Is the pitāpūtrasamāgama-sūtra, a Mahayana sutra or does it occur in the nikayas or somewhere else? What is the historically accepted date of this sutra? Does this sutra precede Nagarjuna or is it a post-Nagarjuna sutra?

I believe that the word for composite or compounded dharma is sankhara. What puts sankhara together, according to Theravada or Mahayana Buddhism? I'd especially like an explanation that contrasts the answer to Hinduism.

In this Reddit post [Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/arl4jl/is_buddhism_about_cognitive_linguistics_and/egnx005/?context=3&st=js95qe3c&sh=48e53d8a) , I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it. But after I explain my point, it seems that it goes into one ear and out another. Why is that? Is it actually bad to use intellect? Telling me to not using intellect sounds like asking me to think about the shore when the job is to paddle. I just want to find a way to paddle more efficiently. I am reading Nagarjuna's *Middle Way* if that matters.
Related: • [intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/23639/13525) • [How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31193/13525) • [Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/22195/13525)

From [I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31152/13525) , I get that Buddhist goal is not only to get wisdom, but as a practice for "understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point." This explains why others miss my point. It is more of Daoism I think, in which sufferings are not meant to be cessated, but to be transformed into something more useful. It's like saying "hey, sufferings are fun. Please give me more". This attitude makes sufferings not sufferings anymore, although technically you are suffering. I think every Buddhist aware of the importance of intellect. Yet, when I especially ask for an analysis they still focus on the core goal, thus missing my point. For example, [this person](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/arl4jl/is_buddhism_about_cognitive_linguistics_and/egnx005/) stops replying after I explain the Daoist point. Another example is my very previous question. At first the titular question asked for "what to do" , but then *all* answers focused on the reason, forcing me to change the title to "why is that" (ChrisW's answer is an exception). (Nevertheless this has a good side, as it tells me that I am missing Buddhist points too.) There are two advantages if I can ask other Buddhists to do analysis with me: - My understanding can be refined, and my wrongs can be corrected - If the other person doesn't seem to understand the teachings properly, but dismiss any analysis because they misinterpret that Buddhism advocates to abandon reasoning completely, then this will be beneficial for them (cf. the snake sutta, the raft sutta) So, why does it hard to ask other Buddhists to do analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
FWIW, my though is said to be [interesting](https://www.reddit.com/r/EasternPhilosophy/comments/ar4qbj/are_eastern_philosophies_early_understanding_of/?st=jsc0k1oy&sh=5a22127d) if the readers are in analytic mode. Related: [Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/22195/13525)

In the Heart Sutra, Avalokiteshvara says to Sariputra > this Body itself is Emptiness and Emptiness itself is this Body. This > Body is not other than Emptiness and Emptiness is not other than this > Body. (translation by Thich Nhat Hanh) What does it mean to say that Body itself is Emptiness and Emptiness itself is this Body?

** Practice Mindfulness of Body ---------------------------- ** I'm trying to being present with the help of body sensations. As I'm a beginner . I place my hand over my chest to feel that I'm live and presence. This is to ensure that I do not "think" that I'm being present but as a fact I'm . After few minutes , I do feel tightness of my heart , breathing rhythm. Then starts to feel energy flow (tingling) inside my legs and Torso .This is like being my attention expanded beyond the chest . When thoughts come I bring my attention back to chest . Of course I feel a calm state but it is again a temporary state . The moment I release my attention to include whole environment again it keeps going to whatever it "wishes" to be with . Could anyone help me with the next step that could help me to keep my attention where I wish it to be ? to ensure I would not identify with unnecessary feelings , emotions etc.

I am not necessarily Buddhist but I am a vegan and killing doesn't sit well with me. I have suffered terrible sleep condition over the past 2 years and can't work in my field anymore and have no experience in any other field and have a hard time getting to work at an early time so midday work is best for me. Unfortunately the restaurant I work at currently has oysters for sale and they are alive when you prepare them which involves killing them. I don't know how to rationalize this but I am struggling financially and am working on getting a different restaurant job where they might not serve this dish. But I have killed some oysters already. How do I come to terms with this?

