Is it possible for a person to gain liberation while simultaneously practicing unskillful means? Is it possible for a person to understand profound universal truths while simultaneously practicing unskillful means? Are skillful means in accordance with profound universal truths? Are profound universal truths in accordance with skillful means? An example of a skillful means is acknowledging the conventional truth of rebirth in cyclic existence. An example of a profound universal truth is that the Buddha was not to be regarded as a real and genuine fact as was taught to Anurādha. An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma. An example of a profound universal falsify is to understand the Buddha as a real and genuine fact. Another example of a profound universal falsity is to believe like Yamaka that, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.” Various traditions divide the above conventions into a dichotomy. The labels that are used and the understanding of that dichotomy is different from tradition to tradition. In Theravada, I have seen the dichotomy variously described as right views of two types including, without vs with effluents, definitive vs interpretable, supramundane vs mundane, and in commentarial literature ultimate vs conventional. In Mahayana, the dichotomy is labeled in similar ways but also absolute/ultimate/universal vs conventional/relative/dependent.

Did Gautama Buddha really intend to create a new religion? Was it because he was disillusioned with the prevalent religious practices, rituals and teachings of his time?

I have yet to read the entire Pali canon, but I've read a lot of it. It is a source I trust is fairly accurate. I'm still looking for an anecdote from the Buddha's life where he tells a non-believer to start believing in rebirth. Confining answers to the suttas, I'd appreciate pointers to any specific statements he made.

The Four Noble Truths include the Noble Eightfold Path which importantly includes “right view” as the first step on that path. However, it is said in Snp 4.5 that a Realized One does not hold any “views” nor declare any view foremost: > “Whoever should take to himself certain views, thinking them best, > supreme in the world, and hence he proclaims all others as low— by > this he does not become free from disputes.“ Is the “right view” as described in the Noble Eightfold Path the same kind of “view” that is described in Snp 4.5? If so, does this mean that a Realized One abandons the right view of the Noble Eightfold path?? If not, then what is a “view” as described in Snp 4.5 and how is it different from the “right view” of the Noble Eightfold path? It has been pointed out (quite astutely!) that the "right view" of the Noble Eightfold path can be divided into two. (MN 117) There is the right view with effluents and the right view without. Are either one of these, both, or neither the same type of "views" as described in Snp 4.5? Also, the Buddha often described things with the adjective “foremost”; does this mean those things so described were not “views” as meant in Snp 4.5?

I meditate for the purpose described by the Dalai Lama (in his book The Heart of Meditation: Discovering Innermost Awareness ): > To achieve a friendly attitude, a warm heart, respect for the rights > of others, and concern for their welfare, we must train the mind. The > essential objective of mental training is to cultivate an attitude of > compassion and calm After 30-60 minutes I am calm and aware, but seeing no further benefit in sitting longer. I don't buy the idea that the Buddha's teachings were only available to the select few who can achieve special meditative states. Are there any teachers or traditions that teach a path that does not rely on long meditations that last for hours? (The closest I know of is the Insight Meditation Society , and while they don't appear to emphasize jhanas, they do hold meditation retreats.)

I tend to write down when I meditate, and also note the length of the sessions. Observing my notes, I had the impression that when I sat for longer times (40m - 1h), I also was paradoxically more consistent. Is such a thing ever mentioned in Buddhism? Usually, in habit formation psychology, it is the easiest habits that develop the most. Could lengthening meditation sessions also establish greater consistency?

If no thing transmigrates, and nibbana is cessation, Is a perception of death - a perception of cessation, then akin to a perception of nibbana?

Is thinking that there are no good people / followers of five precepts in this world a wrong view? I read this in some where but I forgotten it. It is hard to see that kind of people other than Buddhist monks. This is a reason for some people to not to follow buddhism. Some times I feel the same way. Is this a wrong view? Do you meet real Buddhists in real life other than monks? I always try to remember that the metaphor of lotus pond. Kind regards.

