I'm looking for more friends on the Buddhist path and would there for like to ask: **Are there any social networking sites for Buddhists**? Some features that I'm looking for: * Friends list * Seeing online status of friends * Sending direct messages to a friend * Chatting with a friend * Open forums * Sharing images * News feed Grateful for help! Kind Regards, Tord

I am hearing contradictorary things.Is the alayavijnana shared in yogacara?And is it momentary and subject to Kshanabhanga?What does vasubandhu say and the early yogacarins?Please cite sources.

I know that as long as someone isn't enlightened, thoughts will continue to arise in one's mind, including bad thoughts. And the only way to prevent bad thoughts from arising is through meditation. So does "not wanting to meditate" counted as bad karma? Because there's an intention to not want to meditate (meanwhile meditation is the only way to prevent bad thoughts from arising). So not wanting to meditate = letting bad thoughts to arise = bad karma(?) Can someone clear this for me? Thank you.

Is the upasakasila sutta based on the Tipitaka (Pali Canon) or is it based on the Mahayana teachings? Also, I understand that Buddhism doesn't condemn LGBT, but in the Upasakasila Sutta, it is written: > "If sex is practised under the inappropriate times (times not allowed by precepts), [at] inappropriate place[s] (places not allowed by precepts), with non-female[s], with virgin[s], with a married wife, if sex relates to self-body, it is known as sexual misconduct." Does this mean being gay (or lesbian, or being a part of LGBT) is considered sexual misconduct and therefore violated the 3rd precepts?

What has historical precedent to teach and what is your opinion?

Maybe a strange question, but I wonder if emptiness (sunyatta) is also a characteristic of the state of nirvana?

Today is a holiday, my friend post the dinner on the social media, I want to comment to celebrate their happy life. But I see the fish and beef in the pictures, I don't know how to comment, because in Buddhism there is banned to eat meat. They are not Buddhist scholars. They are not Buddhist at all.

Do you need both parents' permission to become ordained? What if one of the parents refuses contact? Should you strive for it?

In Tibetan Buddhism, there are the Four Immeasurables, as follows: > The Four Immeasurables as a Traditional Tibetan Buddhist Prayer > > May all beings have happiness and the cause of happiness. > >May they be free of suffering and the cause of suffering. > >**May they never be disassociated from the supreme happiness which is without suffering**. > > May they remain in the boundless equanimity, free from both attachment to close ones and rejection of others. > >https://www.padmasambhava.org/sermon/four-immesurables/ What is the meaning above of "*the supreme happiness which is without suffering*"? Does it refer to Nirvana? Or does it refer to any type of wholesome happiness? If possible, please offer Tibetan or Sanskrit linguistic support for the answer.

Is trying to find causes of everything not a good practise? Isn't having rational mind a good thing? I know that the Lord Buddha advised us to not to think about beginning of life. Because it make us crazy. There may be some other things like this. I realize that this thinking causes me to loose sati. Why that thing happen? How long does it exists? etc. Most of these thinking causes to stuck at a loop. It feels like it wastes lot of energy for nonsense. But I have fear of stopping this. Do I have to just stop thinking and let it go? Do I have to forget things without knowing causes of it? How do I select what to think and what not to think? How this affects sati? What Lord Buddha said about this? How should I handle this rationality?

Anatman/Anatta says that the 'self'is a momentary flux of Cittas-Vijnanas.There can be no stable permanent Citta,in kshanabhangavada a dharma perishes before its successor arises.one citta arises then perishes and another takes its place all going on until Nirvana is established.However,when one citta perishes,from where and what does the next Citta arise?it cannot be a nothing.but the Citta also cannot preexist as that would be absurd and there would be infinite mes or yous right now somewhere.it would also mean that the world would be Fate.but such a notion is Absurd anyway.it cannot also be that there is an infinite set of predetermined Cittas in a dormant state.as Cittas are all that' Exist' in the Mahayana and Tibetan schools.They cannot be dormant.dormant where?in a concrete external world?if such a receptacle existed wich was permanent and unchanging and not momentary it would be a Self! Citta can be equated with Vijnana Skandha or alaya vijnana aswell,as the alayavijnana is momentary within Buddhism. it cannot be that the Citta has the same substance as the former Citta because then it would just be the same Citta and Cittas are not Substantial according to Nagarjuna. It cannot be that a Citta endures until the next arises because this would confer confused Experience and still the former Citta has no Causal power to create another Citta Exnihilo. So how does the momentary flux of Cittas work?

