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 ?

Further to my earlier question --https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/34991/what-is-the-method-for-coupling-of-the-serenity-and-insight-powers-referred-to -- a fresh question has surfaced based on the book _Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism_ by Lama Govinda. On page 133 of this book reference is made to "The Doctrine of Psychic Centres in Hinduism and Buddhism". As a Theravada Buddhist, the concept of psychic centres and kundalini shakthi was never alluded to, as I thought it was not a part of the Theravada doctrine. However, now, in the context of the earlier question referred to on the method for coupling of the serenity and insight powers, there seems to be a direct link between the Hindu and Buddhist Doctrines. The essential difference is that Hindu Psychic Centres (chakras) are static whilst the Buddhist ones are dynamic -- see page 134: > "The Buddhist system is less concerned with the static-objective side of the chakras, but rather with that which flows through them, with their dynamic functions i.e. the transformation of that current or nature-energies into spiritual potentialities." Since at the Moment of Enlightenment the Buddha is said to have generated sufficient **Energy** to "rock the entire universe" and the above question is also in the context of coupling the insight (vipassana) and serenity (samatha) **Energies** at the **Moment of Path Entry**, could we now see a connection between the Kundalini Shakthi of Hinduism and the Vishwa Shakthi (Cosmic Consciousness) of Buddhism?

Do the scriptures somewhere mention that it's appropriate to go forth when having a wife & children? According to the scriptures Gotama, the Buddha-to-be, left his palace & his parents to reach enlightenment, but leaving one's parents is quite different than leaving one's wife and his child. Reference to scriptures is highly appreciated!

Do all Buddhists believe that miracles happen in the real world? Are the miracles described in scripture such as the Buddha being able to walk after birth literal or symbolic?

If we understand *kamma-vipaka* as the process of creation and perpetuation of habitual volitional deeds, we can see that, in a living being, there's a medium through which behavioral information is stored and expressed: the nervous-system and its constituents. Information is stored through the reinforcement of synaptical conections. If we agree on that, it seems that there's no need for additional explanations for the arising and ceasing of behaviors. How does this happens after the break-up of the body? How is information transferred from the last moment before death to the newborn? Does that information waits until the formation of the brain? Is it stored in the DNA? Do the buddhist texts offer any clue to understand this process? Do you know something that could help me to understand this process? I know DNA and the role of the nervous system are recently known and understood (at least in part) phenomena. I'd be happy to learn about any hypothesis or tentative explanation for this process. I don't know if this question is a valid one for this site. If it's not, feel free to close it; I'd understand. Thanks for your time and patience! Kind regards!

I have been studying Advaita Vedanta for some time now. I never really understood that Everything was conciousness and that consciousness is not a by product of my brain nor inside my mind and could not get it, I had doubts all the time. When I found out about the Buddhist principle of consciousness arising dependently I directly said yes this is how it is. Now to my question as a new Buddhist practitioner, I have been hearing Rupert spira saying " Time and space are ilusions existing only from the point of view of the observer observing changes in other words it is a kind of metaphysical idealism where the "I" is ultimately true and everything else including time,space,objects (even time and space of physics is considered mind made and not really existing in the universe) which to me also was hard to believe. I asked my self how can the world depend on me? (even though I may not witness something happening outside my house it does not mean that it didnt happen) (while writing this I saw Nagarjunas theory which seems to be idealism like Advaita??? (he says that time and space of physics does not have independent existence of our mind and that everything is mind???) Do you agree that the time and space of physics is an ilusion ? If not could you elaborate what the logic behind the Buddhist position of time and space is (both in regards to mental time and the time oh physics, I will change my view to the view of Buddhism which I found really helpful and logical with "Conciousness arising dependently". Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

In essence, the concepts of - eight worldly winds - tanha - upadana seem to describe the same phenomena. Is there a specific reason that they are described separately?

I had meditated for some time for 30 min once or twice daily. Now, I am suffering from what seems to be *anhedonia,* a difficulty in feeling pleasure and being motivated. It makes it incredibly difficult to motivate myself to meditate, and even if I have plenty of time and the yearning to meditate, I cannot seem to sit and do it. **What might one do when motivation is extremely low? Is there no other option than to just 'force oneself' and do it?**

What is meant by the impossibility "A Buddha can not help someone not related to him, no relative of him"? Is said to be one of the three things a/the Buddha can not do. How should that be understood? And what is needed to become one that a Buddha could help? Who is a relative, are the relatives, of the Buddha? [Related and given in tiven sphere: [Buddha can not help one not related to him? Buddha kann keinem "Fremden" nicht helfen?](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,9364.msg19285.html#msg19285) . *(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of [merits](http://accesstoinsight.eu/en/dictionary/punnakiriyavatthu) and continue such for release)*