On wikepedia is written that buddha-boy had in 2005 said that he was at the level of a rinpoche. He said that he will need six more years of meditation before he can become a Buddha. So in 2011 he could had become a buddha. But is he still /already living in the bush as a buddha? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon

>"Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower. Which five?...He/she has conviction; is virtuous; is not eager for protective charms & ceremonies; trusts kamma, not protective charms & ceremonies; does not search for recipients of his/her offerings outside [of the Sangha], and gives offerings here first. Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower." [An05.175](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.175.than_en.html) What does one think is meant here by gifts and by outside, the Sangha? How would a wise understand it correct in line with the Dhamma? (not sure if [MN 142 Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasuttaṃ](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,9546.msg20559.html#msg20559) might help for investigation the question on topic without going astray) *(Note that this has not been given for trade, exchance, stacks and stucks but for exit from this wheel)*

Loose definitions for mindfulness and flow (text from Wikipedia): *Mindfulness* involves being aware moment-to-moment, of one’s subjective conscious experience from a first-person perspective. *Flow* is described as a deep focus on nothing but the activity – not even oneself or one's emotions. Both are good, but they appear to be opposite mental states. Is entering a flow state incompatible with developing mindfulness? If so, then would flow be considered "bad"? If not, then how can these distinct concepts be presented so that they are compatible?

(article link contains all sutta reference passages collected so far) https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2020/01/all-ebt-sutta-references-to-marana-s.html excerpt: > All EBT sutta references to maraṇa-s-sati 💀, death-remembering > > AN 6.19 and AN 6.20 are really the only two suttas that fully explain the practice of maraṇa-s-sati, and use that name maraṇa-s-sati explicitly. The practice itself though, is a frequent theme in the suttas, but it's not easy to identify and track them all since they're referred to tangentially or indirectly, often not having the word marana anywhere in there at all in those passages. So here I set out to gather all of those references. Help me complete the collection. **maraṇa-s-sati 💀 = death-remembering** ‘appamattā viharissāma, tikkhaṃ maraṇassatiṃ bhāvessāma āsavānaṃ khayāyā’ti. (AN 6.19) 1. Never forget, remembering to assiduously practice ☸Dharma for arahantship every moment, giving it everything you got, for the time it takes for one breath, or the time it takes to eat one mouthful of food. If you get sidetracked or forget to be assiduous (ap-pamāda), the Buddha calls that negligence (pamāda). (AN 6.19). 2. Remembering, not forgetting that fatal accidents can strike at any moment, so practice the ☸Dharma assiduously every moment. Doing this correctly, will activate the 7sb☀️ sequence producing virtuous-mirth (mudita/pamojja) and rapture (pīti). (AN 6.20).

What is the Pali/Sanskrit term(s) for 'intelligence'? Is there another word(s) in Pali/Sanskrit for 'wisdom'? I hear 'intellect', 'intelligence' and 'wisdom' used interchangeably, is this correct? What is the relationship between intelligence and wisdom in Buddhism? Are they really the same thing or can they be the same thing or what? :)

What are the 3 recollection (protection) chants of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha? It's told that they can be used to dispel fear. Thank you for your time.

We come to understand the groundwork of Buddhism, along with traditional beliefs/traditions based on what the mind may declare, what tradition may teach, what the sutra may declare. Beyond the Tripitaka, is not much of what we rely on for Buddhism outside the scope of true enlightenment? In short, in today's world doesn't secular Buddhism better fit reality?

Is Buddha nature everywhere the same? I don't think so, that seems wrong. But original enlightenment is always everywhere bliss, right? So how can Buddha-nature, which I would translate into, rather than "awareness" as the early Korean Son master Chunl's translators do, *place*, ever be impermanent *independent* of the body? Without rupa, form, "awareness" -- or place -- is presumably just ***nothingness***, unless original enlightenment -- just like enlightenment itself -- can be lost and gained?

what's the emptiness, 空, in 3rd jhana of STED 4 jhana formula in agamas? https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/12/whats-emptiness-in-3rd-jhana-of-sted-4.html excerpt: The 4 jhanas standard formula in the agamas of MA, match up very closely with the pali STED 4 jhana formulas. There's a striking difference in the 3rd jhana though, which is not in the pali. There's a sunyata/kong/空 on this part of third jhana: 聖所捨、念、 樂住、 shèng suǒ shě, niàn, lè zhù the noble’s equanimity (捨), mindfulness, happy (樂) abode, 空，kōng and emptiness. 得第三禪成就遊， dé dì sān chán chéngjiù yóu He attains the accomplishment of the third meditation.

>You, the richest person in the world, have been laboring and struggling endlessly, not understanding that you already possess all that you seek. I saw this quote on Instagram and the caption accompanying this quote says it's from the Lotus Sutra. However, I couldn't find any analysis of it online. I had interpreted it as the person in question not knowing that he had already achieved nirvana, and is laboring and struggling endlessly to achieve it, but that didn't sit right with me. I also thought that it might've meant that he was working towards material goals, despite having all he needed to find happiness, but that seemed very hedonistic and contrary to Buddhist views to me. What does this quote mean?

