This is the mother who carries: Sankha, Chakra, and Gada. I am confused whether she is Mahalaxmi, Kamakhaya, Tripura Sundari, or some Buddhist Goddess.

Owen Flanagan in this podcast argued while Buddhism has an extremely well developed notion of compassion, it doesn't have a significant notion of justice. He contrasts this with ancient Greek philosophies which he states have a strong notion of justice and weak or absent notion of compassion. So is this correct? Does Buddhism really not have decent (or any) notion of justice. Can anyone perhaps provide examples of justice from the texts (Pali Canon, Mayahana etc..). Or is Owen right - no justice in Buddhism?

I am basically an Undergraduate student in India. Let me tell everyone that I made huge mistakes in my past. When my parents beat me, I also beat them. I never respected my parents and my teachers. Whenever my parents told me to touch the feet of the elders, I always used to get angry at my parents. Whenever my parents suggested me anything good, then I always used to get angry and many times I have even beaten my parents. I have never said "Thank You Sir" to my teachers when they helped me out with my Doubts. I always used to challenge my elders. Many times, I have even shouted at my grandparents. But now at the age of 21, I am able to understand my every mistakes which I already committed in the past. Now I want to rectify myselves. I really want to know that how can I rectify myselves ? How can I control my anger ?

In my quest to develop virtue, sometimes, I get distracted and entangled in thoughts. When I am in thoughts, virtuous conduct is halted. The reason why I get entangled in thoughts, is usually because of attachment. For example, attachment to what someone thinks about me. My head starts ruminating and I am not being mindful or diligent or metta in the present moment. One way to phrase this came to mind, inspired by a sutta describing enlightenment. To paraphrase the relevant part of the sutta: > Picking up the aggregates is a burden, laying them down is blissful Inspired by this, **when I become distracted, I think of it like this:** > **Instead of having practiced the eightfold path, I picked up the aggregates** **Since I still don't grasp enlightenment or anatta, I am unsure if this is a helpful application of that phrase.** What do you think?

Years ago I came across a Sanskrit term that described the exchange or interaction of a buddhist and art. I am desperate to remember that term. It described engaging with art work in the present moment as though the piece was alive in you and you were alive in the piece. The term defined a mutual exchange of presence. Can anyone help me with recalling this term?

I recently received a Impermanence Mala for Christmas. I have read The Heart of Buddha's teaching and I couldn't find anything in there. Thank you in advance for any information.

**Today I momentarily fell back to identifying with old thinking patterns, and as a result, old habits and sluggishness emerged.** It caused some trouble, mainly that I delayed departure to a casual meeting with my parents. I called and said as an explanation that I don't feel so good today, and the way I said it left open interpretation that I may call things off entirely. **But then, I remembered the virtue of diligence amongst others, and turned things around.** While I told my parents that "I didn't feel so good", to myself, now, **I think of it as me having "forgotten who I am, for a moment".** This was a phrase that came to me when I was being diligent and discarding of wrong thought again. **But since I still don't grasp anatta, I am unsure if this is a helpful phrase.** What do you think?

On several occasions I have encountered the term "red boddhicitta" in scholarly literature on Indian tantra, but am having trouble locating the Sanskrit term for this concept. I tried googling रक्त बोधिचित्त but nothing comes up; then again, I don't reckon google is indexing Sanskrit all that carefully. I'm not very familiar with the primary sources at the moment, but I gather there are Sanskrit texts that may mention red boddhicitta. I seem to recall one piece known as the Nectar Tantras but I couldn't find a text or translation of it.

Question

Are there any Sanskrit sources that explicitly used the term "red boddhicitta"? (any text from Indian tantra tradition would be sufficient)

In Yogācāra, the ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) is described as containing karmic seeds and functioning as the basis for the arising of the six manifest consciousnesses. However, since the ālaya-vijñāna persists from moment to moment and across lifetimes, it can appear to be an underlying metaphysical substrate. If all schools of Buddhism maintain the doctrine of anātman (non-self), then how is the ālaya-vijñāna not being reified into some kind of enduring essence? Is ālaya-vijñāna considered merely a provisional explanatory model that is ultimately eliminated or transformed upon awakening?

