What is the origination of the mind-stream continuum? What are the basic elements that make up the mind-stream continuum?

Does Buddhism say anything about suffering as the result of having a sense of "betrayal" -- perhaps a sense of someone else having committed an "injustice"? I think that for some individuals it's an important and a very long-lasting type of suffering -- for example: - if they feel betrayed or mistreated by their parents - ... or their spouse, their children - ... or even become outraged as a result of criminal offence by a stranger - ... or even just impersonal bad luck ("oh, that is so unfair!") But although it can be important, I see [nothing about it](https://accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?q=betrayal) on Access to Insight. The one possible mention of it that I can think of is Dhp 3: > "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred. Another mention in passing might be the parable of the saw -- i.e. the importance of keeping a mind of good will even if you are abused -- but that's all: very few examples/mentions. I understand it as being a specific case of a more general problem, i.e. of "craving" (for things to be other than as they are), and "I-making" -- but **do you know any doctrine on this more specific subject, i.e. of betrayal and/or a sense of injustice?** Also is it right to say that Buddhist doctrine on the subject tends to "well actually, you deserved this misfortune" -- for example something like [the origin story for Dhp 5](https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=005) implies that if someone persecutes you, then perhaps that's a result of something you did in a previous life. If so, **is there a way to paraphrase or explain that principle to a modern non-Buddhist audience?** Because "actually it's your fault" might be quite unwelcome (therefore ineffective), the modern view tends to denounce that as "blaming the victim", and the victim themselves might want to know that you're on their side and not siding with their abuser. If this is a 'reference request' question, it might be asking for doctrine from outside the suttas.

I go through my daily chores and it has become habituated to the extent that i do not need to concentrate on the action and my mind has some time to do thinking or just wander. Now monks life is also similar in that they repeat the activities over life time. So my question, what does monk think on daily basis? Does one control his thoughts or let it wander without attaching oneself to the thought? How does a monk achieve oneness or prepare to be in present? Regards, Contemplating One

What would be the proper terminology to define the different geospatial perspectives of myself? If I envision myself inside my body viewing an experience in front of me, such as when I watch a movie, is there better terminology to use other than "first person perspective"? What about if I envision myself still from a first person perspective, however with the added perspective of 3 dimensional awareness. Is there different terminology for this? What about if I envision myself outside of my body looking at myself from a third person perspective? Is there more descriptive terminology I can use to define these experience perspectives?

This is a reference request, not a doctrine question. I recall seeing a quote from a Buddhist text or teacher roughly to this effect... - To see your *past* karma, look at your present *body* (and environment). - To see your *future* lives, look at your present *mind*. The closest I can find now from a teacher or text is a quote from Philip Kapleau's *Three Pillars of Zen*... > Thus our present life and circumstances are the products of our past > thoughts and actions, and in the same way our deeds in this life will > fashion our future mode of existence.” (p. 408) ... which is close -- "life and circumstances" vs "body and environment" and "deeds" vs "mind"-- but not quite. If anybody can supply a pointer to the body/environment/mind version, I'd be grateful.

Life is inherently full of suffering. I wonder if the concept of dukkha applies to non-human animals.

The above is a quote from 'Humphreys, Christmas. Buddhism: An Introduction and Guide'p145. Is it true that the main aim of Buddhism (Mahayana) is for reason to destroy itself? That really sound too colorful and worst than nihilism itself

And in particular, is it eternal, unchanging and like any other formulation for a soul that we might have seen, in say Christianity or Hinduism? This particular idea, that ālaya-vijñāna is like a permanent self, is mentioned in "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist", by Stephen Bachelor.

I want to know how to prolong the knowing factor in my life .I face hindrances when thinking about solving a problem for example which is different than contemplating the receptions in mindfulness.How can it remain and become **unfabricated**.

