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?

In the paper "Multiple Buddhist Modernisms: Jhāna in Convert Theravāda ", Natalie Quli compares what the following teachers have taught about jhana: Ayya Khema, Bhante Henepola Gunaratana, Pa-Auk Sayadaw, Ajahn Brahmavamso, Bhante Vimalaramsi, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Leigh Brasington and Shaila Catherine. There seems to be roughly two camps of teachers. The first that depend on Visuddhimagga, Abhidhamma, commentaries and suttas for the teaching on jhanas. The second depends either primarily or solely on the suttas, and not the other sources. Another way to divide them is those who consider *ekaggatā* or very deep one-pointed concentration important, or those who don't. Questions: 1. What's the actual difference between sutta jhana and visuddhimagga jhana? 2. Is *ekaggatā* or very deep one-pointed concentration required for jhana? 3. Would a jhana attainer be able to use his jhana state to reflect on the four foundations of mindfulness as found in the Satipatthana Sutta? Or is jhana simply used to overcome the five hindrances, which aids the four foundations of mindfulness meditation? The paper discussed Ajahn Brahm's view: > Brahmavaṃso argues for a very deep level of > concentration—*ekaggatā*—that other teachers often criticize. He > states that in jhāna the body disappears, so that one can no > longer see or hear. He also states bluntly that jhāna is > not possible during walking meditation, perhaps a statement made > in reference to Vimalaramsi’s light, sutta-based jhānas, discussed > below. Finally, he argues that “some teachers today present a level > of meditation and call it jhāna when it is clearly less than the > real thing.” Among the sources Brahmavaṃso reveres and cites > throughout his work are the Vinaya, the Visuddhimagga, and even the > jātakas — which are very rarely mentioned by Western Insight Meditation > teachers. The paper discussed Bhante Vimalaramsi's view: > Part of this effort to return to the origin of Buddhism has > led Vimalaramsi to revere the suttas and Vinaya but reject the later > commentaries and the Abhidhamma. He is particularly critical of the > Visuddhimagga. For example, he notes: > > > So you have the Visuddhimagga teaching one kind of > > meditation, that doesn’t lead to nibbāna, and you have the sutta, > > that teaches an-other kind of meditation, and it leads directly to > > nibbāna. And now, because we’re so far away from the time of the > > Buddha, there’s a lot of monks that take the Visuddhimagga as the same > > as the teaching of the Buddha, and then there’s other monks that don’t > > take that as the teaching of the Buddha, they take the suttas as the > > true teaching. > > Though Vimalaramsi initially studied in the vipassanā centers in > Burma, he became convinced that this style of meditation was not > authentic because it was based on commentaries rather than the > suttas. In fact, this sutta-based interpretation of meditation has > led him to teaching what he calls “tranquil-wisdom meditation,” a > joint samatha/vipassanā meditation. He teaches mainly from the > Anapanasati-sutta and the Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta, and maintains that jhāna > should not be considered ecstatic or one-pointed (*ekaggatā*). Rather, > it is a light, relaxed state in which various Buddhist insights > are examined. He maintains that (1) those who follow the > commentaries’ descriptions of jhāna are practicing a non-Buddhist > meditation that does not lead to nirvana and (2) those who > follow the commentaries in practicing a separate vipassanā > practice are mistaken in following a non-canonical authority. The paper discussed Thanissaro Bhikkhu's view: > Thanissaro Bhikkhu teaches jhāna exclusively from the suttas and not > from the commentaries. After noting that the jhānas as taught > in the Visuddhimagga include elements not mentioned in the > suttas, Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes, “Some Theravadins insist that > questioning the commentaries is a sign of disrespect for the > tradition, but it seems to be a sign of greater disrespect for the > Buddha—or the compilers of the Canon—to assume that he or they would > have left out something absolutely essential to the practice.” He > concludes that jhāna in the commentaries is “something quite > different” than jhāna in the canon. > > Unlike others who advocate the “deeper” states described in > the Visuddhimagga, **Thanissaro Bhikkhu argues that extremely deep > states of meditation are “wrong concentration.”** One must be > fully aware of the body; powerful *ekaggatā*, as discussed in the > Visuddhimagga, can lead to one losing a sense of sounds, thoughts, or > perceptions, which is not ideal for insight in his opinion. People who > advocate such deep meditation are, according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, > blocking out certain areas of awareness and are “psychologically adept > at dissociation and denial.” Leigh Brasington, student of Ayya Khema, described sutta jhana vs. visuddhimagga jhana: > Leigh Brasington is an American student of Ayya Khema who now teaches > regularly on the jhānas across the United States, mainly to students > at Insight Meditation centers. Like his teacher, Brasington suggests > that the jhānas are not difficult to learn or practice. He notes > that “The jhānas as discussed in the suttas are accessible to many > people” but maintains that the jhānas presented in the Visuddhimagga > are actually qualitatively different from those described in the > suttas; he speculates that the Visuddhimagga jhānas were developed > during a later period and are more difficult to achieve. In fact, > **Brasington has suggested that we distinguish between “sutta jhānas” > and “Visuddhimagga jhānas,” which he considers quite different from > one another.** Brasington favors the lighter sutta jhānas. A further comment by the paper's author: > Likewise, Thai-trained Thanissaro Bhikkhu completely rejects the > authority of the commentaries in terms of jhāna practice. Both of > these teachers agree that the jhānas are a light state of meditation > because ekaggatā, deep one-pointedness, is mentioned only in the > commentaries. Thanissaro argues that the deep state of meditation > advocated by some Buddhist teachers is “wrong concentration,” while > **Vimalaramsi suggests that the jhāna practices endorsed by > Visuddhimagga followers is “hypnosis,” not jhāna.**

I am one of the (Taiwanese) fans of the Dalai Lama for a long time. Currently I am studying the subject "the four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets (of mainly Indian Buddhism before its decline)" both in Chinese (but actually translations from Tibetan) and in English, wishing to learn and to grow like the Dalai Lama. "The four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets" are standardly named: **Vaibhashika** (Skt. **Vaibhāṣika**), **Sautrantika** (Skt. **Sautrāntika**), **Chittamatra** (Skt. **Cittamātra**), **Madhyamika** (Skt. **Mādhyamika**). I am having the following questions and looking for guidance and/or instruction. 1. What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most easily-learnable or learner-friendly? 2. What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most rigorously- and detailedly- and thoroughly- written? 3. What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most faithful and accurate and precise presentation(s) of real historical facts? Thank you in advance.

