An extension of this question posted earlier: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10465/how-not-to-kill-the-mouse-in-my-house Where does one draw the line for which forms of life are ok to destroy, and which ones are not? Is it just a calculation of causing the least suffering? A human has a more complex nervous system than a worm, so to reduce his suffering is paramount? I can think of many ways to spin the issue so that the human must allow himself to die, and ways to spin it so that killing living creatures is acceptable. Are there some general guidelines?

The answer to this question seems to depend on what school one talks about. So my question is about Mahayana Buddhism, more specifically Tibetan Madhyamaka Buddhist schools. I kind of wonder where the line is drawn between beings that are sentient and beings that are not. How about f.ex. corals, algae, amoeba, crill and living creatures like that. As far as I can understand (which is probably not very far) this has got to do with whether the being has consciousness/mind or not. Is that so? Maybe the question should be "what does it mean to say that a being is conscious or has a mind? Is there a generally accepted definition of what a sentient being is? Anywhere in the suttas the Buddha is talking about this?

And to whom does it arise? Also know as the Smile of the Arahant (hard to look On google) Asking for a friend. Pass this on wont you?

Is it true that sakadagami can have sex that is pure so between a wife and husband. how can one gain the attention of a wise man who intends to marry and upholds The Way of Noble Ones.

I use the definition of Three Doors posted here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6rrbl8/any_commentaries_on_the_three_doors_of_liberation/dl7h0e1/ To me, it looks like there is a connection: * Desire for existence in the realm of form * Desire for existence in the immaterial realms They are about the tension between being and non-being. In other words, existence or non existence of the self, and that pretty much is **Emptiness** of the self. * Conceit The conceit "I am... (this or that)". This looks related to **Signlessness** (there are no inherent attributes). * Restlessness Seems related to **Wishlessness**. * Ignorance This kind of encompasses everything. Of course, the Three Doors are related to the Three Characteristics too. * Emptiness -> no-self. * Signlessness -> impermanence. * Wishlessness -> unsatisfactoriness. I am understanding the fetters wrong and making up the relation or does this makes sense? I'm trying to understand them as good as I can.

I heard that Theravada presupposes HH Dalai Lama is not even reached initial bodhisattva enlightenment and that His existence is mocked. Is it not so?

In the same way that Mahayana is an afterthought. Does it matter that something comes second not first does that make it less valid? Chicken or the egg? Asking for a friend

And to whom does it arise? As spoken about by Dr. Berzin? Listen to Seven Point Mind Training by Study Buddhism on #SoundCloud https://soundcloud.com/studybuddhism/7-point-mind-training

I will try to fit that in a question so it will make sense in this forum: What are the resources a Buddhist can use during very hard times? Currently I'm working 12h a day under a lot of pressure, everybody is so stressed out, on their limits, that it is easy to see all kinds of bad things: Anger, gossip, divisible speech, blame game, fears... we are living a serious economic crisis and no one wants to lose their jobs, people are terrified, this is the background. Despite the hard times and the very long and stressful hours at work (that are killing my meditation practice) I'm trying, with not much success, to avoid bad kamma and protect my mind from this crazy situation, hoping it will pass next year. The problem is: I recognize I'm losing the battle, I'm being dragged by these things around me. So, what Buddhist tools can I use, assuming I will not have time for a decent meditation, assuming also the environment will not change and I cannot quit the job. Any advice?

This may seem like a question that is far too modern for an ancient tradition, but when I traveled in Thailand I learned that katoeys (male-to-female) are a legal gender in Thailand. What does Buddhism say about the folks who experience discomfort or distress because there is a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity? As it becomes less dangerous for transgender folks to change, I am finding out that several of my friends are transgender and I would like to know what Buddhism offers them.

I know that in the early days of Buddhism, it was for men only. To practice, you had to be a monk, and to be a monk, you had to be a man. Perhaps this reflects the attitudes of the time, but today, my experience of Buddhism has been as something that welcomes men and women equally, even when that's still in a segregated way. Historically, when did this change come about, and what first triggered it?

I'm new to the concept of Buddhism, and am failing to understand perhaps something very basic. I understand that one is not expected to hold anything close or dear as it is impermanent and could change at any moment so how does one love another person? How does one become close to another person. As I understand it, a relationship would just consist of two people who aren't _that_ close to one another. "Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful" - this seems to suggest that you should build a wall around yourself and separate yourself from potentially wonderful feelings just because they could cause pain, and pain is bad. I think pain is a part of life; denying that pain, or ignoring it is not part of a healthy life. I think of this concept of Buddhism similar to "don't smell the flowers because you may prick yourself on a thorn" thus denying yourself of the delights found in the smell and also the growth / knowledge from the pain of the thorn prick. Both of which you can learn and grow from. Am I missing something here?

I've been wondering if it's possible to "progress" towards enlightenment if one has certain set of beliefs which may (or may not) be false (or illogical), but which do not generate conflict between expectations and experience. If we understand dukkha as the result of a dissonance between worldview and experience, one could a priori think that unfalsifiable theories may not generate such dissonances (and therefore, may not contribute to the perpetuation of the conditions of dukkha), because there's no experience that can disprove such notions. For example, if one says that "our true self is formless, without comprehensible features", how could this view be a hindrance in the path? After all, that belief does not seem to necessarily contradicts the essence of anattā, because no khandha can be considered that alleged "true self", and so, non-attachment to khandhas may also be the path to attain that "true self". Being more general: can someone attain Nibbana while still holding some false notions about self or reality? Kind regards!

