Recently I am fascinated by the accounts of Gautama Buddha and of Buddhism, after having read [The Story of Buddha](http://www.movemequotes.com/story-of-buddha/) within the book [The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28257707-the-subtle-art-of-not-giving-a-f-ck) by Mark Manson. I am led to want to ask this question as I am unsure whether this is an adaptation made original by Manson, further I wish to know the true original source of The Story of Buddha as it relates to Buddhism and without interpretation. Is anyone able to provide me with additional insight?

For our next meeting in the "interreligious dialogue" we members are asked to do a statement about the "mystics" in each ones religion. Now, "mystics" is itself a mysterious term, I looked via wikipedia at some sources, what exactly the term means - well, not much more than that there is something hidden that noone else can see/sense/know, derived from the greek root of the term saying "closing eyes, closing the mouth". (Which does not mean that the term was not used for many speculative or intimate concepts in many religious threads, be it in Brahmanism (later, around the Buddha's time with the Upanishads and even later many that threads which we subsume now under "Hinduism"), Judaism ("Kabbala"), even Christianism (especially in the medieval east-european religious scene), Gnosticism and also Islam (by "Sufism") and surely other religious stands which I cannot name all here, and that it does not have a very broad usage over the cultures.) For me, Buddhism (as I know it from the Tipitaka) has never been a matter with (systematically) "hidden" things/concepts (at least not prominently), so I tend to develop my statement towards something like *"mysticism (in this sense) has not been intended by the Buddha"* - and I remember vaguely that there is a sutta, where he explicitely says, *there is no "closed fist" in my teaching* or something very similar. (Of course, meditating towards the occurrence of Jhanas, the Jataka-stories, the Deva-worlds, the sutta about the Kalpas and the non-accesible "Beginning-of-all" deals with concepts which cannot be seen and need *closed eyes, closed mouth* and might be used as source for extended mysticism in folklore (I just recall the funny story of Maha-Mogallana, when he saw an otherwise invisible skeleton flying around and how this bizarre event made its way even into a discourse with the Buddha ...), but for me these are not so prominent as the teachings and guides for the analytic access to the relevant world) So, ***my question is*** : in which sutta did the Buddha speak (explicitely/citeable (!) ) about that his teaching has nothing closed/hidden in it (as I think to recall with the term "fist")? Addendum: I've put so much context around my question because it might as well be that there are (again explicitely/citeable) sayings which contrast this in a sensical way - of course when we meditate also we "close the eyes to look inside" and focus on the "inner world"...

Where do *hiri* and *ottappa* (shame and fear of wrongdoing) fit it, in: - The Four Noble Truths (4nt) - The Noble Eightfold Path (8aam) - The 37 Bodhipakkhiyādhammā (37bp) - The Seven Factors of Awakening (7sb) In AN 7.67 we see it working, protecting the fortress with outer road and moat (and the remaining 5 factors are 5 indriya, and Dhamma weapons): https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/06/an-767-frontier-fortress-sutta.html In [AN 7.65](https://suttacentral.net/an7.65/en/sujato) , it's a vital condition for sense restraint, which in turn is a vital condition for sila. > Hirīottappasutta > **Conscience and Prudence** > “Hirottappe, bhikkhave, asati hirottappavipannassa hatūpaniso hoti indriyasaṃvaro; “monks, when there is no conscience and prudence, one who lacks conscience and prudence has destroyed a vital condition for sense restraint. > indriyasaṃvare asati indriyasaṃvaravipannassa hatūpanisaṃ hoti sīlaṃ; When there is no sense restraint, one who lacks sense restraint has destroyed a vital condition for ethical conduct. There are probably other entry points where it's linked in (to the 7sb, 8aam, 37bp, 4nt)? Unlike the 4 brahmavihara formula, where each brahmavihara has the keyword "abyapajja", which is a direct link to Noble Eightfold Path -- i.e. Right Resolve -> abyapada-sankappo (non-ill-will resolve) -- I can't think of any such very direct explicit link (into 4nt and 8aam or 37bp) for hiri and ottappa. Anyone know for sure? (update to this question 6/25/2019) https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/06/new-uped-dictionary-entries-hiri.html I haven't yet done an exhaustive search (looking at every single occurrence of hiri and ottappa in the suttas), but I have looked at enough passages now to establish an STED (standard EBT definition) that occurs in several key passages. It looks like the strongest tie in with the 4nt, 8aam, 37bp, etc, would be under right effort and viriya, where hiri and ottappa have a strong explicit connection with the STED right effort formula of "papaka akusala dhamma" (evil unskillful Dharma[teachings & qualities]), and also the sutta where ottappa and ātāpi are shown working together (they both have tapa, austerity, strong heat of effort in that word), and we know atapi is a key word in the 4sp (satipatthana) formula that references right effort. Also several suttas, especially AN 4.169, have modified forms of 5bal and 5ind (bala and indriya) to incorporate hiri & ottappa. So those seem like the strongest explicit EBT tie ins that I can find so far. But I am keeping a comprehensive encyclopedia entry for hiri & ottappa in the link above, so please feel free to share sutta references (with sutta ref number in modern numbering system, no PTS page number) on this thread and I'll add to collection. Thanks to all who contributed.