This is based on the comments below this answer . From this page , we find the commentary: > nirodha-samāpatti 'attainment of extinction' (S. XIV, 11), also called > saññā-vedayita-nirodha, 'extinction of feeling and perception', is the > temporary suspension of all consciousness and mental activity, > following immediately upon the semi-conscious state called 'sphere of > neither-perception-nor-non-perception' (s. jhāna, 8). And also this commentary : > According to the commentary, "seclusion" here stands for Unbinding. On > emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, and having had > contact with emptiness/the signless/the undirected, the mind inclines > naturally to a direct experience of Unbinding. On the other hand, the sutta states: > Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension > of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the > cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, > their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha spoke of > progressive cessation in a definitive sense.” > AN 9.61 My question is: Does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha refer to a super trance-like state beyond the 8th jhana in which the practitioner becomes completely unconscious without any mental activity (like what the commentary above suggests) with cessation of ALL perception and feeling? Or does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha refer to Nibbana-element with residue aka Unbinding-property with fuel remaining of Iti 44 (please see Ven. Thanissaro's footnotes), where the arahant is fully conscious with mental activity, but has cessation of only the clinging (or tainted) perception and feeling? This is related to the clinging aggregates of SN 22.48 . The quoted passage from AN 9.61 can be interpreted in both these ways. The commentary suggests that after the practitioner comes out of the super trance-like state then he stays with Nibbana-element with residue. But the latter interpretation suggests that beyond the 8 jhanas, there is no super trance-like state. Rather, after experiencing Nibbana, it's directly Nibbana-element with residue in any state with mental activity present. In short, does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha mean cessation of ALL perception and feeling, or cessation of the clinging-aggregates of perception and feeling? **Question: does nirodha samapatti refer to a super trance like state beyond 8th jhana OR does it refer to the state of arahantship (nibbana-element without residue i.e. without the clinging aggregates of perception and feeling)?**

The teaching of Buddha Kassapa in Snp 2.2 : > “Killing living beings, > hunting, cutting, binding, > theft, lying, fraud, deceptions, > useless recitations, > associating with the wives of others: > This is a raw stench, > not the eating of meat. > Snp 2.2 (and more similar statements in the whole text of the same sutta) From Buddha Kassapa's quote above, we see that eating meat by itself is not killing karma. However, it is popular opinion that eating meat is definitely killing karma because it indirectly causes the killing of animals. This was also Tissa's attack on Buddha Kassapa, a brahmin by birth. What is the correct understanding of the principle of karma in Buddhism, for this case of eating meat? Why does Snp 2.2 not consider eating meat to be killing karma?

*In this answer* it's said that the *Five Precepts* are not a form of gradual training. Are they are a gradual training? If not, why? Thank you for your time.

The doctrine of paṭicca-samuppāda, or dependent arising, forms one of the core teachings of the Buddha. The Theravāda commentarial text Nettipakaraṇa divides the applications of this doctrine into two major categories. The first category, ‘lokiya paṭicca-samuppāda’ is very well known, representing ‘worldly’ conditionality as a sequence of twelve nidānas. The second category, called ‘lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda’, creates a model of the process of liberation from the same lokiya paṭicca-samuppāda at the point of ‘jarā- maraṇa’, a term that is curiously replaced by ‘dukkha’, suffering. Applications of the second category are also referred to as the ‘Spiral Path’ after the coinage of Sangharakshita, the pre-eminent modern exponent of this aspect of Buddhist doctrine. I have some queries regarding this: The Upanisā Sutta that deals with lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda in detail, traces the chain of this transcendental conditionality step-by- step in a retrograde fashion from the ‘Destruction of the Cankers’ to ‘Faith’ and it is easy to understand how each such nidāna becomes the supporting condition of the next. However, I am unable to make out how ‘Suffering’ forms the supporting condition for ’Faith’ to arise. Could this be clarified? The second query is why is lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda also called the ‘Spiral Path’ by Bikśu Sangharakshita? Lastly, why is the nidāna of jarā- maraṇa replaced by the more general term dukkha in the concept of lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda?

Deep down, I know there is a core that wants to love everyone for who they are. No matter who they are to me, the world, no matter how terrible of a person they are, no matter how much they make me jealous. The only problem is, the stuff in the middle. I feel like I cannot move past things due to unclean closures to relationships and overall jealousy. I really want to wish everyone the best, but my intentions are tainted by negative emotions. How do we break through this terrible barrier that stops us from loving ourself and everyone else, and how do we unconditionally love everyone?

In Bhikkhu Nanamoli's **The Life of the Buddha** when describing the circumstances around his birth, Nanamoli writes > When the Bodhisatta had descended into his mother's womb, no thought > of man associated with the five strands of sensual desires came to her > at all, and she was inaccessible to any man with lustful mind. > > When the Bodhisatta had descended into his mother's womb, she at the > same time possessed the five strands of sensual desires; and being > endowed and furnished with them, she was gratified in them. I understand the first paragraph. And, I assume that by "the five strands of sensual desires" he's referring to the five kāmaguṇa in this answer . The first paragraph seems to be portraying that this was a *virgin* conception (or, if not *virgin*, then it was a pregnancy that did not arise through coitus). However, I don't understand what is actually being said in the second paragraph quoted. Is it merely saying that, in addition to the purity of her being just described, she was herself exceptionally comely? Another aspect of this that confuses me is what is meant by "she was gratified in them"?

