In two schools of Buddhism, an important part of the practice is the repetition of special mantras which sound like simple expressions of honor or gratitude to those of us outside of the sects, but which have profound meaning to the practitioners. Is it possible to explain the deeper meaning of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo ("Homage to the Lotus Sutra") as Nichiren Buddhists understand it or Namu Amida Butsu ("Homage to Amida Buddha") as Jodo Shinshu Buddhists understand it or must these thing be understood only through experiencing them?

Nothing is satisfying. Everything feels shallow, meaningless. There is no joy in eating, sleeping, working, reading, entertainment, social media, relationships, or sexual pleasures. I don't know why I am doing all this? Maybe just for the sake of it. But surely all the glamour and attraction in the above things is very superficial. The ego is never satisfied. So what is the use of doing all this? I am trying to find something which never desires, is always satisfied, is Deep and meaningful. Or should I work on making these superficial things satisfying? I feel lost in this material world. Suffering more than I enjoyed. Suddenly everything seems bull shit. Desires have become a pain in the ass, making me do the things I don't want to do, at least I don't feel satisfied after doing them. Show the question comes up again, why am I doing these things? I would very much like to eliminate all this things in my life but they are a compulsion to human life. Other people are craving these things and satisfying themselves but for me all this has become stupidity. And on the other side I feel a lot of freedom of choice. And even after realising this I can't seem to get out of this rut. What do I do?

I read the following on the internet: > Here-and-now-view is one of the wrong views, DN1 Is here-and-now-view one of the wrong views in DN1? Please kindly provide some quotes about this.

On this site there are some users who claim that birth & death are mental phenomena, while other people argue that it's something physical. Contextually, the Buddha lived in a time where other sects believed in some sort of an afterlife and/or 'soul transmigration', so perhaps Buddhism borrowed these principles as well, due to social & cultural conditioning? Today, 'Atheists' & 'secular Buddhists' read the suttas with their modern 21st century understanding, which is not open for speculative, unverifiable things.They don't put the Buddha's context into account, where these things might have been quite important. On the other hand, the Buddha invites us to see for ourselves & to experience the teachings in the here-&-now. Since DO is about the origination of dukkha, how do we both see & stop *literal birth, death & aging*? Wouldn't this be completely in conflict with the here-&-now principle mentioned above? The aging & death part in the sutta is straightforward. To quote: > "Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various **beings** in this or that group of **beings**, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various **beings** in this or that group of **beings**, that is called death. In the quote above I cannot see any 'self-views' are subject to aging & death. Instead, I extrapolate from that quote that indeed something physical is happening (aging, decreptitude, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty). So my question is: How do we really reconcile "Here-&-now" teachings with speculative, unverifiable theories, such as repeated rebirths, agings & deaths?

I'm wondering why some people have many friends (lasting friendship like friends since kindergarten to college)while some has almost none. I understand that it would depend on situations in present. But if there's effect from past, what would these be? From buddhism point of view.

I want to understand the nature of rebirth. If one says that the next rebirth would depend on the degree of identification, does that mean that if I am not identified with body I will be reborn without a body or as mind only? Or does it just go to a higher being overall that keeps that degree of overall identification and not restart from scratch? Or the rebirth just restarts all the identifications and the path has to start all over again? What also caught my attention is if there is complete dis-identification even with the inherit "I" self existing independently, and that now existence itself realized that it is not this limited "I" because it can't be that "I" realized but what is before that which is nothing and everything and no birth will occur, doesn't that mean "I" will never exist again and just dissolve into existence? Or rebirth can happen as a completely dis-identified being by default?

I'm novice to meditation and Buddhism. Apologies if this is silly question I've been practicing antipasti meditation for few months. While I watch/understand my breath, when a thought arise I use 6 Rs and let it go and come back to breath. However when meditation gets bit deep while the mind is somewhat still, I come to a deep realization. It's like everything's zoomed in. - Is this an early levels of Vipassana? Then I get confused that this is a call from my monkey mind so I go back to 6Rs. Is my practice correct? Bit confused over my approach. Also I don't have a meditation teacher. Appreciate your feedback :)

Buddha arises. In the past there were several Buddhas. And it is said that in the future there will be at least one. My question is under what conditions does a Samyaksambuddha arise?

I feel very guilty when I break the vinaya / shila. Now it became a couse for suffering. Some times I feel very bad about people who not follows vinaya. How do I get out of this ? How to follow vinaya without attaching to it ?