I can see how generosity and gratitude are important as means to foster right resolve. But what if someone do good things sometimes due a sense of obligation, but also cause much harm to you? For example, this mother . Given that our resources and gains are limited, it is not much better to support the virtuous one rather than the unvirtuous? And in the case of supporting the unvirtuous and unwise, how this would not contradict others teachings like "do not associate with fools" and "give a gift in a proper time" ? (a unwise person would surely use a material gift unwisely causing harm for himself/herself and others).

I am trying generally to follow the Mahayana path, with a union of emptiness and compassion. However, I experience clear problems with compassion. These manifest as : 1) general detachment from people 2) spontaneous and stubborn judgments towards others 3) lack of altruistic motivation. I'm wondering how to tackle all these problems. I'm similarly wondering how best to develop compassion, or rather what prerequisites might allow greater feeling and furthering of compassion. Thank you.

According to this answer : > Nirvana is the ground layer ("dhatu") underneath them all. ... > > Nirvana is this most fundamental law (the formula, the rule, the > program) according to which the Universe develops. This comment also seems to support that idea: > ... the expression "the unmade is a foundation for phenomena" is > probably an agreeable thing to say given than it occurs in the pali > discourses "amatogadha" meaning deathless as foundation or deathless > as ground. There is also a reasonable way to defend it, which makes it > not a real point of controversy imo but a rather reasonable assumption > in that the pali wording is to be taken at facevalue and read > literally. This sounds very similar to Advaita which describes Brahman as the substratum or foundation of all phenomena, just as different kinds of pots and plates made of clay, all have clay as their foundation. Questions: 1. Does the notion "Nirvana is the ground layer" come from Mahayana? From which Mahayana subschool or text? 2. Does the Pali Canon support the notion that "Nirvana is the ground layer"? Does this relate to "amatogadha" some how? What's that? 3. The ground layer concept sounds similar to luminous mind . However, we know that Nirvana is unconditioned, while the luminous mind is conditioned. Does this "Nirvana is the ground layer" concept connect to the luminous mind in any way?

I've seen pictures online of young children dressed in monks robes in Buddhist countries. Does someone make the decision on behalf of the child that they will become a monk? Do they eat only one meal a day as adult monks do? Are very young monks also called Venerable Sir? Thanks for helping a western mind to understand this matter.

