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

It seems to me that there is a popular and strong belief that if you reach enlightenment, and thus have [four immeasurables](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara "Brahmavihara - Wikipedia"), you can help a person without making them feel extra suffering or fighting back. This can be illustrated by the sutta [Aṅgulimāla](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E1%B9%85gulim%C4%81la "Aṅgulimāla - Wikipedia"). The Buddha can stop him easily and effortlessly. The premise here is that enlightenment = perfect knowledge, and/or four immeasurables = you and the others are truly the same, so that you can understand that person inside out. The equal sign = is more like implies that rather exactly means. However, realistically, I think this is impossible. There are situations that achieving enlightenment does not mean perfect knowledge. For example, you can reach enlightenment in a radioactive region. This is not loving-kindness yourself. Likewise, one can never claim to perfectly understand the inner state of the other person, especially without face-to-face conversation. What it seems to be true is that enlightenment = having no distortion, and/or four immeasurables = being able to vision a way to help the others getting out of their suffering. Perhaps this is just a matter of defining what enlightenment is. This is fine. But in this case, its necessary consequence is that no human can achieve this state (though can absolutely achieve [mindfulness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness "Mindfulness - Wikipedia") or practice eightfold path). Is this correct?

Harari (2011) claims: > Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known. From my limited understanding of Buddhism, the above seems false of Buddhism. I was hoping an expert on Buddhism could give a more definite explanation as to whether the above statement has any truth. (Restrict attention to the bit about Buddhism.)

When we consider attachment as something we want to stay present with, and aversion as something we try to push away, can we say there is a continuum present? More specifically, does reducing attachment simultaneously reduce aversion, and vice versa? I have diminished a lot of attachments lately, and I still dreadfully struggle to tackle aversive tasks and engage in effort. Are they completely unrelated? EDIT: Also, what is the best way to tackle aversion? Thank you.

As a beginner, after 3 months of quiet intensive meditation, i feel exhausted. And I understand that it’s linked to my relation with every type of duty during my life. Studying, working, relations or just simply living, where i feel “ have to do “ emotions, and being extreme with behaviours and self control. So i go out of energy. I really enjoy meditation and i am enthusiastic about it, also as a philosophy, trying to bring it to everyday life. But I feel that i control too much my self, with thoughts and actions, and it’s frustrating a lot. This is not a new thing but, being aware of it now makes it a strong obstacle. I feel a little bit lost. Maybe someone could share some similar experience and to how to deal with it.

According to accredited scholars like L.Brown, the bka’gyur is a collection of the *translation of the pronouncements*. Are the bk’gyur the words of the Buddha transcribed?

Consider someone is doing something (for instance eating). I can say that he is eating because of hunger, and his hunger is because his body needs energy. So, **every** action have **external** causes **only**. Can I do something by my own (without **external** causes)? I know that I can't do unwholesome things because of anatta. But I can say that I did something because of ignorance, and also that my action has an effect (karma). This post may not be a question. I'm looking for a way to clear my understanding. Kind regards.

What is the sutta where Buddha says about the order of merits as in for example "Observing the 5 precepts gives more merit than offering alms" and such.

I've started to meditate in recent days. After meditation, one day I feel happy and the other day I feel upset, angry and depressed. Also, at the end of the meditation I feel like I just woke up from sleep. Why is this happening to me? Is there any solution to overcome this issue?

I jog everyday and teach children how to play basketball. There are some insects on the path where I jog and on the basketball court, and I’m sure we unintentionally kill a few of them. We live in a place where there are lots of trees and forests so it would be difficult to get rid of bugs. Am I violating the first precep?

Does atheism in Buddhism mean you let a belief arise that God doesn't exist? Is this a skillful assumption? Why or why not? Was it right view for one to believe that the world wasn't round during the time when it seemed to everyone that the Earth was flat? Was a belief in a flat Earth a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

**QN 1:** What is connection between _thoughts_ and _habits_? **QN 2:** We (as a lay practitioner) are aware of our few habits like smoking but not all. _Example: Morning tea habit (feeling to have tea). Similarly checking mobile time to time, watching TV, doing prayers and other religious habits._ I was not aware of these habits from many years but now I'm aware of it. **Main QN:** Why is our mind always making new habits and gets trapped in habits? >Note: To clarify this question as it has been edited, you can check the original question asked by the user.

So according to Buddhism , the gods realm is part of the cycle of existence. What are the references of this , according to all buddhists canons?

In the introduction to Thich Nhat Hanh's Zen Keys, Philip Kapleau suggests there are times when one can or must rebel. > ... In this type of creativity ow intuitive wisdom and joy are naturally brought into play. > All this does not mean, of course, that attempts at bettering working conditions and making work more meaningful, such as we are witnessing today as a reaction against robot-like mechanization of the workplace, are worthless. But for a worker constantly to resent his work or his supeliors, for him to become sloppy and slothful in his working habits, for him to become embittered toward life-these attitudes do most harm to the worker himself and serve little to change his working conditions. When it's time to work one works, nothing held back; when it's time to make changes one makes changes; **when it's time to revolt one even revolts**. In Zen everything is in the doing, not in the contemplating. He doesn't elaborate. I found the line surprising. But Buddhists fight in Myanmar. Is it ever necessary to deviate from non violence?

