In this verse of the Dhammapada, > Those who in youth have not led the holy life, or have failed to > acquire wealth, languish like old cranes in the pond without fish. Dhammapada 155. Do those who have failed to acquire wealth refer to those who have decided to remain householders and didn't manage to properly earn a living, in order to for example raise a family, or does wealth refer here to spiritual qualities and virtues ? With metta.

Are there any scriptures discussing on how to prevent wars? I mean for example, from the insights of scriptures, if Buddha were alive then how would Buddha have tried to stop World War 2?

I'd like to know what will all sotapanna have in common with each other. And the same for arahants (both for separate, please, not comparing a sotapanna with an arahant). **What are the common grounds in terms of what has been uprooted? What do they share in terms of understanding, ideas and views (independently if they are not attached to those views)?** I ask this, because I've noticed that there are lots of differences between all the ideas about what should a sotapanna/arahant know, be, feel and think, for example. And, according to the level of confidence/attachment/understanding of those asked about what a sotapanna is, they will be more on the defensive, disparaging any other idea conflicting with theirs, stating that a sotapanna/arahant is only what they think it is, with more or less grounding on suttas. For an outsider, it may almost seem like a discussion based on "No true scotsman" fallacies. **EDIT: Thanks for the answer given so far! I wanted to add another point.** Now that OyaMist has written about interpretations on those common grounds, I realize that that might be exactly the main source of problems. Since we're using texts written in a language not used as vernicular in current societies; since most concepts can be interpreted in multiple ways; and since there are a lot of discussion (with more or less logical arguments or irrefutable evidence) about the "authenticy" of some texts or discourses, most conclusions seem to fall into what feels the most coherent to the particular follower, or into what seems to produce the best results. For example, some say one cannot reach stream-entry without attaining 1st jhana. But I think this criterion becomes problematic, to say the least, when the problem of interpretation and definition occurs in the exact same way when talking about what jhana is or is not. **If that's the case, how to differenciate between the most relevant/fundamental and secundary/optional interpretation for those common grounds?** EDIT 2: Just for the sake of context, and to give some (possibly) hints to a potential answer, maybe we can rephrase the question about the minimum common grounds for all sotapanna as: **What is the minimum knowledge that Right View HAS to contain in order to really be Right View?** I'd appreciate any help on this issue. Thanks in advance! Kind regards!

Is it me or is it incredibly difficult to find resources [on the 4 (or 8, with the arupas) jhānas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhy%C4%81na_in_Buddhism#The_jh%C4%81nas) and how to reach them in the mahāyāna/vajrayāna literature? Apart from vague references to samādhi in general, I can't find anything. **Edit:** In addition to the suttas, theravādins also have commentaries and books on jhānas, for example the one by Ajahn Brahm... I was looking for a mahāyāna equivalent, too bad :( **Edit 2:** I've found my happiness: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1559393254 Thanks y'all!

It is hard to trace the source of this lovely story, it is present in different religions from India. In some versions of the story, the Buddha was there, in other versions the Buddha only told the story and there are also versions without the Buddha (participating or telling it) Is this story on the Dhammapada? Is it from a Sutta? I would like to know if it is present somewhere in the Pali Canon Can anyone help?

One night I awoke straight into meditative state(I practice *Samatha*),it was so odd that really awoke me for real.If I hadn't of been so surprised I might have just gone with it.anyone else ? Other than being slightly surprising it was OK.

I never felt asleep,When I am watching TV.But when I am studying or listening to *Dhamma*, **sometimes** I have felt asleep. What may be the cause of this ? But I can say, if I am falling asleep while watching TV,it is because of tiredness. How can we stop become sleepy by developing *Sati*? ( I read the advice from *Lord Buddha* to *Arahant Moggollana* to overcome sleepiness.But I need to know the cause of sleepiness and how to prevent it before it arises)

In [The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha](http://lirs.ru/lib/sutra/The_Numerical_Discourses_of_the_Buddha,Anguttara_Nikaya,Bodhi,2012.pdf) , Sutta 3/56 titled Depopulation (on page 253; internet version here) and note 415 (on page 1645) provides the Buddha's explanation for the Depopulation of the World. In this explanation reference is made to Yakkhas -- wild demonic spirits, sometimes depicted as killing human beings....wild, nonhuman -- being released. Besides the Yakkhas, which are only the physical manifestation, Buddha explains the Primary Causes for this Depopulation. > "Again , at present people are excited by illicit lust, overcome by unrighteous greed, afflicted by wrong Dhamma. When this happens, the yakkhas release wild spirits. At a time when the world is engaged in combatting Yakkhas globally via lockdowns etc., are we falling short in addressing the Causes of this Depopulation as spelt out by the Buddha? If so, what should be our Strategic approach to this problem?

I was having a debate with a follower of another faith, and during it, this quandary came to me: Did the Buddha describe one law for sentient beings - that is, the law of intentional action? (I understand he taught 'only suffering, and the end of suffering'...) And can it be said the Buddha described two paths for this law? There is the path for the layperson, who embraces intentional action (as the teachings on kamma to laypeople within the Pali canon point to), and aims for a perfection of intentional action - suffering, but 'limited'. And there is the path of the monastic, who aims to abandons intentional action, for nibbana - 'the end of suffering'. But do they not still embrace the law, by only treading on that part of action that is beneficial to them/others, towards their goal, until that can be put aside? In other words, is the bodhisattva goal rooted in the same principle as the arahant goal? (perhaps clearer - is the path towards nibbana *in any way* outside of the described law of intentional action?)