Should I see right practice as not self? The same question is phrased three times over, in different ways, below. As context, I am a householder that seeks to eliminate suffering. **Question from Buddhist point of view** I want to let go of everything but right practice. This allows me to see many things as not self, unphased. For example, feeling tired or aroused or discontent. These things are not part of right practice, so I am able to see them as not self and let them pass by. It then feels like a wave has passed by me, and fully knowing that the wave was not self, and fully footed in overcoming craving, I feel no need to look back at the wave. However, when thoughts of diligence come up, and of right speech, I am hesitant to see them as not self. I am afraid that if I see them as something that will just pass, something to be impassionate about, that I will then deviate from the right path. The concept of right path too, is something I am hesitant to see as not self. How to proceed? **Question with Christian example** In Christianity, there is the concept of the new man and the old man. Practitioners are said to never be able to hope to shake off the old man in them (until Jesus returns). Practitioners are told to strive continuously to *be* the new man. Is the Buddhist answer to let go of the new man too? **Question with concrete example** I have a thought about turning on the TV. The matters in that thought are not about giving up craving, not about mindfulness, not about being metta, so I give up the thought and don't look back at it. Then I have a thought about doing well at a new job. Usually I have doubtful thoughts about the new job. The thought of working hard at the job I see as related to diligence. I do not give up the thought and entertain it. Whereas the TV watcher is clearly not self - something that has arisen from a place that is not self - the thought of working hard at the job now feels like self. I am about the thought, the thought is about me. There is a self and the self is concerned with the thought. I don't feel it's possible to overcome the sense of self without giving up the thought, and giving up the thought I don't feel is possible without the giving up of diligence. If someone suggested that you could have not-self AND thought entertainment, I think I would brush that off as them not speaking from experience. Should I give up right diligence / right livelihood?

I'm brand-new to meditation! I have just completed one week of daily vipassana meditation -- 10 minutes twice daily; once in the morning, once in the evening. I'm unfortunately experiencing extremely uncomfortable back pain from meditating, and would appreciate some advice on how to fix the problem: The Details: 1. I'm flexible enough for a comfortable half-lotus, but have been utilizing Burmese position, as it lets me breathe deeper. I also really like the visual symmetry it provides. 2. The pain is in my mid to lower back, slightly above my kidneys, and just below the back of my ribcage. 3. I've used video / photography to verify that my posture is good going into meditation. I know I sometimes slouch a little after a few moments, but I usually correct myself upon noticing any slouching. I currently sit on a folded pillow, and have ordered myself a zafu-style cushion. 5. The pain is typically minimal to absent during the meditation itself, but sets in around three-four hours afterwards and often lasts the remainder of the day. I wake up feeling pretty sore, but not in "pain." 4. I have poor posture during my non-meditative moments, though I am working on improving it. Still, I have never experienced back pain before; are my back-muscles just weak from adjusting to a new sitting-style? Any thoughts? Is this just a beginner's phase that I have to power through, or should I meditate in a chair for a few days to give my muscles a break? Maybe a different posture? Thicker cushion / no cushion? Alternatively, any ideas on how I might better diagnose the problem? Really appreciate your thoughts. Best, Ian

My mother and I come from a non-Buddhist culture/background/society/country/family. At one point when I had an opportunity to explain to her what Buddhism is, I was doing well (i.e. she was listening and accepting what I was saying) when I was explaining that Buddhism includes a non-fixed identity-view and explaining why a non-fixed identity view is skillful (e.g. because an attitude such as attachment to your job/profession might be unpleasant when you retire, and because people's abilities and health change with age). But then what I mentioned the first Noble Truth she seemed to object, saying "Sorry you think life is suffering/dissatisfaction, I don't agree: I like life, I think life is good." --- So - Do you ever try to explain Buddhism to someone who barely knows the first thing about it, and if so what is your strategy for how to explain it? - Do you explain 'dukkha' using the classic 'death/poverty/illness/old age', and/or is there a better way to explain the first noble Truth? - Are there any alternate way to introduce Buddhism which don't begin with the first Noble Truth? - Might it be better to explain what I think Buddhism might mean to me (why it appeals to me) personally? I fear that might make it less strange to her ("yes I see why you like it") but at the same time less acceptable ("but it isn't for me because I'm not like you"). - Should I understand that if that's her reaction it's because she's already doing a lot of things right (e.g. not spending her life feeling angry)?

Some people liken Buddhist principles to turning yourself into a sheep. Criticism of this nature is often made by libertarian types. Relinquishment of craving and attachment, and mindfulness, are especially criticized. The focus in such verbalizations by critics is on other people who may want to take advantage of such a 'sheep'. Phrases like "don't think" are brought into connotation with "do not question anything, follow the masses". Further, the giving up of attachment and craving part is likened to a loss of individuality. An example insult that captures both aspects of the critique, is that Buddhists want people to "eat ze bugs". It's imagined that globalist dictators desire for the population to eat bugs and be happy with that. A relinquishment of craving and attachment is seen as turning yourself into a perfectly subdued subject for such a would-be oppressor. Focus is also put on a lack of will to fight back. How should one respond to such arguments, if they were proposed seriously instead of in a mocking way?

