So I was reading some stories from the Bhikku who created https://americanmonk.org/ Specifically about his ordination(s) and he mentioned how he travelled from A to B to C country after X, Y or Z circumstances happened, but mentioning it in a rather nonchalant way like any general tourist. Like he had an abundant of wealth to spend freely to travel whimsically. So it makes me think and want to inquire how do modern monks manage to travel so freely when all they own (supposed to own) is a bowl and 1 or 3 robes. A monk is supposed to give up all possessions before ordination. So what about their passport. Sure finances they could give to a trusted loved one but isn't that cheating. Like a kind of "hold my material possessions until after I ordain then give me them back" cheating...lying essentially! especially with a passport where legally nobody but the passport holder or governmental body are able to legally "own" the passport. Sure I understand that a monk can have a personal benefactor like a loved one who supports them financially, though in the story I vaguely explained above the Bhikku was dealing with having visa issues after being ordained in a different country, which implies he still owns a passport, then travelling so freely, implying finances etc are there. Even logically how can a Bhikkhu even buy a plane ticket or "own" a plane ticket (without the help of a lay person doing it for them) I am not trying to be pedantic, I am genuinely curious how this stuff works. Especially when looking at the strictness and limitations of requirements of a person just to ordain in the first place, for then the strictness to be relaxed instantly and do a 180 as a Bhikkhu can then use a passport that he owned before ordination, or money, or even a pair of seeing eye glasses (medicine requisite but still a possession one would have and I assume need to give up before ordination) Which adds another question, on a more practical level. If one took ordination say in sri lanka (any country) then the visa expires (visa is a possession too) Bhikkhu has no money, is to be deported, no financial benefactors....how does that even function from a modern world perspective. Any ordianed or past ordianed members experience would be greatly appreciated. I obviously understand that benefactors from the laity, not even the Bhikkus family/friends etc can and do support the Bhikku. I assume this is also how and why teacher monks are able to go back and forth multiple times a year to different monasteries and countries teaching the dhamma, after being requested.

I read the following on the internet: > If there is a Buddhist monk or nun who declared openly that rebirth > does not exist then I believe they would be asked to disrobe. If they > refused then they would be ostracised by the community. I also read the following on the internet by a monk named Yuttadhammo: > The entire premise of your question is faulty, unfortunately. The > Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as > "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against > orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, > it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not > rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old. > > [Internet](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10113/8157) Is denial of 'rebirth' a Parajika offense? Please provide answers from Sutta or Vinaya?

People usually start off treating me kindly, but over time their behavior shifts toward dislike and hostility. Despite my genuine efforts to be caring and accommodating, others often perceive me as rude or uncaring. They begin to disregard my boundaries and treat me dismissively. Even those initially supportive often turn against me or side with others. My ideas and contributions frequently go ignored, while less thoughtful suggestions from others are praised. I seem to unintentionally provoke negative reactions, despite my best intentions. When disputes occur, authority figures consistently side with others, regardless of objective facts. Even my professors overlook my objectively high-quality work, favoring coworkers whose contributions are clearly inferior and often later proven incorrect. Recently, during a soccer match, the opposing team became openly hostile, and one player deliberately injured me. Although I forgave him later, incidents like this spark intense anger and a strong urge to confront and retaliate aggressively. I fear that under bad circumstances, this could escalate into group physical violence against me. I've noticed this troubling pattern for some time and genuinely don't understand its cause. I'm committed to resolving this issue once I clearly identify what's causing it. Have you experienced something similar or do you have insights on this? Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

