I came across a book about the 500 Arahants, and it briefly mentioned that Jesus is depicted as an Arahant in a particular temple in China. After spending some time Googling, I found out that it's actually true! The Qiongzhu Temple (筇竹寺) in Kunming has an Arahant Hall containing Arahant-Jesus, along with some other Western figures. Here's a [photo](https://img.91ddcc.com/14569013682359.jpg) of it. I'm perplexed as to why there is such depiction, and whether it can be considered a good idea. I read some news/articles about the temple, which used the reasoning that it shows the compassion and inclusiveness of Buddhism. There maybe an alternative explanation, unfortunately I have never been to the place, so this is the only one I could find on the Internet. *My question is*: Is it true that making an 'Arahant-Jesus" shows that Buddhism is compassionate and inclusive? If not, is such depiction valid/acceptable in Mahayana or any other school of Buddhism? I hope the title is not too ridiculous. Thank you :D

Can software development benefit from mindfulness? As I'm software developer and as I want to register for Vipassana meditation so far I couldn't because of time but still thinking if I could go for it. Today I found that meditation and eventually mindfulness can be beneficial for my profession or others. Even I was thinking that my focus will improved and I could study hard and well. Though it's titled software I think it's beneficial for other fields too. So let me share if software development benefit from mindfulness?

Hundred years ago there were many natural beautiful things to observe and it was also easy to cultivate happiness. But in today's city life, we are surrounded by long buildings, roads, and traffics. We rarely spend our time with nature and are mostly surrounded by man-made things. Although breathing meditation can be done anywhere and this cultivates a lot of relief from our suffering, I was just wondering whether Lord Buddha had given any suggestion on the contemplation of manmade things to cultivate happiness/peace? Is it possible to become peaceful by just contemplating on any man-made things and if yes then how?

Where can I find the sanskrit or original version that mentioning Guan Yin is "Goddess of Mercy" as this wording popping up everywhere online. The word "God" really needs to be carefully written and respected. I understand many misconceptions from most famous Buddhism movie and one of the top 4 Novel of China which is Journey to The West. I am not sure the wording is from the movie or novel evolution? The movie script writing and Buddhism teaching way too much difference yet making people claimed himself as Buddhist more superstitious or dont even know who is Buddha or worship at temple of out nothing. Post ques remarks Seem the naming is from Christian and not Buddhism Sangha/community https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_China_missions#:~:text=The%20missionary%20efforts%20and%20other,culture%20in%20Chinese%20society%20today .

Can someone explain sensuality, strings of sensuality, and fermentation of sensuality thoroughly? I want to know, 1. What is it? 2. The main cause for it. 3. The result of it. 4. Where it lies in the dependent origination? 5. Difference between above terms. It'd be very helpful if you provide Sutta references with the answer.

Is nirvana a conceptual construction - empty in that way? For any / only some Buddhists. I'm just trying to figure out how extinction can avoid the extremes of eternalism and annihilation. If it is a conceptual construction in the sense of having no reality outside what it is in conventional designation (blissful etc.), that *might* be an answer. If some rock has no qualities that we cannot define, then maybe there is nothing to add to its existence, nothing to puzzle over and ask why or how.

Where can I get the English translation of the Dharmaskanda Sutra or at least the original text?

What does it mean to "guard the sense doors"? What is the practical application of this concept in daily life? For example, does this concept mean that a heterosexual male should entirely avoid looking at women? Thank you

The Lotus Sutra’s parable of the burning house imagines inhabitants of a house in fire. They do not register the dangerous situation and therefore “the thought of getting out does not occur to them”. Later on, the Lotus Sutra ascribes the following comment to Buddha: “Even there, in that threefold universe that is like a burning house, they enjoy themselves and run about. For though they are being afflicted by a great deal of suffering, the thought that they are suffering does not occur to them.” I imagine a 21-st century Milinda brought up in critical thinking. He is alike to the elder Milinda in his attitude of questioning, but - different from him – today’s Milinda is not willing to accept a bunch of metaphors as a sufficent answer. 21-st century Milinda has no remembrance of past lifes. He does not expect a future life. In addition, he has learned to accept: Present life is not arranged to primarily satisfy human wishes. He asks his modern "Nagasena": 1. If I do not suffer from rebirth: Why worry about rebirth? 2. If I do not remember any actions in past lifes: Why worry about karma? 3. If I expect that death - quite naturally - ends the life of all beings: Why worry about nirvana? 4. I distinguish between questions with answer and questions without: Why strive for enlightenment due to meditation?

Not long ago, I encountered tough "barrier" in life, tried to break through it but ended up greatly humbled and forced to take step back. This got me thinking whether I should decouple from earthly desires like career, consumerism and similar. Was my experience divine punishment (karma) or display of better way ? Note: I realize this question is not necessarily specific to one religion over other, but I think this community is more accepting to this type of question.

Referring to the discussion between Milinda and Nagasena: Why King Milinda does not consider all together - pole, axle, wheels etc. - his chariot? Normally one defines a chariot a means for transportation consisting of pole, axle, wheels, etc. This would be the correct answer to Nagasena's question what the chariot is. Instead, when pressed by Nagasena he names *chariot* only *a designation, a description, an appellation, a name*. That is, Milinda rejects the correct answer. Now Nagasena has an easy time to defend the Buddhist principle of anatman.

I have read a couple of articles written mostly in passing by western translators on the influence of Sage Kapila (i.e Samkhya) on the Buddha, but I'm yet to find a detailed inquiry on a similarity of these systems. We read that *Alara Kalama* one of the teachers of the Gautama Buddha was a follower of the ancient Samkhya philosophy. it is also written that the Bodhisattva Gautama eventually equaled his teacher Alara, and went on inquiring further until he was fully awakened, Buddha. And after awakening, the first person he wished to teach was his former teacher Alara. I'm only mentioning that above to highlight why I venture to inquire in this direction, my question is mainly on the similarity of the two systems /thought. I will list some: - For both systems, the main goal is to 'End Suffering' by removing ignorance. - Contrary to most religious thought in India, both systems, although they accept heavenly beings, they reject the idea of a creator God. The gods they accept are just like humans bound within the cycle of suffering. Samkhya satirically declares 'No one no-where Is happy'. The idea of 'Brahman' is also rejected. - Again both say that there is no-self on forms, sensations, perceptions, and all mental activities including the mind's reason [Buddhi]. Now, there is a 'Self' in the Samkhya system, but on critical reading, it's beyond any of the non-self listed in the Buddist thought. It's not a self that transmigrates and pile-up karma it's unbound ever free self. What is Bound and what is freed is the mind, not the Self. Similarly, there are primordial matters in the Samkhya system. But Buddhism doesn't discuss or is not interested at the beginning of the matter, etc... There is a lot to list here but in short, when one compares the two systems it seems that Buddhism is a reduced version of Samkhya with some of the ideas removed as non-essential. Was the Buddha a reformer? Many Thanks

Buddha was omniscient and had knowledge over all materialistic things,then why did he need a personal physician?Also there are suttas which are to be recited for recovery from diseases which highlight the praises of Buddha,then why couldn't the Buddha and the Arahant Bhikkus protect themselves from the clutches of diseases?

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?