Why we need Samadhi to attain enlightement ? Do people with better samadhi can think more than the people with less within short amount of time ? >experiment of people with low IQ, and high IQ, put them in the same room, and you give them the same job. Rob a bank. You’ll find out that the low IQ people probably do a much better job of robbing a bank, plotting the bank robbery, than high IQ people, who get all messed up with legal implications and stuff like that. - Michio Kaku Is widom something like that ? What is the connection between samadhi and wisdom ?

Is it the mind that think mind is owned by itself? Can any one provide insights, techniques, meditations that help me to understand that "mind does not belong to me"? I aware that thoughts are coming from nowhere and we don't intentionally make them. But this is not enough. Can you please provide me a deep explanation, especially a guided meditation to practice no-self?

When meditating mom claims that she enters in to deep emptiness and she would reside in that emptiness for the whole period. She also says she can’t even feel her breath or her self. She’s bit lost ATM. Any suggestions on this? Any reference preferably in Sinhalese if possible?

If someone offense me on physical things like "*You are not beautiful, You are poor, You are not smart*", I can bear it. Actually I don't care much. But, If someone offense me on my thoughts like "*You are not kind, You are greedy*", It's hard to bear. Sometimes, I got aversion. How can I overcome this ? I asked a related question here. -

I recently became aware of questions regarding the location of consciousness. The argument put forward is that the consciousness is separate to the body. This is not something I considered before. The first is conjecture by a Doctor Fenwick https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/think-well/201906/does-consciousness-exist-outside-the-brain "Hence, in Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it. As odd as this idea might seem at first, there are some analogies that bring the concept into sharper focus. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.” Fenwick is not a physicist, so I dredged the following link, the mind of wigners friend which supports the Fenwicks theory. The second is based on quantum mechanics https://www.jstor.org/stable/23040667?read-now=1&seq=1 The key points central to the article are "A. My body with its internal nervous system(explored to any future degree of physiological completeness) functions as a pure mechanism according to the laws of nature. Further more quantum mechanics is the ultimate basis of the mechanism. B. I am aware that by incontrovertible direct evidence of knowledge (information) entering my consciousness." The 3rd is offered as evidence of the first 2 links https://youtu.be/Uq8l4XVfgPA Am I correct in thinking if all the information in the universe exists in a timeless dimension(membrane) of space and our brains only access a part of it, making us who we are. Can we access more information towards enlightenment maybe? or sixth senses? via meditation a bit like the Buddha may have done? In particular can any one point out if there are any errors in the second link that might make its central argument incorrect?

The attached discourse was delivered a few days back from New York and presents a very comprehensive approach to face the corona pandemic from a spiritual standpoint. The wisdom of the Buddha is quoted at the very beginning and the entire discourse is structured on this quote. It would be appreciated if someone could source the original sutta from which this quotation is made. [Fighting Anxiety and Depression: Four Great Practices](https://youtu.be/vzFtOOVQPmA?t=255) > Buddha speaks of the nature of suffering as a person who is hit by an arrow. Imagine the pain and the shock of being hit by an arrow. And immediately after that, this person, unfortunate person is hit by a second arrow.

We lose interest to certain things (foods, vehicles .. etc.) with time. Is clinging the reason for this ? Is this the nature of clinging ? Are we able to maintain the interest level if we don't have clinging ? Does losing interest to do something (working on a project, studying, new year resolutions, etc.) means that I had the clinging to that thing (or end result) initially ?

Every day I struggle with an onslaught of negative thoughts (perfectionists with a huge ego). I came upon two different schools of thought in Buddhism teaching. One would be to try to ignore the thoughts, not give them energy, not identify with them, be present and in time they would go into the background. Basically they are just thoughts; they are not you. Another approach would be to sit down, meditate and try to go deep inside to find the root of those thoughts (I suspect I have myself deep down :P). Try to see clearly the constant river of thoughts that is happening inside (things I notice is just a small surface of things). I was never sure which one was correct.

I've heard both of these Pali terms translated to the English term "effort". 1: sammā-vāyāma: the 6th item in the 8-fold path. 2: virya: the 2nd of the 5 faculties/powers/Indrias. If 2 terms are used instead of 1, they probably represent slightly different concepts but the similarity and difference between these 2 is unclear to me. My best guess from my fuzzy understanding is ... Gil Fronsdal has identified virya as being a kind of "heroic effort". It's part of the 5 Indrias and Indra was the god that ruled the other gods so perhaps this refers to an heroic effort to rule over the hindrances? sammā-vāyāma is associated with the 4 right exertions. As such it seems to be about moving away from unwholesome states and towards wholesome states. The 2 terms seem very similar. The only difference I can detect is that the "heroic" modifier associated with virya suggests a stronger emphasis on courage and/or aggression. Is this correct?

There are many sutras and they are on different topics. Many people got enlightened by asking different sutras. Ven. Saripuththa thero got sothapanna by asking to cause and effect. Ven. Kondanna thero got sothapanna by asking to middle path and kamma. So, What is the core teaching of **all** the suttas ? What wisdom all they have in common ? **Edit:** I think all people have some understanding of the world. Lord Buddha recognized those and help them to complete their understandigs. Ex: When Ven. Sariputhta thero hearing to the Cause and effect, He already have the understanding of Impermanance. (Because of that, He started to find the truth).

Imagine a world (a planet with humans) without suffering that the people in there are always happy,nothing to worry about.What would be the characteristics of that world ? At least,Can we define the characteristics of that perfect world ? **Edit:** I got this question by listening to *Dhamma* on *Eight Worldly Conditions* (**Ashta Loka Dharma**). Either good or bad,every person have to experience profits,losses,praises,insulting ..etc.It is equal to a person in a heaven and also in a lower realm. If world have only 4 rules (only profits, praises ....),Would it be perfect ?