Why the historic saviours and prophets of mankind only existed in scriptures or only in the past? Why do no saviour was found in the world, which have seen by some men actually? Why Buddha keeps his hair, but the disciples are bald? I believe the Buddha is synonym to the cosmic man, the Brahman or the Absolute of the Upanishad. I feel no man named Buddha existed but the term coined to the awakened one or the absolute. It has been replaced with Brahman. Shaven head of disciple means they have shaven their mind of impurity to attain the Teacher, The Tathagata. The 'Tat' is Upanishadic word from greatest dictum, 'Tat Tvam Assi'! Do Tathagata really mean who have arrived at 'Tat' or the Absolute? Please I have these doubts in my mind!

I have done several Vipassana retreats in the past. Some questions came up to me several times without being able to answer them. - **What are the major differences between mindfulness of the body (e.g. Body scan/Vipassana meditation) and focusing on the breath (i.e Anapana Sati meditation)?** - **How can I focus my attention as it arises across my body? I am able to focus on my breath between my nose and my mouth, but when I am aware of my sensation on my legs for instance, should I stay aware of my breathing simultaneously?**

The world seems to have come together. We have United Nations which is a symbol of the unity of the nations.However things come together because of an element. That element can be greed or aversion or delusion or education or faith or love or anger... etc... Therefore I would like to ask : Because of which element the world has come together?

How can I prevent harmful thoughts and intentions from coming into my head? How can I remove them if they do come into my head? Even if I try to forget about them, I will still remember it. So how can I forget about them and never remember it?

For a while now i have been wondering about how buddhist monks have time for their own practice. When i see buddhist monks like *Ven. Yuttadhammo, Ajahn Brahm and Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi* who contribute so much to the teaching of the dhamma and have set in motion so many initiatives like making videos, written books, teaching pali language, teaching on retreats etc. i wondered when and how they have time for their own practice? Thank you for your time. Lanka

In the story the Buddha creates a golden lotus and gives it to a monk who soon after attains arahantship. Story is in attached screenshot taken from the book *"Fundamentals of Insight Meditation"*, by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.

I understand the Martial Arts namely Wing Chun basic stance has a form of meditation. I understand Grand master Yip Man or Bruce Lee's master already modified it so it's easier to be absorbed and learned by public. Qi Gong or breathing technique been removed from syllabus as i understand. There are too many versions and theories about this stance and breathing/meditation technique when i search online. Anyone can share the closest original info about this stance meditation and breathing technique?

My preference would be a *Theravada* based answer to the following question: - **Which texts are the most important to read in the Khuddaka Nikaya and why?** Thank you. :)

I have a father who left me when I was 5. He moved out of state when I was 7. We saw each other once every year or two. He returned to my area when I was 13. By the time I was 21, we still had a very limited relationship. He was/is an alcoholic and considering my own mental illness (I’m bipolar) and his own admission to the likelihood of him having something of the sort, he likely has a mental illness as well. Through my 20s, we tried to get closer but it was not very successful. I was in and out of mental health facilities and he was stagnant in his own life, not really doing anything to change his behavior. About two years ago, I was 29, we began talking on the phone every couple of days, attempting to establish a relationship. It was going well for a few months, until one night, when out of nowhere (it began with him criticizing how I ate a tostada) he berated me and told me vile things for over an hour that was amongst the most traumatic experiences of my life. Referring to my past suicidal tendencies, he was shouting at me that “he wouldn’t care if I killed myself” as I sat in meditation trying to calm myself from the painful attack. After that night, we didn’t speak for over a year. I forgave him, but I needed my space for a while. As a Buddhist, I have always read that is important to love & deal compassionately with our parents, because we are not separate. My love is his love. His pain is my pain. He has been living with my grandparents for the last year and now I see him quite a bit. I try and stay cordial as best I can. He’s only attacked me verbally a few times since. I thought things were getting better, but tonight he sent me a text message that makes me feel uncomfortable to respond to. He complains that I don’t treat him like he’s my father and I’m too casual with the way I talk to him. He says he’s been feeling that way for a while and is afraid of exploding on me again. I’m having a tough time with what to do because I love him, truly. But trying to navigate our relationship is difficult for me and my mental health. I feel somewhat helpless in this situation and was hoping there was a perspective from this community that could help me understand how to handle this situation with guidance from a Buddhist perspective.

