I am a software engineer. Is it shameful if I became a monk throwing away all the knowledge that I have accumulated all these years(more than a decade). In my previous years, I was amused by programming. But now, I have become dispassioned with everything about my work. I see my accumulation of ideas / knowledge as useless. I am extremely confused.

I want to quote my experience as - "True Understanding brings effortless transformation". In my experience I have found that whenever I understand something deeply (ohhh! Moment) it transforms that part of my behavior and thinking completely. If I don't understand something I am in a constant state of confusion and suffering. So my question is how I can penetrate deep into any topic to understand it profoundly? Does Buddha share any such techniques to sharpen my thinking abilities?

I was wondering what main stream Buddhism think of Jesus, was he a buddha? Can anyone tell me where Jesus fits into Buddhism?

I am particularly interested in the relation between Wishlessness and Love. As far as I understand Wishlessness means that there is no suffering or ignorance as such. I'm mainly guiding myself by this quote https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6rrbl8/any_commentaries_on_the_three_doors_of_liberation/dl7h0e1/ I feel like I get it, like there are no individuals existing as such, there is no suffering as such, but there is still (metta/compassion) the inclination to reducing suffering. But I feel like my words are not very precise. Even contradictory.

Is 'impermanence' skillful means? Wikipedia's [definition of "Skillful means"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya) says: > The implication [of skillful means] is that even if a technique, view, etc., is not ultimately "true" in the highest sense, it may still be an expedient practice to perform or view to hold; i.e., it may bring the practitioner closer to the true realization in a similar way. And of [Impermanance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence) : > The doctrine asserts that all of conditioned existence, without > exception, is "transient, evanescent, inconstant". All temporal > things, whether material or mental, are compounded objects in a > continuous change of condition, subject to decline and destruction. I think that, for some Mahayana schools, everything is skillful means. So is the doctrine of impermanence "skillful means" too? I am looking for an answer which: - Says yes or no (and explains why) - References a sastra or sutra (if there is one) which claims or implies this answer - Preferably, also, explains what (if any) bearing that may have to understanding any other doctrine: such as anatta; voidness; or the buddha-nature.

I have been inquiring about the teachings including translations of scriptures with regards to 'Awareness that knows' here , here , here .. Specifically, in reference to the explanations given by most of the forest tradition, Ajahn's from Thailand and Translations by "Thanissaro Bhikkhu" who is also from the same tradition and has translated the bulk of pali cannon... It seems to me that the illustrations given by the forest tradition have a somewhat distinctive view about this, for example, In this talk Ajan Amaro said Liberation is possible because of the transcendent quality of awareness beyond the Five Skandhas. He said ...That which knows the five Skandhas is not intrinsically tied to the Five Skandhas. that which knows is not part of the five Skandhas / i.e. the five aggregates or heaps: *form (or material image, impression) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana).* Could you please expound or explain further, how is this Awareness lokuttara and beyond the Skandhas? Many thanks

What are the contain of the mind?Are emotions being mind contain or they are from of mind energy?how does mind differ from each other?how person being act differently.?

While I do have a personal and intimate belief in reincarnation, I really struggle with the Buddhist belief that we have innumerably many past lives. A monk I listened to explained that all the beings we meet everyday were once our parents in a specific past life, as well as our enemies. Honestly, i find this perspective quite hard to believe. It seems to me that if had so many past lives, we should have reached wisdom and Buddhahood at some point already. How (according to Buddhism) is it possible to have such an accumulation of experience, without reaching some degree of wisdom or enlightenment?

Has anyone ever in the history of Buddhism claimed that the phenomenal aspect of the storehouse consciousness is also permanent? I'm not asking if it's impermanent, but if it is also permanent. Usually the absolute aspect of the storehouse consciousness is said to be permanent > The revelation of the true meaning of the principle of Mahayana can be achieved by unfolding the doctrine that the principle of One Mind has two aspects. One is the aspect of Mind in terms of the Absolute (tathata; Suchness), and the other is the aspect of Mind in terms of phenomena (samsara; birth and death). Each of these two aspects embraces all states of existence. Why? Because these two aspects are mutually inclusive... Since it has been made clear that the essence of all things is empty, i.e., devoid of illusions, the true Mind is eternal, permanent, immutable, pure, and self-sufficient; therefore, it is called "nonempty" I hope so, and the storehouse consciousness of ordinary people also -- because I cannot see a reasonable way to believe it is just impermanent.

