Is even Buddhahood itself a short straw next to material wealth and pleasure and fame? The Buddha could have been a wheel turning monarch, and was in deed born a prince. So perhaps his decision isn't all that confusing for the rest of the world. Is even a small degree of enlightenment preferable to unparalleled wealth and power, or are they in fact incomparable? ---------- Put another way, what does your karma have to be to be born as a prince, as compared to e.g. the first jana?

From Buddhist perspective, should a balance be maintained between sinful acts and merits by a virtuous person? if a virtuous person meditates for quite a number of hours during a day, and accumulates merits in this process that means does not maintain balance with sinful acts, isn't it necessary to restore balance with sins?

When I try to concentrate when studying, I end up with a wandering mind, but when I'm watching a video, I forget all the other things. Why is it hard to focus on things I really need? Is it some kind of practise? This was a lot easier to do for Lord Buddha, Ven. Arahant Moggollana. Is focusing on Akusala than Kusala in samsara the problem? Do I have to build up practise of focusing to overcome this?

Why is it that the psychological forces like lust, greed, desire, unskilful emotions, etc, which take us away from Nibbana feel so strong and have greater pull than the forces that propel us towards Nibbana like metta, vipassana (insight), etc?

My questions concern Monkey Year Teaching held by Kagyu lineage (Great Phowa of Chagtsugma). Is this type of Phowa similar for all Monkey Year Teachings held through the Kagyu lineage? What is the destination land and deity of this Phowa? Are there specific samayas and life-long obligations related to this teaching?

> **What are the various specific traditions in Theravada Buddhism?** > > If you could please **describe, compare, and contrast** each of them > that would be greatly appreciated. May you be well.

How does Dependent Origination relate to Vipassana meditation as taught by different schools / interpretations of Buddhism? More particularly how do you break the links of dependent origination as per the meditations techniques taught by different schools / masters? What is the strategy that the cycle will break at the given link? Many meditation manuals do not relate to the development of understanding dependent origination. So how do the practice and theory of this issue relate? Also how does the practicing according to the tradition lead up to the understanding of dependent origination through self-realisation?

As I delve into the Buddhist literature deeper and deeper, particularly the Theravāda sutta literature, I am getting convinced more and more that when we use the term ‘rebirth’, and more so, the grosser English equivalents like ‘metempsychosis’ and ‘re-incarnation’, to signify what the Buddha talked about when he referred to the apparent continuity of the ‘life process’ after death, we are getting it all wrong. I have till now also been unable to find the equivalent of the Vedic term ‘Punarjanma’, which is used so very profusely in the Brāhmanic literature like the Upaniṣads and the Purāṇas. The Sanskrit/Pāli word that comes up again and again in the Buddhist context is ‘bhava’ which has been translated as ‘becoming’, perhaps rightly so. But, would it be right to translate this very word also as rebirth, re-incarnation, punarjanma, and the like, when it seems so very clear that bhava does not stand at all for any of these, because the very notion of rebirth/re-incarnation/punarjanma carries within it the concept of a permanent entity moving from birth to birth? I remember a beautiful metaphor from somewhere that compares the notion of this recurrence of saṁsāra in Hinduism with that in Buddhism. If this recurrence is like a necklace of pearls in Hinduism where the pearls stand for various janmas and the string for the eternal ātman, in Buddhism it is like a pile of coins where each coin, each birth, thought dependent for its support on the coin below, on the birth that came before, does not have any eternal binding entity holding them together, only the unseen ‘gravity’ of karma. Isn’t it right, therefore, that the actual term in the Buddhist sense, used for this recurrence of lives, ought to be bhava, or, to be technically more exact, punarbhava/punabbhava/’re-becoming’/recurrent becoming, rather that punarjanma/rebirth/re-incarnation/metempsychosis?

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa (x3) In regards to the spreading of buddhist monasteries in the west within climates being rather different than that in Asia, I've seen pictures of monks wearing jackets, beanies and shoes considering how the weather may be quite cold/wet (in the UK for instance). Yet, isn't an offence in the vinaya for monastics to be wearing what could be considered a lay disciple's clothing ? > "But cold, lord, is the winter night. The 'Between-the-Eights' is a > time of snowfall. Hard is the ground trampled by cattle hooves. Thin > is the spread of leaves. Sparse are the leaves in the trees. Thin are > your ochre robes. And cold blows the Verambha wind. Yet still the > Blessed One says, 'Yes, young man. I have slept in ease. Of those in > the world who sleep in ease, I am one.'" https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.034.than.html I'd gladly learn more regarding these rules from those wishing and willing to share, May you be well.

In brief Devadatta was Buddha's cousin and a monk. He could fly, tried to kill the Buddha, did many bad things and went to hell. * Devadatta did not understand dependent origination correctly; essence of the teacher's message. If he did he would've been ariya; ariya savaka; 'a learner in training and not liable to go to hell. Consider this In Islam, a person who doesn't understand the essence of the prophet's message is considered an outsider. A muslim belives that there is a god. Whether he is a good or a bad muslim doesn't matter. If a person doesn't believe in god, holds the view that there is no god, that person is an outsider to Islam. I am using Islam as just an example. Buddhism is very different in this regard. It is the only(?) religious designation which doesn't require conformity in belief and is some abomination in that regard. So was Devadatta a Buddhist? * If he was a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can believe & practice incorrectly; are all humans Buddhists? * If he wasn't a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can't belive wrong things & practice incorrectly; then why do you call ie Mahayana and Theravada followers Buddhists when seeing that they believe different things and pracrice differently?