I read the following on the internet: > But when the view of "self" ends, kamma also ends Is that plausible? > Are you saying that kamma is conditioned by self-view? And saying that > kamma -- the fruit of old kamma and the creation of new kamma -- is > non-existent for a stream-enterer (who by definition has no > self-view)?? **I thought it was, canonically, an attribute of an arahant > -- even then old kamma continues to fruit, but no new kamma is created** -- it's conditioned not by self-view but by ... by conceit, and by desire-for-existence, that kind of thing ... isn't that **the doctrine > of the suttas**? Do the suttas say the "old kamma" of an Arahant continues to fruit?

Let's say a lay Buddhist has a rat infestation problem in his or her house. Catching rats using traps and killing them is clearly breaking the first precept of not taking a life. What about keeping a pet cat that is sufficiently well fed and taken care of, in the house, without training or encouraging it to catch rats, but nevertheless accepting the possibility that the cat may or may not choose to catch and kill rats, on its own volition, that it may find in the house? **If the pet cat does catch and kill rats, does this break the first precept?** Also, introducing a pet cat, may cause the rats to flee the house on their own, as they may find that it has become an unsuitable place to live in.

If someone asked, "What? My father, teacher, ... are not just friends?" -- how would one explain significant differences between "tolerance" and "deep respect and regard", of people being in front and what is called a "person worthy of respect"? Since it might sometimes occur, in modern or western world, that one gives the gift of appreciation to someone who you count as an equal -- how to make best, or explain now the further step, respect, reverence and even refuge and total devotion? Does anybody have, can provide, a good answer, strategy, to solve such? Maybe under the headline, "Neither your father, your teachers and many others, nor the Buddha, are your "homies" or your "colleagues" (co-worker on same stage), proper to call and address by name or with 'friend'". Practical try, as well possible inspiration to answer this, might be found under the question: "[Why should one not address a venerable as friend?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/25218/why-should-one-not-address-a-venerable-as-friend) ", by Upasaka Chris. And why the question is very importand and reasonable, why "homie"-like meetings and ways are destructive for a grow, might be also find inspiring answers later possible [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/25222/what-are-the-consequence-of-speaking-without-having-got-leave) . *(this is later addition)* ___ *[It's not required to try to answer if the significant different is not really traced yet. Possible better to ask another question. And yes it's another challenging and possible not much broadly beloved question. And yes, feel free to upvote the question as well, if thinking that this gives release.* *Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]*

This what I read part of heart sutta states; So, in emptiness, there is no body, no feeling, no thought, no will, no consciousness. There are no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. There is no seeing, no hearing, no smelling, no tasting, no touching, no imagining. There is nothing seen, nor heard, nor smelled, nor tasted, nor touched, nor imagined. apparently it is about the death of being to me.Also this description perfectly match and experience in coma or unconsciousness state of an individual. can I get proper and profound explanation for above?

The sentences I want to check with you are: 1. Reducing suffering (or eliminating it) is the main goal. 2. The main reason we keep suffering is desire and aversion. 3. We can experience craving to any of the five aggregates (e.g. thoughts) and also to the situation in general (e.g. become a teacher or become enlightened). 4. We have tools to reduce desire and aversion (or promote this reduction in others). E.g. not-self, impermanence and dukkha. Jhana. 5. This tools (3 characteristics, jhana, etc.) are truthful (they are not white lies). 6. This tools lead to a "desinterest" (equanimity) that gives freedom. For example, by seeing pain as impermanent (as lasting briefly or nothing) then there is "desinterest" in it (equanimity to it), and as such there is a freedom to either experience it or not without suffering it. 7. Ultimately it's best to be equanimous even to becoming enlightened (a case of bhava-tanha?), the tools ("the raft" that is abandoned after crossing the river), no-thoughts (aversion to thoughts?), etc. That's it, feel free to make little corrections or flat out tell me there are big mistakes there. Thanks.

