I read this statement in an answer: > Cittasaṁsaṭṭhā means arising together because it is described in the > same canon "idaṃ sukhaṃ imāya pītiyā sahagataṃ hoti sahajātaṃ > saṃsaṭṭhaṃ sampayuttaṃ". "sahajātaṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ sampayuttaṃ" in this > context is called Vevacana in VevacanaHara. Generally, the word 'saṁsaṭṭha' is translated as 'co-joined' or 'mixed', as follows: > But when they’re separated from the Teacher or a spiritual companion > in a teacher’s role, they **mix closely** with monks, nuns, laymen, and > laywomen; with rulers and their ministers, and with teachers of other > paths and their followers. > > Yato ca kho so vapakassateva satthārā, vapakassati garuṭṭhāniyehi > sabrahmacārīhi, so **saṁsaṭṭho** viharati bhikkhūhi bhikkhunīhi upāsakehi > upāsikāhi raññā rājamahāmattehi titthiyehi titthiyasāvakehi. > > > As they **mix closely**, they become intimate and loose, spending time > chatting, and so lust infects their mind. > > Tassa **saṁsaṭṭhassa** vissatthassa pākatassa bhassamanuyuttassa viharato > rāgo cittaṁ anuddhaṁseti. > > https://suttacentral.net/an6.60/en/sujato > These are the five drawbacks for a mendicant who visits families for > too long, **mixing closely** with them.” > > Ime kho, bhikkhave, pañca ādīnavā kulūpakassa bhikkhuno ativelaṁ > kulesu **saṁsaṭṭha**ssa viharato”ti. > > https://suttacentral.net/an5.226/en/sujato > “Wisdom and consciousness— > > “Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṁ— > > are these things **mixed** or separate? > > ime dhammā **saṁsaṭṭhā** udāhu visaṁsaṭṭhā? > > Feeling, perception, and consciousness— > > “Yā cāvuso, vedanā yā ca saññā yañca viññāṇaṁ— > > are these things **mixed** or separate? > > ime dhammā **saṁsaṭṭhā** udāhu visaṁsaṭṭhā? > > https://suttacentral.net/mn43/en/sujato Does 'saṁsaṭṭha' mean "arise together"? How can the terms "arise together" & "mixed" be reconciled or, otherwise, differentiated?

I started meditation with Headspace app and have experienced a lot during meditation such as irrational fear of someone breaking in to the house and killing me while I was meditating , fear of snakes etc. I am off headspace for about six months now and my Vipassana practice has improved a lot. The chattering in my head has subsided but now I see lot of random images flashing while I meditate. These images don't have to mean anything but these images are nothing I have seen or imagined in my life so far. Should I wonder about their meaning or should I continue to the adage of letting it all go and focus on the moment?

2. Abhidhammabhājanīya says: > 2.1. Paccayacatukka > >27.1Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhāro, saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ, viññāṇapaccayā nāmaṁ, nāmapaccayā chaṭṭh**āyatana**ṁ, chaṭṭhāyatanapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ, upādānapaccayā bhavo, bhavapaccayā jāti, jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṁ. 27.2Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti > >With ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) process, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, with consciousness as condition: mind, with mind as condition: the sixth **sense sphere**, with the sixth sense sphere as condition: contact, with contact as condition: feeling, with feeling as condition: craving, with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole mass of suffering. > > 28.1 Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhāro, saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ, viññāṇapaccayā nāmaṁ, **nāmapaccayā phasso**, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā > taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ, upādānapaccayā bhavo, bhavapaccayā jāti, > jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṁ. 28.2Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa > samudayo hoti > >With ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) process, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, with consciousness as condition: mind, **with mind as condition: contact**, with contact as condition: feeling, with feeling as condition: craving, with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole mass of suffering. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb6/pli/ms#pts-cs251 What is the sense contact (phasso) occurring without a sense base or sense organ & sense object (āyatana)?

Q/.Is there any short comprising of 2 words/phrase that can be recited while inhaling & exhaling like mantra chanting (Bud- dho) in order to strengthen our contemplation.

