I ask this question as someone on Twitter was arguing that Buddhism is casteist. He claimed that only upper castes were permitted to enter monkhood. I told him this was completely false and shared the example of Upali the barber. He shared the following link: [Buddhism: An Atheistic and Anti-Caste Religion?](https://t.co/3V1fy9fwKP?amp=1) by Edmund Weber. >The standpoint which caste a Buddha should belong to has not been revised in Buddhism up to the present day. It is dogmatised in the Lalitavistara in the following way: a Bodhisattva can by no means come from a lower or even mixed caste: > >>“After all Bodhisattvas were not born in despised lineage, among pariahs, in families of pipe or cart makers, or mixed castes.” > >Instead, in perfect harmony with the Great Sermon, it was said that: > >>“The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the brahmanas and of the warriors (kshatriya).” I corrected him that the document referred to Bodhisattvas and not ordinary monks who could grow to become full Arahants. He claimed that the religion was still casteist as only Brahmin and Kshatriyas could become Bodhisattvas. What does the Pali cannon say regarding this? Can you share any studies done on this by scholars?

Please limit the benefits to the here and now, because an ingenious youth hearing the benefit of future rebirths and also hearing hard to grasp concepts of karma might surely say “what’s in it for me *now*? what do I care what happens in the future?”. In other words, one who is a beginner and who lack virtues will say “Ooh this karmic concept you teach is like borrowing money from someone I don't know and I don't have to pay right *now* so why should I care?” By saying the above I’m not trying to open a discussion about Karma / Self etc… a virtue done because of idea of self as proposed by other religions where you get tormented in the future for action done here is a phony virtue, its like being temperate toward your wife for fear of losing her.

In Mahayana Buddhism, is it the true self that is reborn, or is it the empirical self? I tend to see it described as if it's just the latter, but then if I am my true self, then doesn't that equate to annihilationism and nihilism?

For at least half of my life I've had an extremely strong desire to be in a relationship/have a girlfriend and though I've tried, I've been unsuccessful and this has brought me tremendous suffering to the point where I almost committed suicide 2 years ago. I see couples in a similar age group as me every single day and this further increases my suffering. I first encountered Buddhism 2 years ago and through its teachings I've detached myself from the past and have removed my strong desire for material wealth and this indeed has removed a lot of suffering from my life, however, I just can't seem to let go of immense desire to have a girlfriend even after realizing that external circumstances never bring lasting happiness and fulfillment. How can I let go of this destructive desire?

I have been continuing my meditation practice, and I feel there would be a great benefit from switching to a metta practice instead of breath. Yet, with metta, a strange phenomenon occurs. I am usually very good *during* metta bhavana and generate the feelings. However, it is incredibly hard for me to begin the metta session, and I seem to avoid this type of meditation before and afterwards. Only during the practice do I feel great emotion and compassion. How can this be explained? Thank you.

Specifically when someone you love or whose opinion matters to you greatly attacks your way of life, your beliefs, or even on a smaller scale just makes you feel ignored, pushed around, etc. I find I quickly lose confidence in my "inner voice" when my loved ones, particularly family, do this. Generally when a stranger does this to me it's easier to let go. Does anyone have a useful visual metaphor or story around this? I try to see myself as a rock and their words like arrows pinging off me but it doesn't work.

In his brief introduction to [Sivaka Sutta, SN 36:21](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_21.html) , Thanissaro Bhikkhu states that the Sutta has been misinterpreted as saying that there are certain things not explainable as the results of Kamma. His argument, it seems to me, is that because the body is a result of Kamma (through rebirth), necessarily, the illnesses of the body are also encompassed as results of Kamma. But I’m not sure I understand his argument, as in my view, though the body is a result of Kamma, that doesn’t necessarily explain the arbitrary functions and conditions of the body. Am I missing something? Does anybody have an alternative explanation for Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s argument? Furthermore, I read [this other translation of the Sutta by Nyanaponika Thera](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.nypo.html) and the meaning seems to change slightly. In this translation, it seems that the Buddha is censuring the Brahmans who fall into the absolutism of saying that everything is the result of Kamma because they haven’t attained that knowledge for themselves, and are instead just following the common views of the time. This would seem to be more in line with [MN 101](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN101.html) , in which the Buddha refutes the views of the Nigaṇṭhas through a series of very compelling logical arguments. I am somewhat confused at the moment, and I would really appreciate it if someone could provide some clarity regarding this. I understand that the results of Kamma are not equal to predestination, and that it’s a very important component of the Buddha’s teaching, but _how_ exactly it is that the law of Kamma allows for freedom of choice and variation is what I don’t understand. Thank you, and Metta.

