How would one go about figuring out if it is wise to stay together for the sake of the children or if it is time to split up? What would be the guiding principles for figuring this out based on Buddhist principles and Buddha's advice for married couples and the general sentiment of the teachings historically attributed to the Buddha. Prefer answers based on Vibhajavadin traditions and texts held to be true by those schools.

Buddha said that every living creature is subject to cause and effect.My question is what were we paying for in our first life?Well let me put forward like this,the first living creature after the earth was created was a bacteria and life originated in the sea which is a well established fact,then what was the bacteria paying for?Why didn't it take birth as a human?Also Homo sapiens came way after the extinction of many species?Then wht did the animals like dinosaurs take birth and why did the species get extinct?Doesn't Buddha's karma theory get debunked in this case?

What happens when individuality totally disappears by recognizing the five skhandas as not "me" or "mine"? Which platform or ground remains after one has fully realized that the five skhandas are impermanent?

We can define location, size, velocity for rupa. Can we define these for Nama ? Can we say "a moving mind", "mind is located inside the body", "after the death, mind leaves the body and step into a new body" ? Can we imagine "How mind looks like" ?

In [MN 8](https://suttacentral.net/mn8/en/sujato) for example there's this: > *Ṭhānaṃ kho panetaṃ, cunda, vijjati yaṃ idhekacco bhikkhu **vitakkavicārānaṃ** vūpasamā ajjhattaṃ sampasādanaṃ cetaso ekodibhāvaṃ avitakkaṃ avicāraṃ samādhijaṃ pītisukhaṃ dutiyaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja vihareyya.* Here's Ven Sujato's translation: > It’s possible that some mendicant, as **the placing of the mind and keeping it connected** are stilled, might enter and remain in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and confidence, and unified mind, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. Here is [Nyanaponika Thera's](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.008.nypo.html) > It may be that after the stilling of **thought conception and discursive thinking**, he gains the inner tranquillity and harmony of the second absorption that is free of thought-conception and discursive thinking, born of concentration and filled with rapture and joy And [Piya Tan's](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/51.8-Sallekha-S-m8-piya.pdf) > It is possible, too, Cunda, that with the stilling of **initial application and sustained application**, by gaining inner tranquillity and oneness of mind, he attains and dwells in the 2nd dhyana, free from initial application and sustained application, with zest and joy born of stillness [samadhi].108 > 108The 2nd dhyana is known as “the noble silence” (ariya,tuṇhī,bhāva) because within it initial application and sustained application (thinking and discursion, vitakka,vicāra) cease, and with their cessation, speech cannot occur. (S 2:273); cf Kāma,bhū S 2 (S 41.6) where vitakka and vicāra are called verbal formation (vacī,saṅkhāra), the mental factors responsible for speech (S 41.6/4:293), SD 48.7. In Ariya Pariyesanā S (M 1:161), the Buddha exhorts the monks when assembled to “either speak on the Dharma or observe the noble silence” (ie, either talk Dharma or meditate). --- So what is it that is stilled -- and how (by what method) is it stilled -- does the doctrine say only, "first, think of something which causes joy; then secondly, rest in joy without that thinking"? Is *vitakka* just "thought"? I get the impression that Buddhism classifies thought as another type of sense-object, perceived by the 6th sense i.e. by the mind -- is that right? And is a way to still thought meant to be to focus on a specific thought (perhaps an object or focus of meditation), and/or on other senses (e.g. bodily sensations)? And isn't that just fighting fire with fire? :-) Or is the way meant to be, perhaps, to focus on a different *khandha* (e.g. focus on a *sensation* or *perception* or *formation* of joy, instead of on any of the six *sense consciousnesses*)? --- Piya Tan suggests (n the footnote quoted above) that it's especially the type of thought associated with speech: discursion. What about day-dreaming though, imagining sights and situations -- imagining seeing someone or being somewhere, a memory of the past, usually speechless? Night dreams seem pretty random and mostly especially visual (unrelated to speech), they just bubble up from somewhere. Is that phenomenon simply a fact, i.e. the way things are, or is that indicative of some kind of problem? It -- i.e. undirected/involuntary imagination -- seems harmless enough, sometimes pleasant or entertaining (or a bit surprising, the endless variety of fleetings imaginings), ending, restarting, morphing, kind of empty. In primary school, teachers complained I was [moony](https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Amoony) ... > dreamy and unaware of one's surroundings, for example because one is in love. ... or [*dans la lune*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%AAtre_dans_la_lune) in French which means, "to be absent-minded; to be distracted". I take it that's a bad thing, is it? Like "heedless"? It doesn't seem especially immoral -- it's not like I'm spending my time plotting to murder someone. The worst that might be said about it is perhaps that it (i.e. daydreaming or non-applied thought) is a waste of time (or of "precious human life") -- is that even so, and/or is that only the restless of ego of a [type A personality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory#Type_A) : > The hypothesis describes Type A individuals as outgoing, ambitious, rigidly organized, highly status-conscious, impatient, anxious, proactive, and concerned with time management. People with Type A personalities are often high-achieving "workaholics". They push themselves with deadlines, and hate both delays and ambivalence. People with Type A personalities experience more job-related stress and less job satisfaction. I think I've read -- from non-Buddhist modern popular science -- that dreaming is the mind's attempt or mechanism for integrating recent experience with long-term memory, and/or rehearsing for (simulating) potential future events. This kind of topic or mental activity seems quite large or time-consuming in life but I don't really know what Buddhism says about it -- whether it's good, bad, or normal, how to avoid it, how to use it properly -- I don't even know which words (of Pali, Tibetan, or other) might be used to describe the phenomena. How about *papanca* for example, is that an apt description? My problem with that word is, I recognise it as pejorative (i.e. that "one should avoid that") -- but I don't know how it's *prescriptive* (i.e. "what one should do to stop that"). And/or is that restlessness, *uddhacca*? Dreaming -- a stream of images -- seems to me an automatic process. Like a heart-beat, one might be conscious of it or not but seems to be always happening either way. Like it happens continuously, in a room inside my brain/mind -- and I can shut the door on that room, by paying attention to something else, especially to waking sense-impressions like what I'm currently seeing or hearing, or to some "intentional" or "concentrated" mental task (e.g. reading or writing, or driving, data-processing) -- but the room with its stream of bubbling dreams is always there and becomes apparent again when "sense-impressions" and "directed thought" stop, when the (little) "door" opens. --- This question is more or less a continuation of the question about https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/29003/254 I think I understand those answers, the difference is that this time I'm hoping for answers that are are little more prescriptive and less descriptive. I think (I hope) that I have no strong emotional reactions to dreams, I'm not aware of fighting (e.g. as described in Andrei's answer) or nightmares (as mentioned in Yeshe Tenley's answer). It's just that I'm aware of kind of dreaming and even day dreaming, sometimes speech-based (imagining or rehearsing or repeating speech), sometimes only visually imaginative (similar to dreaming). Should I try to stop it and of so how? Replace it with something else, another mode of thought? Continuing to dream seems like getting lost in sensuality (especially the consciousness of the sixth sense) -- thinking I ought to do something else sounds like it might be "desire for becoming" or "for existence" -- so I'm not sure I understand what Buddhist doctrine is on this subject, what practice it recommends.

