How come worrying is a bad karma ? Buddha stated that Having a confident mind gives a good rebirth ( in heaven etc.). Most of the time, I worried about not able to complete a task within the desired time. What would be the karmic effect of this worrying and any other worries ?

How can I be happy at other's happiness ? How can I develop my willingness to see others' being happy ? If I define a happiness level, scale of 0 to 100 about being happy at others' happiness, I think I'm at the 25-50 level. How can I promote it to 90-100 level ? Sometimes, I do loving-kindness meditation. But I'm looking for some kind of understanding / wisdom about being happy ? How can this help in path to the enlightenment ? Or Should I do loving-kindness meditation to gain that wisdom ?

Buddha said that generosity is essential for enlightenment. > O monks, if people knew, as I know, the results of giving and sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would they allow the stain of stinginess to obsess them and take root in their minds. Even if it were their last morsel, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared it, if there were someone to share it with. But, monks, as people do not know, as I know, the result of giving and sharing, they eat without having given, and the stain of stinginess obsesses them and takes root in their minds.” – Itivuttaka 26: 18-19 (tr. Ven. Bodhi) Lets take an example . If there is a material object that I want to donate , and it will be used for a very good cause. However , I really like this material object and I feel I might want it ( definitely don't need it for my survival or anything like that) . The thought of giving this object does not make me happy. If I force myself and give up this object , will my giving (generosity) be unwholesome?

We know what a woman is. One can easily identify by her physical characteristics. Among the five aggregates form is only one of aspects which defines identity. I want to know are there any other characteristics which define a women ?

In [MN.98](https://suttacentral.net/mn98/en/sujato) , the Buddha seems to deny the ethnic/racial/genetic differences between humans. He seems to indicate that differences in physical traits between individuals are not determined by birth as in the rest of the animal world. This seems totally contrary to genetics: I. Humans are genetically part of the animal world and follow the same [laws of heritability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability) . II. Whether we speak of race or ethnicity, there are many [identifiable genetic clusters within humanity](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/9_Cluster_Tree.png) . III. Even without going that far it is obvious that between two individuals there will be physical differences according to their genetics (height, eye colors, features, hair, etc). The Buddha seems to deny this completely. He says for example that the differences in eyes/nose/shoulders, etc., between two individuals are not defined by birth but by convention... this is totally false: children inherit the traits of their parents and two parents with the Asian phenotype do not give birth to an African child by pure chance or convention. I thought it was because he wanted to say that all these genetic differences were conventional and I would have agreed, but it can't be that since he's only saying that for humans and recognizes the validity of these differences for animals and plants... I don't understand this sutta? > While the differences between these species are defined by their birth, the differences between humans are not defined by their birth. Not by hair nor by head, not by ear nor by eye, not by mouth nor by nose, not by lips nor by eyebrow, not by shoulder nor by neck, not by belly nor by back, not by buttocks nor by breast, not by genitals nor by groin, not by hands nor by feet, not by fingers nor by nails, not by knees nor by thighs, not by color nor by voice: none of these are defined by birth as it is for other species. In individual human bodies you can’t find such distinctions. The distinctions among humans are spoken of by convention. > > - The Buddha

I'm interested in concepts of infinity, eternity, countlessness, etc. in Buddhist thought. Could you please help me out with sources, both primary and secondary, where these concepts are used? I know that there are countless beings, that the world existed forever, that Buddha's knowledge is limitless, that there are countless Buddhas, countless universes. But it is extremely hard to pin down exact scriptures where these concepts are elaborated and to find secondary sources where the issues of infinity and eternity are discussed. Will be grateful for any help. Thanks!

