Supposing mahayana nirvana is permanent (and I believe it is called this) does it have substance? I'm just asking due to some completely trivial insights: it seems that a quality of my experience of time doesn't change, perhaps even arise or end. And I'm wondering what that permanent quality is, or might be.

I'm reading Thich Nhat Hanh's "The heart of the Buddhist teaching". When discussing the three dharma seals he talks about misconceptions of suffering. He says that teachings where suffering is considered a basic element of reality are wrong: > But sometimes only Two Dharma Seals are taught - suffering and > nirvana. .... But suffering is not a basic element of existence. It is > a feeling. When we insist on something that is impermanent and without > self being permanent and having a self, we suffer. The Buddha taught > that when suffering is present, we have to identify it and take the > necessary steps to transform it. He did not teach that suffering is > always present. This makes sense to me intuitively How do the different schools, i.e. TNH as well as those opposing, justify their position? What do they use as their reference? I have read this Q/A here however I am more interested in the references and how the different ideas are defended. The Q/A linked seems to be more opinion based, which is fine of course.

I've been a Buddhist since I was 13 years old, ever since my confirmation and studying the bible following that, realizing that I didn't believe in the scriptures which I was raised on then I started searching for some sort of a philosophical structure and knowing that without religion I'd have a void within me. To make long story short, I studied the tenets of Buddhism and the eight fold path and I started living like that at the best of time however strafing away from it at the worst of times. However I would like to add some depth to my understanding of Buddhism and it's teachings, however the local temples are either Thai Buddhists with the golden statues which I find revolting or the Zen which I'm not quite sure of.

Is it a scientific error of the Buddha? > Sāriputta, there are these four kinds of reproduction. What four? Reproduction for creatures born from an egg, from a womb, **from moisture**, or spontaneously. > > And what is reproduction from an egg? There are beings who are born by breaking out of an eggshell. This is called reproduction from an egg. And what is reproduction from a womb? There are beings who are born by breaking out of the amniotic sac. This is called reproduction from a womb. **And what is reproduction from moisture? There are beings who are born in a rotten fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a cesspool or a sump.** This is called reproduction from moisture. And what is spontaneous reproduction? Gods, hell-beings, certain humans, and certain beings in the lower realms. This is called spontaneous reproduction. These are the four kinds of reproduction > > * MN 12 This idea was common in ancient times and was understandable because they had no way of understanding how maggots "appeared" on decomposing bodies, but we now know that it is false. If it is a scientific error of the Buddha, then how can we understand his omniscience? Couldn't he see with his supernatural eye that maggots weren't really born from the decomposition of bodies? His knowledge is supposed to encompass the whole cycle of rebirths, I find it hard to see how he could be wrong about the birth of a whole part of these animal beings.

A Buddhist, when dead, is most of the time cremated and not buried. Does this have to do with anything in the teachings of the Buddha? As far as I know, burying a body is more Eco-friendly than cremation. I share with you one of the best answers given by the legendary Neil deGrasse Tyson :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afGkv0IT4dU

Buddha said about meditation on death : "Even if a person aware about his death can be happen within that day is late. If someone thinks, his death can be happen within current breath is not late". According to that, Can we think about future at all? How can we manage neccessery things without thinking about future ? (I know that, for a buddhist, there can only be one dream or goal. But what about food, money for living ?) Why meditation on death is a good karma ? Isn't it a good karma to meditate on other things ? (thinking about failure of an ongoing project, end of a relationship etc.) (However thinking on death covers all) Sorry for bad english. King regards.

Did Lord Buddha tell something about this ? (Relationship between sati and memory) There was a monk in Buddha's time who is enlightened but didn't have a strong memory. To be enlightened, some has to have a strong sati.

The last few days I've been struggling with the fear of death. I really love life and I fear the unknown. I know it's inevitable but for some reason I can't accept it. I find it beautiful how in buddhism people actually want to achieve nirvana. I mean I know there's no suffering but also there is no happiness etc. I would love to hear some tips on how to accept the inevitable and enjoy the here and now more. Mindfulness helps a lot but sometimes the thought still jumps into my mind.