I'm looking for a sutta wherein the Buddha explains how beings we meet in this life (family, friends, animals etc.) have all been our parents, friends, loved ones, pets etc. in previous lives. What sutta is that? Thank you for your time.

I am new to Tibetan Buddhism and I am fascinated by it. One thing that bothers me in general is that I keep making the same mistakes. For example, every now and then I find myself procrastinating which has harmed me a lot. I came to know how cognitive psychology and neuroscience explain this behavior. It's the neural patterns that is hard wired in my brain because how I have been reacting to situations for a long time. Neurons that fire together wire together. But how Tibetan Buddhism addresses this issue? I heard from Khenpo Sherab Sangpo understanding a teaching intellectually and experiencing the teaching is two different things which made me think that there must be a spiritual aspect of this problem. I would really appreciate it if someone can help me see the spiritual side of this. Thanks!

I have been digging really deep into the philosophy of Buddha. What I have come to know is that Buddha has never talked about remembering past lives in any original text. If he has then please let me know. Now, what he may have said is the idea of Dependent Origination, that surely many past actions/events were the cause of his birth. The other thing what I have found is that rebirth in Buddhism is not reincarnation. Keep this in mind. It is the rebirth of consciousness in this life. We go through different perception of the self as long as we cling to desires. Also, sexual desires work vaguely here to change the perception of "I". However, my question is Buddha has never talked about past life as in life about past bodies before physical birth, if he has then please let me know. (Also, I have found that Jataka tales is fabricated because it is post Canon.) All the stories of remembrance of past life is fabricated as well, in my point of view, there is also a story where Buddha remembers past life after enlightenment, but it's wrong. He was just pointing out Dependent Origination. Please let me clarify on this topic. Thank you.

Assume a scenario that a seafood chef that inherited from the parent's seafood restaurant business and used to kill seafood alive before have a chance to study Buddhism. When the chef understood the basic and respect the basic perspective of Buddhism then he tried hard and changed his job/business entirely to a job that not required to kill animal/seafood alive. He is also doing very well in the 5 basic lay Buddhist precepts and has changed entirely the mindset and behavior after studying Buddhism. What would happen to animal/seafood that had been killed before? Does he still need go thru the Karma consequences or a least some waiver of punishment or this person is still going to hell but a better hell or how to reduce the bad karma consequences further? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts This question is similar to the below but couldn't find the answer https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/22433/what-does-ending-karma-mean Post Note: This question is more specific to the Chef and Seafood karma issue. The bad karma should go to those folks that order the Chef to kill and to consume the fresh and taste of seafood. At least to those folks that basic Buddhism theory/common sense already exposed to them. Correct me from wrong if any. Lobster is best tasted when boiled alive and also it is also known to have the highest consciousness level in term of vision of all being on earth https://science.howstuffworks.com/lobster-x-ray-technology.htm

I've heard (not from Buddhist texts) that after enlightenment the investment in the body dwindles becomes delicate and less resistant to disease ,and that the body needs to be prepared first.So what Buddha had went through before Nirvana was important.Or what the yogis do in kryia yoga . Examples of Ranamnakrishna and Maharishi Raman dying of cancer . There is even claim that some might die right after nirvana. Another claim is that there is no longer unconscious sleep,One is always awake /sleeps less . Example of krishnamurti not sleeping well and having migraines. If there is any such thing what do Buddhist texts say about the state of the body after nirvana ?

A teaching householder here adviced: "It's ok to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits, because they are not sentient." ("ok" here was to be assumed of having no negative kammic consequences by killing certain beings, nor increasing wrong view on such thoughts.) Is that right, aside of growing wouldn't work with out killing "sentient" perceived being? Is there a mention of sentient satta (living being) different from satta? Doesn't growing involve harming and killing? Doesn't harvest cut of life? Doesn't no worry in consuming increase dependency and neglecting right effort? In the case it would be ok, why seeking to escape from the wheel of food and feeding? Sure good if providing serious counted advices from the Sublime Buddha. *[Note that this gift isn't given for stacks, exchange, feeds, other worldbinding trades, but for a way out of this wheel.]*