Suppose a bhikkhu living in the forest was to come across an abandoned shelter not frequented for several years. Dwelling is clearly in decay and not maintained, with spider webs & hornet's nest etc. Suppose it's natutally assumed to be an illegal structure by law of the land. Can he make use of the dwelling and appropriate the requisites if those are otherwise allowable, to do with as he sees fit? Can he dismantle the dwelling? How long does it take for requisites to be considered forsaken and fit to make use of in general? Im looking primarily for relevant guidelines & anecdotes from the vinayas & commentary of early schools, not interested in mahayana/vajrayana answers.

I currently am taking care of an organic garden and minimizing any harm that could befall on any living beings by sustainable techniques, and on the side am helping to pick cherries and yet I have discovered that they use a product (insecticide) to treat the cherries. Am I somehow earning a wrong livelihood by picking them up ? Considering the five different types of wrong livelihood AN 5.177 > Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. > Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in > meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. > > "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not > engage in. May you be blessed.

I feel like I was born in the wrong place and I'm surrounded by wrong people, ideals etc. I'm very much into buddhism, but with all the things I learned until now, that I'm 23 in Germany, I feel like this life I have right now is not right for me. Since I grew up in Germany in a normal house etc, I can't imagine myself as a monk. But I can't also imagine myself living like I do at the moment. I'm torn between two worlds so to say. Also, I wouldn't know where to go or how to get there. If I should continue working as a developer which doesn't fulfill me since I'm not helping people. I feel lost in this world, and since this pandemic is going on all the Buddhist monasteries around me are closed. Well, maybe you have a few tips. EDIT: Thank you for all your replies. I did always know that I was much better off than others. I also know there are a lot of people that would love to trade places with me and give up everything they have. That day when I wrote this I was in a despair and felt quite lost. I didn't want to offend anybody or make anyone mad. If I did I am truly sorry about it. Currently I am in a existencial/spiritual crisis since I had a completely different world view just a few months ago. Where all I cared about was money, girls, sex, cars, clothes etc. and I realized that all this stuff will not make me happy in any way. So my whole world view crumbled. Then I started feeling like an alien and also started thinking about my mortality etc. Well to get to the point: I am sorry if I offended anybody and I truly know that I am lucky now. I am working on myself a lot these past months. Thank you all I appreciate it greatly.

There is a sutta where the Buddha teaches some disciples about loathsomeness of the body. He then goes on a retreat into the forest. On his return, he finds the disciples have committed suicide as they have grasped the teachings incorrectly. The Buddha than proceeded to teach Anapana Sati as it is much safer. Does this prove that even the Buddha was capable of making mistakes? In hindsight, should he have used the ability of omniscience to anticipate the result of his instructions. Or, was this event unavoidable fruition of the disciples' past Kamma.

According to Abhidhamma exegetical texts, meditation of the 4 types of sense-sphere functionally inoperative-indeterminate cittas associated with wisdom (paññā) leads to knowledge of purity (vodāna), issuing in the supramundane Path-cittas of Once-returner (Sakadāgāmi) and Non-returner (Anāgāmi). What about the other 4 types of sense-sphere functional-indeterminate cittas that are dissociated from wisdom (paññā)? Since these four types of cittas are not conjoined with wisdom (paññā), do they still lead to the concentrative stage of purification (vodāna)? And to Nibbana? If those four types of citta do not lead to purification (vodāna) and subsequent Nibbana, and neither do they also generate rebirth kamma-deposits, then when the living Arahatta person dies, where will be the destiny? Will that person be born again as a living Arahat? or does he become an achiever of only Arahatta’s Path but not of fruition? Any help to shed light on this is very much appreciated.

Just the header really! A friend is very self reflective, builds herself up into a tempest thinking about her situation (not terrible, but below where she is comfortable being, I guess).