I know there have been discussions about vegetarianism, but my question is not exactly that. I know that: * The Buddha allowed eating meat for monks, if it is clear that the animal was not killed on purpose ([Majjhima Nikaya 55.5](https://suttacentral.net/mn55/en/sujato)) , especially to provide the meal. The main premise behind the three-fold rule is to graciously accept what one receives in your bowl when going for alms round. This rule was meant and spoken to monks and nuns, not to lay people. “Beggars can’t be choosers” in modern terms. The Buddha's diet was more likely a vegetarian diet who ate meat "out of pity" on rare occasions. * On various occasions, the Buddha denounced the professions of fisherman and fish merchant as well as butcher. These professions are not part of a just livelihood (fifth of the eight stages of the Eightfold Path), nor is the trade in arms, intoxicants (alcohol) and the trafficking of living beings, human or animal. The [ahimsa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahi%E1%B9%83s%C4%81) therefore covers for the laics the idea of not killing animals as well. * The Buddha banned the religious sacrifice of animals. Knowing this, I don't understand why he didn't ban meat from the laics, or at least recommend a reduction in consumption? We can clearly see that the Buddha considers meat consumption to be at least an indirect violation of the first precept of not killing, since he forbids monks to eat meat killed for them. Why does he allow meat that has not been directly killed for the monk? I have the impression that the Buddha considers that if the relationship of evil is not directly causal then it is less serious (that is why he allows the monk to eat meat that has not been directly killed for him). This can be understood: kamma is the intention and the one who eats meat doesn't intend to hurt an animal even if that's what he causes more or less directly by supporting the butcher's market. But then, why not at least say to limit your meat intake? [When we see the horrors of the meat and dairy industry](https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko) , I don't understand why the Buddha was silent on this subject. Even more if we consider that he was omniscient, so he saw all the suffering that this industry has inflicted, is inflicting, and will inflict in the future. I understand all the less this silence precisely because, contrary to the Abrahamic religions, there is a form of equality between man and animal in Buddhism in the sense that each man can be reborn as an animal within samsara, and that each animal is surely a human being in the making. Animals are beings in their own right, not resources that man can dispose of as he pleases ([Genesis 9:2-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9%3A2-3&version=NIV)) . I understand the logical reasoning that the Buddha must have had: * kamma is intention. * the one who eats meat has no intention of hurting a sentient being. * eating meat is still indirectly causing the death of the animal, so he forbids consumption in the first degree (if the animal was killed directly for us). I understand that every action creates suffering, that you have to put an arbitrary limit somewhere so that you don't end up wondering how not to hurt the bacteria? But even if we eat meat that hasn't been killed directly for us, we are supporting a gigantic industry of suffering by doing so; in his compassion, wisdom, and possibly omniscience, I really don't understand his silence, he could have at least asked us to reduce our consumption, I don't know. I find it a bit easy to clear oneself because the animal was not slaughtered for us personally. So: [Is the ethics of the dhamma incomplete?](https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/why-buddhists-should-be-vegetarian-with-extra-cute/)

What characteristics in universe have that doesn't let us to fulfill our desires ? Why we get more and more desires through fulfilling desires ? (What characteristics of desires have that we have to know to understand better about desires)

Many yogis have extraordinary experiences in terms of generating physical and mental energy through meditation. These experiences could be on a broad spectrum, ranging at one end, from a few hours or a few days of being turbo charged with energy and on the other end, as mentioned in our scriptures, to incredible feats of energy performed by saints and enlightened beings. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas verse 106 refers to energy that can move a mountain. The moment of the Buddha's Enlightenment is said to have rocked the universe. At a time when the entire planet is being 'rocked' by a virus, with no vaccine in the foreseeable future, would it be worth our while to collectively shift our focus to build a degree of resistance to the virus through extended hours of meditation whilst in lockdown at home and also to encourage others to do so?

This is rather a personal question. Sometimes, I am a very depressed individual, and besides other things, I'm struggling with a lack of energy. It happens that I sleep for 10 or more hours. Usually, after waking up, I'm not actually awake, but just keep on dreaming, being half-asleep. It's very hard to get up: the urge for sleep and dreaming is so strong, while consciousness is not awakened yet... In sleep, often there are nightmares about the conflicts and rejection, although I usually forget everything. Also, sometimes I feel drowsy during the day. It's very hard for me to maintain mindfulness, often I keep on doing a dull, pointless activity, probably again because I'm deprived of energy. In AN 7.58 Buddha says: > But if by doing this you don't shake off your drowsiness, then — reclining on your right side — take up the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful, alert, with your mind set on getting up. As soon as you wake up, get up quickly, with the thought, 'I won't stay indulging in the pleasure of lying down, the pleasure of reclining, the pleasure of drowsiness.' That is how you should train yourself. I really try to train myself like that, but forget about everything in the morning and just "stay indulging in the pleasure of lying down." So, what would you recommend me to be more alert and mindful during the day, to sleep less and to get up more quickly?

Are there any list of thought patterns / believes of a person who have extream aversion, conceite .... etc ? There is an android app that gives a similar result. (I'm not sure that I can linked to a that kind of source from here) But that app is on topics like Perfectionism, low self esteem .. etc. That app let us know what are the common thought patterns, believes if we have one of that problems. Also they provide some pracices to overcome them. It is very useful to know that common belives, thought patterns as we can understand our mind / situation easily and quickly. Also, that may let us know some belives we have that we might think we don't have. Can anyone post list of common belives on topics from buddhism ? Especially on five hindrances ? (Wiki answers may suitable) Example format for an answer : *Common believes of a person who have aversion* *Common thought patterns of a person who have aversion* ***Very sorry for bad english*** **Kind regards**

Should we care about what others think? If so, to what level? (Most of the time, those thoughts creates suffering).