Does Pure Land Buddhism ever have a Buddha other than Amitābha as the object of devotion? Or is Pure Land Buddhism by definition a devotion to Amitābha and an aspiration to be reborn in his pure land? I'm aware there are a lot of other Buddhas so I just wondered if they were ever the focus of this tradition.

According to Buddhism, one's self is made of 5 agregates. But these agregagtes should dissolve at death, because according to neurosciences,feeling, perception, thinking and conscience are just functions of the brain, which is destroyed at one's death. So what links the new human B that is considered a reincarnation of human A ?

Elements of Buddhism can be rationally accepted such as the suffering that arises through attachment, the benefits of meditation, and even the acceptance of anatta, or non-self. It seems, however, that a belief in rebirth cannot be accepted *rationally*. A believer must suspend rationality to accept a theory that describes the migration of some level of consciousness across a lifetime. A common analogy used is the light emitting from a candle. Nothing *substantial* transmigrates, however something passes over from one life to the next. This theory cannot be directly perceived. Therefore, it cannot be tested, or verified rationally. It is simply a metaphysical inference. Buddhism encourages debate and questioning of its theories, and to not accept everything on face value. How then can a Buddhist test this theory? Can one disregard this element of Buddhism? Is it an *essential* aspect of the philosophy?

In Mahasi Sayadaws "Progress of Insight", Chapter 12. Insight Leading to emergence (vutthanagamini-vipassana-ñana), a reference is made to Milindapañha. >Also in the Questions of King Milinda it is said: "His consciousness, while carrying on the practice of bringing to mind (i.e., noticing), passes beyond the continuous occurrence of phenomena and alights upon non-occurrence. One who, having practiced in the correct manner, has alighted upon non-occurrence, O king, is said to have realized Nibbana." Where is this paragraph or its correspondent, in the Milindapañha english translation of Bhikku Pesala? http://www.aimwell.org/milinda.html

I'm an older male, actually a grandfather, and a Western convert to Buddhism. I came to Buddhism through meditation and interest in 60's mysticism - Alan Watts, D T Suzuki and the like. I read many books and for many years maintained a regular daily sitting practice, which has rather fallen by the wayside of late. But I think the meditation side of Buddhism was very important to me, I'm naturally drawn to mysticism and feel I intuitively understand it, even though most people think it's just nonsense. I discovered a Pureland (Jodo Shinshu) sangha in my neighborhood about mid last year. I have gone to the service regularly since then. Actually the Venerable is very pleased to have a new convert as it seems to me converts are very few and far between. I very much like the Teacher and the aesthetics of the liturgy and ceremonies, albeit much is in Japanese (although some teachings are always given in English too.) It seems to me that if you accept this path, though, you basically give up Buddhism as a kind of D-I-Y path to enlightenment. Pureland is very critical of meditation, which is 'self-power' and doomed to fail - 'only one in a million' can follow the 'path of sages'. Basically part of the message is, don't do it. A recent dharma talk made an explicit point of this. The thing that drew me to Pureland is that I know I am not a virtuous sage, but just a flawed human with bad habits and problematical behaviours. I actually do believe there is a life beyond (and a life previous) and that I have allowed myself to become corrupted by the culture into which I've been born. But the obstacle I have with Jodo Shinshu is that in this sense it's very like the Christian religion that I thought I had left - it requires unswerving faith, but you will never know, this side of death, whether the Western paradise is a reality and not simply a cherished belief. It was exactly that which caused me to leave Christianity. One of the reasons I chose to study Buddhism in the first place was that one could arrive at a higher understanding through meditation, even though I have since found out I have an indelible tendency to sabotage my own aspirational goals. Accordingly, the notion that we're bombu, spiritually inept individuals who can never succeed under their own power, definitely rings true. So it's a bit of a quandary at this point. I have a small Buddhist altar which is my practice place, I have been endeavouring to practice with a Sōtō Zen type of attitude. I feel as though I should continue to make the effort to sit zazen. Not because I will succeed through it, but 'sitting just to sit', as I've always done. It's not so much a question, as the need to discuss some of this with other practitioners and get their perspectives.