## Context ## First, let me frame my question by establishing a shared understanding of what I mean by "view." Throughout all forms of Buddhism as far as I know, the Four Noble Truths are considered essential Buddhadharma. Included in the 4th Truth is the Eightfold Path, which Bhikkhu Bodhi (in *Noble Eightfold Path*) describes as follows: >The eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are not steps to be followed in sequence, one after another. They can be more aptly described as components rather than as steps.... With a certain degree of progress all eight factors can be present simultaneously, each supporting the others. However, until that point is reached, some sequence in the unfolding of the path is inevitable. Right view has a very important role in that unfolding. One's very definition of "Noble" or "wisdom" reflects one's view, and in fact it seems that inquiry into and transformation of view is integral to how and where one travels as a sentient being. As Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in the same book: > Right view is the forerunner of the entire path, the guide for all the other factors. It enables us to understand our starting point, our destination, and the successive landmarks to pass as practice advances. To attempt to engage in the practice without a foundation of right view is to risk getting lost in the futility of undirected movement. Doing so might be compared to wanting to drive someplace without consulting a roadmap or listening to the suggestions of an experienced driver. One might get into the car and start to drive, but rather than approaching closer to one’s destination, one is more likely to move farther away from it. To arrive at the desired place one has to have some idea of its general direction and of the roads leading to it. Analogous considerations apply to the practice of the path, which takes place in a framework of understanding established by right view. Back in the full context of the Eightfold Path: among the three trainings, Right View and Right Intention make up the "training in the higher wisdom." This goes along with training in two other sets of Path elements. Bhikkhu Bodhi: > the moral discipline group [is] made up of right speech, right action, and right livelihood; [and] the concentration group [is] made up of right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration To give an example of the role of View from an Indo-Tibetan tradition, Sachen Kunga Nyingpo had a vision in which Manjushri taught : "If there is grasping, you do not have the View.” This same teaching includes 3 specific attachments to relinquish leading up to this: - If you are attached to this life, you are not a true spiritual practitioner. - If you are attached to samsara, you do not have renunciation. - If you are attached to your own self-interest, you have no bodhichitta. Therefore, as is true throughout the Indo-Tibetan traditions I've encountered, the Right View must include a perspective that looks across countless lifetimes as well as beyond samsara; and that takes consciousness as somehow more primary than the physical. The ontological assumptions behind both "matter" and "mind" can certainly be tested, but by framing this in terms of View I want to focus on how one's convictions about the relationship between the physical world and consciousness (whatever one's ontological stance about them) shapes the way one interprets and practices Dharma. Second, let me try to explicitly name my motivations in asking this question: I ask partly as someone born into an environment of unexamined scientific materialsm, who has found greater sanity and happiness extending beyond its bounds as I've inquired into my assumptions. I hope to uncover and test more such assumptions within myself by asking others about their views, and thereby to keep getting more sane and happy for the sake of my own good and that of all sentient beings. I also ask hoping to become more skillful when I encounter people who are both materialists and Buddhists. I've definitely gotten perturbed before (and probably will again) in reacting to materialist views that I consider unhelpful or already refuted. Beyond the afflictive emotion involved, it seems like such a critique on my part is "wrong speech" if it drives someone away from wanting to study and practice Buddhadharma. Given the interdependent and holistic nature of the Eightfold Path, how could wrong speech possibly help to advance right view or anything else? Further, given the immense range of skillful means employed by Buddhas in training beings, why should I assume that a materialist stance (especially given the dominant cultural assumptions of modern civilization) might not fall within one or more of these skillful means, at least as a provisional adaptation to social mores? With a more complete understanding, I can still speak my own truth but do so in more compassionate and constructive ways. ## Question ## Hoping I've now given enough context to avoid coming across as rude or provocative, I'll present my question: if as part of your view you find that what you call physical reality (e.g., "matter & energy") encompasses and underpins what you call mind (e.g., "the space of mental events that includes qualia, thoughts, images and feelings"), how do you: 1. Express this view in your own words; and 2. Carry this view (or not) into how you travel the Eightfold Path? In particular, what are its implications for how you train in ethical discipline and/or concentration?