I used orgasm as an example because it is usually the strongest sensation one can feel due to everything involved and all the chemistry released in the body. Also, I would say that sexual activity and drinking are probably the two biggest challenges one has to overcome when following the 8 precepts for weeks or months. So, can one feel it without attachments?!

from [AN 2.21](https://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.021.than_en.html) : > "Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are fools. How about when the person presenting the apology is not doing it sincerely? How to respond skillfully?

https://suttacentral.net/dn26/en/sujato How could humans have lived 80 000 years in the past? And how could we live 10 years in the future, with people reaching sexual maturity at five, when life expectancy is constantly increasing?

### Question Hi all, i would like to ask if anyone knows the difference in meaning between these three pali words: * Kamma * Kammanto * Kammanta ### What i've found so far I can see from looking at the pali words for "right action" that this is called "samma kammanto" (sometimes "samma kammanta"), so i'm guessing that these two are the same? I'm also guessing that Kamma is a more general term which includes speech and thought/intention as well as physical action? ### Context I'm building a to-do-list and life-organizing application and since i have a Buddhist background i'd like to give the application a name inspired by Buddhism

Is wanting to do something = desire ? Doesn't enlightened people want to do anything ? They just react to whatever comes ? ( "react" may not be a suitable word). A related question that I hope to ask in Buddhism SE: How a enlightened monk differs from a enlightened lay person ? As I know: 1. Monks have intention to teach dhamma to others. 2. Monks can live more than 7 days. The first one have some relation to this question.

Sometime i read that the current mara is a bodhisatta. It seems hard to believe a bodhisatta can be reborn as mara, who oftens damage buddhism. There are two types of bodhisatta, the comfirmed one by a Buddha which will surely become a Buddha, and the not comfirmed yet, maybe mara is the later who can still return to normal being. So, can a bodhisatta, comfirmed or not, reborn as mara?

In general, the monks are expected to preach the *Dhamma* and the laity should listen. But "behind the scenes", so to say, should monks really be learning from at least some situations they run into without the attitude they know better or that they already have the full truth? I think I might know the answer, but I am looking for any sutta/tipitaka references or analyses. Also, additional/complementary *mahāyāna* point of views and references are welcome.

The title is provocative but sums up my problem: when I am immersed in Buddhist thought, I can no longer love my wife. Buddhism clearly contradicts romantic love. It tolerates it up to a certain point: but in the absolute, the practitioner is invited to (or naturally abandons) his wife to become a monk. To love one's wife romantically: it is to discriminate, it is to love her more than a cat or a neighbour for example, it is therefore to judge and prioritise. It is also to become attached: not wanting to share his wife, wanting to be with her, being sad when she is not there. It is impossible to love your wife romantically without becoming attached and/or without discriminating, putting her on a pedestal. In the end, Buddhism invites us to be indiscriminate and have only unattached love (metta). From this point on, how can one continue to be married if one is sincere in one's practice? Love your wife in this way, unattached and loving her as much as anyone else, and tell me that she is satisfied. The Buddhist ideal love is not romantic. Even if in theory the disciple can reach the sotapanna stage by staying married, isn't it hypocritical to stay married with that in mind? To love your wife until that stage knowing that you'll have to abandon her afterwards? How can you love your wife romantically, find her attractive, desirable and endearing, when you know that sooner or later this relationship will lead to pain and dissatisfaction and come to an end? I'm not clear, I'm mixing everything up, but I'm really frustrated and angry. If I had realized all this before I got married, I wouldn't have done it. But here's the thing, now I'm married, and I feel trapped. Either I stay with her and make a cross on the Nibbana, or I leave her to become a monk like the Buddha did and I make her suffer. How do you tell your wife that you will love her forever? How can you love her when you know it won't be forever and you directly perceive the dukkha of this relationship? As soon as I clearly see impermanence and dukkha, I can no longer let myself be caught up in the flow of life and love unconsciously. I hope that I am clear, I expect the usual answers "it is not all black and white, a married disciple can reach sotapanna" etc., but this kind of arguments do not work with me, I live them as pure hypocrisy. I should forget the impermanence and the dukkha of our relationship, stay in the sweet reassuring illusion of our romantic love and tell her that I love her knowing that I should abandon her after sotapanna? I love her, that's not the problem, I'm angry that my commitment contradicts the absolute truths of Buddhism and is an obstacle to my progress. I hope I am clear and that you understand me... In short: how do you succeed in loving your wife romantically and not abandoning her when you know that you will need to abandon her after sotapanna, that you will never be able to reach Nibbana by loving her, when you see directly the dukkha of your marriage, when you know that it is touched from the start by the seal of impermanence, when you know that it is an attachment from which you will have to free yourself, and so on? To put it plainly: how can one love one's wife romantically when this act contradicts all the truths of Buddhism? By deliberately remaining lukewarm and settling for half-truths?