In the Yuganaddha Sutta (AN 4.170) , there is described the four paths stated below. Insight refers to vipassana and tranquility refers to samatha . 1. Development of tranquility before development of insight 2. Development of insight before development of tranquility 3. Tranquility developed in tandem with insight 4. Mind's restlessness concerning the Dhamma well under control (I guess this is "dry insight") Of these four paths, which is the easiest, smoothest and most pleasant to a novice lay practitioner? And why? Or is this question invalid, because meditation, insight and jhana is not suited to the lay practitioner? Please provide quotes to support your answer from the Buddha's words, if possible. I personally suspect that it is tranquility (at least the first jhana) before insight. ---------- In this essay , Henepola Gunaratana promoted tranquility before insight: > The Buddha is constantly seen in the suttas encouraging his disciples > to develop jhana. The four jhanas are invariably included in the > complete course of training laid down for disciples. ... Though a > vehicle of **dry insight can be found, indications are that this path is > not an easy one, lacking the aid of the powerful serenity available to > the practitioner of jhana. The way of the jhana attainer seems by > comparison smoother and more pleasurable** (A.ii,150-52). However, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu has a different view in this video from timestamp 9m 34s, where he said: > Samatha meditation - these meditations exists. There's no question > that there are meditations out there that will not lead you to > enlightenment. They can't, because they are not focused on reality. > They are creating an illusion in the mind. The only way that they > could lead to enlightenment, is as I said, if you use that to gain > insight. ... and because of the strength of the mind, you can see it > clearer than you would have, otherwise. It's kind of taking a > shortcut, but having to do a lot of preparation. So, not gaining > anything (during this preparation phase), except for these nice states of peace and calm, and maybe > some magical powers along the way, **which is probably best suited for > someone living in the forest**. So, which should be first? It's > totally up to you ... if you want to start with just vipassana, it was > very clear that ... **the Buddha gave this (vipassana) as the quickest > way**. A monk came up to the Buddha and said, "I'm old and I don't have > a lot of time and my memory is not good, I don't want to learn a lot, > give me the basics of the path" ..... So, there's obviously two camps out there. On one side, those who promote tranquility first like Ven. Henepola Gunaratana and Ajahn Brahm. But on the other side, you have those who promote insight alone or insight first like Ven. Yuttadhammo or S.N. Goenka. And then there's the interesting opinion in this answer by Dhammadhatu and this answer by Andrei Volkov, which imply that attainment of Jhana through meditation is not for lay people, which is echoed by Ven. Yuttadhammo's statement that samatha meditation is "probably best suited for someone living in the forest".

Each religion has their own values and its – compulsory or recommended – rules. Tolerance begins where the rulings of the religions differ. To what extent should a Buddhist follow the rules of a country, and where is the limit when Buddhists have to protest or to disobey? Which rights for a Buddhist should be observed by all countries? I am asking for rights that are needed to grant religious liberty in particular to Buddhists, maybe signed as the absolute minimum (limit when Buddhists have to protest or to disobey) and fair treatment (rights for a Buddhist should be observed by all countries).

I am just a little curious as I do not know. Would they be prohibited for buddhists or would they be allowed to watch?

 This print was my father’s. He wrote on the back ‘Ming-Peu 13th century priest’. Who was Ming Peu? I don’t think ‘Peu’ is either pinyin or Wade-Giles. He appears to be wearing Japanese dress. The kimono is open to the waist. His head is not shaven. Monastic rules for shaving may not yet have been set down in the 13th century. What is the difference between a monk and a priest? 13th century would make him potentially contemporaneous with Dogen-zenji.

Is there a specific word in Buddhism that refers to a "second chance" or perhaps redemption?

So the Buddhist texts must be stating something incorrectly since we now know that we can't fly without the help of technology. How could they fly then?

Jainism is a philosophy which is similar to Buddhism. So how do Buddhist teachings and the Jains teachings contrast with each other on way of attaining enlightenment ?

