While reading Bodhidharma's Two Entrances and Four Practices , I found Bodhidharma telling Arhats ain't enlightened. > Among Shakyamuni's ten greatest disciples, Ananda was foremost in learning. But he didn't know the Buddha. All he did was study and memorize. **Arhats don't know the Buddha. All they know are so many practices for realization, and they become trapped by cause and effect.** Such is a mortal's karma: no escape from birth and death. By doing the opposite of what he intended, such people blaspheme the Buddha. Killing them would not be wrong. The sutras say, "Since icchantikas45 are incapable of belief, killing them would be blameless, whereas people who believe reach the state of buddhahood." Is it true or I am wrongly understanding Bodhidharma? ---------- Note that Killing them won't be wrong is just a figure of speech. It isn't meant to be taken in literal sense.

'I will breathe in tranquilizing the bodily formation'; he trains thus: 'I will breathe out tranquilizing the bodily formation.'" ---Satipatthana (Bhiku Bodhi's translation) What is bodily formation? Does it mean tranquilizing the breath or the body?

I noticed that in my meditation on compassion, the beginning is consistently potent (i.e. tears, strong feeling) and the ending is usually less apt (i.e. body agitation, distraction). **Would the emotional intensity of such a meditation depend highly on *concentration*?** Or, perhaps, would some other aspect explain this, e.g. becoming saturated emotionally early in the meditation?

When a text (e.g. Abhidhamma) lists 'wholesome' mental factors, is it meant that these are also likely to produce positive karmic consequences, or that these are just beneficial in general? For example, in the Theravada tradition I read that *sati*, i.e. mindfulness, is a beautiful mental factor. In a discussion with the Dalai Lama, Matthieu Ricard explains how even a sniper may use mindfulness. So I am confused as to whether 'wholesome' and 'karmically positive' are synonymous or not. --- As well, from this answer I understand that karma refers specifically to the ethical intention. So, when their compassionate action which lacks wisdom produces detrimental effects, is a well-intended, compassionate person still nevertheless generating positive karma? This possibility seems to imply that developing a compassionate intention almost negates completely the possibility of unvirtuous karma. Thank you

A lot of people, especialy from the west, like to follow the Dhamma (Kamma laws, meditation, metta, etc.), however they worry about taking refuge, because taking refuge is seen as an official entry point in Buddhism, where your old religion should be abandoned, for Christians for example, they feel like if they take refuge they will be turning their backs on Jesus. So the questions are: Can a person follow the Buddha's teachings without taking refuge? Can someone attain enlightment without taking refuge?

Can a person ordain at any age? Can he or she have children? In a nutshell, what are the things that will not allow someone to ordain?

How can I explain to a non follower of the dhamma that killing living beings intentionally has mental and physical consequences? This person started saying: "old hunter-gatherers, had no consequences nor problems with hunting". If I tell them this is the Buddhist point of view they are going to label it as religious mystical nonsense.

My original belief used to be that as long as you are a decent good person without any intentions to hurt others, you'll be fine. Meaning that no matter what religion you follow, no matter how flawed you are as a person (stubborn, short-tempered, basically all the imperfections of a human), you will not be damned to hell. To me, it used to be that there are so many religions and so many hells and heavens that comes with them, but they teach one main thing: to love and to be kind, and that would be all that we had to follow. However, this belief was recently shaken with my grandmother's passing. She was a buddhist. I thought that because she was a good lady who never really harmed anyone directly, she would be at peace and with God/Buddha, but throughout her 5-day funeral service, there were so many things to follow (offering incense, chanting etc.) to ensure she moves on, and I developed this fear that if these rituals and rules weren't followed properly, she would go to hell/not be able to move on. I'm an anxious person. I get fixated on things. On the final two nights of her funeral service we had to sit down and chant from some scripture books to help my grandma move on (again, what happens if there's no one doing that? Say a Buddhist that doesn't have a family who knows to follow these customs/a Buddhist with no family/a person of any other religion?). While reciting some of the scriptures, though difficult, I briefly read something about how humans are imperfect for wanting good things, being lustful, and basically all the things in human nature that makes us flawed and of course, all the very specific different kinds of hell that comes with. It feels like we're all comforting ourselves that my grandma is resting in peace now, but this huge part of me has this crippling fear that my grandma (as well as the rest of us) will not rest in peace and instead be suffering at the end of our lives for being imperfect humans. I'm only 22, and I start having this intense fear of doing virtually anything as a human. I'm afraid of not being wise and selfless like old monks, I'm afraid of wanting to strive for anything, or ranting about any dissatisfaction, feeling upset by things, having fun, treating myself with self-love and basically anything at all. I feel so crippled by the fear I wake up unhappy and afraid to live and afraid to die as well. It's consuming me so much and I'm deathly afraid of it, because I'm spiralling. The more I read and research, the more afraid and unsettled I get. I even read that feeling fear and anxiety is bad and I'll also be damned for that. Could someone kind enough maybe please offer me some words of comfort and lead me back to a rational mindset? I've been Buddhist since birth, but like I said above, I've always thought of Buddhism as a religion about love, forgiveness, and karma. Karma meaning if you do something bad, you can something on par in return. Not in a sense that if I feel anxious, live in fear I get reborn as an animal living in fear. That just makes me feel the whole religion is so scary like one misstep or one imperfection as a human, and you'll be damned. This is still a grieving period for my family, and I want to be there for my mother for the loss of my grandmother, but I'm so scared right now. I want to be able to cheer her up, treat ourselves to nice meals and desserts, watch movies and basically just have fun like a human living their best lives, but after reading into Buddhism I feel like that's all wrong and there is no forgiveness like there is in Christianity or something else. Maybe I got the whole perception wrong, but could somebody please help me? I'm not trolling, so please use kind words. Thank you so much.

