q: > Can a woman touch a Buddha? And if so, what would happen, how would > the Buddha react?

> “Mendicants, be your own island, your own refuge, with no other > refuge. Let the teaching be your island and your refuge, with no other > refuge. And how does a mendicant do this? They meditate observing an > aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and > aversion for the world. They meditate observing an aspect of feelings > … mind … principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and > aversion for the world. That’s how a mendicant is their own island, > their own refuge, with no other refuge. That’s how they let the > teaching be their island and their refuge, with no other refuge. DN 26 How is this squared with the Buddhist taking refuge in the three jewels - or at the very least, since the teachings are mentioned, with taking refuge in the Buddha and the Sangha?

"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell... in the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts." (Pansu Sutta, SN 56.102) According to this quote most humans go to the lower realms. This doesn’t make sense to me because majority of humans though imperfect are ethical and moral. How true is this? How strict should we live our lives so that we can be reborn to a higher dimension?

Where can I find a reliable list of mantras with their respective translations?

What are the characteristics of a person with zero sati and a person with higher level of sati ? How does this level of sati affects day to day life ? What does it really mean to have sati ?

From [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/36765/254) ... > I would suggest dropping this line of inquiry or at least treading very carefully as you seem quite confused about what is being taught by the differing traditions and their soteriological aims. ... which I read as saying that differing traditions have differing soterioloical aims. All I've seen of that before was: - The list in item 2 of [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7275/254) (which seemed to me a good answer, though what do I know?). - Also Wikipedia's [Soteriology (Buddhism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology#Buddhism) which is fair enough but not detailed. - And occasionally a post about a specific tradition (for example [Shin](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/192/254)) . What are the aims (plural)? And can you summarise what the the doctrine or practice or discipline is, towards achieving those aims? If it helps you answer, please assume I'm more familiar with the Pali suttas than other traditions -- so I might be principally asking about other traditions, perhaps you needn't quote the suttas.

Was he trying to convince or persuade people? Did he go towards them or did he let them come to spread the Dhamma? How did he react when he was not understood or listened? I have noticed that I often tend to get carried away in debates where I try to convince my interlocutor of the truth of Buddhism and I get angry when he doesn't listen to me or disagree with me and then I blame myself for having debated in the first place. Then I often find myself with the feeling that I should have kept quiet, and I remember this quote: > He detested objective truths, the burden of argument, sustained > reasoning. He disliked demonstrating, he wanted to convince no one. > *Others* are a dialectician’s invention. > > - Cioran, The Trouble with Being Born Should we keep quiet in a "save yourself before saving others" logic?

What are habits, and why do they stick? Lord Buddha said that we even bring habits into next lives. Why does that happen? How come it is powerful enough to continue from life to life? There are some variations of habits. Some needs mental effort (like studying, or meditating etc.), some needs physical effort (exercising etc.), and some doesn't need any effort, meaning that every day actions (eating, playing etc.). (By effort i mean the energy needed to do something, and habits requires less actual effort to do something). I have the general idea about how habits works. We may be able to find shortcuts, and get new ideas when we do things repeatedly. But, it is hard to understand the way our habits vary. Can anyone give me a clear / deep explanation about habits? Or are habits conditioned by impermanence, cause and effect or karma that I should accept as the nature of existence/the world? If it is, please post the name of respective sutta where Lord Buddha talked about habits, so I will be able to believe it without doubts. Kind regards.

My girlfriend does oral sex and she likes to swallow my sperm during sex. Will these activities violate any precep? Will swallowing of semen violate the no killing precet and are sperm cells considered sentient beings? I would prefer simple answers since I have a little understanding of Buddhism as this point.

I understand that i act **harmfully** by my words also when i struggle at **hard** **situation**. (male 37 years old)  For example today forced my mother ( elderly) to do some work which i thought it could be good for her but dont consider her disability and health problem because of her Brain stroke like some partly depression and maybe her scares about her life. I think if have some view point of the reasons of happening  this situation could be useful to suggest proper meditation for this situation. So i think is because of becoming sensitive and like to be kind, so try to give her an advice which in during the conversation my reactions change to showing that i am leader or supportive but not in controled of others!.  so at this situation finally i sence her hurted by my words and reactions. ( my brother some times before said to me your **speaking tone** is some not interesting and maybe could be changed by some meditation?!!) Also sence to have cached by my psychological system and some other limitations , and can not find other situation and have **more freedom** for choosing some others actions and sensing more **kindly**. So what kind of **meditation** do you suggest for this situation to try?   Thanks for your attention.  

How to let go your own children. They are giving hard time for me. I can't go even . Because they are young.but have problems.

Which Sutta? Karma of unknowingly doing evil is worse than knowingly doing evil. Which Sutta(s) talk about this, hopefully in more detail than I can remember? The subject is karmic consequence, and the law is surprisingly not intuitive. In comparing two types of actions: 1) Not knowing that an action is evil, one commits an evil action. 2) Knowing that an action is evil, one commits an evil action. What is not intuitive about that law, is you would think if one had wholesome and skillful intentions, before committing an action which is actually evil, that one is less culpable for the negative karmic consequence, in comparison to someone who knowingly commits and evil action even knowing fully well that the action is evil. Which sutta(s) talk about this? I don't remember if I'm stating the general form of the law quite correctly, what concrete examples were given in the sutta(s). I see there is this thread with mostly the same question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11054/doing-evil-knowingly-and-unknowingly It seems KN Miln might be the only scripture, and no one was able to identify a sutta. The key words from that passage "knowingly" (jānāti) and "evil action" (pāpaka kamma). So can anyone confirm there is no sutta about that?

To develop sati, we should meditate. So, what should I avoid to maintain sati?

I have been practicing mindfulness and watching thoughts. I usually feel rapture, calm and desireless all the day but not in afternoon after lunch. In afternoon, I even forget all stability including mindfulness & various desires creeps in the mind. Situations become extraordinarily better after 4-4:30PM. Is there any particular reason of afternoon (2-4) instability? What can I do to let that not happen?

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.