In MN 138 , the Buddha said this: > The Blessed One said: "Monks, I will teach you a statement & its **analysis**. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." > > "As you say, lord," the monks responded. > >The Blessed One said this: "A monk should investigate in such a way that, his consciousness neither externally scattered & diffused, nor internally positioned, he would from lack of clinging/sustenance be unagitated. When — his consciousness neither externally scattered & diffused, nor internally positioned — from lack of clinging/sustenance he would be unagitated, there is no seed for the conditions of future birth, aging, death, or stress." > >That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone got up from his seat and went into his dwelling. > >Then, not long after the Blessed One had left, this thought occurred to the monks: "This brief statement the Blessed One has made, after which he went into his dwelling without **analyzing** the detailed meaning I thought the Buddha always kept his promises. Why didn’t he analyze the statement when he said he would?

It’s a question about the balance hetween adhering to law but also not becoming ridiculous about it. I hope it’s not a ridiculous question. ———- I am adding a justification for the validity of this question: violating a law in principle is suffering related, if not for getting caught by a hiding police officer, then because of moral shame anyway. so the question is about whether getting too pedantic about the law is silly (silliness leading to suffering, I presume.) For example, a traffic light in the middle of a desert — who would obey it but a fool?

i need guidance for a problem that i have for 5 years. I have a harm ocd, i keep having this extremely bad imaginations about killing family/holy beings and destroying holy stuff. The thing is, i REALLY REALLY do not want to do any of this, i love my family, i feel blessed knowing about dharma and stuff. But somehow, this dark bad repetitive imagination keep playing on my head. There is even this 'inner voice' who keep voicing things like "I want to kill X" even if I REALLY dont want to. Is this counted as bad karma? And what should i do? Just let it pass or maybe i should keep hurting myself so it will stop? Sorry if this sounds weird. May all of you have a great day ahead. Thank you

There is a quote by Shunryu Suzuki which says: > When you do something, you should do it with your whole body and mind; you should be concentrated on what you do. You should do it completely, like a good bonfire. You should not be a smoky fire. You should burn yourself completely. If you do not burn yourself completely, a trace of yourself will be left in what you do. I think I've read this elsewhere described in terms of a snowflake in a fire, and everything turned to ash. Is there an original source(s) of this concept, and if so, is there a succinct name for it in Chinese or Japanese Zen?

I was just looking at the connected discousres (Bhikkhu Bodhi) and it said Sorry for the rushed question, but I wondered if arhats can be said to exist or not after death? Does the Buddha say the same of arhats here as himself: refusing to answer I would like an answer in the Pali tradition, and something which explicitly mentions arhats. ---------- If, as suggested in comments, there's no answer, may I ask if the equivocation in the quote is in the Pali original? To be specific, whether Vacchagotta (I think is the interlocutor) is praising master Kaccana for not speaking of the Buddha beyond "this", or suggesting that Master Kaccana has "surpassed this".

I've been restless for these past few days. Once I have an unappropiate thought about a holy figure, and I think it was unintentional (not sure though). But then I kept thinking about it over and over again (I tried to analyse whether it is intentional or not). My questions are: 1. Is sexual thought about holy figures unforgivable sin? 2. Am I creating bad karma by thinking about it over and over again? 3. What advice do you have for me? I keep on feeling really guilty and keep on thinking about it.

Could you translate 'suchness' as "being perceptible to the senses"? I'm asking because I *think* things can be perceptible without consciousness, and that visibility is in some sense indivisible, so is perceived the same even when the visible thing is broken up. Because that's how I'm thinking about the rebirth doctrine, for now.

As someone that is actively seeking to be a Buddhist, how does one show emotional support for others in time of need? Christians offer to pray for them if someone or some person is going through a difficult situation. For example, during 9/11 often leaders would pray for people and their nation who are going through loss. Is there something in Buddhism that is similar? Is there something similar that Buddhists can offer to show that they are offering emotional or spiritual support.

Do Mahayana Buddhists believe that the whole world and all objects are created by the mind? For example, my friend and I see a train. Do I and my friend see the same train? Tell me if it is correct to say that Mahayana Buddhists believe that the people they see in front of them have consciousness and sensations (individual mindstreams) and exist independently of the imagination of Buddhists, but all of us and our whole world are dependent on all people and their minds, that is, we co-create our world together? And what about the Yogacara school, which is considered idealism?

Sheng-yen was an important Taiwanese Buddhist, with I believe Rinzai and Soto tranmission. **When describing the Buddhist path, he says that the 10 faiths are reached only after extensive success with koans, and adds that this is equivalent to stream entry. All very reasonable. However, I think it shows relative humility, compared to zen, about Theravada Buddhism.** I also believe that the formless realms are essential for advance to the 10 abodes in the Tientai model of the "complete" teaching. So I wondered: - when, according to Sheng-yen then, does the practitioner realize non-attachment within the formless realms? - and is the stage of dry wisdom - form the Surangama Sutra - the same as the 5 grades in Tientai?

