A good friend emailed me about some troubles in a Buddhist meditation group she belongs to. It's a lay led group. The problems are some apparent power struggles about even routine matters and also an element of cliquishness. It seems to be just a small number of people out of the group that are creating the issues. I don't really know how this sort of thing should be viewed from a Buddhist point of view. But if anyone has a solution or a correct way of looking at this I'd like to pass it along to her. She likes the group overall and she really didn't expect to find this type of behavior among meditators. My specific question is "From a Buddhist point of view, how do we view bad behavior specifically in a Buddhist setting? Should we allow for these very unenlightened behaviors as we ourselves are unenlightened too? Or should be expect more and move on as this type of behavior may indicate that the meditation is this group is just not working somehow.?" In other words, if meditation is sincere and regular, can these types of defilements simply continue with no improvement in an individual?

I have often wondered about one particular riddle regarding the stages of the path. If Sakkāyadiṭṭhi, a view of the self, is one of the first fetters conquered at stream- entry, why is it that Māna, that is a consequence of subtle ‘I-am-ness’, is one of the last to go at Arahanthood? In what form does the ‘I’ sustain itself till the last?

It's 刹那 in Chinese, is the smallest unit of time, from Sanskrit. My question: How to pronounce Ksana in Sanskrit ? Please leave phonetic symbol or click here .

The allegory of a rope being mistaken for a snake to explain subtle metaphysical points is widespread in Buddhist literature. In particular, Je Tsongkhapa uses this allegory many times in his works to explain subtle distinctions of his formulation of Prasangika Madhyamaka. I am looking to track down the earliest usage of this rope or snake allegory in Buddhist literature. I have not been able to identify any sutra where this allegory is mentioned, but it occurs many times in later commentarial literature on the perfection of wisdom sutra's as well as in explanations of Nagarjuna's writing. The earliest usage I have been able to discover is from Chandrakirti's explanation of Aryadeva's Four Hundred Stanzas on the Middle Way (Chatuhshataka). Here is Aryadeva's stanza 178: > Apart from concepuality, Desire and so forth have no existence, Who with intelligence would hold [that there are] Real things [imputed by] conceptuality? > [Aryadeva's Four Hundred Stanzas on the Middle Way](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001ULC8NK/) To which ChandraKirti apparently gives this explanation: > Those which exist only when the conceptuality [apprehending] exists and do not exist when conceptuality does not are without question definite as not established by way of their own nature, like a snake imputed to a coiled rope. > [Tsong-kha-pa's Final Exposition of Wisdom](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IN9OVJ6/) Does anyone know of any earlier or contemporary usages of this allegory in Buddhist literature? Anything that can be traced back to Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, Buddhapalita, or Bhaviveka would certainly apply. Of course, if it can be found in sutra that would definitely count as an answer. Thanks!

My question is about supreme peace that is received from renunciation. When people renounce a major portion of their possession and title, they are believed to get supreme peace. Where I can get a detailed discussion about renunciation and a little logical discussion too that makes a person renounce? The ASIAN continent is filled with Buddhist, and Muslim countries. Many users of Buddhist countries can sufficiently address my concern. my concern is the risk associated with renunciation.

Are Buddha nature and Original enlightenment different, or identical? So, when a sastra says "Since the essence of Mind is grounded on the Dharmakaya, it is to be called the original enlightenment", is the exact same the case for Buddha nature? When a Soto monk says "manifest buddha nature", do they mean "manifest original enlightenment"?

The Lotus Sutra implies light came from Gautama Buddha, which connected to " illuminating thousands of buddha fields"; can anyone enlighten me as to what that could mean?

Please help with these questions! :) > What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is angry? > > What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is deluded? > > What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is greedy? > > And what is the most skillful way to handle the Poisons within me as > well? Metta to all!

I want to pray and meditate like a Buddhist, but I do not know how because I am Arab and I have not found sources in Arabic so can you guide me

I read up on B. Analayo's Agama comparative notes between the passage in question in various EBT schools (pali, more than one agama lineage, sanskrit...). But he didn't have the part I'm interested in. He talks about how one recension talks about Buddha as a boy experiencing all 4 jhanas instead of just first jhana for example. Does anyone have quote and references for the passages in question? In the pali version, all it says is while his father was working, buddha sat down in the cool shade of a tree and spontaneously entered first jhana. I'm especially interested in one of the Agamas, which says the same thing, but adds that right before he entered jhana, he had been observing the dukkha of watching earthworms getting eaten by birds.