In the Pāli Theravāda tradition, are there any specific guṇas that a sammāsambuddha has that an arhat has not?

q: > Why is it some monks (Yuttadhammo specifically) walks barefoot in his > alms rounds as well as while doing walking meditation? Is there a purpose to it?

Why there are only one Buddha per universe? And why there are not more or less at any time?

I'm thinking a lot about the animal issue right now, and a question came to me. Are the five precepts universal? If so, are animals required to respect them? If not, what morals must animals follow? There is obviously a form of morality involved because, if I understand correctly, an animal can generate bad kamma and be reborn in an inferior realm . Even if, according to this site , animals cannot generate good kamma? > (...) Animal behavior is also run by instinct, which means that animals cannot generate good karma, they are simply working off the bad. (...) On Wikipedia , I read that : > (...) The Buddha expounded that sentient beings currently living in the animal realm have been our mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers, children, friends in past rebirths. One could not, therefore, make a hard distinction between moral rules applicable to animals and those applicable to humans; ultimately humans and animals were part of a single family. They are all interconnected. (...) So, how to understand the first precept? Does an animal like a lion, which kills another animal for food, generate bad kamma? I don't think so, because his intention is not bad. Does that mean that the first precept would only concern torture? For example, a dolphin that tortures his prey before eating it would generate bad kamma? But isn't it in the instinct of animals to do such things? A cat almost always tortures his prey before killing it. In short, many questions, but I wondered if there were any Buddhist texts or philosophers who had spoken about the question of morality in other realms of existence, the animal realm in particular. I read in "*An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics *" of Peter Harvey , chap. *Attitude to and treatment of the natural world*, that : > (...) Buddhist Jataka stories often attribute noble actions to such animals as monkeys and elephants, and there is also a reference to some animals keeping the five precepts (Vin. II.162). (...) Would this mean that being a herbivore is a better rebirth, because it is easier to keep the precepts, where a carnivore is almost doomed to produce bad kamma and be reborn in an inferior realm? > (...) in one Jataka story, (...) the Buddha in a past life is said to have been a crane who only ate fish when he found them already dead (J. I.206–8). (...)

According to Wikipedia, “Extant vinaya texts include those of the Theravada (the only one in Pali), the Kāśyapīya, the Mahāsāṃghika, the Mahīśāsaka, the Dharmaguptaka, the Sarvāstivāda and the Mūlasarvāstivāda.” Does anyone know which of these Vinayas has the least number of rules? According to Peter Harvey (*Introduction to Buddhism,* p. 290), the Theravadin Vinaya has 227 rules for male monastics, the Mula-Sarvastivadin has 258, and the Dharmaguptaka has 250, making the Theravadin the one with the least number of rules. The Wikipedia article on Vinaya substantially agrees with this, but has 253 for the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya. However, the Wikipedia articles for Mahasamghika and Sthavira (and elsewhere) also state that the Mahasamghika Vinaya has the least number of rules, citing Andrew Skilton, *A Concise History of Buddhism,* stating that the Mahasamghika Vinaya has 67 rules in the *śaikṣa-dharma* section, compared to 75 for the Theravadin (apparently referring to the 75 *sekhiyavatta*), which appears to contradict Harvey’s statement that the Theravadin Vinaya has the least number of rules. Does anyone (1) have any insights concerning the relative number of rules in the Vinayas that can reconcile this apparent contradiction or (2) know where English translations of the n*on-Theravadin* Vinayas may be found? I am still researching this question online so may end up answering my own question, but would like to hear any relevant information from others.

Dearest friends, seeking to clarify my fragmentary understanding of these matters, I would very much appreciate your comments on the distinction between **Sati** *Mindfulness* and **Yonisomanasikara** *Attention by way of the Matrix*. Warmhearted, grateful thanks for you taking the time to offer some help.

