Further to answers to this question , I am looking for any Buddhist organizations or charities that may offer to fund for pursuing a higher academic education in Buddhism, all over the world. I searched but I don't really get proper keywords. So if you know any such institution...

I was reading a book where author defined Mindfulness (sati) using these three analogies from different suttas: - > The Buddha compares mindfulness to a gatekeeper for a frontier fortress. [[Kimsuka Sutta]](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.204.than.html)
- > There’s another passage where the Buddha says that mindfulness is like a goad. Most of us have gotten away from animal husbandry and farming, and so we don’t even know what a goad is. It’s a long stick with a sharp point. You use it to poke your animals when they’re going the wrong direction, or if they’re standing still when they should be going. The implication here is that the ability to remember what’s skillful and what’s not, and to be able to give yourself a little push or a poke in the right direction: That’s what mindfulness does for you. > And sometimes it’s more than just a little poke. (May be he is referring to [Patoda Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.113.than.html) . But I'm not very sure because Buddha didn't mentioned Mindfulness in this Sutta. Please provide me correct sutta if there is.) - > There’s another passage where the Buddha says that when you see that something unskillful has arisen in your mind, then you act as if your hair were on fire. You do everything you can, as quickly as you can, to put it out. You’re relentless and mindful in being focused on putting out the fire, and nothing else. And other definitions which is written in Wikipedia: - > Mindfulness is the psychological process of purposely bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment without judgment. (Authour refers it as equanimity) But as I understand, I will only call Gate-keeper analogy as Mindfulness. And other analogies falls in the category of Right Effort and Right Resolve. If we look at [MN 117](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html#s1) : > "One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong resolve & for entering right resolve: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right resolve." Please correct me if I misunderstood this.

I read a course entitled ' Meditation without exertion' which was purportedly based on Tibetan teachings and methods. It discussed methods of developing concentration and imagination leading to Samadhi. Buddhism seems to present a practical method which leads to discipline and non attachment something which is lacking, at least in my experience, in the the western traditions. I'm looking for direction to these methods and ways of applying these methods to myself and my experience. Your guidance and input will be greatly appreciated

I have found two Suttas and I am a bit confused about Sariputta's death. In [DN 16](https://suttacentral.net/dn16/en/sujato) , there is a part about Sariputta being alive at the time of Buddha's death. (look at 4. Sāriputta’s Lion’s Roar in DN 16) In this sutta [SN 47.14](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.014.nypo.html) , Buddha talks about the death of Sariputta and Maha Moggallana. "This assembly, O bhikkhus, appears indeed empty to me, now that Sariputta and Maha Moggallana have passed away." What is the correct timeline? Why was Sariputta alive during Buddha's parinibbana in DN 16?

From the Crossing the Flood Sutta below, we read that the Buddha said that he crossed the flood (i.e. of suffering, of clinging to the world), neither by standing still, nor by struggling (or swimming). And that when he stood still, he sank, and when he tried to swim, he was swept away. What does this mean? What does standing still mean? What does struggling or swimming mean? If he neither stood still, nor swam, then how did he cross the flood of clinging and suffering? From SN 1.1 (Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation): > “How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?” > > “By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood.” > > “But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and by not straining you > crossed the flood?” > > “When I came to a standstill, friend, then I sank; but when I > struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this way, friend, that by > not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood.” From SN 1.1 (Bhikkhu Sujato's translation): > “Good sir, how did you cross the flood?” > > “Neither standing nor swimming, sir, I crossed the flood.” > > “But in what way did you cross the flood neither standing nor > swimming?” > > “When I stood still, I went under. And when I swam, I was swept away. > That’s how I crossed the flood neither standing nor swimming.”

I plan on calling the Metta forest monastery with this question shortly but have not had the opportunity yet to do so. In “With Each and every breath” and in many of Thanissaro’s guided meditations he talks about playing with the “breath energies” of the body in meditation. While I believe I have on occasion felt these sensations in my hands, I have struggled to feel them elsewhere in the body, particularly their movement from the base of the skull down the spine as he often stresses is the most important place to feel these energies. If anybody as any experience with this particular form of meditation and tips on sensitizing myself to the breath energy of the body I would be keen to hear. Thank you!

