Do some, all, or no Mahayanists claim that we are all "bodhisattvas"? Obviously, those influenced by the Lotus sutra claim that we are all -- at least potentially -- Buddhas. But I'm unclear about the word "bodhisattva", whether anyone at all can rightfully claim they are a bodhisattva. For example, I think I'm aware of some ch'an Buddhists, which was deeply influenced by the 'one vehicle', saying that we progress through stages, only being bodhisattvas after abandoning the three vehicles. But perhaps this is skilful means, and not at all the case?

There’s one issue that seems to be very divisive in my conversations. And I realize that it is because of me and my own aversion & anxiety. I have done drugs. But one drug that always bothered me since I was young was cocaine. My father abandoned my mother when I was young and was very much involved with it as an abuser and a seller. For this reason I was always sure to not use it. I’ve been around it a few times & each time I get extremely uncomfortable. Not only that, but when somebody close to me talks about it in a nonchalant way, it tends to make me so uncomfortable that I can’t help but get defensive & agitated. I feel very hypocritical because I have done other drugs like acid and mushrooms and feel no aversion to that. And I feel like I am being very judgemental in my reactionary ways when it is discussed. Is there any Buddhist guidance when it comes to how to deal with our aversions & judgements? I’m mostly sober now & plan to stay that way, but just because I’m on my own path, I feel that I shouldn’t judge others on theirs.

I am asking moreso the mahayana/Vajrayana view as I know the theravada one. do buddhas have any functional kind of awareness at all,or are they inert like rocks?a mahayanika told me that Buddhas have no awareness at all and no contact.yet another told me they have limited awareness.a Vajrayanika said they have jnana but not vijnana,wich would mean theyre inert and percieve nothing at all.

I thought id ask how you would explain what is commonly referred to as "Zeno' Paradox of Achillies racing the turtle" in Buddhist terms. For those who aren't familiar the paradox is like this [Youtube Animation](https://youtu.be/NCtw5f6XPF4) ; - Achillies is supposed to race a turtle. - Achillies gives the turtle a head start of say 10 meters. - Achillies runs at 10 meters per second. - The Turtle runs at 2 meters per second. - Achillies starts the race from the point A as the turtle starts the race from point B which is B=A+10meters. - By the time [+1 second] Achillies reaches the point B, the turtle will have moved from the point B at a speed of 2 meters/second and after 1 second will have reached the point C=B+2meters, moving B to C and remain ahead of Achillies by 2 meters. - By the time [+1.2 second] Achilies moves A to B and B to C, reaching the point C; the turtle will have moved from the point C at a speed of 2 meters per second and after 1.2 that it took Achilies to cover the 12meters going first from A to B then from B to C, the turtle will have moved from B to C and further from C to D wherein D=C+0.4meters, still ahead of Achilies by 0.4 meters. - By the time [+1.24 seconds] Achillies reaches the point D, the turtle will have moved from the point C at a speed of 2 meters per second and after 1.24 seconds that it took Achilies to cover the 12.4 meters going first A to B, then B to C and furthermore from C to D; the turtle will have moved B to C, C to D and furthermore from D to E wherein E=D+0.08meters, still ahead of Achilies by 0.08 meters. - This is then supposed to go on indefinitely with Achillies paradoxically never reaching the turtle due to infinite division of space & time into smaller intervals. The reason i am asking is because i have not seen Buddhists do this before, am curious as to whether someone here can provide a comprehensible explaination and want to develop an answer myself even tho i have an idea of how id answer this. Let's just assume for simplicity sake that it's just a thought experiment and a ground for confusion rather than a "true paradox" of some sort. I want substantiated answers based on texts know to be true such as the sutta-pitaka but it's not a requirement.

What is Panchang Pranam in Buddhism and what is the correct way of doing it and its significance? Is it some sort of chanting?