I wonder if Buddhism has a concept or teaching surrounding what is happening in my personal practice right now. In my practice right now I want to reduce my focus on things that are certain. It's certain that I am typing on my phone right now, and breathing in. Then a idea pops up of something relating to the future, and I recognize the uncertainty around any theories surrounding the future. Earlier I came up with theories about craving and other things, and recognized the uncertainty of any such theories. I had many theories about how the mind works in the past but now I see the uncertainty in these theories. I try to synthesize insights based on what I learned from Buddhism but I'm uncertain of the theories in the end. Those mind theories I have are impermanent too, always changing and coming up with a new theory. But now the only certainty is my thumbs hitting my phone. Then a craving pops up and I'm led away from the certainty of breathing. Is there anything surrounding certainty or uncertainty in Buddhism being taught?

In several discourses, the Buddha is said to have chosen not to answer certain metaphysical questions, such as whether the soul or a God exists, whether the world is eternal or finite, or what happens after death. He often said that these questions do not lead to liberation or the cessation of suffering, and that his teaching is primarily concerned with understanding and overcoming dukkha, rather than engaging in speculative or philosophical debate. This has been described as the soteriological focus of Buddhism: the Buddha taught only what was necessary for liberation, leaving aside what does not lead to direct insight or release. However, for many people, uncertainty about such questions is itself a source of deep anxiety and suffering. The human mind naturally seeks stability and assurance about its own continuation or fate. - Some people fear the idea that there may be nothing after death, the thought that consciousness may simply cease forever. - Others, especially those raised in theistic traditions, are troubled by the possibility of divine punishment or eternal suffering if they have failed to live or worship their god correctly. - Equally there are also some people from traditions that accept reincarnation who experience distress over the possibility of reinacarnating again and again to unsatisfactory existences or being reborn in lower births such as of animals etc. due to moral mistakes, even those committed unintentionally. Given that existential uncertainty itself can cause real mental distress, how does Buddhism approach this kind of suffering? If the Buddha refused to give metaphysical reassurances, what methods or insights does the Dhamma offer to help a practitioner find peace even amid uncertainty about the soul, God, or the afterlife?

I've just started to use AI and it making my mind very scared & frightened. Firstly, the Pali GPT Translate I am using is far superior & far more nuanced than any Pali dictionary. It has made all of those begrudging tight fisted internet monks & scholars, who won't help you with Pali, except on their interpretational terms, second rate & redundant. Secondly, I just uploaded a new paper about non-returner & once-returner to [Academia.Edu](https://independent.academia.edu/DhammaDhatu) and an automatic podcast was created as though the speaker had already read my paper and then paraphrased what is written within in their own words. This was super scary to listen to. Immediately, your ideas are being taken, processed & interpretated by a piece of technology. Since my impression is ChrisW is a tech guru, my questions are: 1. How is all of this done? How are various (a multitude) of valid interpretations for Pali words & phrases, often very obscure, programmed into a GPT Translate? 2. How is an instantaneous paraphrased Podcast created as though the audio speaker knows my broader intentions?

EDIT: Thanks for all the answers. Although I have a position for this, I think it could be helpful if I make my question clearer (but, please, read the whole post if possible): What is the role of altruism in Buddhism? - a) Do you need to be actively altruistic to attain Nirvana, which I interpret as the primary goal of the training in the Dharma in Early Buddhism and in Theravada Buddhism? Or is it rather a useful means for attaining that goal, but not a necessary one? - b) Do you need to be actively altruistic if you follow other buddhist paths (like the ones mostly associated with the Mahayana Schools)? Or is it rather a useful means for attaining that goal, but not a necessary one? --- In discussions about how to translate words such as *averena* (a negation of some quality), I've seen two general kinds of answer: or the compound word is not just the negation of the suffix, but its polar opposite; or the compound word is just a negation of the suffix. In the case of *averena*, the first method renders '*love*', '*loving-kindness*', or whatever translation is used for *metta*; in the second, '*non-hatred*' is the translated concept. This discussion (on how to translate negations) has made me think on the role of altruism in Buddhism (which can be seen as unrelated to the root topic at first). I know there are suttas like [AN 11.1](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html) which explain the importance of virtous conduct to the development of the other factors of the path. These suttas seem to indicate that the main purpose of ethics is to liberate one's own mind (which, of course, makes one a positive influence on others). But also there are suttas like [SN 47.19](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.019.olen.html) state that looking for others is key as well. I don't see both positions as contradictory, but as complementary. And we have as well the teachings on the practice of *Brahmaviharas*, with *metta*, *karuna*, *mudita* and *upekkha* as mind-states to cultivate. Despite all of the above, in the descriptions of the Noble Eightfold Path (which I understand as containing all that's sufficient and necessary for "moving" from *sotapanna* to *arahant*) *Samma Sankappa* is broken down as *nekkhamma*, *abyapada* and *avihimsa*, with at least two of those three factors being words with negative prefixes, which depending on how you translate negations, could indicate **the predominant role of the absence of the unwholesome over the presence of the polar opposite of the unwholesome**, i.e. non-hatred over loving-kindness. After considering all of above, here's the question: **What would you say is the role of altruism** (understood as an active effort for improving the quality of life of other, whether by teaching the Dhamma, giving advice, getting involved in education, improving access to material conditions, etc.) **and other forms of positive** (as "presence of something", not as "good") **wholesome deeds in the different buddhist traditions**? **How important is to buddhist to make the world a better place, not just by developing negative** (as "absence of something", not as "bad") **wholesome qualities, but by changing the general conditions of the world?** EDIT: I'd like to add a new question to give more perspective: As santa100 has noted, the negation of the unwholesome includes the positive wholesome deeds. However, it'd be interesting to know **how important is for the buddhist practice to actively engage in positive wholesome conduct, and why does it matter**. With that I mean: **what effects does have on the world and on ones own mind to do those positive deeds?** My motivation for gaining some perspective on this is to know what to think about the idea of buddhism being not altruistic enough. I'd appreciate personal points of view and/or references to buddhist teaching/discourses that support your views. I apologize for any wrong understanding of the Dhamma I could have expressed in the premisses. Please, correct me if that's the case.