From craving, there arises clinging, then from clinging, there arises existence or becoming, and then from becoming, we get the birth of the self-identity or self-habit. But how does craving really cause self-identity or self-habit? How are they connected? Does self-identity or self-habit arise out of a collection of likes and dislikes? How is that so?

If we have been transmigrating in samsara infinitely via rebirths, then doesn't that mean that kamma which we have earned too is infinite? And if so, doesn't that imply that enlightenment is imposible to reach since it would take one infinite amount of time to reach? I know this is classified as something that is unconjecturable and drives one insane, but this one is driving me curious. Any takers on this?

[Identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetter_(Buddhism)#Identity_view_.28sakk.C4.81ya-di.E1.B9.AD.E1.B9.ADhi.29) is the first of the ten fetters. The "eradication" of identity-view is important towards enlightenment. Presumably, "eradication of identity-view" is more than simply claiming, "Yes, there's no self anywhere!!" So, how should one understand what "identity-view" is, and whether it's eradicated? If "eradication" of identity-view marks an important step or stage, can that eradication be analyzed into smaller substeps (e.g. is there an 80-step lesson plan or set of tests towards eradicating it)? Can you give some of important examples of the practical consequence of identity-view: how it affects belief and behaviour? So that it might be possible to use the presence or absence of these beliefs and behaviours to test whether identify-view exists or has been eradicated? Is "eradication of identity-view" synonymous with having no habits? Can you recommend any competent English-language literature on this topic? If there are not good questions to be asking about identity-view please suggest better ones! --- Among the reasons why I'm puzzled are the that [Culavedalla Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html) for example seems to describe it: > As he was sitting there he said to her, "'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?" > > "There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One." Is identity-view the same then as being aware that skandhas exist? The same as being attracted to (clinging to) sense-objects? Isn't the answer to that, "No that's not true, because 'sensual desire' is the **fourth** fetter"? Also, questions about the self come with a warning: "[This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, etc.](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html) " -- so I have **not** been trying to analyze that (views-about-self) ... but maybe I am supposed to know what identity-view is?

Further to my question about discussing Buddhism with children , I want to ask that, **at what age does one becomes capable of understanding Buddhism?** The very first time I came across Buddha and Buddhism was in my school textbook where I read the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold path. I must have been around 14 or 15 at that time and raised in a liberal Hindu family. But I still remember at that time, I thought to myself, 'this is so simple and has nothing to do with the all power full Hindu gods that I worshipped and adored'. I underrated the Buddha. Fast forward 20 years, after going through intense mental suffering, breakups, and craving and desires which never got fulfilled, and then starting contemplating about the whys, and spending time reading about religions and science and meditation, I now call myself a practicing Buddhist. **So at what age does one becomes capable to understand Buddhism**? Is going through suffering a necessary part of one's path? Does failing to have a romantic relationship act as a trigger to start contemplating about life and turn to religion? Does exposure to the absurdity of life somehow turns a person look inwards?

The Buddha said a gift given as an ornament for the mind will lead the giver to the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. So the benefit to the giver when done right is incomparably great, but what is the effect to the mind of the recipient?

“Siddhartha Gotama sat for one last time under the pipul tree with the adiṭṭhāna that he would not get up till he became realized. He battled the beautiful as well as the ugly and fearful illusions of Māra successfully that night and at the same time had very profound insights into Reality, the final one being that into paticcasamuppāda which destroyed the last vestiges of avijjā and Gotama became the Buddha, the Tathāgata, ‘Thus Gone’.” It was a momentous event! I want to understand this profound moment and, therefore, have some questions: 1. What happened to Gotama when he became the Buddha? Of course, as Buddhists we understand that there was no self at all to begin with, but that was not experientially realized till asmi māna, one of the last fetters, dissolved. So, Gotama did not realize nibbāna because that would mean that his ‘I-am-ness’, his māna, continued into nibbāna, which is unacceptable. Should we say instead that ‘there was realization’, an impersonal phenomenon, as the asmi-māna vanished? Could we say that this realization entailed an ontological shift from the puny, illusory self to the unconditioned Nibbāna? But then wouldn’t that still be some kind of eternalism? Or: 2. Did Gotama, the conditioned, illusory self ‘die’ at the time of his realization and the nāma- rūpa, that it once was, continued by the sheer force of its unspent past karma which on exhaustion then led to Parinibbāna of this psycho-physical being? Was the Buddha this nāma- rūpa that, metaphorically speaking, ‘translated’ the unconditioned Reality for puthujjana like us and made it possible for us to tread the path for its realization? But then what happened at Parinibbāna? What remained? Nothing? Doesn’t that sound like annihilationism? Or: 3. Did at Parinibbāna, with the extinguishing of the final vestiges of conditioned being, the Unconditioned shine in its brilliant, impersonal glory? Beyond Being and Non-being? Beyond anything that can ever be understood? Or would that be mere linguistic gymnastics? I want to understand what actually happened!