Ven. and good Buddha-Parisata, touched, and who ever interested and willing to give into the matter to get it minded, Who doesn't know the case where another is perceived as arrogant, either because of having the view "all are equal" or by the feeling to be put on a place which one does not deserve. What ever the situation actually requires, might be different form ones perception and possible very wrong to give into disapprove or even dislike. Remember the effects of being a person not honor of what is worthy to. So how to handle such "I can not..." situations for oneself? What's the save bet here, the save way, till possible uproot the cause on an refined level? (Of course in measures of the good Dhamma asked. Related topic: [Vanna-maccharia, stinginess in regard of ones reputations: What to practice to get ride of it?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/33598/vanna-maccharia-stinginess-in-regard-of-ones-reputations-what-to-practice-to-g)) *(Note that this possibility of grow in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)*

Maybe it's better to use an example. I believe one of the very first Mahayana sutras one is expected to learn is the Heart Sutra. But when you read it, you immediately see things like 'skandhas' and 'dharmas'. If you start with Pali Canon, you can basically find all about them in the Sutta Pitaka. But if you know nothing about Theravada, where in the Mahayana teachings do you find those basic notions? What will tell you about karma, dependent arising, dharmas, worlds structure and so on?

There are many parables and stories from the Buddha's life suggesting he valued above all what is practical and conducive to virtue. He discouraged metaphysical speculation and musings. **Given without knowledge one can only speculate, does Buddhism suggest one should *delay* certain questions until one can empirically get a definite answer?** For example, the jhanas are not immediately accessible, and thinking about them might lead to speculation. **What is speculation in Buddhism? Should one always restrict their attention and cognition to what is immediately accessible?** I guess I could also add: ***How* does one know when one is speculating?**

Householder "[?? English research institute](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/16687/%eb%b9%84%ed%83%80%eb%af%bc%ec%a0%9c%ec%9d%b4%ec%9d%98%ec%98%81%ec%96%b4%ec%84%b1%ec%9e%a5%ec%97%b0%ea%b5%ac%ec%86%8c) " quoted: >`The three things a buddha can't do (如來 三不能 Buddha's three incapacities) 1.不能免 定業衆生 He cannot destroy bad karma for anyone. 2.不能度 無緣衆生 He cannot save the people unrelated to him. 3.不能盡 衆生界 He cannot save the whole world of all living things` rightly answering [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34182/11235) . For the increase of faith and as possibility to make merits in such (as well as asked by ChrisW in [a comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/34215/what-is-meant-by-the-impossibility-a-buddha-can-not-help-someone-not-related-to/34218#comment57903_34218)) : **Where can this statement be found literary in the basked of the heritage of the Buddhas teachings?** *(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)*

Question in the title. I'm looking for answers citing either canonical scripture or the position of any particular school of Buddhism. The *inner monologue* in the question could also be read as mental chatter; mental noise; superfluous thoughts; extraneous thoughts; or the unnecessary thoughts that normal people have every moment. And I mean when the inner monologue has stopped for good; that is, the case when it never comes back. Another way to read this question might be, *Do arahants have an inner monologue?*

Buddhist philosophy says that we shouldn't get attached and try to form bonds with something and desire or crave it because everything is essentially impermanent and this will lead to suffering. But how can you raise a child without being attached? Wouldn't that make you lousy parent? Of course the older a child gets, the more you'll have to let go. Every child needs to find his/her own way in life, but that doesn't take away the fact that, especially in the early years, there is a big attachment to your children. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the concept of attachment? Or is there another explanation?

The first anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha appeared centuries after his death (see this related question ). Buddhist art then was "aniconic", insofar as the Buddha was only represented through symbols such as the Buddha's footprint or the Dharma wheel . In the Wikipedia article on Greco-Buddhism , there is a hint as to why this might be so: > [The] reluctance towards anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha, and the sophisticated development of aniconic symbols to avoid it (even in narrative scenes where other human figures would appear), seem to be connected to one of the Buddha’s sayings, reported in the Digha Nikaya , that discouraged representations of himself after the extinction of his body. This assertion isn't, however, accompanied by a reference to the relevant portion of the Digha Nikaya, and it is contradicted in Donald Lopez's latest book, *From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha* (University of Chicago Press, 2013): >[N]o proscriptions against making images of the Buddha have been located in what scholars would regard as an early Buddhist text, nor have any prescriptions for his representation been found. Is there actual textual basis for the claim that the Buddha discouraged antropomorphic representations of himself (in the Digha Nikaya or other early Buddhist texts)?

In Mahayana Buddhism we can see various artistic expressions: Thangka and Songs of Milarepa in Tibetan Buddhism, Chinese and Japanese art also were influenced heavily by Buddhism. Is there any forms of art practiced by Theravada monks? Do you know of any monks who were painters or poets?

The more good kamma one has, the more likely one is to be reborn as a deva, and not a human, right? [This article](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html#ch5) says the following about devas: > So in spite of their excellent concentration and present opulence, they are even at a disadvantage compared to human beings, who are driven by pain and frustration to seek the path to deliverance. Later on, it says that devas actually aspire to be humans, in order to comprehend impermanence, suffering, and non-self. Does it mean that generating too much good kamma is an obstacle for following the path towards enlightenment?