Abhidhamma appears to say nama can arise without rupa in dependent origination, as follows: > PTS cs 243 With ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) > process, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, with > consciousness as condition: **mind (nama)**, with mind as condition: the sixth > sense sphere, with the sixth sense sphere as condition: contact, with > contact as condition: feeling, with feeling as condition: craving, > with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: > continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as > condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole > mass of suffering. > >https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs243 The Abidhamma also appears to say nama is the four mental aggregates as follows: > Herein, what is ‘mind?’ (nama) > > Except for contact, (it is) the feeling constituent, the perception > constituent, the (volitional) processes constituent, the consciousness > constituent: this is said to be ‘mind’. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs251 Are there any Suttas supporting the above ideas?

The Abhidhamma knowingly says the 2nd Noble Truth according to Sutta is: > Tattha katamaṁ dukkhasamudayaṁ ariyasaccaṁ? Yāyaṁ taṇhā > ponobhavikā nandirāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī, seyyathidaṁ— > kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā. > > 203. Therein what is the Noble Truth of the samudaya of suffering? That craving leading to new existence, is accompanied by > passionate lust, is strong passion for this and that. For example: > craving for sense pleasure, craving for existence, craving for > non-existence. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb4/en/thittila The Abhidhamma then says the 2nd Noble Truth according to Abhidhamma is: >Tattha katamo dukkhasamudayo? Taṇhā— ayaṁ vuccati “dukkhasamudayo” > > 206 Therein what is the samudaya of suffering? Craving. This is called > the samudaya of suffering. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb4/en/thittila#pts-cs206 My questions: 1. What is the meaning of the Pali word 'samudaya' according to Sutta? 2. Can craving alone be the 'samudaya' of suffering according to Sutta?

In my reading of the suttas in the Pali canon, I've only found one story that's an example of someone experiencing the results of deeds committed in the life they are currently living, in that same lifetime. The example I've found is in MN 86 , and in one of the poems of elder monks: Aṅgulimāla's story, in which after he's become an arahant he is still treated roughly by people who know his past murderous actions. Are there any other examples like that? The Buddha talks many times in generalities about how if you behave in such-and-such a way, you'll end up with corresponding results in the future, but I'm wondering about specific all-this-life examples.

I have learnt that Lord Buddha was initially reluctant to ordain females but after a lot of convincing by his step mother Buddha started ordaining females. Why was he initially reluctant? If not for his step mother would there even have been a chance for Buddha to ordain women?

As far as I understand, Buddhism (Tibetan Gelug is what I am most familiar with) holds that a mindstream is always individual. Is there any reason against the notion that one mindstream can separate into two (or that mindstreams can merge) ? Just like a river can separate into two, or many streams can merge into an ocean.

***How do we know attaining complete liberation from dukkha is possible?*** This is a question I’ve made to myself in multiple oportunities, especially after having explained the basics of (what I understand about) the Dhamma to people not acquainted with it. When in such circumstance, I interpret that thought (the question) not necessarily as doubt in the Dhamma, but as a question of “common-sense”. I have my own arguments that I’ve been buiding over the years about why I think attaining Nibbana is possible, but ultimately, it seems to be just a statement coming from faith and from the extension of a principle that until now has proven to be true, logical, compatible with evidence and useful (namely, the idea of the dukkha as a consequence of tanha, and that the diminishing of the presence of tanha leads to the diminishing of the presence of dukkha). But, what does assure us that such principle could be applied until the complete eradication of dukkha? It’s like thinking that just because the scientific method has shown itself to be useful in -apparently- understanding some aspects of reality (based on our ability to use the information gained through the application of the method to predict outcomes, to built technology to achieve some ends, and the ever growing power to keep understanding more and subtler aspects of nature), that would necessarily mean that understanding everything about reality is possible. Personally, I don't think that's the case, because I consider the possibility of reaching a point where our technology does not "expand" enough the power of our senses (i.e., we reach a practical limit of detection of events or presence of some entity or phenomenon), or that there could be stuff in Reality that do not interact with the things we can effectively interact (no matter how subtle or indirect the degree of interaction with such phenomena). Could it be the case that there is a physical, biological or spiritual (whatever that could mean) condition that could limit the application of the Buddhist method to the very end, just like what could happen with the application of the scientific method? Just in case, I don’t see any problem admitting to myself that faith in -what the suttas tell us about- the Buddha and in my own experience is what keeps driving me forward in this path. I think that science is not that different in this regard: through inductive reasoning, and assuming the reality of an external world, the possibility of knowledge of (at least) some parts of it, and the regularity of events, faith (or confidence in the reality of the assumptions) seems to be an useful principle when investigating nature. So, the question can be formulated as such: **what is the epistemic justification for having confidence on the possibility of complete eradication of dukkha? One can have confidence, but based, for instance, on [this definition of knowledge](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#WhatKnow) , how can we justify the belief about the possibility of Nibbana, beyond inductive reasoning and confidence?** I think this question could be particularly beneficial for putting to test the recurring idea of both Buddhism not contradicting knowledge gained (or possible to be eventually gained) through empirical means, and Buddhism as a “science of the mind”. I’d love to here your thoughts on this. **EDIT**: There's an ongoing discussion on this same question of *D&D-SuttaCentral*. There are very good answers and feedback in my opinion. If you're interested, [here you'll find the thread](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/how-do-we-know-attaining-complete-liberation-from-dukkha-is-possible/17357) . Kind regards!