DN 15 mentions the following eight kinds of emancipations: > “Ānanda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight? > > “Possessed of form, one sees forms. This is the first emancipation. > > “Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally. This is > the second emancipation. > > “One is intent only on the beautiful. This is the third emancipation. > > “With the complete transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, > with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding > perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ one > enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. This > is the fourth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of > space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and remains > in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. This is the fifth > emancipation.** > > “With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of > consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is the sixth > emancipation. > > “With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one > enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception. This is the seventh emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception > nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation of > perception and feeling. This is the eighth emancipation.** > > “Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward order, > in reverse order, in forward and reverse order, when he attains them > and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he wants, and for as > long as he wants, when through the ending of effluents he enters and > remains in the effluent-free release of awareness and release of > discernment, having directly known it and realized it for himself in > the here and now, he is said to be a monk released in both ways. And > as for another release in both ways, higher or more sublime than this, > there is none.” The Chāndogya Upaniṣad describes Brahman-realization in the following terms: > यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमाथ > यत्रान्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पं यो वै भूमा तदमृतमथ > यदल्पं तन्मर्त्य्ं स भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि यदि वा न > महिम्नीति ॥ ७.२४.१ ॥ > > yatra nānyatpaśyati nānyacchṛṇoti nānyadvijānāti sa bhūmātha > yatrānyatpaśyatyanyacchṛṇotyanyadvijānāti tadalpaṃ yo vai bhūmā > tadamṛtamatha yadalpaṃ tanmartyṃ sa bhagavaḥ kasminpratiṣṭhita iti sve > mahimni yadi vā na mahimnīti || 7.24.1 || > > **Sanatkumāra said: ‘Bhūmā [the infinite] is that in which one sees > nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows [i.e., finds] nothing > else.** But alpa [the finite] is that in which one sees something else, > hears something else, and knows something else. That which is infinite > is immortal, and that which is finite is mortal.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, > what does bhūmā rest on?’ Sanatkumāra replied, ‘It rests on its own > power—or not even on that power [i.e., it depends on nothing else]’. Chandogya Upanishad 7.24.1 similarly, > यदा पञ्चावतिष्ठन्ते ज्ञानानि मनसा सह । बुद्धिश्च न विचेष्टते तामाहुः > परमां गतिम् ॥ १०॥ > > yadā pañcāvatiṣṭhante jñānāni manasā saha . buddhiśca na viceṣṭate > tāmāhuḥ paramāṃ gatim > > When the five instruments of knowledge(senses of perception) stand still, together with the > mind and when the intellect does not move, that is called the parama gati (Supreme > State). Katha Upanishad 2.3.10 Would the realization of Brahman or the attainment of the highest state as described in these Upaniṣadic passages correspond to the eighth emancipation in the sutta, particularly as it pertains to the cessation of perception? If not, is there a more accurate mapping within the eightfold scheme : perhaps one of the immaterial attainments or an earlier emancipation?

In various sources belonging to non Buddhist traditions that have historically been rivals to Buddhism like Vedanta and Nyaya, one often finds claims that their philosophers defeated Buddhist thinkers in formal debates. These accounts are often cited to highlight the intellectual strength and argumentative success of their respective schools over buddhism. I am interested in knowing whether Buddhist sources such as texts or inscriptions contain similar records of Buddhist scholars successfully engaging and defeating prominent non-Buddhist philosophers from vedanta or nyaya backgrounds in philosophical debates. Are there any such documented instances from the Buddhist side, and if so, could you provide references or examples?

I'm a bit confused about the Buddhist doctrine of anatta (non-self). Does this teaching mean that Buddhism denies the existence of any kind of soul or self altogether? Or is it more accurate to say that Buddhism accepts some concept of a self, but denies that it is eternal, unchanging, or independent? I'd appreciate any clarification on whether the rejection is total or just about the soul's permanence.

The right view of the Noble Ones is described here as:

"There is no mother and father, without the self."

Buddha describes wrong view here:

“And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is wrong view. MN 117

Is it possible to turn this wrong view into the right view of the Noble Ones by adding "without the self?"

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view of the Noble Ones? ‘There is nothing given without the self, nothing offered without the self, nothing sacrificed without the self; no fruit or result of good and bad actions without the self; no this world without the self, no other world without the self; no mother, no father without the self; no beings who are reborn spontaneously without the self; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world without the self.’ This is right view of the Noble Ones."

Is this an accurate description of the right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path?

i recently went to a meeting with some bhikkhus, and they served the monks a small dish with butter slices and little chocolate squares... i think it was dark chocolate if that matters. So anyway, i was suprised to see it and was wondering other views on this. and the underlying point to the question... i am obviously looking for loop holes for a snack-ish type thing before bed.

Usually in the evening, when I am about to retire, I commit myself to finding and entering into a residential Sangha permanently. When morning rolls in, I fall back into my usual patterns like work, hobbies, social, etc. Usually when I suffer, this emboldens me to seek the monastic life but usually doesn't last very long. When I think about it, I feel like the monastic life is the only way to proceed yet I don't follow through with it. Speaking from a general point-of-view, if a Buddhist knows that the lay life is not ideal, what barriers (overt and inconspicuous) are preventing them from seeking and living the monastical life. How can they be overcomed ?

At the risk of being overly simplistic, it seems that Mahayana traditions have dedicated their intellectual efforts to developing the idea of **Emptiness (śūnyatā)**, starting from Nagarjuna, through Dogen, and extending to the modern Kyoto School. - As you might notice, these examples are biased towards the Japanese branch, which I'm personally more interested in, but other examples also exist, of course. I was trying to locate medieval or modern Mahayanic systematic discussions of **Upādāna** and **Taṇhā**. I was hoping that these ideas were discussed and interpreted in light of the emptiness idea. However, it seems that they have lost intellectual focus. - If it's indicative of anything, the Wikipedia page for Upādāna says the Japanese is "shu", and the one for Taṇhā says the Japanese is "katsu ai". But I couldn't find any meaningful results using these terms in the context of Buddhism. Are there any notable examples of systemaic discussions of Upādāna and Taṇhā in Mahayana Buddhism (particularly within Japanese traditions)?

