The suttas about the 32 marks of a great man, such as MN 91, appear to describe the Buddha used psychic power towards Brahmins however they do not appear to say the Brahmin layperson was cognizant of the fact the Buddha used psychic power. For example: >So the Buddha used his psychic power to will that Uttara would see his retracted private parts. > >Then Uttara thought, “The ascetic Gotama possesses the thirty-two marks. Why don’t I follow him and observe his deportment?” > >MN 91 In SN 41.4, a layperson discovers a monk has psychic powers. The monk later performs a demonstration of psychic power to the layperson but then, as a result, decides to leave that locality of the layperson that became enamored by his psychic powers. In MN 37, Moggallāna performs an act of psychic power to Sakka the Ruler of the Gods but it is not clear whether Sakka can be classified as a "layperson", as follows: > Then Moggallāna used his psychic power to make the Palace of Victory > shake and rock and tremble with his big toe. Then Sakka, Vessavaṇa, > and the Gods of the Thirty-Three, their minds full of wonder and > amazement, thought, “It’s incredible, it’s amazing! The ascetic has > such power and might that he makes the god’s home shake and rock and > tremble with his big toe!” Please list any other Pali suttas that describe the Buddha & monks demonstrating psychic powers to laypeople. Thank you.

Can buddha attain Nibbana without Devadatta's throwing a rock and hurting Buddha's foot? I read somewhere that buddha redeem his past karma by getting hit from that stone hence my question I am sorry for my bad english Metta 🙏🙏 UPDATED: But there were present karmas that even buddha needs to undergo do you assert that the enlighten one don't need to undergo present karma at all?

I’ve learned that all things are impermanence. This is causing depression and anxiety in my life. I’m sad and scared that my relationships will one day come to an end. The fact that all things are impermanence just make me sad. How do I feel better?

How are/would newly discovered Suttas (and Sutras) be dealt with, specifically be they of content contradicting -- or even just differing slightly from -- previous material and/or for totally new, original material discovered? Can example(s) be given on how whatever is done, or not done, happens -- especially any instances kept from the public.

After long time and back to BSE. My question is; according to science all the existence are sequenced as matter made of alchemy (chemistry) , molecules , atoms, sub particles then energy. I think base of science is depend on this sequencing and it is considered as a reality. However science possesses its own controversies as unable to provide proper explanations as result of limitations of five senses and their extensions.(e.g...eye and hi tech microscopes) i think science stuck at "energy" in sequencing the subtle level of existence. but it is so clear what have found up this level of scientific finding.science came across massive breakthroughs such as finding of atom, artificial memory, artificial intelligence , MRI etc...and science based on proofs. at the subtle level science manipulate energy at best level becomes it can do everything as "energy is everything" including our mind. Think I've made concise explanation of what science can do if i am not mistaken. Now we turn towards the Buddhism as a great philosophy. Can Buddhism provide concrete explanations on above questions? what is the absolute, final, subtle level of existence? how is energy defined in Buddhism? Is there anything beyond energy? If there are, what is the proof?

How do we as Buddhists deal with a world that creates and embraces illusions and fabrications? For example, government is an idea and a fabrication, it is not a person or a thing, it just a group of individuals. A lot of people believe in this idea and accept it as something real; they believe it so much they follow without thinking. Next, covid. WOW! talk about following non-truth. This something that has never been proven to have been isolated, therefore it does not exist, yet people follow the the other illusion's advice (government). Why do people follow an illusion of an illusion? As a Buddhist who has learned to strip away many of these illusions, I still find it difficult to fathom. Particularly when others illusions start to directly affect me and my safety. Even other Buddhists have bought into this covid illusion, why? How do we stay on the path, when our actions of not following these illusions makes a target, by not wearing masks, taking vaccines and not following government illusions?

My field of perception is very wide. It often becomes so wide that it loops back onto itself in some odd kaleidoscopic fashion. This has rendered my previous methods of concentration unhelpful. Previously concentration was very deliberate and contrived and my surroundings would phase off into obscurity in favour of a pin-point focus on my chosen object. It opened up some interesting doors. The application of attention on a particular event such as breathing is very different. It is different because it is inclusive of all other phenomena, like the universe is doing the concentration from which no personal claims can be made. I find this to be a distraction but there is a part of me that wants to embrace this inclusiveness. This leaves me with some dissonance between the previous method - in particular my attachment to the results incurred from that method. Moreover, when I try to apply myself in the previous way, I suffer - I guess I've just answered my own question in some ways. Is this change in concentration to be expected? Can you share any resources from either Theravada, Mahayana or Zen that would help me further my understanding of this matter? Best wishes

I have been recently experiencing tremendous fear, but as I look through my eyes at the world and the objects it contains, the fear does not accord with what I see. The world itself is beautiful but people's minds seem tarnished by a neurosis. They seem to define themselves by this very neurosis. I notice all the little behavioural patterns they play and how they are trapped by them. I find this very fearful, and it affects my ability to integrate with people. Furthermore, I often find myself 'playing along' but knowing that I'm playing along. This seems disingenuous and somewhat incongruent. I have avoided television for 4 years because of this falsity, but it is becoming very prominent just now. Only the other day I caught a few seconds of a TV program where they were discussing Covid-19 death rates like it was some kind of sporting event. I find humans very peculiar. At the level of mind I am able to see the danger present in the world and act accordingly but this comes from a natural inclination instead of from a fear-based story. This doesn't stop me feeling fear for that mode of being we call samsara. It is possible - or highly likely - that this fear could be my own samsaric turmoil looking to find a footing in the world as someone who is fearful of others and that its real plight lies in keeping the wheel turning. My question is, from a Mahayana perspective, how can I come to love the samsara that I see in others? I'm happy to welcome answers from other traditions. Be well.