In this link and this link the Buddha says that "there is stress" (or suffering or whatever your preferred translation of dukkha is). The Buddha does not say that suffering (dukkha) is inherent or an innate characteristic of existence. According to the Second Noble Truth, this dukkha is caused by desire or craving. So dukkha has a cause. That cause can be removed. It's not that existence is made up of dukkha. I understand Annicca (impermanence) and Annatta (not-self) can be said to be 'marks of existence' i.e. existence is characterized by them. But I don't understand how dukkha is a mark of existence. It is true that under certain circumstances humans feel dukkha but there is also joy, happiness, love etc. Dukkha is not a permanent building block of human existence. Annicca and Annata are permanent or basic building blocks. So my question is, why is dukkha said to be a 'mark' of samsaric realm or material existence?

I met a woman, far, far below me in status and physical, and mental, attractiveness. I told her I was in love with her, and now refuse to retract that, or to explain why I refuse to. In fact, this woman is very mentally ill, and she seems distressed by me... It's not misconduct, because I'm not lying - right -- *whoever* else I'm involving myself with?

In AN 8.66 the Buddha says, "*Not perceiving form internally, they see visions externally. This is the second liberation*". I am totally confused here. If by '*form*' we mean **body**, how not to perceive it internally. And what is meant by *'see visions externally'*?

Is shikantaza meant to spontaneously relax you, unlike ch'an meditation? I've never taken classes in the former, but the latter seems to *teach* you to relax -- and then follow the breath spontaneously. Is this about right? To stay alert, in zazen, I focus on the tip of my nose, as and when I need to. If my thoughts bother me, I mentally turn toward them (both literally and metaphorically). I believe that is still zazen? I don't have any other questions about how to meditate, anymore; though I'm unsure what enlightenment or jhana is.

I've heard that patience has a big place in Buddhism. It is especially very important for monks. I can think two ways of patience. 1. When we get angry, we have to have patience to avoid bad consequences. 2. Most of practises in buddhism don't give us a result immediately. So we have to have patience to see a result. (Delayed gratification) What are the teachings of the Buddha about patience ? I can think of case 1. But I want to know about case 2. If a person is unable to delay gratification (not only in Buddhist practises), does it means that the person has excessive clinging? (Is it a characteristic of that kind of person ?)

