Urban-Dhamma, Urban-Dhamma they say and is a popular approach, but is it possible that Urban-Dhamma leads to path, fruits and beyond? Is it possible to transport the Ariya-Magga under such an approach? Is it possible that Urban-Dhamma goes beyond material spheres? *What is the conventional meaning of "urban", how is it perceived at large, the common use of this quality:* - *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban* - *https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/urban* *(Note that this question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)*

My parents, try to hinder my practice of the Dhamma by verbally & aggressively putting the Dhamma down to me, almost every day. They believe I am being "brainwashed" by monks I watch online or people I talk to about Buddhism. They also express that they are concerned when I meditate, which itself is not negative at all, I just don't want them to worry about my practice. My practice in no way interferes with their life, I keep the Dhamma to myself unless one is curious or respectful about it, but my parents always seem to bring it up & they aren't very respectful. How do I prevent this from happening while at the same time respecting their beliefs in the Abrahamic God? I only want love & practice, it's just hard to communicate, for them to understand, the truth of the Dhamma to them. Metta to all

I started a new job, and when I get anxious my cognition turns to pure incoherence. I second-guess everything, doubt, double-check unnecessarily, make more errors, etc. **What is the best type of meditation to deal with such anxiety-related problems?**

The Buddha always said killing, no matter the circumstance, is always unskillful & leads to negative Rebirths. > In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at > all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to > kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing > them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds > that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a > recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk > was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in > self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. As he told the > monks, > > "Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a > two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at > that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train > yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil > words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with > no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness > imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading > the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — > abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill > will.' That's how you should train yourselves." > > — MN 21 > http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/gettingmessage_en.html Three questions: **- What determines an animal's sentience?** **- If killing is never allowed, how would one deal with a parasite infesting their body, or any other animal as so?** **- Would not killing the parasite mean it is self-mortification, & thus an extreme, breaking the Middle Way (as it can hinder the practice of the Dhamma too)?** Please help! Metta to all!

I was meditating and couldn't keep my eyes open. I wore a thick sweater, and when I removed this sweater, the lethargy dissipated and instead I faced distracted thoughts, but I meditated with much more alertness. **Is temperature a factor at all in meditation?**

As I went to worship at one of the most famous & sacred temples in Sri Lanka a Sikh person entered with his turban. As per the religious traditions we are not allowed to wear any head coverings while entering the temple & worshiping. When the particular person was asked to remove it he didn't & he worshiped with the turban saying it complies with the international laws. I see this disrespectful as, 1. It's a must for visitors entering the Sikh temples to wear a head cover. 2. Even the Kings have removed their crown when worshiping Lord Buddha. 3. As per the scripts many religious leaders who were there during the time of Lord Buddha has paid a lot of respect & has considered Lord Buddha superior. Can I please have your views regarding this. May the Noble Triple Gems bless you!

Did the Buddha tell us anything about reaching the end of the cosmos or time-travel through the means of experiencing all the Jhanas in meditation?

Emptiness seems to be very prevalent in Dhamma after Theravada. But I have seen that it still exists in Theravada, it has just been ignored compared to other teachings. Why is emptiness ignored so much in Theravada & can emptiness be harmonious alongside the teaching of no-self? If my question is not clear, please inform me. :) Metta to all!

Is this person describing the 3 marks of existence in the right way. What the Buddha showed was that the actual reality of “this world” is described by the three characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anatta: No matter how hard we try, we cannot maintain things to our satisfaction in the long term (anicca), thus we get distraught (dukkha), and thus we are not in control (anatta).

I've just seen Interstellar. And they say 1 year on the planet is equal to 7 years on earth. because it sounds familiar to the Buddhist text I used to read ,if they both refer to the same thing, how did the ancient people know it?

At what point does the discussion of others become wrong speech? "Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord." Being that I am not an arahat, I need to work through occurrences, sometimes my mind is not enough, so doing so with other people could be helpful. But to talk through some events by those committing wrong speech, wrong action - with those that one considers capable of adding something positive - necessitates their exposition as wrong speakers etc, so is certainly close to creating rifts. I understand that the above has right intention - no desire to spread rumours or damage others' opinion of others, but how to decide whether it is wrong speech? I suppose choosing a person that is not easily susceptible to jumping on disconcord, that differentiates between direct and indirect experience, and that aims to solve problems is a start, but is there anything from the texts?