.. I am starting to read Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law , which is of course, not the law of Dhamma, but a common law from one island in Europe. This is the title of the first chapter, but it makes me think. I am interested whether there is a parallel within Buddhist law.. at the very least, given that legal systems should be comparable, I think the question is worth asking! :) So, what delineates a crime within Dhamma/Buddhism?

Not knowing Tibetan or having access to a wide array of sources, I am using the (Tibetan script) Kangyur from [these](http://www.asianclassics.org/tibetan/) . The table of contents is [here](https://gist.github.com/lancejpollard/386a51710e8403c3774e2f3b7e105fbb) pretty much. After converting their Excel file to a CSV, I was able to find at least the English titles for "The Perfection of Wisdom in X Lines" series. For example: - KL00012-001(eTB) - _'PHAGS PA SHES RAB KYI PHA ROL TU PHYIN PA BRGYAD STONG PA_ - **འཕགས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་བརྒྱད་སྟོང་པ།** - _The Exalted Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines (Arya Ashta Sahasrika Prajna Paramita)_ Searching Google for the Sanskrit Romanization (I'm guessing), such as "_Arya Ashta Sahasrika Prajna Paramita_" yields **no exact matches** (no matter what romanization from what CSV line I search, I get no results). Google returns [Prajnaparamita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajnaparamita) as the first result, which is _correct_ ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ no idea how Google is doing that. It is technically correct in this case, even though there is not a direct text match between Prajnaparamita and Prajna Paramita, though, well, I guess it's pretty much exact. They get other ones with less similarity correct as well, at least the general category (that may have not been the best example). However, "_Arya Ashta Sahasrika_" returns nothing, I don't even know what that means (I don't know Tibetan or Sanskrit today). Luckily I have spent hours on THLib to know that there is a document with the exact same Tibetan script title (འཕགས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་བརྒྱད་སྟོང་པ།) [here](http://www.thlib.org/encyclopedias/literary/canons/kt/catalog.php#cat=kt/d/0013/text/v033p1b) . So that confirms -- _in this case_ -- that the Kangyur "_Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines_" from asianclassics.org is correct, it matches something else on the web at least. But searching for other Tibetan texts on Wikipedia returns language/orthography that is completely different from these two sites (asianclassics.org and thlib.org vs. wikipedia.org). For example, Wikipedia has a nice simple page called [Diamond Sutra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Sutra) and even goes so far as to write out the Sanskrit name _Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra_, using _some_ romanization system which I am not familiar with. Looking back in the asianclassics.org [CSV](https://gist.github.com/lancejpollard/386a51710e8403c3774e2f3b7e105fbb) I made, there's no exact matches for those words, but there is **Vajra** in a few places, which leads to **Vajrachedaka**, which is pretty close to the Wikipedia **Vajracchedikā**. Again, not knowing Sanskrit or Tibetan, I am left guessing if they are the same. 1. Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra 2. Arya Vajrachedaka Nama Prajna Paramita Mahayana Sutra **Seems like it could be the same thing.