(Note that this is surely an experimental "question" for the usual use, although not different, just the purpose and circumstances) Today the Sangha of the eight directions was given, aside of other Dhamma-Gifts, "[Bhaddekaratta Sutta - Liberation teachings on an ideal seclusion](http://accesstoinsight.eu/en/lib/authors/dhammajiva/bhaddekaratta_sutta) ", teachings by Ven. U. Dhammajīva Mahā Thero (may all also take part in [rejoicing with the merits](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,9261.0.html)) "Lacking" an introduction and review for this gift -- as well as a biography and a picture portraying the author -- my person thought of sharing the possibility to give such information via an answer posted here. If wishing to make it an unbound gift toward the Sangha, with a complete text and material, feel free to make use of the pages linked for such -- also if looking for discussion on it -- and possibly link that into your answer. A short summary of the "question": - A review, criticism, and/or "teaser" for the teachings given in the _Bhaddekaratta Sutta - Liberation teachings on an ideal seclusion_ -- links to references elsewhere, or answers of your own posted here. - Biographical informations about the Ven. Dhammajiva -- links to pictures, relay-able sources -- possibly accessible to make use of it, since something bonded and not released toward Sangha can not really be used

There are Two Truths in Mahayana Buddhism Conventional and Ultimate. I can't understand how it works. For example: Two Mahayana Buddhists have realized the absolute truth: and one Buddhist tells the other that he has a headache. But how does another Buddhist perceive it according to absolute truth?

Buddha said "nowhere between the lowest of hells below and the highest heaven above, nowhere in all the ***infinite worlds*** that stretch right and left, is there the equal, much less the superior, of a Buddha. Incalculable is the excellence which springs from obeying the Precepts and from other virtuous conduct." - **Apannaka Jataka**

According to upaya, the doctrine of 'skillful means', as it appears in the Lotus Sutra, was the Buddha *lying* when he said that there are three vehicles? Presumably he knew there was only one: so why wasn't his deception evil? I am referring to the claim in e.g. the parable of there being three chariots, when there is in fact only one. Or Shariputra's claim that he thought he was "deceived" when believing he could not be a Buddha. I believe it's generally characterized as "deception" according to the scholastic tradition that is based on the lotus sutra.

I bow to you with hopes of happiness, peace, safety and health for you. And I come with a dire need for help! I am a practicing buddhist and I regularly visit a thai temple for chanting but I know no thai and they don't have their chanting written in roman alphabet and with translation so I can understand and chant. I have recorded the whole chanting and provide a link to the recording here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gxmUWA7XxR7OjhOZYXbPA6MxZvsP84kR/view?usp=sharing Could anyone please provide me or refer me to the chanting written in thai with roman alphabet letters ***and*** an english translation? If you provide me with links then could you please point out the exact parts of the texts that correspond to this chanting? This would be of great help to me because I can finally understand what we're saying and feel a greater connection to the teachings and to my fellow Sangha-members. Full of gratitude I bow.

What causes addictions and what is the remedy to break free from addictions according to Buddha?

I wanted to know if someone could reference passages from the canon where the Buddha teaches about mindfulness. If such passages exist that is. I was wondering about it because terms and explanations surrounding mindfulness can sound very modern and almost technical at times, depending on who explains it. Has mindfulness, as practiced in this modern age, any roots in the original teachings of the Buddha (as taught by Himself), or did this arise in more recent times? E.g. Vietnamese Monk Thich Nanh Hanh's school of mindfulness is an entire sect devoted to the practice of mindfulness. But is there any canonical, textual evidence? I couldn't find anything. Thanks.

- What is the "sensual desire" described as one of the fetters, which is: - Reduced or weakened in a once-returner - Abandoned in a non-returner - Are *kāmarāga* and *kāmacchando* used interchangeably? - Does it have a specific meaning, perhaps identified in a sutta or commentary -- or can we only imagine what it means by analysing the words (kāma, rāga, chanda)? For example, the words *micchacara* and *abrahmacariya* -- used in the two versions of the 3rd precept -- have explicit canonical definitions (or at least specific examples of prohibited behaviour) beyond what can be inferred from only the etymology of the words. - What about any "exceptions which prove the rule" in suttas which describe arahants -- for example the Buddha's experiencing discomfort of old age in [DN 16](https://suttacentral.net/dn16/en/sujato) : > Sometimes the Realized One, not focusing on any signs, and with the cessation of certain feelings, enters and remains in the signless immersion of the heart. Only then does the Realized One’s body become more comfortable. Are we to understand there's no "desire" associated with this? That it's not "sensual"? Or perhaps that it is if anything a desire for "neutral" feelings (i.e. for *not* feeling pain), and therefore within the scope of enlightened thinking? - If the senses are the All ([SN 35.23](https://suttacentral.net/sn35.23/en/sujato)) , are there any desires which aren't "sensual" -- even a preference for seclusion, for example, or for good health? Or even, for morality?