It's said that gods/devas experience more superior sensual pleasures than human beings. Human beings who keep Buddhist five precepts will be able to take rebirth in heavenly realm. Sensual pleasure is associated with greed (lobha), superior sensual pleasure means high level of greed & lust. If one wants to take rebirth in heaven, does it mean one has to practice five precepts and he also has to have high degree of greed & lust? For example, a person who often visits prostitute has both the quality of keeping five precepts and high degree of lust/greed. Does that increase his chance to be reborn as deva? > *Suppose, Māgandiya, a householder or a householder’s son was rich, with great wealth and property, and being provided and endowed with > the five cords of sensual pleasure, he might enjoy himself with forms > cognizable by the eye…with sounds cognizable by the ear…with odours > cognizable by the nose…with flavours cognizable by the tongue…with > tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired, > agreeable, and likeable, **connected with sensual desire and provocative > of lust. Having conducted himself well in body, speech and mind, on > the dissolution of the body, after death, he might reappear in a happy > destination, in the heavenly world in the retinue of the gods of the > Thirty-three; and there, surrounded by a group of nymphs in the > Nandana Grove, he would enjoy himself, provided and endowed with the > five cords of divine sensual pleasure**. Suppose he saw a householder or > a householder’s son enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the > five cords of human sensual pleasure. What do you think, Māgandiya? > Would that young god surrounded by the group of nymphs in the Nandana > Grove, enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of > divine sensual pleasure, envy the householder or the householder’s son > for the five cords of human sensual pleasure or would he be enticed by > human sensual pleasures?”* > >*MN 75*

> According to Nagarjuna, the second causal link (sankhara, motivations) > and the tenth causal link (bhava, gestation) are two karmas through > which sentient beings trigger seven sufferings identified in the > Twelve Nidanas, and from this arises the revolving rebirth cycles. The 7th link is from contact with the world, and is called Vedana: > Feeling or sensations are of six forms: vision, hearing, olfactory > sensation, gustatory sensation, tactile sensation, and intellectual > sensation (thought). In general, vedanā refers to the pleasant, > unpleasant and/or neutral sensations that occur when our internal > sense organs come into contact with external sense objects and the > associated consciousness. So I take it that when the light [or equivalent in Buddhism] from an object makes contact with the eye organ, it generates Vedana. Is it, then, incorrect to say that the object itself has karma: if the contact and feeling of it is karmically conditioned? ---------- I'm asking because I wondered whether, when the meditator is in the fomrless absorption, or is reborn in a formless realm, she or he still experiences what most people [I know I would] class as the shape of visual consciousness, because this itself is not form, or consciousness, but itself karma.

I've been a Vipassana meditator for some time (2 10-day retreats and regular meditation on a near-daily basis). I've found it tremendously helpful and life changing. I'm also a type-1 diabetic. I sought the advice of a good Ayuverda doctor near me and started following his guidelines for what to eat/not to in accordance with my "prakriti". I eat mostly vegetables and rarely ever touch meat. I've been eating very healthy and have noticed a lot of improvements in overall wellbeing. However, I have been experiencing some bizarre things in my meditation. Extremely intense emotions and sensations began to arise in my body and it makes me wonder if a cleaner diet had anything to do with it. I feel a constant clenching and tightness in my whole neck which goes up to the left side of my head up the jaw. I feel much more from the left side of my chest. Various sensations have begun to arise from there and it makes me wonder if this is a natural evolution when one goes along the path. I am constantly in touch with my healthcare team and have a clean bill of health even after many years with diabetes. I feel much more in my body, but cannot describe it to my doctors as i feel this has something to do with my awarenss gained from meditation. Unfortunately, I use cannabis (trying to quit) and feel that the cannabis greatly intensifies very unpleasant sensations, particularly in the chest area where I even feel some stabbing pain and burning. Does eating vegetables increase the "sharpness" of meditation? Should I quit drinking coffee/using cannabis? I am intrigued by what is happening in my body and have no clue which person I should consult about these sort of things. I am a vata/pitta individual living in the Netherlands.