How does an enlightened mind distinguish itself from all other phenomena? There is one such person amidst a crowd of other people. Somebody shouts their name, and they say, "yes, that is I. I am here. What do you want?" After hearing his name, how does he make the connection between the hearing of his name and referencing that name to himself, so that he then responds thus, "yes, that is I. I am here. What do you want?"

I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in a sense different from its traditional meaning. Probably he meant that our **sense of separate self** is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana. In this sense, rebirth happens only in our **present life and not after our physical death**. Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?

A Mahayana Buddhist said: > Mahayana Buddhists agree that there other sentient beings exist, that > they have discrete mindstreams, and ingest and interpret reality in > accordance to their own karmic dispositions. > > If I encounter you, I believe you are a sentient being, and that you > are not me. But I also recognize that I never interact with you, only > with the impressions of you that my mind has recreated from sensory > contact. > > So my experience of you is 'imaginary' in the sense that all I have is > this mental representation that was constructed within my own mind, > using limited data from where our actions and sense systems have > interactions. > > But you clearly exist on some level, because you can perform actions > that I did not cause, which means that you are not some kind of > phantom my mind created. Can you please explain to me what this means. What does the following mean? > But I also recognize that I never interact with you, only with the > impressions of you that my mind has recreated from sensory contact. That is, does it mean that when he talks to me, he thinks he is talking to an imaginary person? Thank you!

I am hoping for help as I’m feeling really horrible right now. I’m not a Buddhist but I have OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) that is focussed on religion. I am sorry for such a long post but I don’t know how else to explain this. My main fears have always revolved around being the worst person and committing unforgivable sins. When I learned about the unforgivable sin in Christianity I became absolutely ruined with fear of committing it. I do not want to commit it but my OCD drove me insane with this. I am now having these same issues with Buddhism. I think despite not being Buddhist, my fear is that it could be true and I don’t want to do the worst sins. I have to say this since my fear is about it: I do not want anyone to die no matter what. Please do not kill anyone no matter what. My fear is the five cardinal sins/heinous crimes. I keep getting thoughts about this all the time and I don’t want them. I am scared because I will get thoughts about for example killing my father and I absolutely do not want that but the thought worries me so much. What is now making things so much worse is I feel like when I have a thought I am saying things out loud/whispering them by moving my lips. I don’t think I am but I keep thinking what if I am? So I have thoughts like “kill my father” and I fear I am mumbling this and someone will see me doing this and then they will kill my father. This makes me feel like it’s because of me that they killed them. Like I contributed to them dying. But I have no intention for them to die. It’s gotten to the point this happens constantly and I try to cover my mouth everywhere, I am constantly having to say “Do not kill” after every bad thought I have. I feel like my head will explode. I think in Buddhism it is the intention behind an action that would result in karma. So I tell myself I have no intention to cause harm to my father but when I get these thoughts and feel like maybe I said something like “don’t do X or else kill father” but I want to do X so I try to counter this/cancel it out by thinking/saying “I have to do X or else kill father” but then maybe I cannot do X or don’t want to do X anymore (X can be something as simple as drinking milk) so now I feel like I CHOSE to say that and am willfully going against it so then I am responsible for someone killing my father even though I don’t intend for any harm to my father. I hope this makes sense I am so sorry it’s difficult to explain this. I am also having the same fear about the heinous crime of killing an Arhat and I DO NOT want to kill them and have no intention for them to die. I am hoping you can help me in: - Would I be committing these heinous crimes/sins if I don’t have any intention to kill/cause harm? Even if I willfully think something/say something and someone kills because of it – I don’t have intention to kill and in my heart I don’t want to hurt anyone. - Is my intention what counts? It’s what I am telling myself “I don’t intend for anything bad to happen” Thank you for reading all this I really just don’t want any of this to happen. I don’t want these thoughts and I don’t want to cause harm to anyone. I would be very grateful if anyone can help me.

How is the exterior suffering? In this Sutta series from SN 35.144 it says the following. Eye etc. and its objects are impermanence, not-self, and suffering. I understand all except that eye etc and its objects are suffering. For instance, if my eye arises as a result of a physical object, how is the physical object suffering? https://suttacentral.net/sn35.144/en/sujato

When people speaking different languages came from other lands to meditate, did that ever necessitate speaking the language in which they chanted? Has there ever been a situation where circumstances necessitated conversation in Pali or Sanskrit?