1. Do the suttas make any mention of a halo around the Buddha's head, or was it a later addition through the cultural influence of other religions? I recall mentions of a golden aura around the Buddha visible from a distance that attracted his first followers to him. 2. Since the halo is a symbol common to most world religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism), is this a generally encountered spiritual attainment like the six higher knowledges ? Are there records of any arhats getting a halo? Some background that I was able to dig up: > Tibetan Buddhism uses haloes and aureoles of many types, drawing from both Indian and Chinese traditions, extensively in statues and Thangka paintings of Buddhist saints such as Milarepa and Padmasambhava and deities. Different coloured haloes have specific meanings: orange for monks, green for the Buddha and other more elevated beings > [...] > Theravada Buddhism and Jainism did not use the halo for many centuries, but later adopted it, though less thoroughly than other religious groups. **source**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(religious_iconography)

Are the four characteristics -- production, abiding, change and destruction -- empty, conceptual constructions? Does this make production etc., perhaps even impermanence, an illusion, especially according to hua-yen Buddhism [as that's where I've seen these four characteristic enumerated]? ---------- I do not think this is a mere "metaphysical" question in the pejorative, because it may say something about birth and death: whether or not samsara -- karmic conditioning -- and so nirvana -- its termination -- are empty of essence; what the nature of first and third noble truths are.

A bit of background. In my mid-20s, I spent a lot of time (cumulative 1 year) in different monasteries in Thailand, Myanmar and Nepal. I understand experientially the importance of consistent and regular practice. I am now 33, have a decent tech job. I am very conflicted between a lay married life and celibate life of serious practice. Anybody have the same dilemma? How did you solve it?

Here is a part of [DN 23](https://suttacentral.net/dn23/en/sujato) : > “Even though Master Kassapa says this, still I think that there’s no afterlife.” > > “Can you prove it?” > > “I can.” > > “How, exactly, chieftain?” > > “Suppose they were to arrest a bandit, a criminal and present him to me, saying, ‘Sir, this is a bandit, a criminal. Punish him as you will.’ I say to them, ‘Well then, sirs, place this man in a pot while he’s still alive. Close up the mouth, bind it up with damp leather, and seal it with a thick coat of damp clay. Then lift it up on a stove and light the fire.’ They agree, and do what I ask. When we know that that man has passed away, we lift down the pot and break it open, uncover the mouth, and slowly peek inside, thinking, ‘Hopefully we’ll see his soul escaping.’ But we don’t see his soul escaping. This is how I prove that there’s no afterlife.” (Payasi argues there is no soul so no afterlife.) However, Kassapa, one of the principal disciples of Gautama Buddha, argues there is a soul. He further says in DN 23: > “Well then, chieftain, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. Do you recall ever having a midday nap and seeing delightful parks, woods, meadows, and lotus ponds in a dream?” > > “I do, sir.” > > “At that time were you guarded by hunchbacks, dwarves, midgets, and younglings?” > > “I was.” > > “But did they see your soul entering or leaving?” > > “No, they did not.” > > “So if they couldn’t even see your soul entering or leaving while you were still alive, how could you see the soul of a dead man? By this method, too, it ought to be proven that there is an afterlife, there are beings reborn spontaneously, and there is a fruit or result of good and bad deeds.” In the above Sutta DN 23, Kassapa proves that there is a soul. Kassapa, who directly got knowledge from Buddha argues there is a soul and that is what travels to the afterlife. But we who have never seen or been taught by Buddha say there is no soul. We are furthermore down in a timeline than Kassapa. Knowledge might have changed and we must have interpreted something very simple in a complicated way. Why do we say there is no soul, while the direct disciple of Buddha says there is in fact a soul that goes to the afterlife. Remember that Kassapa was the third most liked disciple of Buddha after Sariputta and Ananda. I think today we have completely changed our point of view. There is also not any sutta where Buddha says no soul. But he says, this is not-self. The things in the physical world are not-self. Like feeling is not self, perception is not-self and all things that are created in the body are not-self. What's your point of view on the soul? How can you argue with Kassapa who has seen and learned Suttas direct from Buddha?

As titled. I wonder if there are other methods of development outlined elsewhere?