Continuing to try to understand Dependent Origination from my own reading of the suttas as well trying to grok the understanding of other skilled practitioners and I've come across an interesting debate. The second nidana of D.O. is commonly translated as 'volitional factors' or 'choices' as seen by this translation of SN 12.2: > And what are choices? There are three kinds of choices. Choices by way > of body, speech, and mind. These are called choices. However, I've detected that maybe not all skilled practitioners on this forum agree that this is an accurate translation? It has been suggested that the best means of figuring this out - as the Buddha instructed! - is to put it to empirical test in personal meditation practice. Marvelous suggestion and I'm hoping to conduct just such an experiment! However, I want to nail down the *actual disagreement* if there is one - I'm still not entirely sure there is - and to figure out how to setup the experiment to reveal the truth. First, I've seen alternative translations on this site which omit the *'volitional'* or *'choices'* connotation and use the alternative 'accumulated tendencies' to describe the Saṅkhāra. Is it agreed by Theravada that this is the proper translation? How about by Mahayana? I've found support for the proposition that not all Saṅkhāra is intentional from SN 12.38: > If you **don’t intend or plan, but still have underlying tendencies,** > this becomes a support for the continuation of consciousness. When > this support exists, consciousness becomes established. When > consciousness is established and grows, there is rebirth into a new > state of existence in the future. When there is rebirth into a new > state of existence in the future, future rebirth, old age, and death > come to be, as do sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. > That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. Second, what is the proper translation? ... assuming there is disagreement that 'accumulated tendencies' is the proper translation - even though it omits the connotation of choice. Could it simply be 'actions resulting from ignorance?' Third, is it proper to think of the labored breathing that comes from the arising of disturbing emotions as Saṅkhāra? It does seem to me to be non-volitional... Is this right? Fourth, is it an accumulated tendency? Perhaps some Saṅkhāra are accumulated habits that may involve some measure of choice and some are simply non-volitional and have nothing to do with 'accumulation' per se? The labored breathing or change in breathing that comes involuntarily from the arising of disturbing emotions... the fact of it itself does not seem to me to be accumulated? Perhaps the 'accumulation' refers to some aspect of it - the extent or intensity - that could very well be accumulated? Like some people might have a very slight ripple while others - because of accumulated tendencies - might hyperventilate? Fifth, it's been suggested that when one attains a certain proficiency in meditation the true definition of Saṅkhāra can be seen, but what level of proficiency is necessary to reveal the truth and in what form of meditation? What is the minimum level of competence necessary to verify this and the kind of type of meditation necessary? Visualizing the experiment... I imagine one must be able to calm the mind to a sufficient degree that one can witness the waves generated when a disturbing emotion arises in much the same way we are easily be able to notice the waves generated when a rock hits a still pond. The waves would be the Saṅkhāra (some action of breath or speech or mind?) and the question would be whether there was choice involved or if any aspect of the wave was a characteristic reinforced through accumulation? Help or ideas appreciated!

One may know, recognize or have ideas about the "fist [proper kind/season of giving](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.036.than_en.html) " which leads to a better and is trained by those devoted to the Gems, and probably like to share such. How can "giving to one arriving (new)" be very practical and in many situations be done? Mental, verbal (signs) and physical? At which point it might leave it's good and lead to increase bonds and debts? Feel invited to share for theoretical up to very self investigated ways of merits around it. *(Note: this question is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment here, but as a tiny door into another direction)*

I'm not very experienced in Buddhism but while reading some articles and few books about it I wonder about one key thing.. If I am not mistaken, the compassion with other species is one of the key pillar of Buddhism. It teaches us that everything is relative and feeling the compassion with others can help us from the anger and so on (perhaps it's very vague claim and I know there's much more to add but to keep this question brief..) I really do like the idea however **I'm "lost" when it comes to confrontation with laws of nature**. Biologically, the human is just an animal. Everyone is trying to survive. The stronger eats weaker (we see it in nature every day and every second - tigers, sharks..everyone just hunts for weaker in order to feed itself and survive). I mean - where is the compassion here? When I look around and think of the nature I can't help my self but - it's brutal. For example, what about an elephant stepping over the mouse without even realizing it just killed the poor mouse? Or bird mommy flying out of the nest to find some food for the young ones and getting caught by cat? The young birds will die brutally by hunger..and nature has millions such examples every day. Technically, the mouse will die because it wasn't strong/fast enough to escape. The same for those birds. That's how nature gets rid of the weaker ones. It's brutal. The morality and ethics teaches us to value the life while in fact the nature seems to possess no value for life. These days, we, the humans can simply call a pizza service and feed ourself. It is the science and technology allowing us to survive the harsh conditions. The development of our civilization. But the core is the same - the struggle for survival where the compassion doesn't really help much. How can I possess a compassion to someone who tries to kill/eat me? Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this question doesn't have any sense. But still - I'd like to ask you - does the Buddhism say anything on this topic?