> The conventional Buddhist view of causality is that the present > negative and positive effects we see in our lives are a result of > negative and positive causes that we created in the past. So in order > to attain Buddhahood, which is the goal of Buddhist practice, it would > take lifetimes of painstaking efforts to replace all the negative > causes we’ve made with positive causes, while avoiding making > additional negative causes. Based on this view, the possibility of > attaining Buddhahood seems remote and almost impossible. > > In contrast, Nichiren Buddhism teaches that the law of cause and > effect is simultaneous. https://www.worldtribune.org/2017/11/cause-and-effect/ I side against it, which could even cover my slight antipathy toward Nichiren Buddhism. If the effect depends on past causes, then doesn't the metaphor of a fire going out -- and going nowhere -- when the fuel runs out, only work when a cause can run out of effects, which, for me, hints at svabhava. Does a cause running itself down only occur if it has svabhava? And what arguments are there for and against the law of cause and effect being simultaneous? I have a "theory" that Nichiren Buddhism cannot help us in our "next live"; in deed, that mappo -- and Nichiren Buddhism -- condemns all to the Abrahamic hell, even as zen -- the monastic life -- may still be available. But I won't get into it.

Subject refers, can a Buddhist accepts prayer from other religion say Muslim or Christian? I understand the answer is yes.

I saw many images of the circle of existence represented with Yama, the lord of death, with a tiger skin and a third eye. Why is he represented in this way?

The Buddha was male, so was he an "alpha male"? It's a facetious question. Are Buddhas e.g. submissive and androgynous? I am asking because 'alpha male' is a recurring idea in Western culture right now, and I wondered what Buddhism and the imitation of Buddhas' character, has to say about that. An answer claimed androgyny is "consistent with Buddhist philosophy". No self may imply submissiveness, in some ways: not putting your own "me" and "mine" first. 'Alpha male' is strongly tied to the senses and wealth, status etc.. Which clearly Buddhas reject as mundane. So I was thinking "no"; but perhaps Buddhism offers a critique of 'macho'.

What does the word '*dhamma*' mean when the Buddha said '*sabbe dhamma annatta'.* I am being confused here. I looked through the translation. It reads '**all conditioned/unconditioned things are not-self**'. Isn't the word *sankara* used for conditioned things. The word *dhamma* in my native language literally means '**religion**'. Also I checked Wikipedia for the word *dhamma*. The Wiki gives similar meaning as '*religion*' in context of **Hinduism** but not clear on Buddhist use of the word. My question is whats translation of word '*dhamma*' and in what context is it used in line '*sabbe dhamma annatta'*?

Buddhism has slowly entered my life since the last 25 years. Though born a Hindu in India, I have always been open to practices that would help me answer my fundamental question about the meaning of life and, more specifically, how to attain the end of suffering and final release. I followed many traditions but none satisfied me. Meanwhile Buddhism, specifically Theravada Buddhism, sort of grew into me owing to its very scientific and rational approach to liberation, to Nibbana, sans gods and the like. For the last year or so, I have been intensively doing Samatha Meditation, Anapanasati specifically, and have been putting ~4 hrs on workdays and 6- 10 hours on weekends in sessions of one to one and a half hours. Initially, I went through a lot of physical problems, mainly severe flu-like symptoms, but I persisted and these have thankfully subsided now. At the moment, however, I am feeling very downcast and it appears that I am lost. There seems to be darkness all around, yet I am persisting with my intensive practice. These 'dark nights' make me so despondent sometimes that I feel that I may be having too much of bad karma that is obstructing my growth. My only motivation is Nibbana, nothing else, and I would go to any length to reach it but then something is not allowing me to move forward. Some time back, before the pandemic started, I was planning to go to Myanmar for a long retreat but CoVid- 19 simply poured cold water over my plans. Could someone guide me in this hour of distress?

If I search for the 4 noble truths of Buddha on Google I get the following different translations of the first noble truth: 1. Life is suffering. 2. There is suffering in life. 3. Life is unsatisfactory. and from the Wikipedia 4. Dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence in the realm of samsara. Which one is the most accurate translation?

Sometimes we get an instant Karma. In other cases it takes time for Karmic fruits to ripen. I want to know in later case where does the Karma get stored or how is it remembered.

Do Buddhists use the Shambhawi mudra ? What kind of tradition use it and for which purpose? (if possible with some references)

Should monks be envolved with Politics or Governments? I think the answer is a clear NO, but I have seen things like that so I would like to doublecheck and ask where is this "rule"? Vinaya?