Most of the English translation I read, Anatta is translated as not-self and Anicca as impermanence. However many Sri Lankan Buddhist monks do not agree with this translation. They say it is a miss translation by Buddhagosha. According to many Buddhist monks, it appears, Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate. Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate. Is this true?

Either school teacher or Buddhist teacher in monastery, if they would punish their students is also supposed bad karma even if it cause of bad behavior of students?

Why do people pretend or show off? For example: - Show off their new girl friend - Show off their new job, on Facebook and their friends circle - Show off a new dress - Show off a new iPhone "show off" -- i.e. "boastfully display one's abilities or accomplishments "Envy feeling" -- is this ego?

What do you think of this article about romantic love? I am skeptical about his understanding of *upeksha*. As I understand it, romantic love does not really exist in Buddhism because the targeted love in Buddhism loves everything without discrimination (which directly contradicts romantic love where you love your beloved more than a chair, for example. You don't want to share him/her).

I have read about > The Satipatthana Sutta, the Discourse on the Foundations of > Mindfulness, is generally regarded as the canonical Buddhist text with > the fullest instructions on the system of meditation unique to the Buddha's own dispensation. there is four types 1. Cittanupassana 2. Vedananupassana 3. Dhammanupassana 4. Kayanupassana https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html Can anyone give clarification in simple words? I want some clarification on how to start and how to do it.

I happen to read this text from the _Buddhist Catechism_ (which was written by Olcott, published 1881): > Q. What striking contrasts are there between Buddhism and what may be properly called "religions?" > > A. Among others, these: It teaches the highest goodness without a creating God; a continuity of life without adhering to the superstitious and selfish doctrine of an eternal, metaphysical soul-substance that goes out of the body; a happiness without an objective heaven; a method of salvation without a vicarious Savior; redemption by oneself as the Redeemer, and without rites, prayers, penances, priests or intercessory saints; and a summun bonum, i.e., Nirvâṇa, attainable in this life and in this world by leading a pure, unselfish life of wisdom and compassion to all beings. But any recent texts I read about Buddhism all make it appear as if Buddhism is no different from any other dogmatic religion. I understand that Buddhism also underwent a lot of changes due to local cultures and competition from other religions. What I want to learn is the original core message of Buddhism before it was made into a religion. Where can I find texts for understand this message.

Is it the case that a quiet mind can best execute Sati-Sampajañña because there are no interfering thoughts disturbing it? If the answer is yes, should the main concern in day-to-day life be to tranquilize the mind, to think and keep wisdom in mind, or even both? Regards

Let us follow the unbeaten track, the dukkha in right action. You see a man in need, you feel compassion, wishing him well you help him with his worldly need, then you feel delighted of your action. Then you meditate the delight in your mind which arises due to the virtuous act you did, you contemplate it with the three mark of existence saying this delight is impermanent, it is born of external phenomena of a being in need of compassion, a being suffering and this feeling will end soon. If I hold this as mine and myself when it ends I will suffer, and this is dukkha. Now let’s look at an action that is born of detachment. You feel that you are attached to money, hoarding more than you need. You said to yourself, I have to let go of my attachment and to do so I will give all the excess I have and live in simplicity. You go out and give the money to those who need and put an end to your greed and hoarding. You feel delighted with your act, not that you helped someone, but because of your detachment… how do you contemplate this delight? Do you check it as above and hold it aloof not to grow big or do you nurture it to grow?

All the answers to the question about the [living enlightened people](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3058/are-there-any-living-enlightened-people/3352) suggest that talking about one's enlightenment is taboo, so if somebody claims to be enlightened, he probably is not. Why doesn't this reasoning apply to the Buddha? After all, he claimed himself to be englightened (for example, in [Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.harv.html)) .

Does these 2 types of Buddhism claim that conciousness is located inside our brain or somewhere else, beacuse I have started studying a Thervada monk that claims that conciousness is not inside the brain which makes me confused and seems not logical for me to accept. What did the Buddha teach?

What is the relationship between Bon and Tibetan Buddhism? My understanding is that Bon is a religion that pre-dates Tibetan Buddhism but is it still an active influence within Tibetan Buddhism? Is still a religion in its own right or is it always found in connection with Buddhism? If it does still influence Tibetan Buddhism how does that influence manifest itself?

So I understood Vinana to be activated only when there is an object present to be aware of, and I think that is why in dependent origination it is said Vijnana conditions nama rupa and nama rupa conditions vijnana. In other words without an object that we can be aware of with name and form (nama rupa) there cannot be consciousness. Based on this, it is clear that consciousness is an activity (of cognizing an object), not an entity that can "cognize" itself. Therefore I am confused in the Jhana about infinite consciousness, because it says consciousness is conscious of consciousness. How is that possible when consciousness only can be aware of an object, and not itself (because it is an activity, and not an entity as Vedanta says)? Also, please correct me if the meaning of nama rupa that I gave (name and form) is not correct in Buddhism. This is the Vedanta view that I have read about. Can someone describe the difference between the Vedanta view of nama rupa and the Buddhist view of nama rupa?

Is the subconscious what becomes conscious when insight occurs? When the hinderances fall is the subconscious seen? What is the subconscious in relationship to the scriptures & the Abhidhamma? Related to this question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/35689/151

Does the Piti Sutta imply that it is better for lay people to start with cultivation of jhana through samatha meditation, instead of starting with vipassana meditation? Also, the use of the term "piti" (rapture) seems to encourage lay people to enter and master the first jhana. From the Piti Sutta (AN 5.176) : > Then Anathapindika the householder, surrounded by about 500 lay > followers, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down > to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said > to him, “Householder, you have provided the community of monks with > robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick, but > you shouldn’t rest content with the thought, ‘We have provided the > community of monks with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal > requisites for the sick.’ So you should train yourself, ‘Let’s > periodically enter & remain in seclusion & rapture.’ That’s how you > should train yourself.”