According to buddhism , does the enlightenment have a continuum from an initial momentum or can have also regressions? I suppose if a specific state of mind has been acquired from innumerable causes it can’t return back, can just evolve toward a vector even if we force ourself in a condition of ignorance, so the bodhisattvic principle.

As asked in the question, what are the characteristics by which a thing is classified as 'living being' or 'non-living' ? How is a lifeform defined in Buddhism, I mean, like how humans consider themselves as living beings due to various facts such as: their experience in this world due to consciousness, their actions (kamma), etc. If lifeform is defined as something that has consciousness and capable of producing kamma, what things are concious? Is a plant a living being/conscious? Is a **stone** living being/conscious? Is the universe conscious? Is everything a lifeform in some way? Is rebirth possible only as a lifeform? (I mean, by rebirth, just a transfer of consciousness/experience subject to different conditions. Please correct me if I'm wrong) Can our next rebirth be as a stone/whatever, other than the 5 predefined possibilities (human, god, ghost, animal, hell) in Buddhism? I'd be glad if all the questions are addressed :)

Receiving alms is definitely part of the monastic life. Is begging for alms acceptable for lay persons? Is begging for alms considered Right Livelihood for lay persons? Is begging for alms considered skillful for lay persons, compared to earning their livelihood in accordance with the five precepts, principles of Right Livelihood and teachings of the Pali Canon (or other scriptures)? Or is it considered laziness?

What are the proper relax / Sleep practices for a practitioner of meditation methods? As to Buddhist point of view what is sleep and how to cope with it?

I tried vipassana meditation and where i used to follow my belly for the inhale exhale. Every time I practised, I found that my sleep quality was disturbed. I found myself tired next day after the disturbed sleep. Did anyone experience the same?

In Hinduism, it is generally said that children too have a share of their parent's sins & good deeds. So, according to Buddhism, does the karma of a parent (in a direct or indirect way) affect their children?

I was listening to a discussion with David Benatar, and the point that Buddhism seems to be antinatalist was raised. It seems that people argue this both ways. Can Buddhism be said to be antinatalist? Or some strands but not others? If it is, what consequences does this have? I have always kind of dismissed Benatar's ideas as being a kind of Larkin-esque pose, and making a mistake in hierarchy that puts pleasure above meaning, like utilitarians. But if the charge of antinatalism sticks, it seems I am going to have look more carefully at which of his points also apply to Buddhism.

The Buddha often makes this requests on his monks, *"incline your mind towards Nibbana"* Does this mean concentration with no object? As far as I can ascertain, concentration with no object does not seem to be possible. I have a particular interest in the Mahayana perspective but answers from other traditions are welcome. Thanks

If feeling, perception and consciousness are conjoined or mixed, and it is not possible to separate them or delineate them or disjoin them, then why do we have five different aggregates instead of just three? What is the significance and usefulness in the teaching to have feeling, perception and consciousness clearly distinguished into three different aggregates? Why were they not combined into a single aggregate? From MN 43 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro): > "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not > disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, > to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one > perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these > qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having > separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among > them." From MN 43 (translated by Ven. Sujato): > “Feeling, perception, and consciousness—these things are mixed, not > separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe > the difference between them. For you perceive what you feel, and you > cognize what you perceive. That’s why these things are mixed, not > separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe > the difference between them.”

It is easier to define "right livelihood" in the time of the Buddha when compared to our modern society. I would like to know if this situation can be considered wrong livelihood and if it creates bad kamma or not: Imagine someone that works for a company, just a regular employee, maybe from HR, finance or the legal department, this person provides a service and gets paid for it, but what happens if the company sells alcohol or maybe other product that damages people's health or even if the company sells meat or products to kill insects, plagues and so on... To be honest a great part of the companies these days either damages the environment or the public health, others may have practices not very ethical regarding labour or tax payments, it is not easy to find a 100% "clean" business. I have tried to find an answer in the suttas and dhammapada and the closest thing I found was a story about the wife of a hunter, she used to help her husband by cleaning his weapon, the traps and cooking the dead animals, the Buddha said she was not guilty and was not creating bad Kamma, only the hunter who was actually killing animals. Are there better references than this one? In my example, is it wrong livelihood? Does it create bad Kamma?

I am at the very beginning of my journey. As I understand, suffering and the escape of it are central parts of Buddhism. (Though the notation "all life is suffering" seems to be a misinterpretation .) Are there schools of Buddhism catering to those who see no major suffering in their lives, and hence do not feel any urge to end such?

Antinatalism is the view that it is ethically wrong to procreate any sort of sentient beings, be it human or otherwise because to exist means also to experience pain, pleasure, suffering, bodily deprivations and psychological frustrations. None of the above obviously is inflicted upon the non-existent. My question is: (i) What is the Buddhist view of this way of thinking; (ii) Why create further imperfect human beings who are capable of experience any sort of dukkha, need, want, deprivation, frustration etc., when these kinds of dukkha (and ills) could've been prevented in the first place? Even in the most ideal case, where a parent brings a child into existence that becomes an enlightened being, it is still ethically indecent to do so because (i) one is gambling with the life of that child; (ii) one is using that child as a means to an end; (iii) that "need" or desired outcome to attain enlightenment is only relevant for existent beings. It seems that Buddhism has some Antinatalist undertones, because although not mentioned in the scripture, if everyone followed the ideal, everyone would strive towards arhatship, and thus stop procreating.