** I'm not sure though. Needless to say, this is my approach. I want to find some of the good/classic/standard/interesting/long _Tibetan script_ texts in the Kangyur, based on what I've seen on Wikipedia, but I am not sure I am finding them correctly. Given that THLib's site is broken on most of the documents, we are left with asianclassics.org. So I wanted to ask, what are the Wikipedia titles for these asianclassics.org titles, (from the [CSV](https://gist.github.com/lancejpollard/386a51710e8403c3774e2f3b7e105fbb)) ? - KL00001-001(eTB),'DUL BA GZHI 1,འདུལ་བ་གཞི་།,"Foundation of Vowed Morality, Part 1 (Vinaya Vastu 1)",༡ འདུལ་བ།/ཀ། - KL00007-111(eTB),'DUL BA GZHUNG DAM PA 1,འདུལ་བ་གཞུང་དམ་པ་།,"The Perfect Classic on Vowed Morality, Part 1 (Vinaya Uttara Grantha B, 1)",༡ འདུལ་བ།/ན། - KL00001-002(eTB),'DUL BA GZHI 2,འདུལ་བ་གཞི་།,"Foundation of Vowed Morality, Part 2 (Vinaya Vastu 2)",༡ འདུལ་བ།/ཁ། - KL00003-001(eTB),'DUL BA RNAM PAR 'BYED PA 1,འདུལ་བ་རྣམ་པར་འབྱེད་པ་།,"The Divisions of Vowed Morality, Part 1 (Vinaya Vibhangga 1)",༡ འདུལ་བ།/ཅ། - MDO,འཕགས་པ་བསྐལ་པ་བཟང་པོ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ།,"An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled The Book of the Eon of Good Fortune"" (Arya Bhadra Kalpika Nama Mahayana Sutra)""",༡༠ མདོ་མང་།/ཀ། - KL00133(eTB),'PHAGS PA DA LTAR GYI SANGS RGYAS MNGON SUM DU BZHUGS PA'I TING NGE 'DZIN CES BYA BA THEG PA CHEN PO'I MDO,འཕགས་པ་ད་ལྟར་གྱི་སངས་རྒྱས་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་བཞུགས་པའི་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ།,An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled The Meditation of the Buddha Who is Directly Present Now(Arya Pratyutpanne Buddha Sammukha Avasthita Samadhi Nama Mahayana Sutra),༡༠ མདོ་མང་།/ཐ། - KL00134(eTB),'PHAGS PA BSOD NAMS THAMS CAD BSDUS PA'I TING NGE 'DZIN CES BYA BA THEG PA CHEN PO MDO,འཕགས་པ་བསོད་ནམས་ཐམས་ཅད་བསྡུས་པའི་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོ་མདོ།,"An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled A Meditation which Incorporates Every Virtue(Arya Sarva Punye Samuchaya Samadhi Mahayana Sutra)""",༡༠ མདོ་མང་།/ཐ། KL00135(eTB),RDO RJE'I TING NGE 'DZIN GYI CHOS KYI YI GE,རྡོ་རྗེའི་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་གྱི་ཆོས་ཀྱི་ཡི་གེ,A Word of Teaching on the Diamond Meditation (no Sanskrit),༡༠ མདོ་མང་།/ཐ། - KL00136(eTB),'PHAGS PA KHYE'U BZHI'I TING NGE 'DZIN CES BYA BA THEG PA CHEN PO'I MDO,འཕགས་པ་ཁྱེའུ་བཞིའི་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ།,"An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled The Meditation of the Four Youths"" (Arya Chatur Daraka Samadhi Mahayana Sutra)""",༡༠ མདོ་མང་།/ཐ། - KL00137(eTB),'PHAGS PA TING NGE 'DZIN MCHOG DAM PA,འཕགས་པ་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་མཆོག་དམ་པ།,"The Exalted Most Supreme of Meditations"" (Arya Samadhyagrottama)""",༡༠ མདོ་མང་།/ཐ། - KL00138(eTB),'PHAGS PA 'DUS PA CHEN PO RIN PO CHE TOG GI GZUNGS ZHES BYA BA THEG PA CHEN PO'I MDO,འཕགས་པ་འདུས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ཏོག་གི་གཟུངས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ།,"An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled The Great Gathering, the Secret Formula of the Tip of Jewel"" (Arya Mahasannipata Ratna Ketu Dharani NamaMahayana Sutra)""",༡༠ མདོ་མང་།/ཐ། - KL00139(eTB),'PHAGS PA RDO RJE'I SNYING PO'I GZUNGS ZHES BYA BA THEG PA CHEN PO'I MDO,འཕགས་པ་རྡོ་རྗེའི་སྙིང་པོའི་གཟུངས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ།," An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled The Secret Formula of the Essence of Diamond"" (Arya Vajra Manda Nama Dharani Mahayana Sutra)""",༡༠ མདོ་མང་།/ཐ། - KL00140(eTB),'PHAGS PA SGO MTHA' YAS PA SGRUB PA ZHES BYA BA'I GZUNGS,འཕགས་པ་སྒོ་མཐའ་ཡས་པ་སྒྲུབ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་གཟུངས།,"An Exalted Secret Formula entitled, The Accomplishment of Infinite Goals"" (Arya Ananta Mukha Sadhaka Nama Dharani)""",༡༠ མདོ་མང་།/ཐ། - ... Specifically, in the CSV, I am looking for the various [Mahayana Sutras](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_sutras) . 1. Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra 1. Infinite Life Sutra 1. Lotus Sutra 1. Pure Land sutras 1. Akṣobhyatathāgatasyavyūha Sūtra 1. Ugraparipṛcchā Sūtra 1. Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā Sūtra 1. Drumakinnararājaparipṛcchā Sūtra 1. Śūraṅgama Samādhi Sūtra 1. Bhadrapāla Sūtra 1. Ajātaśatrukaukṛtyavinodana Sūtra 1. Kāśyapaparivarta Sūtra 1. Lokānuvartana Sūtra Or any other standard/key sutras which would be interesting. The main thing is, I guess, what are the top 10 or 20 sutras in that CSV, and what are their "common" names so I can find out more info on them on Wikipedia?

