Subject refers, many people from other religions might think Buddha is a God or Buddhist is serving the lord of Buddhism (God alike) whom is the Buddha. This is creating discomfort feeling from them, i think somebody from Christian or Muslim background will understand this. Or they will think i am challenging /against what is written in Bible/Muslim Quran that they believe is written truths. I am seeking for an "short/wisdom or effective answer" to purify their feeling. Longer explanation will trigger the discomfort/challenging/anxiety feeling from them. These actions below may trigger discomfort where it has nothing to do with religion base on personal common sense and they will think i am serving God of Buddhism. 1. Practicing vegetarian -> A way of compassion practicing and just simply being healthy? 2. Yoga/Acupuncture has history relationship with Buddhism/Taoism -> This is just simply a good health exercise but they will think this is a gateway to the opponent religions from them self. Well, many Christian has also allowed even performing Yoga in Church but some had banned it. 3. Visit a Doctor with strong Buddhism belief --> they will think this is a gateway to the opponent religions. They might have all these misconception from the link below? https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/4-ways-christians-can-respond-to-a-satanic-statue Well, i answered Mr. Gautama is not God, a human being like us and just a superior teacher? Mr Gautama doesn't need my service or "worship". I would rather think Mr. Gautama served me more than i serve him as i always used to go temple to eat free vegetarian or getting smart answer/solution (i.e. this forum) --> correct my statement if i am making un-wise or false statement. Or can i call him Doctor Gautama? Sound better to others? Or Something more purifying?

Blessings to all, I have had a difficult time trying to understand what it means by "non-self". I am certainly no expert in Buddhism but I was wondering if this life we have is just some subset of this ginormous pool of energy. Let me try to be more clear with an example. Suppose there is a big lake. If I drink a glass of water from this lake, now living inside of me, this water is still water and it would not be wise for anyone to say 'no that water is me'. This water one day leaves the body and goes back to some big pool of water ( which may contain some different type energy/ vibrations by being inside of me) and may enter into an animal/ human someday. So my question again is do I think of this life that I identify myself with is also some common source of energy or element like water? Is this what non-self is? We are all part of one big source of energy? I apologize if this is a bad example but I hope I made myself somewhat clear. Thanks!

Much of the Theravadan scriptures are written in Pali , so are a lot manuscripts written in Sanskrit , but is there any benefit in learning these languages while the Canon is already translated in other languages i.e. English? Also: - Should one learn Pali or Sanskrit first? - Should one put effort in learning to speak Pali/Sanskrit (_if that is possible_)?

Our Number of births going into the past has to necasserily be finite not infinite.an infinite number of births without a first is logically infathomable.so why did we first incarnate?

I practiced meditation few years ago,had reached a state where experience consepte of "I"was an illusion.when was Illusion of the I disappeared anger disappeared altogether. But I can't meditate now.It is totally different. Now wondering thoughts are less.what shall I do ?

What I mean by equivalent is in significance and style. Marcus Aurelius was an extremely important man and was forced to deal with specifically difficult problems in life. This adds weight to his words. Is there any very famous Buddhist diary? One which is mostly just a person talking to themselves about dealing with their own issues, with philosophical (or religious) insight and vigor? (It's important to note that Marcus Aurelius' Meditations cover very intense stoic philosophy. Serious stuff that is often hard to penetrate without understanding stoic logic and concepts.) So, in short, a diary kept by a monk which covers many important Buddhist concepts. ***It must be a diary, as such, things like the Dhammapada aren't what I'm referring to.***

Are absences empty / conceptual constructions, according to all Buddhists? Or is it -- perhaps -- a fact independent of language that there is no elephant in this room? Does anyone know? > A key underlying principle of the vināśitvānumāna is that negative > facts, such as absences, are not part of the ultimate furniture of the > world, but are just fictional conceptual constructions, as they are > devoid of causal powers. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dharmakiirti/

