Subject refers, any short good answer here with an article supports? This is for in case somebody asks me this?

It happened to me during dinner, yesterday: I wanted to move a mosquito that was in my plate and accidentally killed it :( What's the appropriate thing to do in such cases? Is there any mantra to recite in order to have some benefit for the insect? I'm asking this because I read about a mantra to be recited "in front of your shoes" so that, in case of walking on top of an animal, then it would be "less bad". But probably I'm totally wrong :) In any case, I don't think my question is a duplicate of the guy who killed a mosquito on purpose because it was suffering. I killed it because my intention was to move it from my plate, but I didn't pay much attention and did it wrongly.

I was taught that studying and practices in Buddhism should not keep a mindset that a good deed action to expect a good return of credit points to be used afterlife. Anyone has article explaining more on this. These are my personal thought why should not have such a mindset 1. Buddhism is not a bank afterlife 2. That is a trading mindset which i believe contradict or mislead the rule of thumb of Buddhism 3. Should focus on why a good deed "cause and action" and how to do it better on the good deed?

If I have zero feelings won't I be a dead robot? And how would I have love and compassion for beings without feeling?

I've created an Anki deck (still WIP, link here: https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/414202630) , drawing on the translations available here in SuttaCentral (with direct links to those pages). My thinking is that using spaced-repetition might be a helpful way for beginners and intermediate practitioners to grasp the core Dhamma teachings, based on the Early Buddhist texts and extracts (excluding Abhidhamma, later Mahayana teachings, etc., but focusing on the common core across the different traditions.) Right now, I've just included the Four Truths and the Eightfold Path. This will gradually expand to include the rest of the 37 *bodhipakyadhamma*. I've also included the Chinese Agama counterparts (but without English translation, so maybe less helpful unless one is bilingual in both English and Traditional Chinese). My questions: 1. Do you think such a tool is helpful in learning and practicing the Dhamma? 2. Appreciate if you could try out the deck, and provide any feedback for improvement please! :) With much metta, PJ

I think the conventional, mundane, truth in Tendai is the claim that karma is an illusion, for a number of reasons, such as the identity of the perfect mundane truth with the Madhyamaka ultimate truth. Zhiyi -- importantly -- quotes Nagarjuna's Middle Treatise: > All things that arise through causes and conditions, I explain as > emptiness, Again, this is a conventional designation. Again, this is > the meaning of the Middle Way. ---------- I believe that in Tendai the conventional truth is just a different means of asserting the ultimate truth, that each of the three truths are both one truth, and different > although three [phrases], they are one [in meaning]; although one, > this is three; [they are] not mutually exclusive. means of verbally falsifying reality > The three types are all empty because they are beyond verbalization > and conceptualization. The three types are all conventional because > they merely exist as [provisional] verbal [con- structs]. The three > types are all the Middle, because they are identical to the true > aspects [of reality] ---------- So I wondered if the Buddhist law of cause and effect all there is to Buddhism -- and Buddhahood and reality -- according to Tendai, yet also an illusion. > Things are neither merely nominal, nor merely real Ziporyn, 2012, 60 Inescapable, but unreal.

This is focusing in on one specific aspect of what was asked here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1854/what-are-the-three-marks-of-existence I often hear "anatta" explained as being an expression of the non-existence of the self. However, various places add an adjective first. For example, I've heard it said that anatta refers to the non-existence of a "permanent" self, or a "material" self, or a "separate" self (or some combination of those and others). It seems clear to me that it cannot mean the non-existence of a self *per se*, because such a statement -- "There is no self" -- would be auto-refuting. So exactly what is meant by anatta?

What is the source of the cycle of life/death in the scripture , Does it have references in the Pali canon? Is the cycle itself introduced with Buddhism or came from other sources?

In the Seeds Sutta (SN 22.54) , we find there are five kinds of seeds, which can grow, when they are fertile, undamaged and securely planted on the ground with water to nourish them. Water is delight and lust, or in another translation, relishing and greed. Earth refers to the four stations of consciousness, or in another translation, four standing-spots of consciousness, i.e. form, feeling, perception and volitional formations. But what are the five kinds of seeds? This translation of the sutta says "Consciousness together with its nutriment should be seen as like the five kinds of seeds." What is consciousness together with its nutriment, that forms five kinds of seeds? What five? In other suttas (e.g. MN 148 ), there are six kinds of consciousness - related to the six senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind or intellect). But what are the five in this sutta formed by consciousness and its nutriment? And what is the nutriment for consciousness? In another translation, this is fuel.

Is the Mind [essentially] bound to ignorance "not-knowing" or free? If it is bound, then its essential nature of "non-knowing" cannot depart, and, therefore, liberation is not [possible, or] if the essential nature departed, the mind would cease to be a Mind, i,e. it can no longer not-know. If it is free, the meditation and other means enjoined for the sake of liberation are of no use.

In the Mahayana tradition, there is the notion of sudden enlightenment. I am not asking whether sudden enlightenment is possible or not. I would like to know if Mahayanists see acquisition of knowledge of the abhidhamma as part of or as a side effect of sudden enlightenment, or if sudden enlightenment is considered a lighter version of fully fledged englightenment?

How do Buddhists talk about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, for extreme wrong doing? The sorts of things that are not about being offended, not insults, but the exact opposite: are atrociously evil or wrong, so one would feel appalled if it had happened to anyone. On the one hand, one may be happy to let karma do its job, but -- on the other -- bodhisattvas must be impelled to save every sentient being. Is the answer to seek material / earthly justice, and work to enlighten them, within the limits of Buddhist ethics?

Being broad celebrated mothers-day today, my person thought to give this question space so that many might share reflections on it and pissible give others good inspirations: **What role does a day like mothersday play for a blessed life, for a follower of the Buddhas Dhamma, and how would it be good spend by mind words and bodily deeds?** *(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds here, but for escape from this wheel)*

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/