Currently, I work at home taking calls for tech support for a cable company. I work to help solve customers' issues as best as possible over the phone and send a technician if need be. The one thing I have been able to get past now is getting people onto the newest service available. The way that I see this being right livelihood is due to the fact that I am relieving suffering through poor cable services and possibly stress with paying too much (only sometimes is it paying more for the new service). I would like some thoughts on this as this has been running through my mind lately. No harm is being done through this job from what I can tell. Thanks in advance and Big Love!

I'm a Hindu and don't know much about Buddhism. Many people say that Buddhism is the art of cultivating the mind, which I feel includes methods to control and discipline the mind. I have poor control of my mind; I cannot concentrate on any work for a good amount of time as my mind keeps wandering away. I'm addicted to pornography, I watch porn everyday and masturbate. This causes my penis to hurt. I want to stop this habit but can't. I try not to watch porn but my mind keeps driving me to watch porn. These are not the only problems, I'm facing lot of problems in my life caused due to lack of control of my mind. I know Buddhism suggests meditation for the control of mind. Is that enough, or what are the other ways and methods to master the mind, according to Buddhism?

Didn't the Buddha do some kind of great compassion meditation for a significant part of his daily routine while teaching? If so, what's the name of it and what did it involve?

I struggle with the idea that Buddhism has two warring schools and wonder why they cannot make peace. What are the issues on which Theravada and Mahayana cannot agree? Just bullet points would be fine. I'm not inviting an argument about who is right, just asking for the facts. A summary of key doctrinal differences is what I'm after, if this is possible. Issues such as which scriptures are authentic may be omitted since this is not a doctrinal difference, but differences in the interpretation of those scriptures would have to be included. Thanks. EDIT: Thanks for all the answers. They make fascinating reading. The question has been answered well enough for my purposes.

I've heard stream entry described as a turning about in the deepest seat of consciousness. I've also read other accounts that make me think that there is something about the experience that is unmistakable. Is that true? If one were to attain stream entry would one know it without doubt. Is it such a notable experience that it couldn't be mistaken for anything else?

I've developed over the years an attachment to social media, which I've many, many times tried to break. I'm starting to suspect it is because there's no problems when things go well, but when I *fail*, I automatically blame myself and get discouraged and give up. For Buddhists, is there any specific view or attitude to adopt towards failure? Something that would allow one to cope with such discouragement? I feel many factors are involved. Thank you

For me, until recently, an insight was this: having been mindful of some phenomenon that I contemplated, I then have a spontaneous idea about that phenomenon. For example, I might be contemplating suffering and then get a cognitive insight, a thought, comprehending and summarizing suffering and its nature. Is this what is meant by insight in Buddhism? I have been considering that maybe Buddhism means insight in an altogether different way. I know that in insight meditation, in vipassana, one examines specifically non-self, suffering and impermanence. But: 1. Is there such a thing in Buddhism as *general* insight, that is an insight into any type of phenomenon? 2. And as I mentioned, is there in Buddhism some other type of insight than a conceptual thought, an insight that might require mere awareness *without* thought?

As we know, the Eightfold Path begins with Right View, and then from Right View follows Right Intention. Right View - belief in suffering, the relief from suffering and the Triple Gem; from this follows Right Intention - the "desire" or resolve to follow the Buddha Way. (This is of course closer to the Theravada belief; the Mahayana belief is too esoteric to describe in words, or to have any logical progression, but is a sudden overwhelming experience of "feeling" one is totally Buddhist. Correct? I'd like both Theravada and Mahayana perspectives on this question.) Here is the problem: we know that the Buddha suffered hardship in this world, including sickness and requiring a physician at times. We know that he had enemies who wished him harm. How then is it possible to believe that the Buddha was the happiest or most fortunate person ever to exist? Surely, out of all of history, with billions of people, there must have been somebody with fewer sicknesses and fewer enemies! How does one believe, WHY does one believe, that he was totally free from misery or mental anguish? Does one believe this merely because it is taught as doctrine? How is it possible to believe that he was "happy" or "the happiest" as we, being mere humans, would understand the term? How is it possible to believe that he was "most fortunate" or "most blessed" as we would understand it? If he was not "the happiest", "the most fortunate", or other similar expressions, as -we- would understand them, then how does a mere mortal with real-world human struggles form the resolve to follow the dharma unconditionally? Should one believe that Buddhism can bring earthly blessings, or not? And if not, then how can a human being who suffers from a desire for/lack of earthly blessings form the motivation to follow the dharma whole-heartedly? In the simplest terms, why would an ordinary human being with ordinary struggles want to live the life of the Buddha? Is it even possible for an ordinary human being with a difficult life to want to be like the Buddha?

- Purpose: I want to know which sutta is this story coming from. - Background: I remember that when I joined the 10-day Vipassana course held by S.N.Goenka, he said, You can carve your Sankhara like an ocean wave. If you keep carving the Sankhara, eventually, it becomes stronger, like carving it on wood. Someday, it becomes like carving it on a rock. Something like this. It might be incorrect. - Comment: Does anyone know it?

if I observe the 8 precepts today,fast in the afternoon and eat at 12am the next day, is it considered a sin?

I noticed that for me, it is very difficult to cease certain behaviours, such as eating junk food for example. Does Buddhism suggest a benefit to delaying such behaviours to later in the day, as opposed to early on? Is there an inherent benefit in delay, or does it change nothing, given the behaviour will have occurred that day anyways? Is delay a viable strategy for urges?