Since ever i have the half vegetarian diet practices, i have problem below with the society especially with the close friends. Ques: How to handle the scenario below or how to answer them to make them comfort/understand base on Buddhism or logic. Well, Buddhism is base on logic right? 1. Plants also has consciousness, and then why do you eat it? -> Hope someone has strong biological knowledge background also able to answer this? Does plant has consciousness? If really yes, how do we handle it? 2. Some other religions follower may disagree/dis-comfort/against when i avoid meat and we cant enjoy the common meal or so call "good food". Feedback from them is diet should be balance or simply the Bible or Quran written so they allow to eat it? I felt i am against their God's will. The tough part is when my partner is inviting me to Christ, they will pray for thankfulness for the food. I just can't do it to pray together especially when eating those meat like Sushi with a lot of eggs on top, it has a lot lives inside. 3. Sometime when i try to explain those animal or fish killed alive is very crude too. i.e. Lobster and it will scream when we boiled it alive. Lobster is best to be boiled alive to serve as food. And then, i will like start losing a friend because when they know the truth and most of the time truth doesn't bring happiness. I know my mistake is the choice of words when explaining about diet. Any guide for this specific topic?

This question concerns some Theravada-based practices, with which I am not familiar. It is not a dig but a genuine query that puzzles me. Yet I'm not sure that I have asked this question well. I have strong respect for the Theravada tradition. I recognise the distinctions between a Buddha and an Arahant, (such as the former not having had a teacher, the paramitas, etc.) but these distinctions don't seem to be valid criteria for differentiating the teachings of a Buddha from the teachings of an Arahant, especially in the modern world. Buddha being able to teach in accordance with his audience isn't really relevant to us nowadays - all of his audience died over 2,300 years ago. Even within the EBT (as I understand it), the Early Buddhist Texts, Buddha repeatedly de-emphasises the importance of himself, and instead emphasises the importance of the Dharma - which is to also to be understood experientially. Once we have tasted liberation, and we have a direct experience of it - such that every experience we have demonstrates the deep underlying truth of the four noble truths and the paṭiccasamuppāda, why then would we need to teach from a selection of texts from 2,500 years ago? Again, why is it that the discourses of Buddha, (and some select disciples of his) are 'sutta' but the teachings of any Arahant who has lived in the last few centuries are not 'sutta'? After all, surely it’s the quality of liberated mind that determines the ability to author truth - and certainly not the personality, right?

Just in case someone is interested, this is a question based on [this thread](https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34340&p=512515#p512515) , but it's not necessary to read such discussion to understand and answer this question. I'd like to know about the differences (if there is any) between the next statements, and to know which one is correct from the perspective of Early Buddhism: >"There is no self to be found" > >"All phenomena are not-self" So, basically, is there any difference between "no self" and "not-self"? And which one corresponds to "anattā"? I'd appreciate any help. Kind regards!

This stack exchange actually lead me towards the path of finding a lama and becoming a Buddhist. Thank You! This got me thinking, what would you tell sentient beings new to the path of Buddhism? Is there something you wish you knew when you started down it? Conversely is there something that could've been better explained now that you have been pursuing the path? **EDIT:** Given the great responses thus far I want to open this up to all forms of Buddhism. Not just Tibetan, I think there are valuable learnings in all approaches.

I've never had any religion throughout my childhood and adolescence, and at the age of 18 I had my first contacts with buddhism; It seemed fascinating, and I kept reading about all the things I could find about it. Everything just seemed right, because I was truly convinced by this idea that the truth lies within, and I just saw the buddha as someone who had found it. It seemed to be the "no **trust-my-words** religion". Recently I bought a buddhism book. It was an interesting reading, but somethings were discussed that I haddn't seen with this emphasis: karma and rebirth in other worlds. The thing is that, after that, I became VERY skeptical when I learned that those things come from hinduism. It seems to be the religion that existed before buddhism, and it has karma, it has the samsara, the liberation (which is a little different), the worlds, the **gods**... And it's just seems as though the current culture at the time and location buddhism took place **influenced buddhism itself**, poisoning it with the same kind of dogmas other religions have - man-made dogmas, made up truths. In short, my problem is that following buddhism started to seem like following christianity, or islam - just another religion that it's followers think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Why is buddhism any different? It seemed right, now it feels overwhelming and almost crazy. I want to follow buddhism, but those hindu concepts make it become yet another trust-my-word religion. I'm seriously disappointed.

