Hi I'm just seeking advice if it is possible to identify a Lama incarnation, whom to speak to etc.

I recall, years ago, reading about Buddhist treatises on rebirth, composed some long time after the Buddhas death. It was a very brief reference of Johannes Bronkhorst's, probably in a footnote. I've searched various of his big works looking for it, and numerous papers. If anyone happens across a likely candidate, would you please let me know? It seemed to indicate there was a period in which one faction was trying to convince another that the Buddha taught rebirth. I'm interested in learning anything I can about how far back the debate that lives on today goes. Thanks for any and all help.

What did the Buddha mean in AN 5.38. when he said: > “Mendicants, a faithful gentleman gets five benefits. What five? > The good persons in the world show compassion first to the faithful, not so much to the unfaithful. They first approach the > faithful, not so much the unfaithful. They first receive alms from > the faithful, not so much the unfaithful. They first teach Dhamma > to the faithful, not so much the unfaithful. **When their body breaks > up, after death, the faithful are reborn in a good place, a heavenly > realm.** A faithful gentleman gets these five benefits. Emphasis mine. I am trying to discern what this means with reference to the answers for the word upapajjati in this question which discussed the meaning of the word which is being translated here. Also, what did the Buddha mean when referring to the "break up of the body, after death" and has that been correctly translated?

I completely understand the second noble truth which says > origin of dukkha, which arises or "comes together" with taṇhā > ("craving, desire or attachment") in plain English, > Desire is the cause of Sorrow. But if one has not renounced and not living as a monk one has needs to maintain the Samsaric existence. As a layperson, you need money for thousands of things, pay the bills, get the wood for the fire to cook, pay for children's education, etc etc. Now I understand that core desire like, "I want more money" will lead to suffering, but you need an intention to become prosperous as time passes, i.e. grow in the samsaric world along with a spiritual goal towards Nirvana. How can one grow without harboring desires? I understand that, the thoughts like, "I want a Ferrari" is a blatant desire, but I do want a decent car to drive few miles to my work. How is this basic necessity dealt with without desiring? How is this situation dealt with in the bounds of Dhamma? I am not talking about attachments to already possessed things, but working towards a prosperous living. After all, Nirvana or not, nobody wants to live in adversity.

If a person have a small Buddha statue in their room and they (sorry) masturbated in that room, is it considered sexual misconduct? Sorry if this question is unappropiate.

In the [Kosala Sutta (AN 10.29)](https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.29) it quotes the following: > "As far, bhikkhus, as this thousandfold world system extends, Mahābrahmā there ranks as the foremost." So basically as far as the sun and the mood illuminates the light a world system is there. 4 hells, human world , 6 humans and so forth. And thousand of this is called a thousandfold world system. So according to the above quote, does this mean that there is only one Maha Brahma to all these thousand world systems? Or are there 1000 Maha Brahmas in this thousand world system? Or is it just 1?

Did Nagarjuna aspire to Buddhahood in a way that he wouldn't be a 'ariyasavaka' type of disciple who attains awakening to the truth during a Buddha's sasana?

As far as I've heard, Mahayana Buddhists aspire to become Buddhas themselves in the future or want to become followers of a future Buddha like Buddha Maitreya. So, are Mahayana Buddhists discouraged from attaining enlightenment within the Gautama Buddha Sasana ? If yes, wouldn't that be limiting the scope of enlightenment compared to Theravada Buddhism? Wouldn't that also make the taking refuge in the Triple gem meaningless, as they do not want to follow the teachings of the Gautama Buddha to attain enlightenment.? If the answer to the first question is 'no', any links to Mahayana specific texts which encourage one to attain Nibbana within this Sasana would be appreciated.

One of the suttas where the Buddha is critical of a monk as not living the holy life the right way and at the same time by not disrobing missing out on the pleasures of the householder's life. In effect the meaning was: missing out / depriving himself of both opportunities - not only the higher one but the lower one as well. ---------- **Update** Found the sutta, posted own answer. Thanks ruben2020 for sharing the dhammapada suggestion, and Yeshe for the formatting of my own answer.

I had questions regarding the laity, monastic relationship. > 1) How exactly (the step by step or explained) does the process work > in which the monastics rely solely on the laity? > > 2) How do monks publish works (such as books) and not deal with the > money involved in their lives? Metta!

I have heard Ajahn Brahm say in a talk, if I recall, that modern science or psychology has demonstrated anatta in some way. It seems unnecessary to invoke science to validate any of Buddhism, but until one can see no self from direct experience, looking at science may be beneficial for the purpose of gaining an intellectual understanding. Is there any useful research or writing is there that shows anatta from the perspective of modern psychology or neuroscience? I'd think something like this would be produced by the Mind & Life Institute. All I could find is this blurb crediting Evan Thompson. It doesn't say much.

I read the following on the internet: > The reason that Secular Buddhists (who do not admit the conventional > existence of rebirth) do not commit suicide is because they believe in > the true existence of the self in this very life. Are there any Buddhist scriptures or teachings that say belief in true existence of the self prevents suicide?