Thinking about the two kinds of goodness in giving, and about debt when we receive a gift (*guṇā*), my person just thought to ask if there is a Sutta which points the different kinds of debt to those two kinds of giving? One kind of (debt) giver is perhaps best embodied by Mara: e.g. enemies disguised as friends, or the strings of sensuality (*kāmaguṇā*). The other kind of (debt) giver (who gives debts torward debtlessness: end of *upādāna*, entertainment) is the *Bhagavatā*, the One who can Give, the Liberal, along with the other gods (starting by parents, teacher, admirable friends). Just thought, next to the many Suttas around this fact, if there might be one direct pointing out the two kinds of *guṇā* and the debts in receiving the given, the inclination to certain destination by association and increasing debts. Of course given, free of the first kind of *guṇā* (without wordily strings), Dhamma given in line with Dhamma, is preferred, is possible acceptable. (For those possible not so familar with the use of the word *guṇā*, it's used as "goodness" in dhammic countries, for example "person of goodness"/"figue of merits" when speaking about people who one by dhammic law owes debts, like parents, leader, teacher... While the word is also used for the givers of sensuality.) *[Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]*

I heard that "grasping a sign" is considered a bad thing in Buddhism. Why is that so and what does that refer to? We know that "attachment to views" is a bad thing too. Are these related? (signs and views)? Does Buddhism say anything about broad generalizations vs. careful analysis? Is this topic connected with signs and views, too? Does all of the above tie to suffering somehow?

When there is reduced thinking in a one door out of five sense doors ,which means if you have seen a pleasant thing and if no thoughts arise regarding them,Whether that apply to the other doors as well?what is that samadhi?in that case what is the middle way of it?

What is the meaning of "in and of itself" in the [Maha-satipatthana Sutta DN 22](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN22.html) ?

I've read an article that mentioned something like _neutral_ Karma, and it seems it is no more/less than no Karma. Does anything differentiate neutral Karma from no Karma?

what is the last orginal quote of buddha and what is the meaning of that quote ? I have read the story of Buddha that he passed away by someone posioning him

I often see this word online, especially in Sutras translated into English. Does the original Sutra written in Pali or Sanskrit mentioned it like this? The meaning of "Lord" as per wikipedia is I think quite a contradiction with Buddha: > Lord is an appellation for a person or deity who has authority, control, or power over others, acting like a master, a chief, or a ruler. In Wikipedia it mentioned that Gautama Buddha "is often called Lord Buddha". I believe it's a misconception? Compassion and Peacefulness are always the fundament of Buddhism -- if the "Lord" title can be changed to "Teacher", which is the truth and can make billions of people happy, then isn't that a good karma? The reason i am asking this is because "some" people of other religions may see this word and feel very discomforted. Compassion -> If words being changed from "Lord" to "Teacher", then many would rather practice instead worshipping. Many do not know who is Buddha, but claimed to be Buddhist like I did before. Many would go to temple to worship for more power, money, desiring higher quality of living, bigger house, etc which is contradictory with Buddhism teaching. It would make other non-Buddhists comfortable too. Post note base on comments: It sounds that base on the written statement, Buddha is *dhammassāmī* or lord of the dhamma but *bhante* "venerable sir" sound more decent or less offensive for others especially those non Buddhist (low EQ one). The first definition of wikipedia ... > "Lord is an appellation for a person or deity who has authority, control, or power over others, acting like a master, a chief, or a ruler" ... is wrong or inapplicable, because none of that wording matches, except "Buddha is a person". It contradicts with the 10 percepts of Buddhism -> Not to use false words and speech, or encourage others to do so. Wikipedia is impermanence and Buddhism is not bases on written truth -- can somebody who has higher knowledge/wisdom request them to change it? This is the first Sutra that lead me to Buddhism and it's one of the most common Sutra used in south China and South East Asia. 世尊 or bhagavā is commonly used. dhammassāmī or Lord is never been used. But 神(God in direct translation) is commonly used which lead to misconception. If you would ask me the 神(God) wording should be revised for Buddhism because the 神(God) in Buddhism is totally different from Christian/Muslim conception yet it's a very sensitive wording. http://www.drbachinese.org/online_reading_simplified/sutra_explanation/EarthStore/EarthStoreSutra.htm Let me know if I am also making any false words and speech, I am kinda learning here too.