Can someone who fights, even maybe kills or dies, for a cause he considers right, attain enlightenment? I wonder that after reading that some Buddhists did not share the Zen samurai's vision at all.

I noticed a coincidence between something I read in a book by Thich Nhat Hanh, and an article on research about a psychological phenomenon known to facilitate inner and outer peace. My question is: **What Buddhist concepts are similar or have something in common with the "integration" and "differentiation" phenomenon mentioned below?** My guess is emptiness and impermanence, I could be wrong about those and doubtless there are others. Here's the coincidence. Years ago I was reading Zen Keys by Thich Nhat Hanh. I found it had my mind going in many interesting directions. I saw some parts of the book, like those describing impermanence, encouraging the Differentiation of things. A book isn't a book. It's made of wood and glue, was put together by a machine somewhere and hauled to the book store by a guy in a truck. The book is made up of many non-book elements. Everything changes, so the book itself isn't even that book over the smallest amount of time depending one which features you choose to measure. But there was also a call for Integration. Even as we distinguish between the book and the truck and the guy hauling the books in the truck to the bookstore, they are all part of the process leading to the experience of reading the book. The book might have one meaning to one reader, and a different meaning to a different reader. So many things depend on the context bringing them together. The same elements at a different time and place produce a different experience. The individual elements create the here and now into a unified whole, any part of which alters the thing when changed. With my math background I was inclined to think of these things as Integration and Differentiation, just as helpful mnemonics, they are pretty different from the math concepts. A few months back I was reading about Integrative Complexity . "The measure of integrative complexity has two components: differentiation and integration. Differentiation refers to the perception[or weighing] of different dimensions[or qualities] when considering an issue. Integration refers to the recognition of cognitive connections among differentiated dimensions or perspectives.[1] " It has some things in common with what Thich Nhat Hanh was talking about, in terms of understanding of all things as composed of not-that-thing elements. One can find similarities in different things, and differences in similar things. The interplay of those techniques are proving conducive to both inner and outer peace according to the researchers.

Q: I follow Yuttadhammo's tradition and I wanted to know how to prevent the pleasure I get in taking showers. Everytime I take them, I have a clinging to the warmth of the water and the feeling of it. > How do I prevent this or come to disattach from the experiences I > have in showering and getting pleasure from it?

I have read about https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17267/dukkha-what-is-the-difference-between-suffering-unsatisfactoriness but i want to know how to aware **Dukkha** what are the good practicess to aware Dukkha

I'm having immense troubles with maintaining mindfulness during the day. Is it really as simple as noting whatever is prominent? Do I just need to stick with it? Generally, I'm confused as to what exactly to note / not note. For example.... When I'm walking around at my job, I see people whom I have a desire for to like me. Others, I don't care so much, and sometimes there is some disdain for these people. In these times I feel like if I focus on and note the walking or movements of the body or tension in the body, I'm neglecting my attachment / aversion to the person I'm seeing, the unwholesome thoughts and feelings that have arisen, etc.- and vise versa! When I note the thoughts/feelings/tension etc, I feel like *maybe* I'm just making a stink out of stuff and causing more stress than is beneficial, but maybe I'm wrong. These times sometimes seem like an endless stream of physical tension / mental anguish / restlessness, and it causes a lot of dysfunction and anxiety in me, and sometimes I just give up and ditch mindfulness until my next formal session, or at least until I get away from these people. I'll admit that I've *seemed* to have had success with noting in these moments one time, the other day. Anxiety left me alone for a bit and I was able to joke around with some of these people who I tend to so desperately want to like me. I felt free of that desperate want for them to like me for a bit. That's certainly a step up from feeling paralyzed by anxiety, even if it is mostly just worldly pleasure. But I still have so much doubt and hopelessness built up that I really would love to hear some other's experiences in these situations, hopefully someone who also practices Mahasi Sayadaw's noting method. Again I'd like to ask, because maybe I just need a kick in the pants, do I just need to stick with it? I've watched a video on how Yuttadhammo dealt with anxiety and he basically said "stick with it even though your body might be freaking out and it might even be obvious to those around you, and maybe you'll be having a terrible time. Eventually you'll get a handle on it". I'm very much paraphrasing. :) Thanks in advance.

I've done a kind of meditation recently (or thought exercise), inspired by Buddhist teachings, and was wondering if the meditation has a specific name in Buddhism? The meditation goes as follows: - Start with a couple minutes of breathing meditation. - Then try and notice any attachments or aversions that I feel in the moment. - For an aversion: - Allow the aversion to be there. - Allow the thing/situation/feeling that I'm avoiding to also be there, even if just for the duration of the meditation. - Try and build a sense of kindness towards the thing/situation/feeling that I'm avoiding. - For an attachment: - Allow the attachment to be there. - Allow the thing/situation/feeling that I'm attached to to be there. - Allow the opposite of the thing/situation/feeling that I'm attached to to also be there. - Repeat above until there is nothing left that I feel attachment or aversion towards. And that's it. I've found that this gives an incredible sense of ease and calmness and presence. Does this have any grounding in Buddhist teachings?