Metta sutra says "May all living beings be happy minded." This seems illogical to me as all living beings cannot be happy minded at a particular moment of time. I also feel that contemplating on anything that is false will not lead me to the ultimate truth. In my view loving kindness should be better cultivated by knowing the true nature of things because if we get insight into real nature of things then we will automatically develop kindness by clearly seeing dukkha and we would be able to understand the suffering of others in a better way. Note: I do not intend to offend great Buddhist scriptures. I asked this question to clear my ignorance.

All the teachers and people I have read, talked with and listened to, emphazises that Buddhism is the Middle Way. Is this the right way to see it? If so, what is the most important or central aspect of The Middle Way?

I've tried a few different Buddhist groups and they are quite prescriptive when it comes to meditation practices. They have their own system and everyone does it. But the Buddha used skillful means when teaching which I understand to be tailoring the teachings to his audience - for instance I've heard that the Kalama Sutta is an example. So did the Buddha teach meditation practices as skillful means? - i.e. give one person one practice and another one a different one. Not so much one person gets the beginner practice and the other one the advanced but people get different practices irrespective of their 'level' i.e. two advanced practitioners get different ones to suit them. It would be great if you could give references to standard texts for this (i.e. Pali Canon, Diamond sutra etc....) Many Thanks as always

> "And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to **let go**, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. > > [Indriya-vibhanga Sutta (SN 48.10)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.010.than.html) What is exactly meant by letting go & how is this exactly done (in daily life & meditation) ? Why is the breath not the 'object', if it's called Mindfulness of Breathing?

There is a lot of talk on breath, now what is breath? What's the meaning? Is it form? What of it? Is it an action? Is it a perception? A feeling? How should it be taken, if to be taken, so that it would be used right, focused on it right? **Addition: It should be seen to be encouraged to give answers after own investigations on field, having investigated breath, in and of itself.** *(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)*

Is it possible to list out the section of the Tripitaka summarizing what areas they cover.

On Wikipedia [Buddha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha) redirects to [Gautama Buddha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha) , but there is also a [List of the twenty-eight Buddhas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_twenty-eight_Buddhas) Was Buddha a single human man? Or is Buddha a concept or maybe a spirit often reborn?

I am reading SN 36.22, which says: > And what, bhikkhus, are the thirty-six kinds of feelings? Six types of > joy based on the household life, six types of joy based on > renunciation; six types of displeasure based on the household life, > six types of displeasure based on renunciation; **six types of > equanimity based on the household life**, six types of equanimity based > on renunciation. These are called the thirty-six kinds of feelings. > “And what, bhikkhus, are the hundred and eight kinds of feelings? The > above thirty-six feelings in the past, the above thirty-six feelings > in the future, the above thirty-six feelings at present. These are > called the hundred and eight kinds of feelings. What are the six types of equanimity based on the household life?

English is my second language. If there's no "self', and "I am" is just a "flow" or "mix" of information (dharma, karma, etc.); and if, when I die, "I" (body, illusory self, soul) will die but this informational flow will keep going into another being, and then I no longer exist, think, feel or I will be different being, so this being will be living but not me, then **why should I care** about his life if I will no longer exist? Or is it that there is a some kind of eternal selfless "self", the "watcher", that experiences this (and the next) existence and can think, feel? How does this "informational flow" ("soul"), a conglomerate of functions, get into someone's body? Is nirvana an "informational" suicide? In short, please tell me, why should I care about the next "life" or "going to nirvana" if there's no self, no core and "I", "myself" will disappear after death? Maybe I would stop caring about it because "I" will stop being exist and I will stop feel, think, care straight after death? --- PS: And if the reincarnation is like an ocean water been poured into glasses and back, and there's no core self and individuality is just a mix of informational patters, then maybe it's pointless to try to stop existance, to go to nirvana, because someone will always remain here. And if this Samsara is eternal then there can be eternal number of Buddhas, beings and they will be trying to get out of this Samsara eternally, then all their actions are pointless. Thanks.

