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

> Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall > be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be > possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a > conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be > non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be > neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is > a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming > all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage > at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and > does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might > be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he > die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should > he yearn? > > MN 140 Also has: > Then the venerable Pukkusāti, having delighted and rejoiced in the > Blessed One’s words, rose from his seat, and after paying homage to > the Blessed One, keeping him on his right, he departed in order to > search for a bowl and robes. Then, while the venerable Pukkusāti was > searching for a bowl and robes, **a stray cow killed him.** > > Then a number of bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, and after paying > homage to him, they sat down at one side and told him: “Venerable sir, > the clansman Pukkusāti, who was given brief instruction by the Blessed > One, has died. **What is his destination? What is his future course?**” > > “Bhikkhus, the clansman Pukkusāti was wise. He practised in accordance > with the Dhamma and did not trouble me in the interpretation of the > Dhamma. With the destruction of the five lower fetters, **the clansman > Pukkusāti has reappeared spontaneously in the Pure Abodes** and will > attain final Nibbāna there without ever returning from that world.” And we have this alternative translation of the relevant passage from Bhikkhu Sujato: > "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.” What did the Buddha mean in MN 140 about what happened to clansman Pukkusāti **after** a cow killed him?

When I was watching some youtube video I heard Baphuon was converted into Buddhist temple. But It's hard for me to believe it. My question is why Buddhists would have to convert other religious places to their own. Here in India mostly shiva temples was Buddhist places. Conversely picture is different and even shiva concept is copied from Buddha. That's why I have asked. Please tell me if it is truth or false if anyone have studied this architecture.

If possible could someone provide me with references to sutras where the Buddha broaches such topics? In my previous question I asked about it generally and a kind user told me that information could be found in the second and third turnings of the Dharma wheel. Since I am fairly new to Buddhism, could you tell me where exactly to find answers to above question?

How do you understand the Ananda Sutta ? How do you place it in relation to the Atman or Anatta (An-atman) doctrine? SN 44.10 > Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, > exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly > greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he > asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?" > > When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. > > "Then is there no self?" > > A second time, the Blessed One was silent. > > Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left. > > Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda > said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer > when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?" > > "Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a > self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming > with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism > [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being > asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer > that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & > contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that > death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by > Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that > there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of > knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" > > "No, lord." > > "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no > self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered > Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used > to have now not exist?'"

What is the difference between the progress of "low intensive" meditators as opposed to "high intensive" meditators? By low intensive I mean like a meditator who has never been to a ten day intensive retreat and spreads sitting time over a longer period of time. By progress I mean Vipassana insight progress, Jhana progress or any other kind of meditation progress in any tradition.

I have a question. A man should attain enlightenment to liberate himself from cycle of rebirths and every other aspects. What if a **MAN** don't even care to try out to attain enlightenment. Will he be stuck in a cycle and no place to stop his process of rebirth until he attains enlightenment. Does he be a prisoner of this birth cycle. Is there no way for him to escape until he attains **Enlightenment**. What is the end of this birth cycle? I don't have in-depth knowledge in Buddhism or the question I ask. So please correct me if I am wrong.

I'm looking for a Sutta I read recently that has instructions (or a description) on a gradual exit of meditation/levels of concentration. It might talk about this in the context of Samādhi or Jhāna, I'm not sure. I recall it being somewhat similar to [SN 47:10](https://suttacentral.net/sn47.10/en/bodhi) in that it is more of a parallel description of concentration/absorption/mindfulness, rather than the usual formulas. I've skimmed through the Satipaṭṭhānasaṁyutta and the Jhānasaṁyutta, but there's just too many discourses. Not to mention the fact that the Sutta I'm looking for might not even be in the Saṁyutta Nikaya. Any pointers would be much appreciated.

At work, I try to be mindful, deliberate, and calm. I found with the help of meditation and being mindful makes me less distracted and less stressed at my work or whatever I do. But I also feel being mindful, deliberate and calm makes me slow, feels less involved at my work(though I feel focused) and less energetic. I used to be very active and fast at certain stuffs I do but now I dont feel like that if try to be mindful. How to overcome this? I want to be mindful and calm but I also want to be fast and involved at my work(or in other words highly active)?

Ana (Āna, Āṇā, incoming breath, inhale) & Apana (apāṇa, āpāna, outgoing breath, exhale), there is a moment between them. Or let's say the point switches from incoming breath to outgoing breath. I can't remember the terminology for this switching point. I believe it exists in the Pali language. Does anyone know it? Thank you.

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?