I have a very strong pull towards becoming a full-time monk but being a family person (a son/husband/father) it seems really tough to take-up robe. How do I go about convincing or communicating this thought to my family? What are the drawbacks if I just leave everything and walk away?

I noticed that if I set an intention to avoid some behaviour, I rarely follow through. I feel perhaps a mere intention based on willpower doesn't have much strength. **Is it more effective to direct one's thoughts to a virtuous object whenever fantasies and cravings, or worries and rumination, occur? Are these cravings/worries causing the problems?** Is *just* setting an intention mentally sometimes not adequate?

H.E Tsem Rinpoche says the following on his website. >"Through a lack of understanding of how things truly exist, we create and recreate an independent self entity called “me.” > >The whole of our experience in life can be viewed through this sense of self. In consequence, various cravings govern our actions. Cravings arise for sense experiences, for “being” or “becoming” (e.g. rich, famous, loved, respected, immortal), and to avoid the unpleasant. These cravings are the root cause of suffering." I struggle with this idea because from my perspective many great achievements and accomplishments only happen because people are driven and about things. This seems to be saying that we shouldn't bother trying to be anything because it's all dukkha, anicca and anatta anyway. Surely if everyone believed this we wouldn't even be here and evolved to the level we are in the world. We would have just given up. I can't see the point of doing anything creative. I do creative things because I want to create something great that can inspire others and that I can feel proud to have achieved. Many people who have struggle to achieve certain things like to become a successful actor for example say that they feel very fortunate to be able to wake up and do what they love for a living everyday. What exactly is wrong with wanting to become something? Responses quoting scriptures and linking to rambling repetitive suttas will be down voted.

What is the literal meaning of Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. Everywhere I read it says "The Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 Lines", but that is not a _literal_ translation as far as I can tell. What is the literal translation or etymology? For example, [Sutra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutra) means "thread", but that is no where in that perfection of wisdom phrase. I read elsewhere, too, that: > The word Prajñāpāramitā combines the Sanskrit words prajñā "wisdom" with pāramitā "perfection". So we have the "wisdom perfecting thread" sort of thing. But what is the other word?

Can ultimate paramatha reality ever be observed or realized with only samatha concentration meditation on a concept?

The more I learn about the modern Vipassana movement the more I feel it promotes an incorrect or inadequate view. But I don't know the movement well so I thought I'd ask what others here think about this increasingly popular approach to the practice. It seems to discard much of the Buddha's teachings and focus on a quite mundane approach to living that has no metaphysical justification or philosophical significance, bringing some of the benefits of meditative practice without requiring the aspirant to commit to any particular idea of Truth and Reality. Is this the case? Have I got it wrong? What do you make of it?

Could anyone share your experience and knowledge? People who have attained strong concentration have the ability to read other people's mind. My question is, what is the 'knowing'? Do they read other people based on what they feel? For example, one person concentrates his mind on a person, when his mind is calm, other people's mind will be felt and reflected in his feeling. Is this correct? How do they know, based on what? Any reply would be great, thanks.

I know there are many types of meditation, but can someone help clarify the following questions on meditation: - What types of meditation is essential for the practice & why? - How do those types of meditation work (like what am I suppose to be doing)? - Why do we do meditation (why is it such an essential thing)? If you also have any extra information to add, it would be well appreciated! (And if possible, please cite sources in the Pali Tipitaka for your answer) Metta to all!

I was reading a particular question about conversion. This particular answer discusses how one converts to become a buddhist: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2031/how-does-conversion-work-in-buddhism > First of all, there isn't one agreed upon definition about when you > are truly a Buddhist. Some people say you are a Buddhist if you > consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several > years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher. Is it possible to become a buddhist without a formal teacher or formal teaching? If so, does one just learn from online experiences and research?

I wrote previously that somehow, my meditation practice suddenly became more difficult, without any cause. So, I wondered what measures could be taken. Since my objective -- for now -- is meditation *once* per day, any means by which I'd sit and meditate for an allotted time would be useful. I wondered: what reasons/motives can one contemplate mentally to get that push and sit more easily? For example: - "Once I will sit down, the difficulty will diminish." - "This is part of a path leading eventually to Buddhahood." - "Meditating will help not only myself, but others." I guess I'm looking for canonical or traditionally given reasons to invoke to motivate oneself to meditate or practice in any form. Thank you.

It seems to me that analysing everything to the tiniest degree takes joy and spontaneity out of life. I admit, being mindful can make for better decision making and therefor better outcome, but do you want to be around me if I am so thoroughly earnest?

In our world the belief is that matter is only made of materiality not mentality. What I heard from a Buddhit monk is that materiality is actually mental. Can I hear both the Thervada view and the Mahayana view on this topic. Is it true that both of the paths say that there is only our experience nothing outside it exist.