If, according to Buddhist doctrine, it is not the ego-consciousness but merely karmic continuity that transmigrates across rebirths, then on what grounds should one be motivated to seek liberation from saṃsāra? Since there is no enduring self that experiences the cumulative burden or existential drudgery of suffering across lives, and since the sufferings of past or future existences are not personally felt by the present individual, what compelling basis remains for the soteriological urgency central to Buddhist thought?

I read the following on the internet: > Perhaps, we can infer from the above that the Dha**m**ma is easy to follow > for those who had little dust in their eyes, keen faculties (i.e. > intelligent), with good attributes (i.e. good habits), easy to teach > (i.e. respectful, eager to learn and diligent) and **seeing disgrace > (i.e. a strong sense of shame) & danger in the other world (i.e. fear > of ending up in a bad destination after death)**. This is one angle. In comparison to the above Thanissaro translation and in comparison to the idiosyncratic embellishments bracketed by the poster, the translation of Sujato is slightly different, saying: > And some of them lived **seeing the danger in the fault to do with the next world** (paralokavajjabhayadassāvine), while others did not. > > [Sujato's SN 6.1](https://suttacentral.net/sn6.1/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) The relevant Pali above is 'paralokavajjabhayadassāvine', which is in locative case. The locative case can mean 'in" but also can more broadly mean 'in relation/respect to'. Therefore, Thanissaro used the translation of "in" whereas Sujato used the translation of "to do with". > The locative denotes the circumstance or site in space (where) or time (when), a person is, or an action takes place; and can generally be rendered by ‘in, at, on, near, among, **in respect to**’. > > [Learn Pali Blog Spot](https://palistudies.blogspot.com/2018/06/palis-system-of-noun-cases.html) > The seventh case (sattamī = Skr. saptamī) or the loc. serves to denote the where, i.e., the scene of an action. But it is capable of expressing such nuances as are denoted by the English prepositions in, on, at, among, with, by, near, over or **about**. Moreover its employment is not restricted to actual space as normally understood by ‘where’, but extends into other spheres of thought (cp. SS §38.6) Consequently there are various uses of the loc. which can be classified as those denoting, for instance, the varying conceptions of time, of circumstance, of motive, (the nimitta-sattamī of local grammarians), of **relation**, the loc. absolute with its various subdivisions and so on. > > Here as well as in the above type (c.) the loc. is expressive of **relation**, i.e. the thing regarding which... > > [The Locative Case](https://ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Textual-Studies/Syntax-of-the-Cases/07-Locative.htm) Are there any Pali Suttas which explain the meaning of the term "the other world" ("paraloka") to help us clarify the text in SN 6.1 (which the poster on the internet took omniscient privilege to impute their own personal interpretation of)?

Several rules in the Buddhist Monastic Code depend on exact definitions of dawnrise (and noon). As an example, Pācittiya 37, which is the basis of the sixth precept, states: > Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it is to be confessed. Where the "wrong time" is between noon and dawnrise of the next day. Both noon and dawnrise seem to be defined by the position of the sun in the sky. However, in the far north, [polar night](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night) means that some places go months without dawn in the winter. What do monks do in this situation? Surely they don't go that long without eating.