As far as I know, most Theravada followers practice according to the Pali Canon even though they accept the Bodhisattva vehicle as well. So, the main focus is to attain Arahantship for most people. My question is: How common is it for Theravada practitioners to aspire to be Buddhas?

I read that the world is only our 6 sense object that we percieve with our 6 sense doors, does this mean that Buddhism says that everything is mindmade and there is nothing really out there or I may be wrong so I would be glad to hear from you.

While doing self enquiry kind of meditation(also doing vipassana) there is feel of understanding/experience/logic that make myself convinced(but not strongly) that "me" is not the thoughts or the body or sensual experience. I don't continuously feel this, but I find concentration, calmness etc getting better. What is this am I experiencing? How to go beyond this? And some teachings says that if you can disassociate ourself from mind and body then we can experience oneness(or conciousness), but I don't experience oneness or anything that I haven't experience before except the feeling of dissociation, why?

During the last 5 months I made observation regarding my inner mind process. The inner chatter which most people know during their day disappeared completely in my mind. I practiced mindfullnes during my day and meditated as well. Is their a specific term in Buddhism which refers to achieving a quite or calm mind?

If co-dependant arising is shown to be false or contradictorary, would all of Buddhism fall ? anatta, shunyata, nirvana as extinction-cessation, momentariness and and so forth seem to be based on this law-paticasamutpada/pratityasamutpada ? is this Buddhism's crutch?

Dogen, Shobogenzo #26 > Guishan is the thirty-seventh ancestor, a direct descendant of > Shakyamuni Buddha. He was a dharma heir of Bhaizhang, Zen Master > Dazhi, Today buddha ancestors in the ten directions, even those who do > not call themselves descendants of Guishan, are all in fact his remote > descendant. > > One day, while Guishan was lying down, Yangshan Huiji came to see him. > Guishan turned to face the wall. > > Yangshan said, “I am your student. Please don’t be formal.” > > Guishan started to get up. > > Yangshan rose to leave. > > Guishan said, “Huiji.” > > Yangshan returned. > > Guishan said, “Let me tell you about my dream.” > > Yangshan leaned forward to listen. > > Guishan said simply, “Would you interpret my dream for me? I want to > see how you do it.” > > In response Yangshan brought a basin of water and a towel. Guishan > washed his face and sat up. > > Then Xiangyan came in. > > Guishan said, “Huiji and I have been sharing miracles. This is no > small matter.” > > Xiangyan said, “I was next door I heard you.” > > Guishan said to him, “Why don’t you try now?” > > Xiangyan made a bowl of tea and brought it to him. > > Guishan praised them, saying, “You two students surpass even > Shariputra and Maudgalyayana with your marvelous activity!” I don't think Dogen believed in miracles. Am I right?

What is the difference between the two or are they the same?

In this answer by ven. Yuttadhammo, it is said that depending on the level of concentration and mindfulness of a person, attending to certain states can result in either wakefulness or tiredness. Hence, I wonder: Is it the case that strong mindfulness tends to counter unwholesome states merely by observation, and that without mindfulness these states persevere and may worsen? E.g. a person meditating on a bus mindfully will decrease hindrances, whereas a person mindwandering might increase them? If so, then I ask: Does this entail that strong meditative states 'burn' unwholesome states because of a mindfulness absent from daily life?

I’ve been reading about this term and have found it written in both ways. I don’t know if the difference is related to some kind of verb form.

Once the 5 precepts is observed from a monk, is there any rupa of sila being formed as a kind of mental factor in the observer? And this rupa of sila (like a vase?) if thus polluted,it can be cleansed, but once broken, it can not be amended. Is this saying correct?

I think I recall reading about the Buddha saying that compassion meditation was far superior to compassionate action, hundreds (or some great number) times more. **Is this accurate? What is the source for this?** I am also interesting in knowing if this is true in people's experience on here.

If I am a Buddhist parent and a child is always messy, should I always clean up the mess they make? Are there any sutta teachings to guide parents of messy children?

Today I regret for a sparrow was wandering around running ceiling fan. Even I had noticed and think to turn it off but I forget. I don't care if it was my bad karma which is not important than saving a sparrow but does really a matter for saving it then it wasn't a bad karma. I'm not afraid if I've break precept or my bad krama, what else I need to pay for it. I can't revert a time neither get a sparrow alive. I don't have anything left than **regret**. Does it worth? Anything defined in sutta about regret or what Lord Buddha said about ***regret***?

I read in an answer that AN 9.5 states: > The best sort of kindly speech is to teach the Dhamma again and again > to someone who is engaged and who lends an ear. However, is there an opposite quote to this in the Pali Canon? Does the Buddha say anywhere in the Pali Canon that we should not bother to teach the Dhamma to one who cannot appreciate it, or is not interested in listening to it? What I'm asking for, is perhaps equivalent to the following quote from the Christian Bible in Matthew 7:6 : > Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If > you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you > to pieces.