I do manage to keep my self calm at times. But lately i feel i can't control the bubbling anger within me. I keep lashing out over small things. Sometimes even the smallest things can annoy me. I have tried breathing techniques and i must say that they are very useful in keeping self in check but it makes me very restless or like being sap out of energy. If anyone can give me advice i be grateful for it.

I am searching for sutta where Buddha talks about Nibbana. Also, there is one sutta where he says, "ah nothingness, great is this nothingness..." or something and his disciple replies, "What is so great where nothing happens". Can anyone please help me find the sutta?

In a recent version of the Buddhist Geeks podcast Rick Hanson said that recent academic research is showing that in the Pali Canon there were teachings indicating that compassion is enough to progress all the way on the Buddhist path. He further states that this foreshadows the Mahayana developments and if this has been emphasised within the early schools it would have negated the need for Mahayana at all. Does that ring any bells with anyone? Has anyone heard anything of this research or more broadly has anyone got any references where the Buddha really emphasises compassion and indicates that compassion alone is enough. Note: if anyone is interested Rick Hanson says this in the last 10 minutes of the podcast. --- It's at about time 29:55 through 30:48 in the podcast. Rick Hanson starts by saying (I paraphrase) that: - The Buddha talked about the three poisons: ignorance, anger, greed - Anger and greed map to the brain's two 'red-zone' behaviours, i.e. the 'aversion' and 'approaching' systems of the brain. Rick goes on to say that the brain has a third need or drive i.e. "heart-ache" for which the antidote is "love", and, > recent scholarship has shown that for him [the Buddha] love is a fully-sufficient path to complete awakening, and scholarship today has shown that maybe if there was a better understanding at the time that that's what he taught, after he died, there might not have been a need for the Mahayana revision if you will in terms of bringing more heart back into Dhamma practice." He goes on to say that there's a social brain, that love and social skills are the primary evolutionary driver of the brain, etc., that we need to honour heart-ache and pay attention to the attachment system. He thinks of "heartache" as a "fourth poison".

I have bought in my life many works written by the Dalai Lama. I know that as a monk, he forgoes material possessions. Yet, I recognize money is still being made with those texts, from the editors and publishers and so on. Am I to understand that it would only be wrong to sell such texts if the author gained money directly? What considerations are involved in the sale and publication of dhamma-related works?

Is compassion really a good translation for *Karuna*? I've been fooled by "patience " before, now I'm sort of suspicious of the other common translations for the paramitas. Does karuna in addition to feeling other people's pain also entail regret? In "A Few Good Men" by Nattier, she talks about people on the Bodhisattva path developing karuna by doing a 3 part ritual that is a repentance ritual. This seems far removed from imaginatively feeling the pain of others. Could it be that Karuna and English compassion, don't cover the same semantic ground?

In my meditation, I face a paradox. The quality of a single session of meditation is usually quite good for me. However, in terms of regularity across sessions, I struggle immensely, skipping sessions continuously. How can there arise such a discrepancy between a single meditation session's quality and my ability to be consistent? Are those reliant on different faculties? Is there a way to remedy this?

