Is a buddhist's goal to transcend a culture's social roles? How do enlightened beings see social roles? As buddhists try to not make distinctions between people, I would imagine that they are not particularly concerned with social roles. Is that true?

If these stories could be taken to be truly narrated by the Buddha, it gives some interesting twists to the generally understood history of India and Indian philosophy. For example, there are Jataka stories such as Dasaratha Jataka and Ghaṭapaṇṭita jataka that give the Buddha's previous birth as either a character in the popular epic Ramayana, or as kin of a character in the popular epic Mahabharata. There are also other Jatakas that narrates some of the other characters of Mahabharata, but in all such cases, with much less dramatic than their depictions in the epics. As of now, the general Indian belief is that the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata (and thus the philosophies depicted in them) preceded the Buddha. However, in the Suttas there is hardly any reference to them, unlike the references to many other schools of thoughts. Thus, I would assume these epics were non-existent at the Buddha's time. In my knowledge, the first reference in the Buddhist literature to these epics in its present form is in Buddhacarita, the biography of the Buddha written by Asvagosha in the 1st century CE. In that Asvagosha presumes that these epics were fully developed before the Buddha's time, and hence bring references to those in conversations people had with the Buddha. So, I was concluding that these epics would have formed sometime after the Buddha, but before the 1st Century CE. And, Asvagosha's references to Ramayana and Mahabharata are more in line with its present day form than its depictions in the Jatakas. (And, I would assume Asvagosha's narrations may be fictitious) If Jataka commentaries can be taken as being based on the narrations passed down from the Buddha, rudimentary versions of these epics are coming from the Buddha's narrations. They come as isolated accounts, not connected together as a grand epic. They stories also lack the dramatic turns and glorification of characters that are found in those epics. In addition, the character depictions in the Jataka are inconsistent with the depictions in the epics known at Asvagosha's time. So, I was thinking about two possibilities. 1. If the commentaries are regarded as completely based on the narrations given by the Buddha, then the epics developed later by deriving inspirations from Jataka stories. In other words, the glorious characters of these epics were created by altering the original narrations by the Buddha. (I tend to believe this. However, I need to make sure that the Jataka commentaries are authentic and in existence at least at the time of the first council to assert this.) 2. Alternatively, these stories were inserted later when the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata became popular. In that case, characters from the epics were adopted to convey a message. I believe this is unlikely, because Jataka depictions of these characters are much less attractive and plain compared to their depictions in the epics. And, the rest of the Pali Suttas are matter of fact depictions and not later concoctions. So, I prefer to assume that Pali Jatakas also hold the same authenticity as the rest of Pali Suttas.

How important is the hand gesture of a Buddha statue? I heard in a video that I should definitely get a Dhyāna Mudrā (Meditation) statue or a bhūmisparśa (calling the Earth to witness / touching the Earth) statue to deepen my practice... Which is unfortunate because I'm on a tight budget and found a good deal I'd like to snag on an Abhayamudrā (gesture of fearlessness/giving refuge) statue. Secondly, is it okay to buy one with a (small) crack in the plate behind the head (not sure what it's called)? As some have pointed out that could symbolize impermanence... I just want to make sure it's "kosher". Lastly, can I keep my statue in storage until I have a shrine or at least a clean and appropriate room? Or should I wait to until I have a good place to set it out? Thanks in advance!

The 5 criteria of killing 1) There is life present 2) The person knows "there is life present" 3) Intention to take away the life 4) Action or speech that causes "life is taken away" 5) Life is taken away Is it possible for a person to fulfil criteria 1, 2, 4 and 5 but not 3? For example, a person orders me to kill and I did it unwillingly. Many times, I've heard people insisting that it's not counted as killing because the intention to kill is absent. But I kind of disagree thus posting this question for advice. Perhaps, to explain my understanding. You know an action will cause life to be taken away but chooses to act upon it. That choice itself is the intention.

How does Buddhism view conscience? Do you follow your conscience or Buddhist morality? Your conscience does not always in line with Buddhist morality. For example, cakes are not poison but generally are not considered as healthy food, Buddhism does not prohibit you from selling cakes to other people. But your conscience says, it's better to sell something that can make contribution of health to people at large e.g. healthier food compare to cakes. Do you ignore your conscience or follow it? EDIT Although selling cake is not wrong livelihood but your conscience tells you to choose healthier contribution. It's easy to fall into extreme. Buddhism is the middle path. How do you keep it balance and not neglecting your conscience at the same time? If selling cake is better than selling drugs, selling healthy food is better than selling cakes and so on. I am wondering what is the use of Right Livelihood as in the Noble Eightfold Path, are they all considered Right Livelihood, except drugs? What I meant was which one do you listen to? Listening to conscience is necessary, as you said. But what you think is right or wrong does not necessarily true or middle path. If selling healthy food is better than selling cakes, logically one will follow what is best, we consciously put the latter one into the "not to do" list and choose former one as our Right Livelihood. But how do you know if you follow this kind of thinking you're not going to fall into extreme? We create our own version of Right Livelihood. Both cakes and healthy food are not considered wrong according to Buddha.

Does anyone know of an API for Buddhist texts along the same lines as this one for the Bible . I do some spare time software projects and I would like to hook up to Buddhist text API just as part of playing around with some new technologies. Currently I'm using the Google Books API for it. What I'm imaging is that one could make a web request to a URL such as http://buddhisttextapi/dhammapada/verse/12 and you would get back the 12th verse of the dhammapada in whatever translation. So for the technically minded I'm interested in some kind of REST API - preferably under active development or at least with some decent documentation. Many Thanks

If one is having sexual relationship with minor (protected by parents) and parents disapprove the relationship, that is breaching of the third precept. What if an adult child having a (sexual) relationship with someone without the consent of their parents, of course everyone has their rights, but the question is is this breaking the third precept?

An answer has prodded me to completely reconsider my understanding of Buddhism and emptiness[ \[this answer\]][1] . I never realized that Buddhism involves the dismantling of preconceptions and false certainty. Due to some spiritual experiences, I feel it's clear that the path to a happier life for me is changing this. However, I know for a fact that I continuously generate such preconceptions and approximations almost pathologically. I feel that doubt greatly arises from this, in my mind; I keep making inexact and hasty conclusions, and assuming things. I cannot merely *not know.* My question is: **What are the ways to dismantle such biases of mind? I specifically mean those of speculation, stereotyping, jumping to conclusions, and so on.** Simply put, I'm wondering how one trains or comes to accept uncertainty.

Questions: > Is it normal to shy away from your family when it is hard to interact > with them because they are so caught up in defilement and shaming my > practices? > > And is it proper to not respond to other people's questions or > comments such as "wasn't that so good" or "do you like/dislike that?" > or even "you believe in God, right, and you're a good Christian, > right?" I seem to get these questions and have a hard time putting > together an answer.

Is the seer and seen different? Is th watcher and watching different ? Is the observer and observe different? camera and picture are different ? For example I saw a tree? Tree and "me" different? Tree and "me" same? It is very difficult question. Please correct if i use wrong grammar

Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo mentioned that one shouldn't build up a meditative-self while being a meditator. How can I prevent this from happening, as I have been quite stiff and getting quieter and more serious lately. Or is that not have to do with a 'meditative-self' view? Please help!

Would the eightfold path help someone transcend gender dysphoria? Is gender dysphoria a matter of clinging or a matter of hardwired biology?

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?