I know there are three vehicles in Buddhism: Therevada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. It seems there are so many sects of buddhism. Each of these three vehicles has sub-sects, (Zen, Pureland). Do the majority of Buddhist study each in depth in order to choose which fits them best in order to study the sutras accordingly? I find comfort in reading small pieces of sutras from each sect, though I've always loved Vajrayana and Zen. Is there a large difference? On a side note: is the eightfold path is acknowledged by all three sects?

I’ve been meditating for sometime now, and it’s apparent that my mind and heart are not in sync. I’m often in confused stage because my mind says one thing while my heart says something else and my awareness is in total confused mode trying to interpret these two entities. While meditating of course these dualities do not arise because the focus and attention is in single object unless if I do insight meditation. I would be really appreciate if anyone could give me an dharma insight on what’s happening here.

When Siddhartha Gautama started his path, before acknowledging the possibility of achieving and passing on the path to enlightenment, is there reference of his thoughts before making the decision to influence the world and ease its suffering?

Is their any books where the collection quotation of Milarepa are available ?

Alan Wallace says this regularly, for example, at the beginning of this lecture: http://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/fall2012/13-loving-kindness-1/ Is it Tibetan? What is its direct translation?

In Maha-parinibbana Sutta Buddha has said: > "there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the > Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who > keeps some things back." however, in Simsapa Sutta Buddha says: > "there are many more things that I have found out, but not revealed to > you. What I have revealed to you is only a little." Do we have any knowledge about the teaching that he has not revealed to us? The commentary on accesstoinsight writes, "This famous saying has been taken to justify the doctrines of various Mahaayaana schools, Theosophy and so on." Could that be the teaching of tantra? I hope there's some good insight here.

I am speaking of course of Siddhartha Gautama's son. I was told Rahula means obstacle. Is this true?

After many years of Buddhist considerations, I finally admit to myself that I fight a constant battle for certainty and self-gratification. I guess those encompass the three aspects of dukka well enough. So with somewhat of a renewed determination to practice, I have searched this generous website (and elsewhere online) for "my" book and "my" practice, and possibly my path/teacher. The circularity I mention in the title of this question refers to the acknowledgement that these self-placating enterprises stand in marked contrast to the work that need to be done. Sometimes i the past, in going to a website I have wondered if the drop-down for "Reading List" might say none. And more farfetched, if the "Meditation Instructions" say: figure it out yourself; no one is coming to save you. I'm open and appreciative to any comments, admonitions, and advice. **EDIT** (In response to @Rain) How to practice? Or better yet, how to find a teacher or some context (book, maybe)? Hence the circularity, so as to be my own teacher and this does not lapse into lip-service. With kind regards.

The primary source for the 16 stages of insight (aka 7 stages of insight) is the Theravadan text, the Visuddhimagga . But do other, unrelated, sects of Buddhism have similar stages? (ie. Do other sects mention things that could be compared to the *dukkha nanas*?) You would think that separate sects of Buddhism, performing the same practices of meditation, would have encountered the same things, and so would have formed their own "maps". Did they? Or is it unique to the Theravadan tradition. And if that's the case, why?

There is a famous story of such an encounter between the Buddha and a ‘difficult person’ named Akkosina. Akkosina’s name means “Not Getting Angry” but he was the exact opposite of his name. Akkosina was easily angered and was always angry about something or someone. When he heard that the Buddha did not get angry with anyone he immediately decided to visit him. He went up to the Buddha and scolded him for all sorts of things, insulting him and calling him awful names. At the end of this angry speech, the Buddha asked this man if he had any friends or relatives. “Yes.” Akokosina replied. “When you visit them, do you take them gifts?” the Buddha asked. “Of course, I always bring them gifts.” The angry man replied. “Then what happens if they don’t accept your gifts?” The Buddha asked. “Well I take them home and enjoy them with my own family” “And likewise,” said the Buddha, “You have brought me a gift here today that I do not accept, and so you may take that gift home to your family.” source: Akkosa sutta (SN 7.2) Is there more to learn from the story of the angry man? If someone insults you, it is hard to not be affected by it. So how to balance out your emotions and begin the day from a place of happiness, and how to respond in the same light?