There are two sentences found in Tripitaka. Do they mean, "the Divine one come to teach on earth"? Please forgive me, but it very close to Jesus's savings. As Jesus says, "I'm son of Lord, come for you, through his wish, to guide you to my Father"! These translations of mine is like this. I am native to language close to pali? 1. > tathāgato loke uppajjati arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathī satthā devamanussānaṃ buddho bhagavā. > [AN 4.160](https://suttacentral.net/an4.160/pli/ms) My translation: The Highly teacher appears on this world, the prefect holy, the one with Mighty Lord, perfect in wisdom and pure conduct,leading men to safe land, the charioteer of men and god to saddhamma from time immemorial, the Buddha, the Lord of cessation! 2. > Ye dhammā hetuppabhavā, Tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āha; > [Mahākhandhaka](https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd1/pli/ms) My translation: The causes which exist for suffering (birth, decay,old age, death,unwanted thing, separation of dear ones), to eliminate it, He have come! Please forgive me Masters here. But that question haunts me everyday! Also my intention isn't to oppose to Buddhist teachings as I think it's a best religion exist on earth ever! Pardon me!

I appreciate that various aspects of Nagarjuna's teachings are rejected by Theravadans but I'm wondering where the line is drawn. For some of his teachings I can see room for scepticism, but what about his central argument? Four questions... In his *Fundamental Verses* Nagarjuna demonstrates the absurdity of positive or extreme metaphysical positions. Do Theravadans accept this proof as valid and sound? Do they accept its result, which is the logical absurdity of extreme views? If they do accept this logical result, do they also accept the falsity of such views? If they do not accept N's argument, on what grounds do they not do so? EDIT: Perhaps I should have asked just this. Is it possible to endorse the logical result of Nagarjuna's argument in *Fundamental Wisdom* and remain a Theravadan?

According to this article by Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero: > Majjhima Nikaya 55 ..... The Buddha denied this, adding “Jivaka, I > say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: > when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been > specifically slaughtered for oneself) … I say that there are three > instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, heard, or > suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for > oneself).” And another quote from the same source: > Anguttara Nikaya 8.12 ..... This is one of the discourses which clearly > shows that the Buddha and his monks ate meat. Also, we see that meat > from an animal that is already dead when it is purchased is allowed to > be used, but not if the animal is alive. In summary from the above and various sources: - It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals - It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat - It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you - It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (already dead before you arrived at the market) My thought is that although the last case is not wrong due to an individual not being the direct cause of the killing of the specific animal, the individual is still contributing to the general demand that drives the meat market i.e. encouraging the supply of meat by butchers. If there is no demand, then there would be no supply. Unlike a tiger killing its prey, a butcher only slaughters the animal if there would be purchasers who would buy its meat. So, why is this not considered wrong by Buddhists? EDIT: Preferably, according to the Theravada tradition.

Consider the following situation *There are two people. One of them is enlightened. Other one is not. If I gave something to them equally without knowing anything about them, Are there any deference on that action?* Until today, I thought it depends only on giver's mind. But recently I heard it depend on the reciever's mind also. Ex: It is greater karma if the arms recieved immediately after end of a samadhi. If this is true, 1. Are there any other variables that Karma depend on ? (Other than giver's mind and reciever's mind) 2. Why did Lord Buddha preach "*Karma is the thought*" ? This is not only appiled to arms giving. Ex: Blaming an enlightened one vs non-enlightened one. Kind regards.

If I think of the *Noble Eightfold Path* for example, or even the *Abhidhamma* traditions, I feel mental factors are clearly *related,* but noted as separate. In sum, my question mainly is: **What conditions cause mental factors/qualities to aggregate, i.e. lead to the development of others, and what conditions cause them to remain separate? Is there a unique condition (e.g. a mental factor) that unites others in the mind?** In non-Buddhist sources, strong *pleasure* as in addiction seems to channel the mind towards doing but one thing, to exclude in a way causing shame. But positive emotions such as *joy* tend to broaden one's perspective and capacity of action. A researcher on this says : > But as the sun rises in the sky, things begin to change. Your blinders > around your face begin to open and your world quite literally expands. > You can see more. Your world is larger. > > Just as the warmth of sunlight opens flowers, the warmth of positivity > opens our minds and hearts. It changes our visual perspective at a > really basic level, along with our ability to see our common humanity > with others. **Can this be related to this question?** Thank you

**Thero, Bhadanta, and Venerable..** are words for addressing the old monks, abbots in pagodas and/or temples. I really do not know how they are ranked in Buddhist Sangha. Which title is the highest... and what else?