Some laws coincide with Buddhist precepts for e.g. penalizing murder and theft. But there are other laws like traffic rules or Covid-19 rules which have no direct equivalent in Buddhism. However, we tend to frown upon people who disobey traffic rules and sometimes see them as immoral if they keep deliberately breaking traffic rules repeatedly. Are breaking traffic rules deliberately and repeatedly a violation of Buddhist precepts and virtues? Is it a violation of Right Action? If it is not a violation of Buddhist precepts, virtues and Right Action, then is it a sign of a unwholesome or unskillful mindset from a Buddhist perspective? And why?

Listed below are three translations of Akkosa Sutta provided in access to in access to insight Which translation has the correct meaning? The third translation is not far from the common ethics i.e., the virtue of temperance found in most major religions of the world, but what is presented in the first two translations goes beyond that. Accommodating an angry man sheepishly, I mean responding to him/her kindly to calm them, does no good to the angry man because they will think that they were in the right when they are angry. The short story leading to the sutta's stanza does indicate that too. As I understand it Bhikkhu Thanissaro's translation is missing the key part which is present in the two other translations "He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse than the angry man"...But I may be wrong. > Acharya Buddharakkhita translation > > He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse > than the angry man; Who does not repay anger in kind, He alone wins > the battle hard to win. ...... > Maurice O'Connell Walshe translations > > If a man's abused and answers back, Of the > two he shows himself the worse. He who does not answer back in kind, > Celebrates a double victory. ...... > Thanissaro Bhikkhu translations > > You make things worse when you flare up at someone who's angry. > Whoever doesn't flare up at someone who's angry wins a battle hard > to win.

When I picked up a version of the Dhammapada (Parallax Press) and read through I came across an interesting verse in this specific book it was Chapter 24: Craving . Forgive me for not knowing the verses, I'm new to the text. The verse says: > A man will be swept along > By the thirty-six streams of sensual pleasure, > Borne on the strong currents > Of his craving toward tempting objects. What are the 'thirty-six' streams of sensual pleasure? Is it some arbitrary enumeration, or is there some further writings detailing the 'thirty-six' streams of sensual pleasure?

I have been discussing online whether there is a counterpart to the Greek idea of 'nous' (intellect) in the early Buddhist texts. The discussion was about discriminating between sensory experience and rational thought. I was arguing that there is a clear distinction between sensory and rational faculties in Greek philosophy. Then someone said, what about in Buddhism, where 'manas' is given as one of the six sense gates? Doesn't this mean that Buddhism equates manas and sensory faculties? I said, no, because there is the faculty that 'discerns the dharma' which is not a sensory faculty but discriminative wisdom. The word that came to mind was the Sanskrit 'viveka', for which I found the definition 'Sense of discrimination; wisdom; discrimination between the real and the unreal, between the self and the non-self, between the permanent and the impermanent; discriminative inquiry; right intuitive discrimination; ever present discrimination between the transient and the permanent.' However, I'm not aware of much discussion of this in the texts. I'm wondering if there's any discussion in abhidharma texts of this distinction and the faculty of discriminative wisdom?

I know Theravada Buddhism has 5 precepts: - killing other beings - stealing, or taking by force what is not given - no sexual relations other than your married soulmate - lying and incorrect speech - consuming intoxicating substances These are physical actions and give bad karma. What if I have negative thoughts in my mind? Would it have the same repercussions as physical actions, or would it be less severe? Thank you.

I'm new to this forum. What are the most merit receiving things in Buddhism? I already know donating or charity is a good way to earn much merits. What are the other ways to earn merits? Thank you.

I was watching this Youtube video about 'witnessing self': > 3 Stages in Witnessing Meditation - On the Journey towards Spiritual Enlightenment > > This video describes the three stages in witnessing meditation. It is a technique known as Shakshi Bhav in Vedanta. In it he talks about developing intellect that discriminates between '**subject and object**'. He says discrimination between the '**contents of consciousness**' and '**consciousness or awareness**' has to be cultivated for spiritual growth. I haven't come across any Buddhist term which relates to this. Is this Vipassana? If not whats this in Buddhist terms?

I just came across a Reddit comment referencing the Human Planet documentary about sky burials, in which there was an implication by the narrator that the rogyapa (body-breaker) performing the ritual must be a non-Buddhist (around 2:40). The Reddit comment states that breaking the body apart is a form of defilement, thus not appropriate for monks. Is this true, and is there any basis in Buddhist literature supporting such view?