Do Buddhists claim that if there was a self it could not be annihilated? I dimly remember reading this, but no argument or anything like that.

In my estimation the answer is decidedly **no**, but I am interested to hear what others think from a Mahayana or Madhyamaka perspective. First, to try and clarify terms I am using scientific realism/materialism as described here: - Scientific Realism - Scientific Materialism - Historicity While the above links do a pretty good job of describing these worldviews I don't think they are perfect. In my own imperfect language I'd say these worldviews presuppose an objective world that exists in an independent and inherent manner. I think this is the default worldview of most lowly beings and certainly of western or modern society. The idea is that the practice of science gets us ever closer to the true and fundamental underlying material reality with the presupposition that there *is* a true and fundamental underlying material reality that exists in the first place. In this worldview, the laws of physics inherently exist and everything can be reduced to some fundamental building blocks of nature evolving in time according to those laws. That there is a truth of the matter about every historical event that is independent of any subjective consciousness. In short, that things exist inherently and not as mere conventions. To my mind, anyone who believes in these worldviews has not fully grokked the deep and subtle meaning of Mahayana/Madhyamaka emptiness. To be clear, I am not talking about the *practice* of science which I see as *distinct* from the worldviews above. To define by way of contrast, consider this alternative scientific worldview that does not presuppose an underlying observer independent physical reality. By the way, here is an article written by the author of Relational QM on the comparison of his work to Nagarjuna. Is this correct? What have I gotten wrong?

In the Theravada tradition, the fetters model makes reference to rūparāgo and arūparāgo found in the higher fetters. I've never been a jhana follower, but I can clearly recognise that the rupa jhanas and the arupa ayatanas move into me from time to time and sometimes in sequence, one after the other. From early in my practice I noticed they had there own type of sensual craving not particularly connected with dense forms. I found this to be a suitable motivational incentive to move away from desire for worldly form but soon saw the drawbacks of having too much emphasis on rupa jhanas and rupa ayatanas. As such, I developed an indifference about their perceived feeling-tones, but I was still able to utilize the benefits they bring concerning insight and wisdom. My main practice is satipattana. There is an interpretation I came to naturally understand using the aggregates model alongside my here-and-now experience, that one craves either the perception of form or the perception formless both through objectification of mental ideas born from the study of dhamma and the motion of practice. One could use the term *spiritual materialism* as an umbrella term. I find this practice helpful but too tricky to compile into words. To summarise, it's just a granular way of watching the rise and fall of the aggregates. My question is, what other interpretations can be given to rūparāgo and arūparāgo from within Theravada traditions and also other Buddhist traditions?

Below, I have questions regarding Buddhist monasticism. They are centered around topics of health. 1. May a monastic regulate their alms diet in order to focus on healthy foods and avoid unhealthy ones? 2. Would it be appropriate for a monastic to physically exercise to keep healthy? 3. Do monastics have access to healthcare for dental & physical checkups as well as brush their teeth, cut their nails, etc.? Thank you for your time and may you be well.

I have relapsed out of Buddhism two times in my past. Currently, I am between reconciling and rejecting it yet again. I decided to make this post to ask questions that I feel will help me either reconcile or reject Buddhism. I have categorized my questions into two areas: morality and biology. Before I write my questions below, please note the following information: I was/have been part of the Theravada Mahasi Sayadaw tradition under Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's teachings and have studied both Buddhism and science in the past as a vigorously dedicated layman in both fields. Section 1: Morality 1. How is it possible that those who achieve Nibbana are morally infallible? 2. How is it that certain mind-states are objectively unskillful (evil) or skillful (good); wouldn't that be subjective to say? Section 2: Biology 1. How can there have been past Buddhas if civilization/*Homo sapiens* evolved recently (archeologically speaking)? 2. How do the planes of existence and rebirth make sense amid the heavily (as far as I understand) supported theory of evolution? Thank you for your time and may you be well.

Anything we do mindfully can cause a meditative experience. I am a software developer and sometimes when I am engrossed I don't feel the 'I', some kind of '***annatta***' experience. Reaching somekind of Zen experience. I want to ask can we use this activity of programming computers as **a kasina and achieve some jhana state**? **How do I go about it**? Also, is my understanding of what kasina is correct?

Why is it profitable to stop the cycle of rebirth if it is not "me" who is reborn? Or maybe to ask differently - to whom it is profitable?

In Chinese and especially Japanese Buddhism, the statement 天上天下唯我独尊 (Japanese _tenjou tenge yui ga dokuson_; not sure about the Chinese transliteration), which is typically translated as "On heaven and earth, I alone am honored", is considered to be a well-known statement of the Buddha, spoken when the Buddha first emerged from his mother's womb. The quote is sometimes truncated to just the latter half 唯我独尊 "I alone am honored". I have done a fair bit of searching for a Sanskrit/Prakrit source from which this quote could have been translated into Chinese, but have had no success so far. What text serves as the origin of this quotation? Did it only first appear after the spread of Buddhism into China?

In page 32 of *The Pagan Christ*, Tom Harper writes: "The Buddha, when he prepares to depart, promises (like Jesus) to send the Paraclete, "even the spirit of truth which shall lead his followers into all truth."" I followed the footnote and found the footnote simply adds other information about other claims, but does not refer to the source of the claim. I also googled and didn't find original source material supporting this claim. I think the difficulty is I don't know he exact words to search for. Perhaps a knowledgeable person here would know where this claim comes from.

Does speed of body movements affects the mind? Do we have to slow down our actions to have a better sati? It feels it does affects. But are there any sutta about this? How that works?