I'm wondering whether the knowledge of the Buddhist path and participating in it would be the fruition of good karma? I mean, since following this path implies virtue and further good karma, even if done temporarily, I would assume good karma is necessary to attain it. I also wonder whether the adherence to the path -- e.g. stream entry, Bodhisattva bhumis -- occur as well from the accumulation of karma. In other words, does accumulating a certain level of good karma promote or even ensure that rebirths will generate good karma as well? Thank you

**Namo tassa bagavato arahanto samma sambuddhasa** (Sorry, I am not fluent) I go to a Catholic High School & I have a theology class that preaches only their truths & say it is the supreme truth above all & that if one does not believe so they will perish in the extreme notion of the eternal hell. I try my best to have no aversion toward other followings & I also take a genuine interest in them, but when it comes down to being metaphorically hit in the face with them every day, it can be hard to focus on my emotions toward other paths, as well as it can be hard for me to not get distorted by them & follow the Buddha's teachings. > What would one offer as advice to not sway from the Dhamma by distorted teaching while at > the same time not have hatred in general (due to their delusions & spreading of > so) towards other paths? Metta to all! :)

I am trying to understand the four frames of reference. I could understand the body. I could comprehend the sensations (to be honest not completely). I could not understand the mind (citta). This has been my observation. I'm sensitive to noises. I feel irritation (sensation) and anger generated towards the person who created it, and the mind stays angry and continues to in that way. Is this what citta is ? That which continues to be in that state even after the sensation that caused it ceased to exist ?

Recently, I've been reading a lot about the different methods and perspectives for reaching the jhanas. For a long time, the only method I've been using is to "let go" everything, and to use the breath as a kind of anchor for the eventual and sporadic distraction. But I never felt anything like joy or rapture. A few days ago, I found a meditation instruction where the instructor tells that effort and will can be used to give rise to joy and to expand it throughout the body. An as soon as I started doing that, I felt and important qualitative difference in the kind of feelings arising. Is this application of effort compatible with "letting go"? What do the suttas tell us about this? Kind regards!

What should I do if a lot of my friends and family are trying to prove Buddhism wrong with the laws of impermanence or planes of existence, & I do not want to debate this with them as I do not want to arise the Poisons, but I keep getting into it? Also, on the topic of planes of existence, is there any proof in a sense to their existence, or at least anything verifiable by experience to understand them better? I believe the planes, I just was curious about that. Metta to all!

My friend told this to me & now I am confused. > Isn't the amount of matter in the universe the same, no less, nor > more, because nothing is ever lost, nor created, everything causes everything, and thus fixated and > permanent? > > If this is true, then how would that be possible if Dhammas are always > changing, impermanent according to the Venerable Buddha? Please help! Metta to all!

I have often noticed buddhist monk make deep sound, something that feels might be coming from the naval or sometimes the throat. I want to know more details about the sound. What is the origin and if there is a specific name to it. Is it same as the "om" of Hinduism?

I tried breathing meditation a few times recently. I have noticed that *every* time I use the breath as object, I get a headache and I tend to fall asleep. This fails to happen during compassion meditation or walking meditation. I might even say I feel dizzy, as if I were drunk, after breath meditation. **What may be the cause of this?**

I’m having trouble seeing whether the idea of the five skandhas is meant to fit within dependent origination in any way, or whether the two theories are meant to be applied as complements to each other. Is there a sutta elaborating on the correlation between the two of them? (Please note that my question primarily regards *suttas that addresses the relationship* between the two, instead of details of either concept).

**(Please Theravada perspective if possible)** NAMO TASSA BAGAVATO ARAHANTO SAMMA-SAMBUDDHASA (I am not fluent, forgive errors) *These are my following questions:* > - Do animals feel emotions just like us or do they feel emotions on an instinctual level only? > - What makes animals different from humans according to their planes of existence? > - How can an animal get out of their plane? Is it by working off Kamma by suffering? > - How does evolution work in terms of animals/humans cause I hear it works with Buddhism? Metta to all!

From this question , we see answers stating that one has the wholesome desire for enlightenment, and not craving for enlightenment. In this question , we read about the difference between desire (*chanda*) and craving (*tanha*). There are 3 types of craving - sensual craving (*kama tanha*), craving for becoming (*bhava tanha*) and craving for non-becoming (*vibhava tanha*) according to Iti 58 . Why would one have the desire for enlightenment? Or the desire to end suffering? If the desire for enlightenment comes from aversion towards suffering, then isn't it due to a craving for non-becoming (*vibhava tanha*)? If the desire for enlightenment comes from wanting to become someone as revered as the Buddha or other Arahants, then isn't it due to a craving for becoming (*bhava tanha*)? Could unwholesome craving cause the wholesome desire for enlightenment?

Since converting to Buddhism, I've been unsure how to express condolences when people pass away. Everything familiar that I might say comes from a Christian perspective such as "being in a better place" or "with the Lord now". Simply letting the family know that I'm thinking of them works. But I'm wondering what is typical or traditional in Buddhist countries (or among experienced Buddhists in the west) where teachings of impermanence and rebirth may change the mindset regarding death. What is the typical way to express condolences among Buddhists?