The precept, > Uccasayana mahasayana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami in eight precepts suggests that one should abstain from high and luxurious beds and seats. How should one define which bed or seat is not high and which one is not luxurious? Can this precept be practiced at home?

The fifth precept most directly guides us to abstain from alcohol. Coffee is a stimulant and probably so is tea. Drinking either beverage affects our mental calm and makes us behave in ways that we would not do so without having drunk it. In this sense, drinking coffee and tea is not that different from drinking alcohol. Does drinking coffee or tea is considered against the fifth precept? In Asia, many people, including monks, drink tea. Does this indicate that drinking tea is at least not against the fifth precept?

In the Majjhima Nikaya, there are mentions of Bodhisattvas. For instance, *Bhayabherava Sutta* (4. Fear and Dread) says: > 3. "Before my enlightenment, while I was still ony an unenlightened Bodhisatta..." It is a sentence that is repeated throughout the MN. The *Acchariya-abbhuta Sutta* (123. Wonderful and Marvellous) also says: > "Mindfull and fully aware, Ananda, the Bodhisatta appeared in the Tusita heaven."
I have two questions: 1. Are there Bodhisattva practices in Theravada? (such as the cultivation of Bodhicitta and the six perfections presented in Mahayana traditions) 2. Since we find occurrences in the Pali Canon, why do we often hear that the notion of bodhisattva is a late notion?

Theravada monks are supposed to eat only one or two meals per day, only between dawn and noon. For the rest of the day, they can drink water or fruit juices. The exception to this rule is if they are temporarily ill. But what about monks who have Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) or other chronic diseases, who may need to eat regularly every 4 hours or so, till usual dinner time? Furthermore, people with GERD may not be able to consume acidic drinks (e.g. citrus fruit juices and tomato juice), especially on an empty stomach. Also, consider that according to this article , up to 28% of Americans and up to 26% of Europeans, may be suffering from GERD. So, theoretically, this could affect 1 out of 4 monks. How do they cope with this condition? Are they permanently exempted from this rule?

My question is mainly to monks and nuns in this group, but I welcome answers from others as well. If one were to give up eating solid food after the midday, as instructed by the Buddha to his Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni, what practical advice would you give such a person in order to avoid getting gastritis and stomach ulcers?

This is a questions that often comes up when I visit study groups, particularly when the subject of everyone practicing like a monk/nun comes up. Wouldn't monastics be allowed to farm-just enough for sustenance? It seems extreme that they would just starve because no one fed them. My understanding was that the food offering was mostly established for the lay people to have an opportunity to give and gain merit, but I may be wrong. Is there a canonical reference saying monastics can only eat if given food? What did they do before the order was fully established? What about forest monastics who go of for extended periods alone?

I originally wondered whether the Mahayana shunyata (emptiness) is same as the Theravada sankhara (conditioned and compounded phenomena). The problem here is that Mahayana shunyata says even Nibbana is empty, but Theravada's sankhara does not include Nibbana. So, this does not match. But after a lot of discussion here, I find that the Mahayana shunyata (emptiness) could be equivalent to the Theravada papanca (objectification-classification or reification), as found in MN 18 and Sutta Nipata 4.14 . And Sutta Nipata 4.14 states that the root of papanca is "I am the thinker". I could say that all papanca is empty of essence or substance. How somebody (who is not an ariya) imagines Nibbana to be, is the papanca of it in his mind. In that sense, the papanca of Nibbana is empty of essence or substance. How somebody (who is not an ariya) imagines a chair to be, is the papanca of it in his mind. In that sense, the papanca of a chair is empty of essence or substance. Even the papanca of papanca itself is empty of essence or substance. This corresponds to Mahayana shunyata's emptiness of emptiness. So, does it make sense to say that the Mahayana shunyata is same as the Theravada papanca? Thanissaro Bhikkhu's explanation of papañca in MN 18 : > **Translating papañca:** As one writer has noted, the word papañca has had > a wide variety of meanings in Indian thought, with only one constant: > in Buddhist philosophical discourse it carries negative connotations, > usually of falsification and distortion. The word itself is derived > from a root that means diffuseness, spreading, proliferating. The Pali > Commentaries define papañca as covering three types of thought: > craving, conceit, and views. They also note that it functions to slow > the mind down in its escape from samsara. Because its categories begin > with the objectifying thought, "I am the thinker," I have chosen to > render the word as "objectification," although some of the following > alternatives might be acceptable as well: self-reflexive thinking, > reification, proliferation, complication, elaboration, distortion. The > word offers some interesting parallels to the postmodern notion of > logocentric thinking, but it's important to note that the Buddha's > program of deconstructing this process differs sharply from that of > postmodern thought. From Sutta Nipata 4.14 : > "I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer, > about seclusion & the state of peace. > Seeing in what way is a monk unbound, > clinging to nothing in the world?" > "He should put an entire stop > to the root of objectification-classifications (papañca ): > 'I am the thinker.' > > **Commentary (Thanissaro):** > On objectification-classifications and their > role in leading to conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to > MN 18 . The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the root of > these classifications in that it reads into the immediate present a > set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being; thinker/thought; > identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate into mental and > physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this perception thus forms > a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one must learn to examine > these distinctions — which we all take for granted — to see that they > are simply assumptions that are not inherent in experience, and that > we would be better off to be able to drop them.