Whenever I'm confronted with behaviours I find potentially harmful, I get angry. One example of this is when I witness motorists speeding or otherwise making risky maneuvers (going after the light has turned red, cutting in traffic, etc.) I may be enjoying a nice calm walk in my neighbourhood and be otherwise feeling quite serene, but then a single passing car happens to accelerate too much (sometimes noisily), and then I start feeling all sorts of feelings of disapproval, powerlessness and contempt. I feel like I should change my attitude, but I'm not quite sure what I should strive for. Clearly, getting worked up over passing cars accomplishes little. It even hurts me, since I lose focus on what better thoughts I was enjoying before. Afterwards, I'm in an unhappy, vindictive mood for a while. People I love that see me having these types of reactions often look concerned and a bit disturbed. Pretty clearly, getting angry is not the right reaction. On the other hand, even on a rational level, I'm not sure I want to *not* get angry, because it seems obvious to me that these drivers are taking unnecessary risks that will invariably lead to more kids getting hit by cars, more car crashes, more noise, environments that feel less safe - harmful things. If I *don't* react, am I not placing myself and others in harm's way by taking part in an enabling apathy? Please note - reckless driving here is just an example. I'm hoping to find some insight on how to deal with things that are more or less tolerated by many, either by apathy, ignorance or differences in personal values, but that are for some reason important to me. Other examples that come to mind : - Marketing - Political propaganda - Erosion of private life - The environment - Social justice. How do Buddhists see disagreements where the opposing party might harm others if they continue in their ways? A *"Live and let live"* attitude seems problematic, since it contributes to the problem.

As I understand, the early Buddhist teachings were transmitted orally and memorized by monks and they were written down only much later. It must have been tremendous feet of human memory to retain so many of the sutras in the Tipitaka. I want to ask, are there any teachings, maybe in the ***vinaya pitaka***, which will help a monk increase his or her memory in order to remember the sutras.

Is there a an online copy of English translation of Pramanavarttika of Shri Dharmakirthi? Of the available links only second chapter is available. If the full version is available, please provide the link for it.

What raised mudra is depicted on this particular Buddha rupa at the London Peace Pagoda and what does it mean? Also, which Buddha is this?

I read this answer, and it made me wonder something deeply; the answer seemed to imply strenuous or volitional attention was inferior to watching the mind for breath meditation, and that merely observing was more effective. I have heard such a statement many times elsewhere, that too much 'expecting' or 'grasping' inhibits concentration. **If this is so, how does a practitioner loosen their grip on the mind? How does one observe the breath with detachment?**

In the [Sappurisa Sutta, MN 113, Access to Insight](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.113.than.html) it says: > 'The Blessed One has spoken of non-fashioning even with regard to the > attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, > for by whatever means they construe it, it becomes otherwise from > that.' Or as translated in [The Middle Length Discourses](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Middle-Length-Discourses-Buddha-Majjhima-Nikaya/dp/086171072X/) , page 912 > 'Non-identification even with the attainment of the base of > neither-perception-nor-non-perception has been declared by the Blessed > One; for in whatever way they conceive, the fact is ever other than > that.' and by [Tang Huyen, alt.zen](https://groups.google.com/g/alt.zen/c/VvI4DHmHEYg/m/8VEsTodEfnYJ) > 'Non-identification-with (a-tam-maya-taa, the state of > not-being-made-up-with-that) even the place of neither notion nor > not-notion has been spoken of by the Blessed One; for what and what > (yena yena) they think it (maññanti tato), it becomes otherwise (ta.m > hoti aññathaa ti).' The phrase in the second translation: "for in whatever way they conceive, the fact is ever other than that", seems to apply generally, as if describing Maya. The other translations could be read as saying specifically the "attainment of the dimension ..." or 'Non-identification-with' should not be construed. Should the more general sense apply? Is that the original meaning?

I was looking for some good Buddha Quote and I find this very interesting. ' **Be light of yourself**. But I found two versions of this in google as 1. Appo Deepo Bhava 2. Atta dīpo bhava Which one is the correct wording? I would like to get the proper Pali wordings for the phrase " **Be light to yourself**". thank you

In the Mahasatipatthana-Sutta are mentioned three kinds of sensations: pleasant sensations (dukkha vedana); unpleasant sensations (sukha vedana) and adukkhamasukha vedana. What is the meaning of adukkhamasukha vedana? What are those sensations?

Among the steps needed to attain enlightenment, a practitioner of Buddhism needs to abandon the wrong philosophical views that they acquired due to either wrong teaching or wrong study. In this sense, a practitioner that is less educated need only remove his or her sense of self or ego and the afflictions due to his or her present body. However, a practitioner that is educated would also have to remove the philosophical views acquired through wrong learning. As paradigms in science have historically been replaced by new paradigms _a la_ Kuhn, this means that science is necessarily a wrong view. For instance, a person living in Newton's time would have studied the absoluteness of time and space, but that view was displaced by Einstein's relativistic paradigm. Whatever science we are learning now, whether it be quantum physics or evolution or species, given the historical record, would be a wrong view and replaced by a more correct paradigm in the future. Even mathematics have proven to be contradictory through history. At first, set theorists believed in unlimited comprehension till Russell's paradox showed the need for bounded comprehension, in the fateful saga of Russel and Whitehead's _Principia Mathematica_. Pythagoras's theorem was thought to be unconditionally true, but now it is true in only one of the three absolute geometries and physicists now believe our world to be non-Euclidean, in which Pythagoras's theorem fails. After one is reborn in another world, the physics or mathematics of that world would likely be very different, and one's body would also likely be very different. This probably indicates the impermanent nature of the science and mathematics of our current society. Are you also of the opinion that the learning mathematics and science causes a person to acquire wrong views? Would this lead one further away from enlightenment?