**... in letting her chose which kind she would like to be?** Valued Upasaka, Upasika, Dear seekers for the way to Awakening and Readers, Atma (polite addressing of the own person toward householders, where Atma dwells) has started the transcribtion and translation of a very seldom teaching in modern and western world in regard of the Maha Manala Sutta by Ven. K. Gunaratana Thera, still not finished. Most stories are taken from the Jataka, some references already found. In redard of "To Look After Feed And Take Care Of The Wife And Children Is Most Blissful/highest protection" it contains a story that goes this: >Sujata, the sister of Visakha Maha Upasika, married the son of Anata Pindika. She was not only wealthy but was also charming. In the home of Anata Pindika she became disagreeable to almost every member of the family and to the servants as well. She was very quarrelsome and had her own say mostly because of her conceit. > >One day Anata Pindika offered food to the Lord Buddha and his Bhikkhus and during the meal, she made a commotion in the household. The Lord Buddha,knowing the nature of the woman enquired about her dispute, which disrupted the peace of the home. The Lord Buddha then asked her, “There are seven classes of wives; have you any knowledge to which class you belong?” She replied that she did not know. The Lord Buddha said, “A wife not in any way agreeable but finding every chance to quarrel with her husband or members of his family, is a quarrelsome wife. A wife whose outlook in life is bent on squandering away the fortune of her husband in gambling or drinking, is a thievish wife, a wife who takes good advantage of the kindness of her husband, adopts a superior outlook in a manner so as to gain control over him in any matter concerning his family or his outside activities, is a domineering wife; but when a wife looks after her husband’s interest with tender care and devotion like a mother over her child, this kind of wife is a motherly one; again a wife who by nature is obedient and shy like a sister to a brothers belongs to a sisterly type; and a wife who shares in like manner the happiness of misfortune of her husband is at once a friendly one; finally a wife who lives in tolerance of the whims and dislikes of her husband and serves him faithfully throughout, is a servantly type. >In the light of the truth Sujata gained the realization of the fruits of the First Path (Sotapatti). >Continuing the sermon, the Lord Buddha remarked that among the first three classes of wives, their existence after death would be in a hellish state, suffering untold pain in the unconsuming fire or tortment. The remaining four classes of wives would enjoy even in their present lives, the store of happiness and after death, their existence would be in a continued state of bliss in the realm of heaven. 1. Does anybody know the reference in the Suttapitaka (thinking Atma came accross one time there)? 2. Does anybody know which Ven. K. Gunaratana Thera wrote this book and some infos, biography and picture of him? Maybe even contact possibility, if still alive? 3. If inspired and knowing also the references of other stories in the book, willing to research them, feel invited to take on this possibility. (If somebody feels inspired to help prove reading and/or translating further, one should feel welcome to take this possibility. Topic as well as sources can be found here: [Mangala Sutta Uannana - Ven. K. Gunaratana Thera(draft)](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,309.msg649.html#msg649) *(Note, this question and content is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commerzial use or other purpose of wordily gains.)*

The Yodhajiva Sutta tells the story of a warrior who thought that brave warriors who fought valiantly and died heroically on the battlefield, would go to warrior heavan. The Buddha disappointed him by saying: > When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already > seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be > struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not > exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus > striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the > body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those > slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior > strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & > slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with > the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of > devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two > destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or > the animal womb." What about judges who carry out their judicial duties correctly and pass the death sentence according to the law? Would these judges suffer the same fate as the warriors above, or not? And why? Is it right livelihood?

In the book *Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind*, I read the following statement: > This is the basic teaching of Buddhism. Pleasure is not different from difficulty. Good is not different from bad. Bad is good; good is bad. They are two sides of one coin. How does this make sense? Does this mean that every good action (for example trying to reduce suffering) is somehow also bad? Or at least destined to fail?

In Theravada tradition, after one becomes a monk. Does he still call his parents and relatives the same as before he ordains. Or does he call them like everybody else? Does he call his parents "mom" and "dad", his siblings "brother" and "sister",...?

I have seen many ways to address a bhikkhu, and I'm wondering about the proper way to address a bhikkhu, in writing?