I was reading [this comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/35341/are-habits-a-kind-of-attachment#comment60600_35341) which included ... > I guess I'm perhaps not entirely aware of what the basic problem which affects me is. I feel that in many ways, I'm either backwards or not fully satisfied with my experience, and I feel Buddhism has a lot of answers; but, as you say, across the years I'm still a bit clueless. I will say, though, that recently I'm less motivated and derive less pleasure from my activities and experience. ... and I thought ... > Isn't that *the* observation of Buddhism -- like 'rule number one' (the four noble truths -- i.e., that "experiences" aren't "fully satisfying", and that "motivations" may be temporary (conditioned)? From which there's then the eightfold path, starting with right view, seeing the true worth of everything ('seeing things as they really are'), isn't that right? --- My question here though is based on the [Kimattha Sutta (AN 11.1)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html) > "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?" > "Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward." > "And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?" > etc. So ... - Is it fair to see the "absence of remorse" as relatively unconditioned, and therefore permanent (compared with other maybe-more-mundane sensual contacts which are more transient)? - Metaphysically, is an *absence* (e.g. of remorse), possibly *emptiness*, reliably (seemingly paradoxically) present or existent -- conversely any presence (sense-contact) is not "reliably" present or existent? - Am I right in thinking that the following bits of dhamma support this theory: - Sīlānussati being one of the anussatis [AN 6.10](https://suttacentral.net/an6.10/en/sujato) - The Dana sutta ([AN 7.49](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.049.than.html) or is it [AN 7.52](https://suttacentral.net/an7.52/en/sujato)) , translated as saying that it's a "support" for the mind? That's sometimes also translated "ornament" or "requisite" -- or [cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāra](https://suttacentral.net/define/citt%C4%81la%E1%B9%85k%C4%81racittaparikkh%C4%81ra) : "adornment or improvement (making fit?) and equipping of thinking?" - How does that (i.e. its being a reliable support) fit with Buddhist doctrine about "groundless" -- or ['trackless' or 'footless'](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1992/254) -- or is that something else entirely? - What about "skilful virtue" or "skilful ethics" then, *kusalāni sīlāni*, concentrating on those words: is the meaning of that non-obvious, is it quite specific and closely defined, or does it mean just what you might expect it to mean? - I notice that AN 6.10 says, > Furthermore, a noble disciple recollects their own ethical conduct, which is unbroken, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred, liberating, praised by sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to immersion ([samādhisaṃvattanikāni](https://suttacentral.net/define/sam%C4%81dhisa%E1%B9%83vattanika) : "conducive to concentration"). That reminds me a bit of problems people sometimes say they have, of being "unable to concentrate". So might you explain this quote a bit: how is "ethical conduct" and "remembering ethical conduct" is related to concentration? Is that actually informative or prescriptive, or are they (e.g. "remembering" and "concentration") merely synonyms?

Some questions have already touched the nature of habits, namely in the sense of good habits or their benefits. This answer explains how attachment occur from a repeated desire to engage in the phenomenon. But, psychology sees this same pattern for habits, and more so, in psychological literature habits occur *independently* of pleasure and of effort. A habit, when formed, continues usually even when no more satisfaction is derived from it, even if it produces no reward. Thus, wouldn't bad habits be a form of attachment and potentially even worse given the lack of reward? By definition, unless they are positive, habits will continue occuring again and again despite nothing rewarding is produced. **Does Buddhism consider neutral habits, just habit itself, as unvirtuous? Is doing something repeatedly without reward, compulsively, a kind of potential attachment?** Or does the Buddhist concept more so mean a *pleasurable* form of attachment? Thank you

When I write certain texts, in the presence of inspiration, the topic turns towards high ideals, for example beauty. The phenomenon is odd and prevalent in my life: I have written hundreds of such texts, where the topic of beauty appears almost spontaneously. It usually generates a strong awe. I'm unsure what is going on in these cases; am I generating some archetype? Am I engaging in a spiritual process? I even write beauty as 'Beauty', with a capital 'B', to suggest its ideal nature, which was common in western history. **Or, in the context of Buddhism, am I generating more attachment?** Basically, despite me not *feeling* attached, I consistently and inevitably return to the topic of beauty and high ideals, almost in an obsessive manner. People I've shown these texts to say they don't quite follow what I'm saying in them. **For such a somewhat spiritual experience, how can I know whether I'm doing something meaningful and legitimate, or just causing more attachment?** In sum, I'm asking how this experience -- or other spiritual experiences -- are evaluated in Buddhism.

Following an answer I received previously, I wonder a question I deem somewhat important: **If a person preaches ideas or advice related to the dharma, but fails to live by those values, is this person lying?** If not, is there still a consequence in terms of the person's mind, perhaps integrity?

Siddarth promised Alara Kalama & uddaka rāmaputta that if he ever finds the way, he will come and tell them ? Is it true that buddha saw them being born in a Universe, where there was not physical body, but only mind ? And in Buddha's way one must have a physical human body.

This question goes specifically to theravada insight practicioners - but everyone can answer if they think they have something useful to add - even from other traditions since my mahasi style practice is going slow and even though i tried in many ways i cant maintain a steady practice - and my doubt increases - i want to freshen up my practice - maybe get some "results" wheter its improvement in concentration or metta or some "cool" results like seeing images or feeling strange stuff ect i wonder : * whether some practices can ruin my main mahasi style practice (which i want to keep as my main path cause i have access to teachers in it) maybe kundalini and third eye and stuff like that can ruin my practice ? * whether some practice can aid in my practice - im pretty sure metta can be helpful but maybe pure concentration focus can distract me and do more harm than good to my practice ? * i read that some food can be good for opening the third eye - can this food be helpful to the practice of insight meditation as well ?