AN 4.197 has been translated as: > Here, Mallikā, a certain woman, is angry, often irritable. Even over a > trivial remark, she is cross (abhisajjati), shaken, vexed, stubborn, > and shows her temper (byāpajjati), anger and sulkiness. She is not a > giver of food, drinks, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents, ointments, > beddings, dwelling or lightings, to recluses or brahmins. Furthermore, > she is jealous in her heart; jealous of others‟ receiving gains, > honour, respect, esteem, homage and worship; she is vengeful and holds > grudges. If she falls away (cutā) and **returns (āgacchati)** to such a > state, wherever she is **reborn (paccājāyati)**, she is ugly, deformed, of > very mean appearance and she is poor, having few things, of little > wealth and little influence. AN 7.64 also contains the word "**āgacchati**" and says: > An irritable person, overcome and overwhelmed by anger, is ugly, even > though they’re nicely bathed and anointed, with hair and beard dressed > and wearing white clothes. This is the first thing that pleases and > assists an enemy which **comes upon (āgacchati)** an irritable woman or > man. Because an enemy doesn’t like to have a beautiful enemy. > > When a person is irritable, overcome and overwhelmed by anger, the > rulers seize the legitimate wealth they’ve earned by their efforts, > built up with their own hands, gathered by the sweat of their brow. An > angry person is ugly and sleeps poorly. Gaining a profit, he turns it > into a loss, having done damage with word & deed. A person overwhelmed > with anger destroys his wealth. Maddened with anger, he falls into > disgrace. Relatives, friends & colleagues avoid him. Anger brings > loss. Anger inflames the mind. He doesn’t realize that his danger is > **born (jāta)** **from within**. Doing these deeds that kill beings and do > violence to himself, the angry person doesn’t realize that he’s > ruined. The snare of death (maccupāso) in the form of anger lies > hidden in the heart. You should cut it out by self-control, by wisdom, > energy and right ideas. AN 8.29 has been translated as follows: > Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is > taught...but a person has been **reborn (upapannā)** in hell. This is the > first inopportune moment that is not the right occasion for living the > spiritual life. > > Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is > taught...but a person has been **reborn (upapannā)** in the animal realm. > This is the second inopportune moment... > > Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is > taught...but a person has been **reborn (upapannā)** in the sphere of > afflicted spirits. This is the third inopportune... > > Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is > taught...but a person has been **reborn** **(upapannā)** in certain order of > long-lived devas. This is the fourth inopportune… > > Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is > taught...but a person has been **reborn (paccājāto)** in the outlying > provinces among the uncouth foreigners, a place to which bhikkhus, > bhikkhunīs, male lay followers and female lay followers do not travel. > This is the fifth inopportune moment that is not the right occasion > for living the spiritual life … > > Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is > taught...but a person has been **reborn (paccājāto)** in the central > provinces, but he holds wrong view and has a distorted perspective... > there is no fruit or result of good and bad actions… This is the sixth > inopportune.. > > Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is > taught...but a person has been **reborn (paccājāto)** in the central > provinces, but he is unwise, stupid, obtuse, unable to understand the > meaning of what has been well stated and badly stated. This is the > seventh... > > Here, a Tathāgata has not arisen in the world...and enlightenment is > not taught...but a person has been **reborn (paccājāto)** in the central > provinces, and he is wise, intelligent, astute, able to understand the > meaning of what has been well stated and badly stated. This is the > eighth … > > There is, bhikkhus, one unique opportune moment that is the right > occasion for living the spiritual life. What is it? Here, a Tathāgata > has arisen in the world... and enlightenment is taught as proclaimed > by a Fortunate One. And a person has been **reborn (paccājāto)** in the > central provinces, and he is wise, intelligent, astute, able to > understand the meaning of what has been well stated and badly stated. Questions: 1. Why are two different words used for "reborn" in AN 8.29? 2. What is the path of action (kamma) leading to "rebirth" in a geographical region? 3. When compared to AN 7.64 and AN 8.29, what distinguishes AN 4.197 so AN 4.197 is about "rebirth"? Note: the words "paccājāyati" (verb) and "paccājāto" (past particle) are the same.

I've previously come across an incredible Buddhism resource that has escaped me. It was a website with a non-modern design, plenty of sub pages that were formed in a sequence in terms of how to study buddhism. In particular: - there were different "levels" at which different techniques were appropriate and articles were split by the stages/levels - for each of these levels there were a lot of comparisons (e.g., what type of problem/need you can remove at that level, what meditation is applicable at level, the Truths, the Paths) - it was illustrated with quotes and pictures from the masters and written in Buddhist language, not a beginner-friendly wikiHow-like style - it was quite an extensive resource The closest comparison I've found is the Basic Buddhism Guide on Buddhanet , but was I'm looking for was a less modern website, with more pictures and written in a more traditional style.