For purposes of this question I define “uncertainty” as a willingness to entertain doubt or acknowledge incomplete knowledge with regards to the truth of the matter about what one knows of a particular question of subject. And I define “the truth of the matter” as an objective fact about some aspect of reality which is independent of observer or context and is not contingent in any way. For a long while I have regarded myself as unusually capable or comfortable with uncertainty. Having a general willingness to see the gray in every question and to acknowledge my own incomplete knowledge. To see and entertain the viewpoints of others and to grant that my own viewpoint is not certain. A general comfortability with complexity that is above average. And this is something I prided myself in thinking of as beneficial. However, I recently realized that a lot of what I define as “uncertainty” presupposes an objective fact of the matter that is not contingent. And that it handcuffs me at times in that I can be of two, three, or more minds about something and unsure of the proper course to take. Moreover, it occurred to me that this is not compatible with the doctrine of emptiness which I understand quite clearly as saying that for every conception that I have... it is not undergirded by a genuine non-contingent fact of the matter. So with that... Is uncertainty as defined above incompatible with emptiness? If so, how? If so, what repercussions can be seen as occurring with this misunderstanding? What is an appropriate definition of uncertainty or one that is compatible with emptiness or how things really exist? If not, why not? Where is the error in my thinking? A question that might be related, but different is https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/35766/is-lack-of-doubt-a-form-of-self-cherishing

I have read in the lotus-sutra that chanting the name of avalokitesvara can for example break sticks if one is about to get beaten. Are there recorded miracles that happened to people out there?

I read somewhere that Dhamma should only be taught to people who are interested and attentive to the knowledge, but why aren't more people interested in the first place? Dhamma could lead to the end of suffering, which is something most people would be interested in right? Is this because of indifference and thus ill-will and aversion? Is it because of delusion? Laziness and lethargy, or other parts of the five hindrances? And why do people react so hostile when discussing achievements such as having better concentration, more equanimity etc.? Why don't they see it as an opportunity to learn something new? Why is there such a lack of enthusiasm and a drive to search for wisdom?

The Pali Text Society published editions of the Pali Tipitaka, starting in about 1890. I assume it was copied (transcribed) from one or more written sources, not from memory, is that so? From what written documents/sources did the editor[s] of the PTS edition get the text? Were they manuscripts, or printed? And I'm guessing the PTS transcribed the text to Roman script? Where (in which countries and/or by whom) were those source materials copied? Was it from one source or several? Would you happen to know whether the source documents still exist today? [This answer](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/list-of-tipitaka-versions-differences/6278/2) says that different editions are more or less the same in every country ... > With the Pali editions, we inherit a complex manuscript tradition. In each country there are multiple different editions, both modern printed editions and older manuscripts. The ones we have ended up using are more or less random. The problem is that despite the many variations, the reality is that it is a huge amount of work to gather and collate them, and the end result is, “Yep, apart from these few instances, it’s pretty much the same as all the others.” ... still I'm wondering specifically where the text of the PTS edition came from (and where the work was done).

There are 4 aspects of satipatthana meditation. Can anyone explain how to do the cittanupassana? Is it not merelly noting the hate, greed and delusion? Isn't it?.

What would be the Theravada approach to people who have a transgender experience? As far as I understand it, the mind does not have a gender. So should a Buddhist, out of compassion alone, indulge a transgender person in their request to be regarded as a gender opposite that which they are born; or is this not compassion at all, to indulge one in things which you understand to not be based in reality? Where is the line drawn where one crosses over from being compassionate to being dishonest to oneself and what you have experienced to be true? I know this may be a sensitive subject to some, and I'm not trying to marginalize anyone else's experience of reality; only trying to gain some perspective on how to relate to the world. Thank you

One of the lessons Buddhism teaches is that everything is impermanent. Our thoughts, our feelings, our emotions, our bodies, our life. Everything. We are surrounded by death. We are mortals. There is an end to this. However, Buddhism also has the concept of rebirth. Karma follows you not just in this life but in your next. It's also said that the Buddha gained the ability to recall his previous lives. This to me implies some sort of a soul (for lack of a better word), condition, or consciousness that is not impermanent. After you die you get reborn. There is an "you" that transcends the current (impermanent) existence. I guess, my question is, is there some sort of a soul, consciousness, or a condition, that is not impermanent? When one reaches enlightenment (nirvana) and stops the cycle of rebirths, what happens to them?

If I were to begin meditating, what practical list of advises would you give me?

Some gurus like osho says that the heart should dominate mind but reverse is happening in real world. Some like sadhguru from isha foundation says that heart is just a pumping device. It is driven by our mind. What point of view does buddhism have on heart and mind. I mean in terms of differences, dominance, reality, etc.

I know that space is often said to be unconditioned, and it seems right to say that it is empty of svabhava. - But, is it impermanent?

Whats the different between leaving, abounding, letting go, push away, say out of aversion, anger, and renouncing? Both seems to be combined with tanha (thirst), yet one is called ku-sala (bad-cutting away) and one a-ku-sala (not bad-cutting away). And/Or is renouncing combined with a-moha, not-not-knowing or moha, not-knowing/delusion root of aversive notion of desire for leaving, letting go? >`If, by forsaking a limited ease, he would see an abundance of ease, the enlightened man would forsake the limited ease for the sake of the abundant.` >— [Dhp 290](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/ptf/dhamma/nekkhamma/index_en.html) Sound gready, that what gives rise to "aversion", like strong desire for refined pleasure, yet even 'enlightened' situation. How is renouncing conductive toward and on the path, leaving and let go part of the path of liberation? ___ *A realated topic with given space for discussion and possible answer can be found [here](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,9320.msg19053.html#msg19053).* *(note that this question is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough the wheel here and liberation)*