According to this answer for the question "Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories? ": > The Theravada accepts the Jataka stories as commentarial literature; > they are not canonical, but are considered a reliable account by a > learned Buddhist scholar. What are canonical are the verses that > accompany the stories ... > > It's not uncommon for modern Theravada Buddhists to question the > authenticity of the stories, especially given their often fantastical > content. Based on the above, it looks like the stories of the Buddha's past lives from Jataka are merely commentarial, and not canonical. However, I found one possible story of the Buddha's past life as told by him in MN 83 , which is part of the Sutta Pitaka, but outside Jataka. Being part of the Majjhima Nikaya, I take it that this is canonical. It's a story about the just and principled King Makhadeva who started the practice of retiring from the throne at an advanced age to become an ascetic. He practiced the Brahmaviharas, and was reborn after the break-up of the body, after death, in the Brahma realm. He established and passed on this good practice to his descendents who carried on doing it, till King Nimi's son Kaḷārajanaka who stopped this practice. The plot twist is when the Buddha tells Ananda: > And having developed the four Brahmā meditations, when his body broke > up, after death, King Nimi was reborn in a good place, a Brahmā realm. > But King Nimi had a son named Kaḷārajanaka. He didn’t go forth from > the lay life to homelessness. He broke that good practice. He was > their final man. > > Ānanda, you might think: ‘Surely King Makhādeva, by whom that good > practice was founded, must have been someone else at that time?’ But > you should not see it like this. **I myself was King Makhādeva at that > time.** I was the one who founded that good practice, which was kept up > by those who came after. But that good practice doesn’t lead to > disillusionment, fading away, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, > and extinguishment. It only leads as far as rebirth in the Brahmā > realm. But now I have founded a good practice that does lead to > disillusionment, fading away, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, > and extinguishment. And what is that good practice? It is simply this > noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right thought, right > speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right > mindfulness, and right immersion. This is the good practice I have now > founded that leads to disillusionment, fading away, cessation, peace, > insight, awakening, and extinguishment. Ānanda, I say to you: ‘You all > should keep up this good practice that I have founded. Do not be my > final men.’ Whatever generation is current when such good practice is > broken, he is their final man. Ānanda, I say to you: ‘You all should > keep up this good practice that I have founded. Do not be my final > men.’” The Pali version side-by-side with English: > I myself was King Makhādeva at that time. > Ahaṃ tena samayena rājā maghadevo ahosiṃ. > > I was the one who founded that good practice, > Ahaṃ taṃ kalyāṇaṃ vattaṃ nihiniṃ, > mayā taṃ kalyāṇa vattaṃ nihitaṃ; Questions: 1. Is my interpretation correct that the Buddha was King Makhadeva in his past life, based on the Pali version? 2. Are there other such canonical stories of the Buddha's past lives in the Pali Sutta Pitaka, outside of Jataka?

I'm often trying to correct others' views, opinions, and lifestyles. I feel a strong urge to correct when their actions are clearly bringing negative consequences for themselves and others. For example, in a place I live, people generally don't pay any attention to vaccination and the prevention of disease, and my failure to convince them to follow the guidelines with logical and carefully researched arguments causes me a lot of distress. Health, conduct, and environment-related triggers are the strongest, but I'm often needlessly eager to correct people for all other sorts of objective and subjective mistakes. Now, what would be the proper way to live with people while minimising my own distress and maximising the good influence I could have on others?

Yes, I have seen the similar questions. But they do not satisfyingly answer my own since my question is slightly different. Let me explain: I was reading up on Emptiness, Samsara and so on and found out that there is no individual soul or energy that reincarnates. Rather, it is like a candle lighting another whereby the wax of the new candle is different and has nothing in common with the previous candle. And I see that this image does not contradict (if there is no soul how can there be rebirth?) the theme of rebirth when looked at it this way. But I was wondering about one thing: If there is no individual, eternal essence (like the Atman in Hinduism) that is liberated wouldn't that mean that life would go extinct at a certain point? I mean if I understand the Buddha correctly we all return to the one "collective", true essence that he called the unborn, unchanging etc... Doesn't that mean that at the point where all beings were liberated life would cease to exist? So my question is why did he teach to free oneself from rebirth when looked at it from the perspective I tried to describe? Come to think of it the Buddha seemingly never answered questions of the origins or the fundamental workings of the universe. For example I know he was once asked what would happen to a fully enlightened Buddha after death. To my knowledge he would answer questions like this saying that it was meaningless to ask such things. Did the Buddha know something about the non-self or the universe that he purposefully never taught? Is the goal of a sentient being to join the "one soul/ground of being" that is the unborn? But why? Is it bliss to cease to exist and join a "homogenous mass of energy"? Why is it important to sever the karmic cycle if it is obvious that this is the way in which the universe manifests itself? In my opinion the universe manifesting as this myriad life forms is a joyous loving act and the whole point of the cosmic energy. I'm confused since I read that part about the Buddha's teachings...