When Time is conditioned, when Space is also supposedly conditioned, when all ‘phenomena’, in the strictest philosophical sense of the word, are conditioned, how can the unconditioned Nibbāna be ever defined? When language itself is mired in conditionality, a slave to the world of perceptions and conceptualization, how can we even try to use it to convey the meaning of the unconditioned, asaṃskṛt Nirvāṇa? Isn’t it a semantic impossibility? Was Nāgārjuna right when he subjected Nirvāṇa to the catuṣkoṭi logic and came out with strictest and most comprehensive negative answer, the ultimate via negativa, apophatic explanation? Based on my understanding, I can thoroughly appreciate the following ‘definitions’: > "There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; > neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, > I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing > away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support > [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress." — Ud 8.1 > "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If > there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there > would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made > — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an > unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born > — become — made — fabricated is discerned." — Ud 8.3 > Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do > not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, > darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, > has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss > & pain, > he is freed. — Ud 1.10” > > _(Courtesy, ATI) But this is what I find difficult to accept: > **"This is peace, this is exquisite** — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of > craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbāna." — AN 3.32 > There's no fire like passion, no loss like anger, no pain like the > aggregates, > **no ease other than peace.** > > Hunger: the foremost illness. Fabrications: the foremost pain. For one > knowing this truth as it actually is, **Unbinding is the foremost > ease.** > > Freedom from illness: the foremost good fortune. Contentment: the > foremost wealth. Trust: the foremost kinship. > **Unbinding: the foremost ease.** — Dhp 202-205 > The enlightened, constantly absorbed in jhāna, persevering, firm in > their effort: they touch Unbinding, > **the unexcelled safety from bondage**. — Dhp 23” > > _(Courtesy, ATI) Is a via positiva, cataphatic definition rationally, linguistically even possible? Could somebody help me understand Nibbāna better?

This is not a question about being a vegetarian. My question is since the Buddha didn't prohibit monks from eating meat, and since monks are supposed to be easy to maintain and take what is offered, how should/would a monk who has chosen to be a vegetarian handle being offered meat by a lay person? If they chose to refuse the meal would that make them high maintenance, proud or unappreciative? If they ate it, how would they reconcile that with their personal practice? I'm particularly interested in an answer from any monastic on how they have handled or would handle this.

Does regret / guilt help us to correct our faults? Doesn't the pain from our faults push us to the correct path?

Apologies, this question has been brewing for some time after observing so many expressions of suffering from maybe not so much as misinformation, but more misdirection. Are there any scriptures defining what "wholesome meditation" is with relation to all the Skandha and not just one? Wouldn't wholesome imply a working towards balance between all components that constitute an individual? Because every meditation is a technique of cultivation for the 'individual' to reach enlightenment...? Would this also mean enforcing one and neglecting the other four is not only counterintuitive, but potentially dilapidating for the cultivation of an individual? And such imbalance may shed some light on how there are so many questions regarding some form of suffering while meditating? *Watering a tree, but no offering of light, mineral rich food, interaction from the world or even foundational soil for constitution.* *Yet, plant the tree in the sun, near a creek in soil complimenting and feeding it's roots and birds to spread it's seed...*

If someone hires a person to kill another and the plot is discovered, both the hired killer and the one who hired him will be arrested and imprisoned. Yet, somehow, if a monk eats food given by others, no negative kamma is created, even though the monk is aware of and complicit in the process of killing, i.e. he knows someone else had to do the killing of the plant or animal for his ultimate benefit, even if it wasn't explicitly killed for him. Even worse, someone whose profession involves the daily killing of animals as is the case in a slaughterhouse, has to bear the mental consequences of this daily ritual as well as its kammic consequences. Yet a monk can avoid all this simply by waiting for someone to put the dead animal in his bowl. The morality of this doesn't make sense. I would think the only morally harmless situation would be for a monk to only eat an animal or plant that had already died naturally, either by scavenging for it or waiting for another to do so on his behalf. Question: Can a monk choose to eat only an animal or plant that had died naturally? This either by scavenging on his own or by waiting for others to offer this to him?

No one can deny that a rainbow is as real as the term can be defined in any meaningful way. You can point to it so that others can see it and you can even photograph it. If a rainbow was a mind created phenomenon, then a camera, which has no mind or consciousness, would not be able to photograph it. Yet, if you got into a helicopter and traveled into the rainbow, all you would find would be atmosphere, moisture and sunlight, i.e. the elements of the rainbow. You would no longer perceive the rainbow itself. Yet, someone further away would see both the rainbow and the helicopter you were in, so even though you no longer perceived the rainbow because of your proximity at such close scale it would not mean that the rainbow ceased to exist or that it was never existent in the first place. Similarly, a meditator might perceive a dissolution of the self into its constituent elements and thus conclude that the self does not truly exist, yet it wouldn't mean that it actually did not exist, only that the meditator's awareness of it had ceased. As a comparison, if one is asleep and dreaming, one loses awareness of the body and the external world, yet both still exist for others, one of whom could wake up a sleeping person and return them to the world and body they had become unaware of. Thus, only awareness would have ceased, not the objects of awareness. Is the affirmation of a self somehow analogical to the affirmation of a rainbow ,is it just as real and not-real in that sense?