Is greed over meat is more unwholesome compare to greed over non-meat dishes? Meat is non-living thing, greed is greed, they're the same. Many studies have shown that meat consumption involve in far greater number of killing compare to non-meat diet. More meat means more supply therefore more killing. So is it true greed over meat is more unwholesome?

A common belief is that, if one conducts himself "as best he can" (in the best ways he understands and knows), then would be a protection from -- or an excuse for -- wrong-doing. For example, "I answer with best effort and understanding..." Under the context of truth, the Dhamma, is this just a naive thought of foolish people? Or can such be rightly justified as something an Awakened would approve? *[Not at all given for trade or keep people caught in corruption]*

I have often heard that in many places in the *sutta*s where the Buddha says *Bhikkave*, (monks!), he really means to include the four *parisā* (assemblies), which includes lay male and lay female devotees. Therefore, it is said, that teaching applies to all. Where did this idea get legitimacy? Is there any mention in the canon itself? I can readily see why one would **wish** it were so (why would one ignore all the wisdom because it's not spoken directly to oneself) but that doesn't mean it **is** so. I'm also interested if this explanation is offered in Mahāyāna where the meaning of saṅgha itself is broader, as I understand. Also within Insight/Theravāda circles, is there a difference between the West and traditionally Buddhist countries like Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand in the reading of this word. Any historical insight into whether the West was influenced by the early arrival of Mahāyāna to its shores, for example. **Edit:** I am aware that it makes sense to view the teachings as applying to everybody. Please note that the question is more specific - **is there canonical support (in any canon) for this interpretation? Or some other historical information other than using our own logic.**

I am only a Lay practitioner of Buddhism. However, I recently read a view point of someone who had been at a Buddhist school for 8 years. And it was slightly worrying. He said a young person at th is school had had trouble learning and taking on information. She had asked some of the buddhist monks why she struggled. Now, as an educator his thought process was "The teaching type for you is wrong. Let's review how you learn, and try a different approach". However, the monks advised her she must of been an evil person who burned or destroyed books in a past life; in this life therefore, she was through karma destined to struggle so she could learn and develop for her past mistakes. Obviously, this was very stressful for the young person. I understand that the monks are far more informed in buddhism than I. And that obviously there may be more to the story. I also appreciate that they where seeking to offer a spiritual answer to her questions. But surely as a Buddhist one can look beyond a previous life? As none of us are certain beyond a shadow of a doubt what we done in a previous life. Instead of speculation, could we not instead say "what is done is done. Instead, this is how we combat this new situation"? In the given example, it would of saved the young person pain - she felt her - for lack of a better word 'soul' - was scarred and mared then and it would affect her ability to develop irretrievably. Surely better to have said "You may be struggling from some past transgression. But that's not you now. Instead, let's look at how we can help you now and bring you on"? Any input advice or guidance would be very greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I've read a question here on music, which caused me to ponder the relationship of *effortful, productive* behaviours and of *consummatory* behaviours. I wonder: **Are productive, beneficial behaviours such as spiritual practice, intellectual pursuits, or artistic endeavours benefitted by entertainment as music, films or games?** Or do such forms of entertainment detract from other more meaningful goals? I'm wondering because I surmise maybe entertainment produces positive emotions, which are positive in themselves. However, I am uncertain of my conclusion; **what is the Buddhist view on these topics?** **Are positive emotions only virtuous if accompanied by an underlying motivation towards a meaningful aim?** Thank you

Please recommend good place for Vipassana meditation for in 2017. Including - Availability of visa - it does not matter short 7-14 days or long (in months) Vipassana meditation course - If it is remote place better - It is not book fly and go vacation so manual work or queuing is ok - If it is a place that we need to ordain to be a monk before starting Vipassana meditation, I prefer.

I heard "Nothing like anything" from many people. I think a lot over it and finally i got it like "Tyag se he mukti milte h" and i feel it with my self yes tyag se he mulki milte h but i could not get it remain with my self. Will you please give me a direction so that I could pertain it as remain and what is the the proper meaning of "nothing like anything" according to Buddism because I do not have much knowledge about Buddha teachings. Thanks in advance.