I've often heard the Yogacara school of Buddhism being described as 'Mind Only'. To my untutored mind this seems reminiscent of the western philosophy of Idealism. So there is a description of Yogacara which goes > the reality we think we perceive does not exist except as as a process > of knowing. Phenomena, anything that can be experienced, have no > reality in themselves. And a description from Idealism which goes > [..] reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally > constructed, or otherwise immaterial. To me they seem similar but actually my feeling is in reality the two philosophies are very different. Can someone help me understand how they are different? **Note:** I know the two quotes are from sources that have been identified as potentially unreliable (Barbara O'Brien and Wikipedia) but really I'm just want to use them as an illustration of how similar the two philosophies appear to me. I'm not claiming accuracy - in fact they could well lack it.

Peace, Divine Love, and Blessings to All. I recently began to research meditative/breathing for the Solar Plexus. I was instructed that the "normal breathing" done in the west is not the right/true way that we are supposed to be breathing but instead we should do it from the diaphragm (liken unto babies). During my research, I came across Belly Breathing/Diaphragmatic Breathing which I came to find out is "Buddha Belly Breathing" (please forgive me if I come across as ignorant not knowing the true terminology and cultural linguistics). The very little I have done so far has been amazing but extremely difficult. Inhaling while expanding the stomach (and vice versa) took a lot of concentration while simultaneously trying to keep an erect posture with square shoulders (all while trying to be loose) was/is full of challenges. It made me consider and realize, one how bad my posture is (sad face) and two is it possible to continuously and consistently do this form of breathing throughout the entire day and in all activities? I understand that meditation is about going inwardly, so I know I must take that journey and do the inner work but I pose this question asking if there are people who have done it, are doing it, and would they kindly share any pointers or guidance about their accomplishment(s). This question is open to anyone. Feel free to share howsoever you are led to...Thank you. (As suggested this question was posed on the Hinduism StackExchange as well)

I have a limited understanding of Buddhism, but let me first explain my perspective. More traditionally, Buddhism is concerned with achieving enlightenment and ending the rebirth process. From a more modern perspective, Buddhism is primarily concerned with ending suffering. I realize that it is much more nuanced than this, but I am speaking in gross generalities. This question really only applies to the working, modern interpretation of Buddhism. If the goal is to end suffering, why don't Buddhists simply kill themselves? I suppose this pertains to how they see themselves after death. If they believe in some shade of "nothingness" after death, I would think all Buddhists would commit suicide. I apologize for this question being so broad. I also understand that different sects of Buddhism will probably have different answers. I am mostly curious as to what modern, practicing Buddhists believe--particularly those that reconcile Buddhism with modern science. This question is really a segue for me to understand the existential beliefs of Buddhism. I can read about the teachings of Buddhism, but I do not understand the "why" behind it all. If I can understand why Buddhists do not commit suicide, I hope to gain a greater understanding into how they view the meaning of life.

The following sutta quote shows the reflection that would cause the diminishing or abandonment of misconduct. However, this appears to be a method of skillful means for reflection by someone with self-view. A stream enterer would have discarded self-view (*sakkāya-diṭṭhi*), which is the first of the ten fetters . Therefore, would a stream enterer also automatically abandon the following skillful reflection or perhaps not need it anymore? From AN 5.57 : > “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a > householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of > my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my > relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, > good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech, > and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct > is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of > this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, > should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my > kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my > resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

I do meditate sometimes,not everyday. After 5 to 10 minutes during meditation I start getting a feeling on my forehead as if someone is touching in it. Sometimes after listening to binaural waves or do yoga, I get this same feeling. I understand that something is happening to the pineal gland.But my friends who meditate they don't get this, its only me. What exactly happens here and how does it work? Can someone explain?

By noticing my abdomen while breathing , I can feel up and down movement of it . Also I can keep a mental notes as "up" and "down". When it is up there is "rupa of up" and "Nama of up mental note " and vice versa for down. But when it is down both "up rupa and Nama " already gone . So I have a glimpse of " anicca" . I do not feel directly "dukka" relate to abdomen movement but by applying same "anicca" for other temporary things in life I can get an understanding about "dukka" too . But I do not still have any clue about "anatta" , how can I understand the "anatta" using above scenario?