I have relationship with non Buddhist, and we both thinking seriously about marriage. My family could not accept him because he is not Buddhist. But as I learned so far , Buddhism teach us to love and respect all religion. Can I marry him?

This article explains Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta -- and in this question I'd like to ask about Anicca. The article says that Anicca doesn't mean, or shouldn't be translated as, "impermanence": > - Impermanence is a fact; see, “Grand Unified Theory of Dhamma“. But impermanence is NOT the MEANING of anicca. It says, > A Buddha is not needed to show that "impermanence" is an inherent > characteristic of our universe. Scientists are well aware of that, but > they have not attained Nibbāna. Anicca is a deep concept that can be > described in many different ways, and they are all related. Here are > three ways to look at it: > > - “Anicca – Inability to Keep What We Like” > > - “Anicca – Repeated Arising/Destruction“. > > - “Anicca – Worthlessness of Worldly Things“. Is that so -- is the article right about that? --- It seems to me that this is more logical -- and it explains lots of points where we have doubt about. As an example, when it says it's dukkha when something is Anicca -- how come loosing a tooth of a kid (to grow new one) makes no sorrow to his mum, but when some boy looses his tooth when he is 19 (adult tooth not kid) it makes the mother cry? it's not because of the impermanence but because the things didn't work out the way as expected. So impermanence is not always cause to Dukkha -- but when the expected result is not met, that is always Dukkha. And understanding this deeper make you wise, Not to expect things but to accept the situations as it is. Because things happens not because whether we like it or not but it's the way things are supposed to be. If I explain with another example: a boy starts liking a girl, just because she has nice hair, nice eyes and nice voice (Attachment start with Avijja). And boy starts to date the girl and everything is going well . And they decided to marry, after the marriage, boy finds out that the girl can't be a mother, but boy wants to be a dad. Now there's a conflict and it normally result in sorrows (dukkha). If we think about this, no matter whether they grow older and look bad here nothing is related to impermanence but it's not getting what the boy wanted. So initially boy get attached to the girl base on outer appearance (what ever noticeable) thinking he can achieve what he wanted with girl. When getting attached boy didn't ask her whether she is capable of having a baby or not, but the picture / model / image which is created in boy's mind (by himself) is capable of any of those. In other words, in boy's mind the picture of the girl is perfect, he expects what ever he needs from her as his model in the mind is capable of anything he wants. And when the boy understand that she is not capable of making his expectations a reality, the image / model / picture in his mind get clashed with reality and that drives to sorrow, dukkha. Building these images/models/pictures is because of avijja -- we don't know how the world behaves, but we expect things from the attached world. What ever we are attached to, we build our own castles, on top of that in our mind because we don't understand the Anicca nature of the world. That's what the Buddhist (who has the Samma Ditti = Sothapanna) understand the true nature of the world, which means everything is Aniccha -- so don't expect to be happy by attaching to outside world things. Because what ever the joy you create are in your mind they are not because of the external world material. So attachment is dangerous as it creates Karma which will cause you later. --- Above is how I've realized this. I expect the comments answers on this. Whether someone rejecting this view if so why? I'm not sticking to any of view, I'm whether this view on Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta is wrong?