I have asked this considering the importance of Pali in Buddhism. I want to learn Pali. I want to learn it individually on my own. Is there any relatively simple way? Can anyone suggest me anything? Any free learning sites will be appreciated.

AFAIK, in Theravada, ordained monastics are prohibited from growing their own food. Even hydroponics would likely be prohibited by vināya due to probability of harming small unseen life (algae, etc) in maintaining a hydroponic system. Are there any ethical concerns for Buddhist laity, including those moving towards but not yet fully ordained, especially from a Theravada perspective? As a side issue do ordained monastics maintain houseplants or gardens, or outsource this work to laity?

I've been reading a few sources, books, essays and teachings that discuss the idea that the current orthodoxy of Theravada and its modern meditation methods show great differences with what the suttas tell us (especially the ones characterized as being part of the early doctrinal strata) about meditation, jhana and its importance in the buddhist soteriology (i.e. the path towards "salvation" from dukkha and the cycle of rebirth). For instance, some investigations conclude that methods such as *Vipassana* are not "methods" in the suttas, but qualities to be developed (along with *samatha*) with the practice of Jhana. And so, all the foundations of modern *vipassana* meditation would come from later sources, and not from the Buddha himself. The same could be said about concepts such as *kasina*, *access concentration*, *nimitta* (as lights seen during meditation), etc. **How well accepted is this idea between bhikkhu/nis, scholars, and lay practitioners? And what consequences does this have for our practice? Should we look for methods of meditation that could go back to the ones described in the suttas, putting aside other sources, such as Abhidhamma or Visuddhimagga?** Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying that modern methods are wrong or that they contradict the path laid by the Buddha. I'm just asking if those methods are recognized as not authentic (if we define "authenticity" as the quality of something conforming in form and content with what the Buddha supposedly taught, if we have any way of knowing that with more or less degree of certainty), although useful, inside buddhist circles in general.

I have been having trouble analyzing the Abhidhamma. > Can someone explain all or the main points of the Abhidhamma, but > simply, just so I can understand it better as I continue my studies? Thanks!

Out of all six kinds of existence, only humans can achieve nirvana. It occurred to me that someone who has accumulated too much good karma in this life without managing to achieve nirvana might get reborn in the gods (deva) realm and waste a very long time having fun without working towards nirvana. So could a person refuse reincarnation in the gods realm?

I would like to return to the practice of Buddhism. Where should I begin? I have a serious mental illness. It has been well treated by medication. When I was young, before I developed this illness I would practice meditation as best I could. But I had no mentor and so I don't know if my practice was correct. I do not come from a Buddhist culture so I know little about the subject other than what I have been able to read. Will my medication interfere with meditation as it is obviously mind altering? Should I start for example with meditation on impermanence, on mindfulness, or by attempting to reduce my desire?

I am looking for some kind of Buddhist society/group/organization in Mumbai, India, where we can meet similar like-minded people, attend cultural events, discuss/talk/teachings (dharma talk) on Buddhist ideas/concepts, etc. I am looking for Theravada Buddhism & not neo-Buddhism. Any kind of help is highly appreciated. I know there's COVID situation going on but I just need to know if there's any, will attend when the situation becomes normal.

This question refers to The Four Great References in Mahāpadesa Sutta (AN 4.180) . In each case, it ends with: > If they’re not included in the discourses and not found in the texts on > monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is > not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened > Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by ... > > If they are included in the discourses and found in the texts on > monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is > the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened > Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by ... So, why are there four great references and not one, if the criteria is the same for each of them? What is the difference between the four great references? Do they represent primacy or order of reliability? For e.g. is the first great reference more reliable than the second great reference?, is the second more reliable than the third? etc. If the answer to the previous question is Yes, then does this imply that the traditional commentaries to the suttas by the Sangha is more reliable than the interpretation of a single monk, as suggested by this comment ?