I understand that Advaita practitioners believe that we have an eternal self (consciousness) that is one with everything but that we are under an illusion that we are separate and through enlightenment we can realise the truth. Theravadin Buddhists on the other hand believe that there is no 'self' but that we are under the illusion that there is one because we are too distracted to see that what we call self is nothing more than a bunch of impermanent processes i.e. the 5 skandhas. I have issues with both beliefs. With Advaita it doesnt matter how many Rupert Spira videos I watch I just dont see any evidence of anything living on beyond the death of my brain. Unless some penny drops and I finally get it somehow, my view won't change any time soon. Sure there is the sense of an observer when we sit and watch the thoughts etc but there is no proof that this is an 'eternal self' and not just some process of the brain being able think about thought. With Buddhism I have begun to grasp the concept of Annatta because it kind of makes sense that all these different things are arising and passing however I have failed to hear any clear explanation about rebirth. If there is no self then what is it that is reborn? I know this question has been asked a zillion times but all I ever hear from Buddhists is that lame analogy about a candle flame going from one candle to the next which explains nothing. If this illusion of self is not what gets reborn therefore I will not even remember my past life then why does it even matter at all? Also what do Buddhists believe about the observer of experience? They teach to sit and observe what is going on internally so what do they believe is observing? Nothing? Nothing is observing something? The Advaita school of thought say that Buddhists are overlooking the truth. That the reason they think there is no self is because the self cannot look at itself just as eyes cannot look at themselves.

I think I know some of these, but the rest are a translation muddle. The west seems to **not** attempt to translate nirvana, sangha, dharma, mantra, mudra, buddha, bodhisattva (and probably a few more) and that for me is actually helpful. I expect that some of these correspond to multiple Pali/Sanskrit words. **Enlightenment**. In English, it is an anachronistic reference to the European age of Enlightenment. **Meditation**. This word predates the west's contact with Buddhism. I have no idea what non-Buddhist baggage it brings along. **Loving-kindness**. This sounds like Christianity projected on Buddhism. **Soul**. Seems like this is atman, but everyone seems determined to call it something like "self," which is for a man-in-the-street just a reflexive pronoun. (Does the self exist? Well, as much as any other pronoun, like "he" or "they") **Reincarnation/rebirth**. Synonyms in man-in-the-street's English, but I've seen people argue passionately how Buddhism believes one but not the other, sort of like believing in leasing but not renting (which are synonyms). **Repentance**. I know for sure this is a big deal in Chinese Buddhism. **Pure/Purity**. Means scrubbed clean of earthly dirt. I know this is a metaphor, but somehow, after 2000 years it falls as flat as if I tried to use a computer metaphor to explain to a 500BC farmer how the brain and cellular DNA works. **Heaven/Pure Land**. Sukhāvatī comes to mind, but I'm not sure if this is a specific pure land, or the jargon for pure lands in general. Again, 'pure' makes it sound either homogenous or really well scrubbed, like a hospital. I'd rather just use whatever jargon word the originators used. **Deity**. This in man-in-the-street English mean a god, or God, just like the one's the Christian's pray to. In Vajrayana, people seem to argue that yidams are something else.

People with wrong view often try to practice the Noble path for whatever purpose, but is it actually possible or doesn't it require stream entry first? >"In a person of wrong view, wrong resolve comes into being. In a person of wrong resolve, wrong speech. In a person of wrong speech, wrong action. In a person of wrong action, wrong livelihood. In a person of wrong livelihood, wrong effort. In a person of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness. In a person of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration. In a person of wrong concentration, wrong knowledge. In a person of wrong knowledge, wrong release. > >"This is how from wrongness comes failure, not success." > >— [AN 10.103](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/index_en.html) *[Note, this question is not thought to keep one there where he/she is bond, for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism, but to offer release and go beyond]*

It might be the case that someone uses to engage into entertaining with Dhamma reads and talks in his working time, or uses resources of other for such, yet not really given, just like one may chat or do whatever private while in the office. What might be the effects of such deeds? Would it be possible to get long term benefit from doing so? Possible to gain good while thinking, acting, like a thief? *[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism or other entertaining that keeps one caught but for liberation.]*

If people, maintaining a Buddhist identity, are good, they do whatever sacrifices of which they expect benefit or where they feel touched. Now, when a person gives outside the Savaka-Sangha, outside the Noble Ones, can he/she be called either, faith-, dhamma-follower or even Sotapanna? Would he/she be regarded as being ready and worthy to be taught by wise? *(Note, this is not given for exchange, trade, stacks or entertainment for bounds but to escape dry lands and go beyond)*

Please someone clarify: 1. Does Buddhism believe in rebirth? 2. There is an general belief in almost all religions that our good and bad will be carry forwarded to next and next to next generation and all, what does Buddhism say about that? 3. Almost all religions says give a part of money to god and that will be honoured after death. What is Buddhism's stand on that? 4. In many religions, if the leaders (monk, sadhu or what ever may be.. ) do something wrong other monks says that they will be punished after death by god,but they keep on doing it. If god punished him instantly many will be saved. But this is not happening. How does Buddhism look at this?