I am new to Tibetan but am interested in the Tibetan script versions of the texts. Not knowing much Tibetan script yet, I am not totally sure I am looking at the right thing and so wanted to clarify to see if these 23 items are the Perfection of Knowledge collection. The list of titles in Tibetan script I have found [here](http://read.84000.co/section/O1JC114941JC14665.html) . The first two or three I have found (I think) the corresponding Tibetan script text [here](https://github.com/7-rabbit/riff-text/tree/master/content/kangyur) (འབུམ། and ཉི་ཁྲི།, basically). In [that](https://github.com/7-rabbit/riff-text/tree/master/content/kangyur) collection, does it contain all 23 of these texts? If so, where would I find them? If not, do they exist elsewhere online in Tibetan etexts? If it's too complicated, primarily I'm interested if this collection has the 8000 line one, such as [here](https://github.com/7-rabbit/riff-text/tree/master/content/kangyur/%E0%BC%A0%E0%BC%A7%20%20%E0%BD%A4%E0%BD%BA%E0%BD%A2%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%95%E0%BE%B1%E0%BD%B2%E0%BD%93%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%A6%E0%BE%A3%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%9A%E0%BD%BC%E0%BD%82%E0%BD%A6%E0%BC%8D) ?

In accord to Dhamma, What is appropriate to give oneself? What is appropriate to give to others? Does dana ever go to oneself? Could oneself be seen impersonally as another that needs dana? How is metta and dana related or not related?

I have these questions: - If an enlightened mind sees that helping someone is beneficial to them, then would they do it even when the helped doesn't proactively ask? - If they are hated by the helped, then would that hate be irrelevant to the intention? Is it perfectly fine to continue the help despite of the rejection? - How is that different to converting them? My self-answer is that of course it is fine to do that, given that the helper is truly sure that their help will bring benefit in the long term. There are many such stories about the ones sacrificing themselves to rescue those who try to kill them, Buddhists or not. However, from the perspective of the receiving end, it is still unsolicited help. They only see that action as unsolicited, or even stalking. They may even see the helper is having a big attachment/mental problem. Although this is just a misunderstanding, I think the helped has the right to challenge that intention. How does Buddhism address that?
For the question that how the helper knows what is beneficial to the helped, read [Does following logic necessarily require one to conclude that they are objective and have no bias?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/57246/19487)

Can we use Piti as a meditation subject? There are 40 meditation objects are given in Visuddhimagga as follows. Ten recollections; ten foul objects; ten kasinas; four sublime abidings; four formless absorptions; one resolution into elements; and one perception of the filthiness of food. My question is whether we can keep four form absorptions as a meditation objects, but specifically Piti as a meditation object.

I am wondering how to go about starting on the path of Buddhism without offending or appropriating the culture. As a white male I am well aware that I am privileged with the ability to overlook the repercussions of my actions when adopting a new practice/lifestyle what have you. I have spent nearly four years with a great interest in buddhism, reading books, texts, and listening to others talk about it - but I've always felt uneasy declaring myself buddhist. I don't want to be seen as "some white guy with an obsession with asian culture" and I also don't want to offend those who's cultures were shaped by it. I guess what I'm asking is - how can I start myself on the path respectfully in a manner that shows my true reverence for the teachings of the Buddha? I have privately tried my best to follow the path for some time now, but I've realized I can never truly embrace it until I find the courage to be open about it. Advice?

Are monks allowed to be in the same room as a nun alone (not a laywoman)? Are monks allowed to be in the same room as a nun (considering the rule applies) while others a present? Is there a specific rule in the Vinaya for this, if so please cite. What should one do if one sees a monk alone with a female nun and it is not allowed (if that's a rule)?

There is some evidence that plants are 'sentient beings' and can communicate (e.g. see [this article](http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants) or [this wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology))) . However Buddhists believe eating meat is wrong because of killing a living entity, what about plants? If this is true what can you eat?

**A solitary Buddha occurs in one in a million of the human population**: please correct me if that's how often the vehicle occurs -- though I struggle to completely understand the concept of a "solitary" *seed* or fixed yana. Either way, that one million figure is -- I think -- an expression of how it is more unique than arhatship. Or, have I invented the statistic in bold? Anyway: > [[a]s of 2016 Thailand][1] had 39,883 wats (temples). Three hundred-ten are > royal wats, the remainder are private (public). There were 298,580 > Buddhist monks, 264,442 of the Maha Nikaya order and 34,138 of the > Dhammayuttika Nikaya order. There were 59,587 Buddhist novice monks. Thailand's population is about seventy million, which works out, if you ignore 'turnover', as one in two hundred being monks. So that, depending on how you understand the numbers in the first paragraph, suggests in monks, no less than one in a thousand are already arhats. Likewise, assuming they don't get stuck on the first step, in which case more still, about one in a hundred are stream winners. Is that *completely* wrong? Does it make sense, do you know, to say that there are e.g. *three thousand* sages in Thailand? *Three hundred* saints? How does it compare with success in the English speaking nations?