From the Mettanisamsa Sutta , one of the benefits of practising metta is that the Devas would protect him. This leads me to my question. According to Buddhism and the suttas, do the Brahmas and Devas have any direct interaction with human beings? Please provide examples. Are these interactions all positive or also negative? Which ones are initiated by humans and which ones are initiated by Brahmas and Devas? Could this explain some interactions between God and human prophets in other religions? The God of the Old Testament sounds very much like the Mahabrahma of the Brahmajala Sutta : > Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the > exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and > re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, > feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in > glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time. > > "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, > there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): > 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, > due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their > merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and > re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There > they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving > through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, > long period of time. > > Thereupon **the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am > Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the > Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, > the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that > are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me.** What is > the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings > might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these > beings have come.'

I heard a Buddhist story about trust some time ago and am trying to locate it. The story goes, there are some men travelling (I think) to a temple or monastery and on the way they get swindled and lose all their belongings to a con (or something, somehow are tricked) When they get to the temple or monastery they are asked what they have learned. The first man says 'not to trust anyone' and is not admitted. The 2nd (or 3rd) man says that he has learned to be **careful** who he trusts and so is allowed entry. Does this sound familiar? Does anyone know of a Buddhist tale that is similar to this? Thanks!

Ven. and good Buddha-[Parisatas](http://accesstoinsight.eu/en/dictionary/parisa) , A statement from a commercial Website [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26527/what-are-these-three-things-buddha-cannot-do) says: "Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe." Is that right, or wrong and how to understand such right? *(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)*

A common analogy about mindfulness I hear about is that the wisdom is like the sun. It is always shining there, but is frequently clouded. Your job is to avoid as much cloud as possible, and when there is no cloud left, you are enlightened. Where is this analogy first use? Is there a sutta for this? If not, and if you have heard about this too, can you name the source that you first knew it?

According to this page from BuddhaNet, it is mentioned that there are three things Buddha cannot do. They are not mentioned in there and I don't know how reliable the source is. > 20. The Buddha is omniscient but he is not omnipotent. He is capable of innumerable feats but there are three things he cannot do. Also, a > Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe. I just found this question discussed on Dhamma Wheel. However, most of the replies are opinion-based.

I find that the biggest block in my practice is the will to reach a good state. There's constantly an expectation from the experience to be good. I found that only by letting this go you can truly reach a good state, but its very hard to let this go. Countless sittings are wasted on this. How can I learn to let go of this need?

66. Modes of Production “What is it that is kamma-born, what cause-born, and what season-born? What is it that is none of these?” “All beings, O king are kamma-born. Fire, and all things growing out of seeds are cause-born. The earth, water and wind are season-born. Space and nibbàna exist independently of kamma, cause and season. Of nibbàna, O king, it cannot be said that it is perceptible by the five senses, but it is perceptible by the mind. The disciple whose mind is pure, and free from obstructions, can perceive nibbàna. http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/milinda.pdf

**WARNING: I don't hold the views put forward in Section B (by "the views put forward in Section B" I mean everything in Section B besides the sutta itself.) of this question anymore and I think that the views should not be held by anyone because of them being dangerous. It's dangerous to believe there are no bad consequences for one for doing some intentional bad(e.g. violent) action/s. It's much safer to believe there are severely bad consequences for one for doing any intentional bad(e.g. violent) action/s. I now believe that every intentional bad(e.g violent) action that one does does have bad consequences for one.** Section B: This has been perturbing me for a while. --I have noticed what looks like invalid logic in this sutta https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.129.than.html ( note 1: this is the conclusion I come to if I look at kamma and the the-fruit-of-kamma (vipaka) logically, if it isn't true then it seems kamma and the-fruit-of-kamma (vipaka) operates illogically or "randomly" or in an unknown way??? note 2: The paragraph below also only seems applicable if the event is onesided i.e an "innocent victim" is involved ) Seemingly the aggressors are supposedly in hell for their actions but weren't their actions (the aggressors) only because of their victims kamma from past lives (now their current fruit-of-kamma (vipaka)) and therefore the aggressors actions (the victims fruit-of-kamma (vipaka)) were seemingly unavoidable, so why would the aggressors be in hell?

In Buddhist countries, young or teenage boys, and sometime girls, sometimes (or often, depending on the country) become monks temporarily. Do any Buddhist children from other countries (e.g., Western countries) ever do this? Is there anywhere (e.g. a monastery) where this would happen?

i came across the teachings of Buddhadasa, he seemed to preach that rebirth is just a state of mind cycled throughout the days; greed, lust, peace, etc. That makes sense. But did he talk about what happen after break up of body or conventional death? Am i missing something? so if that is true, then eventually everyone will reach Nirvana at the end if we wait long enough (because according to him, there cant be cycles of state of mind if there is no rebirth)? Did he present new idea of of rebirth or I still have a lot more to read from Buddhadasa? I can't seem to find his ideas of literal rebirth. Thanks.

After attaining Nibbana, Buddha had realized that there is no self. However due to practical difficulties of communication, he had to use personal pronouns like 'I' , 'me' , 'myself' many times during conversation. My question is: whether Buddha ever thought about himself? Because if he thought about himself then he must have had a self. You can not think of yourself and simultaneously claim that there is no self. In the book, Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence , it is written how Buddha thought about himself. From p 181 : > After the repetition of these stanzas, Budha thought thus : " I have > attained the Budhaship ; I have overcome Mara ; all evil desire is > destroyed ; I am lord of the three worlds ; I will therefore remain > longer at this place, which has been to me so propitious." Thus > reflecting, he remained in a sitting posture upon the throne for the > space of seven days. It is clear from the above translation that Buddha had a self because his thoughts bore witness to the self and declare that "I have attained Budhaship". This proves that personal pronouns used by Buddha were not just used for convenience but were honestly projecting the reality that there is a self. In thoughts there was no necessity to fake self for sake of communication.