Someone, possible thought it might be compassionate, stated: >Also (next to compassion), when you spread loving kindness, do NOT spread it to yourself. No where in any discourse does the Buddha says to spread loving kindness to your self. All the places when Buddha talks about metta, he says to spread loving kindness to all beings in each directions. Possible to have real compassion or/and goodwill, not to speak about mudita and upekkha, without having one self floated with it. So is this true or the very base not traced? Possible Nihilist-Trap? Possible that certain Kings at Buddhas times have been wiser and more compassionate as intellectuals may ever be? Possible not seen the qualities of Ariyasāvakas and thought in common terms? *[Note: this question is one of compassion and not thought for trade, exchange, stackes, Buddh-ism, or whatever binds to the low.]*

Surely a convention-philosophy conflicting question: One sad "There's no owner for this Dhamma." Can this be related to the Buddhas words as they are known from the Sublime Canon, or is it told different, or both, or neither? If there is an owner of the Dhamma, what makes them rightly recognized as such? *[Note: This question is not given for trade, exchange or whatever wordily gain and bondage]*

Did the Lord Buddha say anything about magic and fortune telling? I just want to know because in this modern world everyone is following some astrology (Fortune tellers). People believe what ever these people say. media also giving high priority to them.

Failue, disappeared, they say: "Right time, right time. It wasn't the proper time!", but: What's the right time to ask? What's the right time to advise? What's the right time to speak? What's the right time to stay silent? What's the [right time for delay](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/23083/11235) ? May one answer when ever thought being the right time. *[Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or whatever binds to this wheel but for gaining release from it.]*

Yes I have meditated and I have searched the Internet this question before landing here, what I describe below is a mixture of what I have read of what one should do during meditation and what actually happens when I actually meditate. Most of the articles I have found say that try to keep focus but here I want to ask is what do I focus upon ? My problems, my desires or just how do we keep focus without a subject to feed upon ? And while meditating I have found my thoughts wander away and keep reminding myself by repeating mentally "no I am meditating, no I am meditating". Is that the right method ? but the biggest question is when we say focus(in any other field apart from meditation) we understand it in general context as to improve our performance or invest ourselves more in that field but what does it mean in meditation, is it repeating a thought continuously in our head or something else ? While some other articles say watch the thoughts as they occur , I mean okay I could watch the thoughts that occur during a meditation session but then doesn't that seem a little contradictory ? You are producing the thoughts and then you are seeing that occur so then actually we could guide our thoughts then, why does it then say stay and observe ? I know above I have asked my questions in a hodgepodge manner so let me sum it up succinctly: - **What are we supposed to think during meditation or we do not need to think at all ?** - **Generally do we set timers for meditation sessions or do we get an intuitive feel that I can't focus or meditate any more for today ?**

In many religions it is common to say: "Have faith in God" or Jesus or Allah... In Buddhism we believe in Kamma, meaning that what happens to us is due to our past actions and it is usually not (or never) influenced by an external being. (It can change from school to school, some may pray and ask for things) So if there is something I want, something I judge important, should I have faith that it will come true? Or should I just do what I think is right and forget about it? What is the best way for a Buddhist to act in this situation? PS: Please ignore the fact that I want something, I know this could be questioned in Buddhism as the wrong way to happiness, but that would be a different question :)

If it's wrong view to say, "I am" then why isn't it also wrong view to say, "there is" since they both point to the same verb, "to be?" It is said that there are Four Noble Truths. Yet, somehow, these conditioned phenomena of words and mental formations (i.e. "truth" is merely a concept) are not subject to cessation. All conditioned phenomena arise and cease, except for the "magical" mind stream that, somehow, from beginningless time manages to avoid cessation with the exception of its eternal annihilation at parinibbana (i.e., the extinction of all subjective experience which is said to be the "highest happiness"). If the mind stream is "just a process, not a person," then the same should be true of all phenomena, yet all conditioned phenomena are subject to cessation whilst the mind stream somehow dodges this immutable law until the manual intervention of practicing the path finally pushes this naughty rebel of conditioned phenomena into the annihilation machine of parinibbana. I'm just trying to better understand the logic of this. I have some doubts and thus push hard on certain issues that don't make sense to me. Personally, I don't need the Buddha to be 100% correct about everything to find value in his teachings. However, I'm not even claiming that something is correct or incorrect, only that I have doubt, yet I still find value in many of the teachings.