As preached by Buddha there are four types of people in the world, they are ugghaṭitaññū, vipañcitaññū, neyya and padaparama. The last person is definition is here . Can anyone please guide me how how to identified the pada-parama type people. **Update** Based on the comments, I was looking for the definitions of above four types of people and finally found that in Sutta Pitaka -> Kuddaka Nikaya -> Nettiprakaranaya -> Desanāhāravibhaṅga. And the english translation is not yet done, but you can find the pali here . I've highlighted the important words in below quoted section from above sutta. > Tattha bhagavā ugghaṭitaññussa puggalassa nissaraṇaṃ desayati, > vipañcitaññussa puggalassa ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca desayati, > neyyassa puggalassa assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca > desayati. - nissaraṇaṃ = deliverance - ādīnavañca = danger - assādañca = attractiveness - puggalassa = person - desayati = lecturing / teaching So here are three main things in Buddhism which are assādañca, ādīnavañca and nissaraṇañca. And the details of how it relates to the path can be found in <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.accesstoinsight.org%2Ftipitaka%2Fsn%2Fsn22%2Fsn22.109.wlsh.html" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Sotapanna Sutta <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> as below. > And when, monks, the Ariyan disciple understands as they really are > the arising and the passing away, the attractiveness and the danger, > and the deliverance from the five groups of clinging, he is called an > Ariyan disciple who is a Stream-winner, not liable to states of > woe,[1] assured of final enlightenment. So in summary, out of the the four persons three has defined the based on what to be taught. 1. ugghaṭitaññussa -> Teaching deliverance is sufficient. 2. vipañcitaññussa -> Teaching danger and deliverance is sufficient. 3. neyyassa -> Has to teach all three which are attractiveness danger and deliverance. 4. Pada parama -> Can not attain Nivana as he is the one for whom the words are the utmost attainment'.;Whoever, though having learned much, speaking much, knowing many things by heart, and discoursing much, has not penetrated the truth. (this is extracted from here )

I recently came across a video of a guru (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPINIZmQDwI&t=1s) claiming that Buddha's method to enlightenment was just one of 112 methods discovered by Shiva many years before the time of Buddha. ( https://yogitonics.com/shivas-112-ways-to-attain-enlightenment/) . I was wondering if anyone knows if this is a valid claim. Are there other ways out there to attain enlightenment or is the eight-fold path the only way?

I am looking for symbols which specifically represent Zazen, or, more generally the act of meditating.

I'm looking for early Sutras that talk about gratitude. I'm especially interested in if there are lists of things that we can be grateful for, and there are sources that deal with gratitude for lay people. (So far I've seen the [Maha-mangala Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.04.piya.html) , which in the translation linked to talks about "blessings", but in another place ("Old Path, White Clouds" by Thich Nhat Hanh) is translated as "observances", so I'm not sure if it's relevant) Thankful for help and with kind regards, Tord

During a meditation I have practiced Metta, as I have learned it, I sent Metta to; - myself - a good friend - a "neutral" person - a difficult person - all four of the above equally - and then gradually the entire universe with the thoughts; - May I be free from enmity/danger - May I be free from mental suffering - May I be free from physical suffering - May I take care of myself happily Sometime during the meditation I have also sent my Metta to my deceased father. I had a good feeling about it, but wonder whether a Suta this refers? I want to know whether this form is OK, and how to deal with it.

I heard from a Monk that dependent origination is akaliko or timeless what did he exactly mean with that. Is Nibbana outside of time and space and could you explain how and why if it is. Is the prinicple of dependent origination of suffering the same as what happens outside in nature like when a seed is planted then with enough sunshine and rain etc the flower grows if not what is the difference between them. Thank you.

Upasaka Angus asked on [another place](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/33943/11235) : >What do you mean that all the phenomena related to the senses are "not real"? So what does a statement '"all the phenomena related to the senses are "not real (anicca)"' dhammical mean? What are phenomena related to the senses? *(Note that question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)*

I don't have access to a Sangha just now, and I do frequent this very well conceived and helpful site. Recently I was writing a comment about no longer being a programmer because it was too isolating for my nature ("square girlfriend" = computer screen, ha ha) and I thought: gee, I am staring at a screen now... and for many hours today... But it is vastly different to be reading and writing with other people (ahem) than to just do an *induhvidual* activity like programming. Right? I am actually interacting, but somewhat ansynchronously. So I still use and develop some of my *Hetaira Archetype* skills (more effortful and challenging with only text to interpret and reply by). **Does asking and answering Questions here count as taking refuge in (and providing) The Sangha?**

Is a monk allowed to exercise the body in order to keep it fit and healthy? I reckon both 'healthy' and 'fit' as attachments, but is there an overall rule/teaching that explains this?