When a person trains a muscle, there is a necessary recovery from training before one can train again. I'm wondering **if there's such a thing with meditation sessions?** If so, how much time between sessions is necessary or even desirable? Are there guidelines in Buddhism about the length of pauses to take and the amount of sessions possible in a day?

I apologize if this has an answer on this site or if this does not make any sense. I am wondering if being conscious alone is enough to attain nibbana? If not, why? I think conscious person will (always?) act in a way that will not cause sorrow to themselves (and others?). I just thought someone who is fully aware of their thoughts and actions will only work towards a joyful life. If someone does anything that leads to sorrow, I think it's only due to lack of consciousness of it's consequences. However, I am not sure if being conscious alone is enough to develop the wisdom required to attain nibbana. Can someone consciously do unwholesome deeds? I would like to clear this up. Any help is appreciated.

I have been practising tibetan buddhism for the past seven years and I am losing faith now and it hurts. I don't know what to do. Can someone advise?

I've been looking for a reference for the story of the conflict between Kosalan king Vidubhara and the Sakyans, that the Buddha tried to stop. There are several versions of this on the web, but none of them give any references. Is it canonical? Whether it's canonical or not, where does it come from?

Yesterday I spent some time studying one of the Vinayas and, completely honestly, I couldn't help but think that some of the rules were shockingly superstitious even by the standards of most of the world religions of the time. For example, rules that emphasize non-violence to such an extent that they forbid monks and nuns from slicing or peeling their own fruits and vegetables. The food, completely vegetarian, must be "slaughtered" by a lay donor before the monks are allowed to break it or bite it. I couldn't help but think that such rules actually harm the Sangha by preventing them from operating in present-day capitalistic societies, where self-sufficiency is highly respected and prized. (And, potentially unsanitary? Modern churches, by contrast, issue each congregant a separate cup and communion wafer, even though the disciples shared a single loaf and chalice.) Other parts of the vinaya were surprisingly in-tune with modern sensibilities of social justice and "Twitter feminism", such as the rule forbidding monks from teaching nuns without being first asked. #DontMansplainDharmma Or the rule that a monk must first ask permission of another monk (trigger warning) before reminding him or politely asking him about a possible rule violation. It made me wonder if there are modern monks and monastic orders that explicitly (and unapologetically) reject the obsolete parts of the vinaya while conscientiously obeying the beneficial parts. Granted, which parts are obsolete is open to interpretation. And secondly, I am aware that the text of the vinaya forbids monks from criticizing vinaya or requesting changes to it, especially for the cause of expediency or attracting new followers. The Buddha himself authored vinaya and expected it to be followed. Is it permissible for a Buddhist lay follower, one who has taken refuge and has chosen to follow the Eightfold Path without picking and choosing, to discuss certain aspects of the vinaya in a skeptical light, as I have just done? Or to describe certain texts as mythological or historical disciples as impure? I have not taken refuge in the Three Jewels and will not unless I can do so in total sincerity and a pure conscience.

When I practice *Anapana meditation*,I often get a feel that I tried to alter my breathing instead of observing natural breathing.So,how can I observe natural breath?What are the best tips for this?

The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism By Bernard Faure p60 (I've not read this book) links it to linji ("the true man without affairs") Wiki says > In his later years Dōgen often severely criticized the Senika heresy > (sennigedo), which is the erroneous view that the mind abides while > the form perishes. According to this view, there is a bright spiritual > intelligence contained in our body that is the source of > self-understanding. When the body dies, the spiritual intelligence > alone does not perish but abides immutably. This view, Dōgen argues, > when "hearing of the doctrine of this very mind (itself is buddha), > takes it to mean that the discriminating knowledge of sentient beings > is itself the buddha" > > Dōgen (c. 1230-50) as cited in Masao Abe, Steven Heine (1992) A Study of Dōgen: His Philosophy and Religion. p. 158 > The Senika heresy here mentioned is a Buddhist believe in eternalism of the self. I'm interested, then, in whether it's only really a heresy in Soto Buddhism, and other traditions might find it useful. I think it may be a useful fiction, which is why I ask.

Buddhists talk about abstract and concrete things, particulars, parts and wholes, etc., and Theravada Buddhism is often I think thought of in terms of an analysis of parts, breaking things down into smaller components and the Buddhist 'dharma'. But do they talk about "insides" at all? I'm asking because surely everything with a beginning has an inside, but death, which must occur and so begin, can't have an inside in at least some senses, at least supposing that there is no after-life.

I know the Buddhism does not believes in the existence of personal god.But if it is the case that there is no personal God who is capable of interacting with his own creation,then who/how to determine(s) whether a person/creation has done/involved something which can be treated as bad/good aspects of *Karma* ? In Buddhism *Karma* refers to the actions driven by intention which manifested itself in physical, vocal or mental form which leads to future consequences(having a moral character).Also the cycle of rebirth determined by this *Karma*. If this decision is made at the end of one's life,who/how are these decision made by an impersonal force.How can these forces do anything?Doesn't it necessarily requires a 'personal being' to judge?And who is the final judge of a *Karma*?

I need to know;How many citta vithis are described there in *Abhidhamma* and what are they?(ie:chakkudwara citta vithi,manodwara citta vithi, etc..)