I read about the 18 characteristics of a Buddha, and the last three say he has knowledge of the past, present and future. Do mahayanists believe this means he has complete knowledge of everything in the past, present and future, or does it rather mean he has some specific knowledge of the past, present and future? As in, he knows some things that happened or that he did yesterday or some time in the past, some things that happen or which he does right now, and some things that will happen in the future.

Why in Buddhism plants are not recognized as sentient beings? Can it be immoral to kill a plant? Can a plant be reincarnated as an animal? Is a plant alive? **Edit:** I read somewhere a theory according to which Buddhism did not consider plants as sentient beings, part of saṃsāra, because although they are alive they do not have the 5 khandhas and especially they do not have consciousness (*viññāṇa*) although they have perception (*saññā*). A sunflower perceives the sun and reacts by turning towards it but it is not conscious of its perception, it has no metacognition. I found this idea interesting but I don't know how true it is since Buddhism seems to define consciousness more as what allows discrimination than as what allows metacognition.

I have seen a lot of great buddhists who change their paths due to some kind of conditions. Recently, I also face a that kind of situation. When, I faced a dissapointment, I forgot all teachings that I have learnd. It got some time to understand the situation. It just a small one and I had knowledge to understand the situation. There may be some situations that out of my understandings. What can I do to have my destination enlightenment , confirmed ? Related question: What makes a monk to be a house holder ?

In the Milindapanha, Nagasena points out to king Milinda that doing evil knowingly accrues lesser demerit than doing evil unknowingly. Does the Buddha make the same statement anywhere in the Suttas? >The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, for whom is the greater demerit, one who knowingly does evil, or one who does evil unknowingly?" > >The elder replied: "Indeed, your majesty, for him who does evil not knowing is the greater demerit." > >"In that case, venerable Nagasena, would we doubly punish one who is our prince or king's chief minister who not knowing does evil?" > >"What do you think, your majesty, who would get burned more, one who knowing picks up a hot iron ball, ablaze and glowing, or one who not knowing picks it up?" > >"Indeed, venerable sir, he who not knowing picks it up would get burned more." > >"Indeed, your majesty, in the same way the greater demerit is for him who does evil not knowing." > >"You are clever, venerable Nagasena." Milindapanha - Access to Insight My interpretation of this is not about unintended action vs intended action as one of the answers suggests. Instead I see it as comparing intended action with the view that the action is unwholesome vs intended action with the view that the action is wholesome. It's not about intending harm vs not intending harm, instead it's about intending harm knowing that causing harm is bad vs intending harm not knowing that causing harm is bad.