From a source which I don't remember any more (some rather scientific book on Buddhist philosophy) I have made a note, that the psyche in Buddhism is seen or can be seen (by certain schools?) as material. To clarify this point for me, I wonder what the general treatment of mind and matter in Buddhism is, whether they are generally seen as two distinct spheres, how they interact, etc.

What is hasituppāda, the so-called rootless, mirth-producing, mind-consciousness element of an Arahant? What is its basis? What is its purpose, if any? Could someone provide me the details of the same with references from the Pāli Canon?

Quote from Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125 Paṭhamamettāsutta: > Firstly, a person meditates spreading a heart full of love > [...] > > If they abide in that, are committed to it, and meditate on it often without losing it, when they die they’re reborn in the company of the gods of Brahmā’s Host. > The lifespan of the gods of Brahma’s Host is one eon. **An ordinary person stays there** until the lifespan of those gods is spent, **then they go to hell or the animal realm or the ghost realm**. But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life. This is the difference between an educated noble disciple and an uneducated ordinary person, that is, when there is a place of rebirth. Why would an ordinary person, a worlding (puthujjano), go to hell after a lot of metta? I cannot believe this. My first guess was that this is probably meant to be a possibility, meaning lots of metta will not 100% prevent descending to lower realms forever. However, as I cannot read Pali, I compared other translations to modern languages, but none of them suggests the possibility. Instead they all seem to agree (at least by their grammar) on this direct chain of results: (a lot of) Metta -> gods realm -> one of the lower realms for a householder, at least. Disciples are better off. Grammatically, I fail to see any room left for interpretation as a possibility. I must be misunderstanding something with this sutta. What is it? Wording, context, translatation, missing background? --- Thanks for the answers so far. I understand your interpretation and I sympathize with it. But it seems I missed some explanation. Please let me try to clarify my question: A puthujjano is one who has not overcome the ten fetters. If, with a lot of metta, such a person is reborn as deva in Brahma realm, then - according to my understanding of the words of this sutte - this person **will** be reborn to the lower realms. The text doesn't say the worldling "can go", or "could go", or "will go, if something else". The sutta, literally, states: "metta .. worldling ... brahma realm ... then hell". This is against my intuition, which is that a worldling, after lots of metta, can be reborn as deva but still end up in a lower realm later for some reasons, e.g. if only concentration is highly developed, or for other karmic reasons. But the sutta does not suggest this result as possibility, only, but as direct result. I would assume that the next rebirth could be elsewhere, too, if karma it favorable, if mindfulness, equanimity, whatever needed, have been developed. But the sutta does not mention any other factor, except: worldling (will go to hell) or disciple (will go to cessation). My question is about the words of this sutta. Why do they go against this intuition. Blind guesses: Is it a translation error? Is Pali lacking forms like subjunctive, so pure possibility can't be expressed? Is this sutta a later addition to the canon? Did I miss context?

I have a question about my current practice, but feel it's far too sensitive to share here. I do not personally know any person, teacher or guru who I could ask this question. What could I do in this instance?