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...

I have read here argumentation for the continuity of mind, coming from a Geshe in Tibetan Buddhism. From what I have learnt it is asserted that: * Consciousness could not arise from matter (could not have matter as its ***substantial cause***). * It could not arise from nothing. * It could only arise from another moment of consciousness. Note: the definition of **"substantial cause"** above comes from Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika. Has anyone come across a Buddhist argument why something could not have nothing as its substantial cause? What faulty logical consequences would follow? More specifically, I have in mind a situation when due to a higher being's act/wish, something comes into being. What comes into being is not transformed from another previous entity, but emerges "from nothing" merely due to the higher's act/wish. I would like to understand whether there are logical contradictions that would follow from the asserting this to be possible.

Can a bodhisattva or lay Buddhist be too concerned with truth at the expense of compassion and altruism? **What is the relationship between truth and compassion?** e.g.. is the truth always compassionate, and if not, which is more important? Or, can we pursue the Buddha dharma out of a desire for the truth alone. etc.

So here is a quick "disclaimer": I know that the Buddha didn't answer metaphysical questions since it made no sense to him. He wanted to afaik limit/remove suffering as much as possible. Also I know that science isn't always right and is itself making up theories which more then often enough turn out to be false. Also I meditate a lot every day as in sitting meditation and all together mindfulness. Well now to my question: I somehow get scared of thinking how there was (according to science) a big bang and then I wonder what was before the big bang or where the space comes from that the universe takes up etc. I don't know why but especially these last days I'm drawn to think about it even though I know it doesn't help me in any way and even if I happen to know everything it won't change anything. Also another thing I think of is heat death. Which again I know is a story made up by science and then I ask myself is it really worth to do anything, live, help etc. anybody if in the ultimate end everything will be gone and does that maybe imply that all beings will reach paranirvana? And just like these questions seem metaphysical and paranormal I feel like the idea of rebirth and paranirvana is also somewhat scary to think about and is as well somewhat metaphysical. I wish I could give up all these unnecessary thoughts which cause suffering to me. Also I wish science wouldn't go as far as trying to explain everything. Do you have any thoughts on this?

What advice did the Buddha give to laypeople or monastics about taking care of a dying loved one or anyone dying in their deathbed?

I have a question. I like to draw, and recently think of selling my art (commisssion). But I mainly draw fanart (fanart of celebrities, movie characters, etc). My question is, in Buddhism, is selling our drawing of real life people (celebrities, famous people) considered wrong? As in 'using' their popularity for us to gain profit?

In psychology, there is a form of meditation called 'open-monitoring', which involves paying non-judgmental awareness to everything that arises in the present moment. I have heard, and read, that Buddhism typically advises one to have some experience with concentrative meditations before engaging in such open meditations. Is it necessary to have some experienced with focused attention in order to practice more objectless meditations? Is there a big difference between sitting on the cushion doing nothing, and practicing an open type of meditation? How is the concentration required?

I am keen on finding a teacher that is experienced in Samatha meditation. I have come to understand meditation as a skill to be practiced and developed over time. This practice is something I plan to take seriously and dedicate myself to, but have struggled to find local teachers. I am wondering if there are any known means of perhaps finding virtual teachers, or how those of you without access to a local sangha have taken this important step. In seeking out a teacher I do have concerns about being misguided by someone that is not themselves an advanced meditator. I do strive towards the path to stream entry and I worry that in my inexperience I may lack the discernment to know when a teaching is solid or not. Any advice in this regard would be much appreciated as well. It is worth noting that I am fond of the teachings of the Thai Forest Lineage but would not be closed off to welcoming teachings from other traditions :) Thank you!

I have seen the same monk in two different color robes and am wondering why. They were dark red and of course orange. Ihave also seen brown, but that was zen, and if any other colors have relevance i would like to hear about them as well. I practice Theravada if that helps with referencing or relevance issues.

I'd like to meditate on the breath to calm myself and diminish stress. Yet, when I meditate on the breath, I typically feel more stressed afterwards. How long should I practice this technique before seeing effects? How can I tell if it actually relaxes me?

It has been said that the reason the Buddha *did not answer* Vacchagotta was because the discussion was not about the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha, but rather about the illogical doctrine of Vacchagotta: > “Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?” > > “Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely, > if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ I would have been > siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. When > Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, if I > had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’ I would have > been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. > > When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely, if I had > answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ would that have helped give > rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?” > > “No, sir.” > > “When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, > if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’, > Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, > thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’” > > SN 44.10 It's also been said that the Buddha *did answer* the question about what happened to Pukkusāti *after* a cow killed him *even though* it was asked by ignorant monks who presumably were - just like Vacchagotta - not using the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha: > But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, a stray cow > took his life. > > Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one > side, and said to him, “Sir, the gentleman named Pukkusāti, who was > advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. **Where has he been > reborn in his next life?”** > > “Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the > teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending > of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously and will > become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.” > > MN 140 This seems inconsistent. Why is it that the Buddha *did not answer* Vacchagotta, but *did answer* the monks if both were premising their questions with ignorant understandings of the view of the self?

If see the citta during meditation how it links to depend origin?is seeing the citta cause liberation as sotapanna?