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?

Dependant Origination declares that from Consciousness (Viññana) arises Nāma-Rūpa, not just Nāma. Therefore it is implied that even in formless realms the entities that exist there also have a form of some kind. Uddakka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama were most probably born in formless Brahma realms after their death. But Buddha didn't visit Alara-Kalama and Uddakka-Ramaputta which means that they couldn't understand the Dhamma which must have been a problem with the senses or something similar (My first question) because they already had superior mental ability to understand the Dhamma (MN 21 ), > Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little > dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He > will quickly understand this Dhamma. Dust here implies the 5 hindrances . > This Uddaka Ramaputta is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had > little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? > He will quickly understand this Dhamma. I would like to get an answer to either or both (if possible) of the below questions, **Question 1**: Why couldn't Buddha teach the Dhamma to Uddakka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama. **Question 2**: What is the difference in form between the Rūpa Lōka and Arūpa Loka.

I am following meditations as taught by **Ajahn Brahm** in his book **Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond.** I have almost reached to state of **Silent Present Moment Awareness.** The next stage is **Silent Present Moment Awareness of Breath**. Its been days I am watching the breath and its getting no where. I get bored watching the breath. The next stage is supposed to be **Awareness of Beautiful Breath.** Thats not happening and its getting boring, even the meditation. **What to do when breath watching gets boring?**

We get pleasure and satisfaction by doing Mathematics. Thinking over math problems and solving them does give us some pleasure. According to Buddhism, what is this pleasure categorized as? A sensual pleasure ? Or is it like pleasure we get from Jhana?

Did Gautama Buddha endorse the caste system? > [Buddhism: An Atheistic and Anti-Caste Religion? Modern Ideology and Historical Reality of the Ancient Indian Bauddha Dharma by Edmun Weber](http://web.uni-frankfurt.de/irenik/relkultur50.pdf) > Hans Wolfgang Schumann has statistically proven that almost all of Buddha's disciples were high caste people and that the Brahmans comprised the majority of the Sangha. > Buddha tells about the earlier Buddhas in the so-called Mahapadana Suttanta- Great Sermon on the Legends.21 He refers to their membership of (high) caste as the first characteristic of their full enlightenment. According to this report the Buddhas belonged all to the high castes, to the Kshatriyas and Brahmans. Buddha says proudly about himself "And now I, the venerable and fully enlightened one, was born a warrior and have come from the caste of the warriors, O monks. > 21 Buddha - Die Lehre des Erhabenen. Aus dem Pali Kanon ausgewählt und übertragen von Paul Dahlke, München 1960. Also: > The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the Brahmanas and of the warriors (Kshatriya). So my question is, did the Buddha endorse or uphold the Vedic caste system?

As I discuss in [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/7426/19) , by far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy today is the Vedanta school, which is based on the philosophical portions of the Vedas. But in the time when Buddhism was at its peak popularity in India, the most popular school of Hindu philosophy was the Purva Mimamsa school, which was based on the ritualistic portions of the Vedas. Now one of the most famous Purva Mimasa philosophers was named Kumarila Bhatta, and in [this excerpt](http://gdurl.com/Is8P) from his work the Tantra Vartika, he argues that Hindus should not accept Buddhist texts as valid scripture, because Buddha was a violator of the Vedas: > Then again, we find that the Bauddha teachings were given by one who was a born Kshatriya; and as such, he transgressed the duties of his own class, in taking upon himself the work of taking and receiving presents (which are the monopoly of the Brahmanas); and hence how can we believe that true Dharma or Duty would be taught by one who has transgressed his own Dharma? It has been well said: "One who is found to be doing deeds opposed to a prosperous hereafter, should be shunned from a distance; because how can one who deceives himself offer any salutary advice to others?" > > Such transgression of Dharma by Buddha is clearly mentioned in **the Alankarabuddhi (a Bauddha work), where Buddha is represented as saying - "May all the pain proceeding from the sins due to the Iron Age, rest in me, and leave humanity at large absolutely free!"** And in connection with this his followers eulogise his virtues in the following strains: "For the sake of the well-being of humanity, He transgressed his own duties as a Kshatriya, and having taken up the duties of the Brahmana, he taught, even to the people outside the pale of Vedic religion, such truths relating to Dharma, as were not taught by Brahmanas who were unable to transgress the prohibition (of such teachings being imparted by outsiders); and thus prompted by his mercy to others, he even went to the length of transgressing his own Dharma!" And we actually find His followers behaving in a manner entirely at variance with the teachings of the Veda. I found the quote in bold interesting, because it seems reminiscent of the Christian notion that "Jesus died for our sins". So my question is, does the Buddhist text that Kumarila Bhatta is quoting from, the Alankarabuddhi, still exist? By the way, when the Alankarabiddhi quote says "Iron Age", that's an English translation of the Sanskrit term "Kali Yuga", which refers to the Hindu notion that we are currently living in an age of evil. Now I think only some sects of Buddhism share this Hindu belief, so that may help in finding this text.

As I understand the cycle of birth and death produces suffering but ,once the truth is realized, there is no suffering ,so living in this world shouldn't be any longer a problem .So is freedom from birth and death here mean only that there is no binding to the cycle or that there is no longer a possibility of experiencing the cycle forever ?. This may induce another question if one can be reborn fully aware of the truth ,if that is no-longer a possibility then how can this be considered true freedom ?.

Does anyone have a comprehensive side by side reference to Suttas numbering from different edition (PTS, VRI, etc.) of the Tripitaka? I have trouble with reconciliation of certain references to the Sutta names.