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?

During the present times, there is an excessive need to vaccinate people, but what I have noticed is that when one wishes to scrutinize this action, when one wants to ask viable, pertinent and objective questions regarding vaccination those emotionally intelligent, explorative endeavours are often shutdown and the person given the label of 'anti vaxxer' and 'conspiracy theorist'; the freedom to engage in a healthy dialogue is severely compromised. At the same time, I respect that people are afraid and in need to find a solution to the current issue. > In the sutras, we can find analogies that describe the Buddha as the doctor, knowledge of the Dharma as the medicine, monastics as the nursing staff, and all people as the patients. According to this medical analogy, Buddhism is considered a medication with a broad meaning - a medication that can cure the ailments in all aspects of life. In general, but with exceptions, Western medicine functions within a much smaller framework. Western medicine typically approaches illness through physical symptoms. This approach tends to temporarily reduce the suffering and remove the symptoms for a period, but a lack of symptoms does not mean that the root cause has been identified and removed. Therefore, the complete elimination of the disease has not occurred. Buddhism offers patients not only symptomatic relief, but also spiritual guidance to ensure overall and long-lasting health. > > While Western researchers have conducted massive studies on pathology, > pharmacology, immunology, and anatomy, enabling them to develop more > sophisticated medical techniques, scientists still doubt that religion > can help explain the cause of a disease. Without validating the role > of religion in disease, scientists remain quite distant from the > definition of disease, its causes, and its treatments as understood > from a religious perspective. According to Buddhism, it is not enough > to approach to medicine in a manner that simply eradicates symptoms; > the spiritual aspect of disease and its mind-based causes and remedies > must be the primary consideration. > > Taken from the Buddhist Academy As a practising Buddhist, it's my view that a person should uphold the ultimate position on what they choose to accept into their body. However, I'm prepared to look at this from other viewpoints. From a Buddhist perspective, should choosing to have a vaccine under these interesting but challenging times be a discernment that concerns just our own body, or a discernment that should include others too? From a Buddhist perspective, how does one reconcile with the huge moral and ethical shortcomings that allow pharmaceutical companies to indemnify themselves from any Ill effects caused by vaccination?

The verses in question are from Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā chapter 25 on an examination of nirvana. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19–20 न संसारस्य निर्वाणात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं na saṁsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ न निर्वाणस्य संसारात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं। १९ na nirvāṇasya saṁsārāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ| 19 निर्वाणस्य च या कोटिः।कोटिः। संसरणस्य च nirvāṇasya ca yā koṭiḥ koṭiḥ saṁsaraṇasya ca न तयोर् अन्तरं किंचित् सुसूक्ष्मम् अपि विद्यते। २० na tayor antaraṁ kiñcit susūkśmam api vidyate| 20

The sutta quote below talks about using different awakening factors when the mind is sluggish as opposed to when the mind is restless. What are the meditation or mindfulness techniques to be used for each case? Please elaborate and also quote from suttas, if possible. From SN 46.53 : > “... when the mind is sluggish, it’s the wrong time to develop the > awakening factors of tranquility, immersion, and equanimity. Why is > that? Because it’s hard to stimulate a sluggish mind with these > things. > > When the mind is sluggish, it’s the right time to develop the > awakening factors of investigation of principles, energy, and rapture. > Why is that? Because it’s easy to stimulate a sluggish mind with these > things. ..... > > “... when the mind is restless, it’s the wrong time to develop the > awakening factors of investigation of principles, energy, and rapture. > Why is that? Because it’s hard to settle a restless mind with these > things. > > When the mind is restless, it’s the right time to develop the > awakening factors of tranquility, immersion, and equanimity. Why is > that? Because it’s easy to settle a restless mind with these things.

What would you say are the basic requirements to become a Vipassana teacher? I don't necessarily refer to attainments. More to basic knowledge and skills. What I can think of would be for instance: - knowledge of the 5 precepts; - knowledge of the 4 noble truths; - knowledge of the 8-fold path; - be able to listen. (Just to name a few.)

Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God? If yes, how? Do all beings intuitively know what is right and what is wrong deep within their consciousness? Even the worst psychopaths? Resources: - https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Is_morality_objective%3F - https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-indispensability-of-theological-meta-ethical-foundations-for-morality/ - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

According to the ten fetters model, one of the five fetters which are only removed at attaining arahantship is ignorance (avijja). This means that anagamis are still subject to ignorance in some way. But it's also evident that anagamis possess a lot less ignorance than ordinary people. For example, belief in a self (sakkaya-ditthi) is abandoned at the first stage of enlightenment. So which forms of ignorance would an anagami still experience, and which forms not? Or is ignorance something that only sometimes arises in an anagami, the same way ill-will is only sometimes present in ordinary people? Thanks in advance for your answers!

I'm looking for Buddhist therapists for a friend of mine (who is also a practicing Buddhist). He's been using traditional therapists and it has not worked for him Is there a list of Buddhist therapists available anywhere online?

If yes, what would happen if someone would travel back in time to prevent other person's birth?