An important compendium of the ancient Indian philosophical schools - called Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha - was written in India in 14th century CE by Madhvacharya (a non-Buddhist Indian Philosopher) who gives an intriguing account of the debate between ancient Indian materialists (the Charvaka) and the extent Buddhist schools of thought in India at that time. He describes the Charvaka thus: > Chárváka, the crest-gem of the **atheistical school**, the follower of the > doctrine of Bṛihaspati. The efforts of Chárváka are indeed hard to be > eradicated, for **the majority of living beings hold by the current > refrain**— > > While life is yours, live joyously; > None can escape Death's searching eye: > When once this frame of ours they burn, > How shall it e'er again return? > > The mass of men, in accordance with the Śástras of policy and > enjoyment, considering wealth and desire the only ends of man, **and > denying the existence of any object belonging to a future world**, are > found to follow only the doctrine of Chárváka. Hence another name for > that school is Lokáyata,—a name well accordant with the thing > signified. This characterization would appear quite in accordance with descriptions in sutta of the Charvaka school and its tenets: > "When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there > is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no > fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no > next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no > brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, > proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and > realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary > elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with > the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with > the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the > external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the > external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four > men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are > sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn > pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by > idiots. **The words of those who speak of existence after death are > false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the > foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after > death.**' ---------- This compendium describes the Buddhist response to the Charvaka school as a direct attack on their understanding of causation vs correlation. Succinctly put, it would appear the Charvaka did not believe in causation, but rather only believed in correlation: > "Be it so," says the opponent; "your wish would be gained if > inference, &c., had no force of proof; but then they have this force; > else, if they had not, then how, on perceiving smoke, should the > thoughts of the intelligent immediately proceed to fire; or why, on > hearing another say, 'There are fruits on the bank of the river,' do > those who desire fruit proceed at once to the shore?" > > All this, however, is only the inflation of the world of fancy. > ... > **Hence by the impossibility of knowing the universality of a > proposition it becomes impossible to establish inference**, &c. > > The step which the mind takes from the knowledge of smoke, &c., to the > knowledge of fire, &c., can be accounted for by its being based on a > former perception or by its being an error; and that in some cases > this step is justified by the result, is accidental just like the > coincidence of effects observed in the employment of gems, charms, > drugs, &c. > > From this it follows that fate, &c., do not exist, since these can > only be proved by inference. But an opponent will say, if you thus do > not allow adṛishṭa, the various phenomena of the world become > destitute of any cause. > > But we cannot accept this objection as valid, since these phenomena > can all be produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things. > Thus it has been said— > > The fire is hot, the water cold, refreshing cool the breeze of morn; > By whom came this variety? from their own nature was it born. > The author of the work then gives the known Buddhist reply at the time in ancient India. This can be succinctly summarized as denial of causation leads to practical absurdities. NOTE: invariable concomitance is a term of art in ancient Indian debate that is described here. > At this point the Buddhists remark: As for what you (Chárvákas) laid > down as to the difficulty of ascertaining invariable concomitance, > your position is unacceptable, inasmuch as invariable concomitance is > easily cognisable by means of identity and causality. It has > accordingly been said— > > "From the relation of cause and effect, or from identity as a > determinant, results a law of invariable concomitance—not through the > mere observation of the desired result in similar cases, nor through > the non-observation of it in dissimilar cases." > > On the hypothesis (of the Naiyáyikas) that it is concomitance and > non-concomitance (e.g., A is where B is, A is not where B is not) that > determine an invariable connection, the unconditional attendance of > the major or the middle term would be unascertainable, it being > impossible to exclude all doubt with regard to instances past and > future, and present but unperceived. If one (a Naiyáyika) rejoin that > uncertainty in regard to such instances is equally inevitable on our > system, we reply: **Say not so, for such a supposition as that an effect > may be produced without any cause would destroy itself by putting a > stop to activity of any kind; for such doubts alone are to be > entertained, the entertainment of which does not implicate us in > practical absurdity and the like, as it has been said, "Doubt > terminates where there is a practical absurdity.**" Which seems in accordance with the ancient Indian Nagarjuna's opening verse of his famous treatise: ---------- Based on this my questions are: 1. Does the non-Buddhist author of this work accurately describe Charvaka views and tenets at the time? 2. Does the non-Buddhist author of this work accurately describe Buddhist replies at the time? 3. Why was it deemed important to the ancient Indian schools (Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike) this debate over causation vs correlation? 4. If you accept the Buddhist view in this debate as superior, then how does it undermine the views and tenets of the Charvaka? 5. Is it true that the Charvaka school was the most popular in ancient India at the time this compendium was written? 6. What do we know of how prevalent was the Charvaka school in the time of the Buddha? 7. If the Charvaka school was very prevalent in the time of the Buddha and granting the supposition that some hold - that the Buddha only taught rebirth as a fictional contrivance to appeal to the people of his time and age - then why did the Buddha also teach rebirth to the people who steadfastly rejected it? (please only answer this if you actually believe this supposition as that's all I'm interested in...)

Can anyone share or tell: where can I find a summary explaining those ancient Indian philosophies of those non-Buddhist schools that had debated with Buddhist, especially Nalanda, masters? For example, those philosophies of those opponents in Indian Buddhism Śāstras (i.e. treaties). I ask because I am studying some texts on and also pondering on the tenets system/theory of Indian Buddhism, and I would like to be rigorous in understanding what non-Buddhist philosophies are refuted grounding in reasoning by Indian Buddhism (Nalanda) masters.