I understand that compassion meditation uses in great part feeling and the generation of affect. I wonder: **Are there aspects of compassion only accessible through meditating on compassion analytically?** Thank you

I have been practicing Vipassana under the tradition of S.N Goenka for the last 2 and half year. When I scan my body and observe different sensations, I find that my mind is not clear and It's not like I'm sleeping but there is dullness of awareness. Some part of my mind is aware of the sensations but it's not clear and there is a thin layer of thoughts in between. It's like trying to see the sun(sensation) when there is thin layer of clouds(thoughts) in the sky. In other words the mind is scattered while doing Vipassana. I believe it's the sloth and torpor that is causing all this and Vitarka-Vicara faculty is not that much strong. I have read some suggestions for this like having the perception of light, walking meditation etc. but none of these are helping me out. I would be very grateful if someone could point out my mistakes and give some advise to overcome this.

In the Pali suttas, there are scores of suttas about Dependent Origination which take the classic form of the 12 links, the benchmark being SN 12.2. In the Digha Nikaya, there is the Maha-Nidana Sutta, called the 'Great Cause'. I find the name of the sutta strange since if it is 'great', why are there only 9 links instead of 12? While there are many suttas containing less than 12 links, it seems strange the Maha-Nidana Sutta omits the six sense spheres, which the Buddha described as one of his core teachings in AN 3.61 & are central to so many suttas on Dependent Origination (such as MN 18, MN 38, MN 148, etc). More importantly, the Maha-Nidana Sutta defines consciousness & nama-rupa differently to other suttas. In the Maha-Nidana Sutta, consciousness (which is only *mental cognition* in other suttas) is said to descend into the womb of a mother. Nama-rupa has a Brahmanistic meaning of 'naming-forms'. Also, 'birth' refers to the birth of different animals & creatures rather than the birth of "beings" or "satta". SN 23.2 refers to a "being" as a mind that is attached to the five aggregates as "self". It is doubtful birds & snakes conceive the five aggregates as "self" or generate "self-views" of "beings" (as described in SN 5.10). Are there any compelling reasons or grounds why Buddhists should accept the Maha-Nidana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya as the words of the Buddha?

I'm wondering whether to lament or complain bitterly about some situation contradicts right speech. Also, I'm wondering from the Buddhist view what the effect of venting is. Personally, I noticed venting from a low mood / discouraged mood seems to reinforce and worsen this low mood. Thank you

I can find the first 4 precepts explicitly listed in the 8fold Path- but not the 5th precept regarding intoxicants. Am I missing it in there somewhere? I am wondering if it was a later addition to the tradition.

I'm a Buddhist and I want to know who is a good monk. Tell me if I'm wrong but I think that monks - Do not request money/things - Follow the rules - Do not bless for to be rich... (Its passion) etc... But how do I explain to a non-buddhist how to recognise a good monk?

It is said that only the Buddha, a fully awakened one, knows everything. I'm not sure if there's a name for that wisdom. So the Buddha got that wisdom and used (all-knowing-wisdom) to see the eight noble paths and attained nirvana or is it the other way round?

I think I am pretty well aware that the physical body is influenced by emotions (blushing is an example, or a nervous feeling in the abdoment due to axienty). I think I am also pretty well aware the emotions is a product of the mental processes. When I take something for granted I am not thankfull and that is reflected in my emotions and physical body. During meditation I can put my focus on something which I would not call the sensations of the physical, nor are it my emotions and it aren't also thoughts. But, it influences all 3. Thoughts become more positive, I feel happier, and my body starts tingling with pleasant sensations. I am reading about these different kinds of 'bodies'. The physical body, emotional body, lower/higher mental body, oversoul and spiritual body... I also read somewhere about the buddhic body. Now I am confused by all these different kinds of models/interpretations. I've never read anything about distinct energy bodies from a buddhism perspective. The terms look so a like that it almost should be, but I do not find a direct relationship on the web. Does Buddhism support the buddhic body perspective? Is there literature or teaching related to this, or any other conceptualiziation of energetic bodies.

I have been doing compassion meditation for a bit (about 13h of sitting meditation). I think perhaps I haven't meditated *enough* to see benefits, but I wonder: **When beginning, is it possible to *have* benefits, but not *see* them? In other words, that one's behaviour or attitude changes despite no conscious awareness of this?** Is sitting practice at the beginning less fruitful but still establishes the basis for (in this case) compassionate attitude?