I am new to buddhism and meditation (I have been practising it for one month now), and despite finishing my fourth book on the matter, I am still very unclear about what a meditation session should look like when practicing either concentration or mindfulness. From what I understood, each of these practices are clearly differents and even have different pali names (Samatha and Vipassana if I am right ?). I can already tell that I can't differenciate concentration and mindfulness. When I focus on my breath, I am naturally distracted by all kind of things which I have to be mindfull of (the way my body feels, the sounds I ear, what I smell from the kitchen, my thoughts and emotions). And when I try to practice mindfulness, I can't help but focusing on my breath, because it is often the first thing that I can notice in that state, and it is always present. When I start my meditation I focus on my breath, then if something happens I try to be mindfull of it, and then I focus on my breath again until something else happens, switching maybe every 2 to 10 seconds. I am wondering why concentration and mindfulness are referred to as disctinct practices in the books I read, as it doesn't make much sense to me. At this point I am afraid that I may be missing something important.

Why is music (sorta) frowned upon in Buddhism? Or it isn't? For people like me, music really helped me get into spirituality. What I'm really trying to understand here is, is there any specific format or type of music that we're not supposed to listen to, or is it just music in general? -Noob here. All help appreciated :)

According to the suttas in SN13 , a stream enterer (or stream winner or sotapanna ) only has at most, seven remaining lifetimes, before they are permanently freed from suffering. On the other hand, takers of the Mahayana Bodhisattva vow , would forego enlightenment for a very long time (apparently aeons), till they complete the full Bodhisattva training (which I presume is the development of paramitas and the attainment of bhumis ). However, this implies that they need to avoid stream entry, which could cause them to become released from suffering in seven lifetimes at most. So, how do they avoid stream entry? Do they avoid it by avoiding the practice of insight meditation (vipassana ) perhaps?

Being vague for the sake of not speaking divisive or malicious speech. I know of a monk who had sex with nun(s) and was disrobed/expelled (later reordained too) From my perspective, a lay person, would it be wise to not learn the dharma from a person like this who has created such a root downfall (I don't know the correct term, but broken vows that cause one to be expelled) I don't mean be harmful to the person either (of course) I just mean should I as a lay practitioner not listen to this person in regards to dharma?

From Thanissaro Bhikkhu (embedded time in the link) What I am specifically curious about is about the stopping of breathing in 4th jhana that he explains. For me personally, I have been able to experience weak rapture on command, what I know as a jhanic factor but I didn't even think i had experienced even the 1st Jhana. I have had some powerful absorption meditations before where I have stopped breathing, and like he said as the end of the question (it's a Q&A section) where people recognize they stopped breathing and kind of "ahhh" then jump out of it. So is that it, is that actually 4th jhana?, is the Bhikkhu incorrect?, is my experience incorrect (you cannot answer that of course) The way I originally learned the Jhanas were through Mahamudra tantra, where it is explained "the mediator stops breathing resembling a dead person" but I always assumed these meditations where I lost my ability to breathe and subsequently jump out of it were nowhere near even the first jhana, let alone the the stopping breathing like what was explained in Mahamudra teachings.I just thought it was just me having some sort of meditation issue, which of course are myriad and varied for all.

Some Buddhists refer to Vishnu as Vasavatti Māra Deva. Others say that Upulvan Deva is Vishnu, and some say **Varuna** Deva is Vishnu. So who exactly is Vishnu? Is he Māra or a Deva? In Hinduism, Vishnu is known as the one who holds the chakraudha (sudhssana chakra). Upulvan deva consider as protector of sri Lanka Buddhist people say sri Lankan misunderstood Vishnu as upulvan. Some say both are same deva. So who is Vishnu....

I am in process of writing a book about buddhists masters. I have following few masters in my mind. 1. Gautam Buddha 2. Bodhidharma 3. Milerepa Please suggest names of other masters to write an essay on each master. It can be from any tradition.

I read the following on the internet: > I came from a Christianity ethical background so i originally thought > sexual desire and masturbation was bad, but in reality all that is > "bad" is the desire itself, which could be desire for sex, or desire > for chocolate cake. It is the same thing "kama-tanha" As for alcohol, > same thing, kama-tanha. Though I want to point out the story of > sarakani SN55.24 explaining that even what is seen to most buddhists > as a true downfall, alcohol. It itself is not inherently bad/evil etc. > Kama-tanha is the problem, not the pleasure we can experience from > sex, booze or chocolate cake! Can sensual pleasure be divorced from craving? What do the Pali Suttas say about this?

I am single and often indulge in masterbation and pornography. What are buddhist thoughts on these. Does it affect the quality of meditation. What was Buddhas advise to lay followers about them?

In Buddhist philosophy, particularly within various schools like Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Yogācāra, the concept of saṃsāra (cyclic existence) is central characterized by suffering, ignorance, and rebirth. A key metaphysical question arises: How did bondage—the state of being trapped in cyclic existence begin? Was there a specific point in the past time or cause that marked the start of sentient beings' entrapment? Or conversely, is bondage considered beginningless, similar to the doctrine held by certain Vedānta schools which maintain that ignorance (avidyā) has no beginning but can have an end?