Pardon my English .I was lucky enough to meet this man . This man is living Buddha . He is not a monk. Lives simple life. He is such a mystery. I'm in love with enlightened man. It's not recent ... it's been years and years... He never claimed that but it's absolutely obvious to me. He is extremely handsome intelligent and more , so much more. I can feel when he enters the room, there is so much heat or fire. He is shining and he makes everyone around him smile. He has big beautiful eyes they are so sharp it's like he can see through appearances . He is absolutely perfect. I think about him day and night all the time I cannot forget him. It's my attachment to pleasure or is this real love??? When i think of him i just melt. On the other hand i know he is not interested in me as a woman and will never be. And it drives me nuts. I feel stupid. What to do? I was planning to tell him that, but am so scared that i'll feel stupid. I suppose it's obvious on my face anyway. But it's been so long and the feeling gets stronger. I should move on i know it, but he is such a perfection... I have no word to describe this man . Just ''ahh''. How to let go?? or should i keep?

Following are the stages **Ajahn Brahm** mentions in his book **Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond**, to enter in to Jhana. 1. Present moment awareness 2. Silent present moment awareness 3. Silent present moment awareness on the breath 4. Fully sustained awareness on the breath 5. Fully sustained attention on beautiful breath 6. Experiencing the beautiful Nimmita 7. Jhana I am looking for sutta reference for the same. Additional question- do progression through all these stages compulsary to experiencing the Jhana? Specifically Pitisukha and Nimmitta. Can one dodge the stages and enter the meditative absorption of Jhana?

Is there a correlation between vedanta (non-dualism) and Dhamma? Are there references in the Pali-canon to vedanta?

This phrase '**I establish mindfulness in front of me**' appears many times in Suttas (https://suttacentral.net/an3.63/en/bodhi) . What does '**in front of me**' mean here. I can understand if it would have said within me as in mindful of body or breath. But its not clear to me, what '**infront of me mean**'

Buddha has encouraged the practisioners to abide in the four Brahmaviharas.(Metta, Karuna, Mudita and Upeksha) I have experience of Upeksha or Equianimity. After doing sitting meditation both Zazen and Anapana Sati my mind automatically enters into feeling of Equanimity albeit for small duration of 10-15 minutes, I feel calm and tranquil. However, when I feel Equanimity it seems like its impermenant, the mind changes after sometime. So how do I prolong this feeling of Equanimity?

I am reading Majjhima Nikaya from the translation by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. In this book, each sutta is divided into several numerical sections. Each section consists of one or a few paragraphs. Now Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in the Preface that the numerical sections were introduced by Ven. Nanamoli and are not found in the original Pali manuscripts. I wonder whether the paragraphs also are modern creations or are actually found in the Pali manuscripts. In the case of collections of verses like Dhammapada or Udana, it is easy to separate them in old palm-leaf manuscripts. But in case of prose treatises like Majjhima Nikaya or Digha Nikaya, how the paragraphs were separated traditionally?

In quite a few depictions of the Buddha in artwork, he appears androgynous. Does this represent something significant in terms of a Buddhist message or ideal, or is this just an artistic style?

In MN:44 it is said, > Visākha, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are > identity. That is: form, feeling, perception, choices, and > consciousness. The Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are > identity.” If feelings are included in identity forming aggregates why 'thoughts' and 'memories' are not included. Afterall, what I think, like, what I feel, makes my self-identity. To quote Rene Decartus, **'I think therefore I am**'. Isn't the constant chattering of mind generate a sense of self. Also, memory of things I did have a powerful effect on sense of self. So, why not included them?