It seems a commonly held notion that the actual written text of Buddhadharma were only recorded well after the life of the Buddha. However, this sutta seems to indicate that was not so: > "Take a mendicant who says: ‘Reverend, I have heard and learned this > in the presence of the Buddha: this is the teaching, this is the > training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither > approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should > carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re > included in the discourses and **found in the texts on monastic > training.** If they’re not included in the discourses and found in the > texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly > this is not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully > awakened Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by that mendicant.’ > And so you should reject it." > > AN 4.180 Isn't this prima facie evidence that contrary to this belief that actual teachings were written down and consulted during the life of the Buddha?

The Wikipedia entry on the 5th council says: > However, there were a number of other councils held in Ceylon and Thailand between the fourth and sixth ... What are these other councils? Where where they held? What was their significance?

What are the common/widespread wrong meanings that people associate with or assign to the word 'gratitude'? As we know, the society is made up largely of families, and those in turn are made of up relationships, which most commonly are underlied by sexuality, in turn often being related to guilt, as well as guilt based manipulations and control mechanisms. At the same time, we are inclined and even obliged to feel grateful towards our loved ones. So it is safe to assume that the obligation to be grateful and patterns of guilt (or other) based manipulations co-occur, and therefore can and probably tend to interact. And therefore it is also safe to assume that at least some part of the human species if suffering from views and actions rooted in a wrong understanding of gratitude. Now, gratitude being such an important pillar of Enlightened teaching, what are some common roots and symptoms of false Gratitude which we should mindfully observe and then root out?

This is from the Theravada Vinaya: > While he was staying by himself, the Buddha thought, “When I was > previously surrounded by people, I was not at ease because of those > monks at Kosambī who were quarreling, arguing, and creating legal > issues in the Sangha. But now that I’m alone, without a companion, I’m > happy and at ease because I’m apart from those monks at Kosambī.” > > Pli Tv Kd 10: Kosambakakkhandhaka How could the Buddha be thinking this way post enlightment? This seems related to this question. ---------- You can find the another account of the same thing in non-Vinaya canon here: > So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Kosambi, in > Ghosita’s Monastery. Now at that time Buddha lived crowded by monks, > nuns, laymen, and laywomen; by rulers and their ministers, and > teachers of other paths and their disciples. Crowded, he lived in > suffering and discomfort. Then he thought, “These days I live crowded > by monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen; by rulers and their ministers, > and teachers of other paths and their disciples. Crowded, I live in > suffering and discomfort. Why don’t I live alone, withdrawn from the > group?” > > Ud 4.5

Inspired by this answer... Is the specific formulation of Dependent Origination in the early buddhist texts an upaya and/or skillful means? If so, how approximate is it? Are there other conceptual elaborations that improve upon it? If it is an upaya, what is the purpose or motivation of teaching it originally thousands of years ago? Is it different today? Has our modern conception of physics and psychology led to the development of other upayas that may or may not share some of the motivation or benefits of the original? There are parts of the early buddhist texts that include teachings on the Four Primary Elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind. Was this an upaya? Has modern physics provided an update to this upaya that has the same benefits as a better conceptual elaboration of the underlying truth? If not, in what way is the original better? If you think the teaching on Four Primary Elements was an upaya or skillful means, but one that has been succeeded by a better modern version in physics and chemistry... do you think Dependent Origination is also something that could or should be updated... or one that even has been already been updated/replaced? To be clear I am not indicating that skillful means involve intended deception. Thanks!

What is a person (*puggala*) in Buddhism? What is the difference between a person (*puggala*) and other terms like self (*atta*) and sentient being (*satta*)? Is a person (*puggala*) reborn into future lives? How do we reconcile the concept of person (*puggala*) with "*sabbe dhamma anatta*" (all phenomena is not self)? There was an ancient Buddhist philosophical school called Pudgalavada which posited the existence of a person (*puggala*) based on SN 22.22 , who has continued existence, experiences the result of his kamma, gets reborn and finally becomes liberated etc. Other Buddhist schools apparently criticized this view for being too close to self or *atman* / *atta*. > “And what, bhikkhus, is the carrier of the burden? It should be said: > the person (*puggala*), this venerable one of such a name and clan. This is called > the carrier of the burden. > SN 22.22 > One person (*ekapuggala*) roaming and transmigrating for > an eon would amass a heap of bones the size > of this Mount Vepulla, if they were gathered together and not lost. > SN 15.10