**1. In Buddhism, does black magic, magic spell exist? If it is, what's our belief system should be when we are taught to treat all with loving kindness?** Often Black magic is not only concerned with negative, evil, demons, or bad things. Black magic spells and amulets can also be used for good, protection and as many other uses as there are human needs and desires. Thailand being the predominately a Buddhist country, but this tends to be mixed with older animistic beliefs and some of them also have a strong belief in powerful supernatural entities. Thailand is indeed one of the top tourist spot but some people also avoid going due to the fear of all these. I for one, love Thailand a lot and been there many times but often curious about all this and at times confused. I have read somewhere, some of the the top Monks in Thailand are that spiritually powerful to perform all these. **2. Supposingly all these exist, what's the odd of being the target apart from jealousy?Supposingly if you are very much enlightened and practice meditation vigorously, does this make you any less of being the target?** As some of the victims can be severely disturbed emotionally and in some cases it might even lead to death.

I've come across this term recently and have seen quite a few opinions and definitions. My understanding is that it is actually a hardcore Theravada movement that is in some ways a conservative backlash against watered down Buddhism in the West. Is this a correct assessment?

1 question: I just started learning about Buddhism and I read about the 3 marks of existence. When Buddhism speaks about impermanence does impermanence only refer to our experience (the 5 skhandas) or is outisde world phenomena included and considered impermanent. As I understood it impermanence is a key Buddhist principle. How does Buddhism describe time according to this impermanence doctrine and what is impermanence relationship and connection with time. I have seen a few answers here on a similar question/topic but not really this one so I hope I will get a few answers that can help me understand it. 2 question: Is a dependently arising cycle considered happening in a split second or how fast is it considered happening and what is its relationship and connection with time ??

I have been practicing meditation now for more than a year. I found that in recent months I go to a state where I am not bored, not happy, not dull, not tired but it is some state I find myself keeping it to myself. Really I couldn’t explain it fully. Did anyone go to a state like this ? Any explanation ?

I'd like to understand the Buddhist view of Dāna better. I've read the [Vaccha Sutta] [1] and it seems to say that gifts are best given to the most worthy. By comparison, in Christianity, the idea seems to be that one should do "for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" [source] [2] Am I understanding correctly that the Buddhist view and Christian view of giving are very different? Is there a general concern for the (unworthy) poor in Buddhism? Thank you for helping me to understand this.

There is a (are) person(s) here, who advocate the denying of "person is heir of his action", advocate no-self, for whom who has reached the path already (Sekha). In that case, do, and why, make Sekhas an effort toward good and liberating, if such would be the case? What would happen to a person who would throw away the boot before crossing or in the middle (if such even would be possible to develope grave wrong view for a Sekha) of the sea? It would be good if the "Noble Ones", "Emptinessdweller" and "Ahara-hats" here would elaburate their thesis of the use of kamma and self-denying for Sekhas and foremost worldlings since less Arahats might be in need for such tunings. *(Note: that is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but to make use to get out of the wheel of that)*

*(A nother possible pitfall for defilement. Take care that they do not rebell and cick you instead of them into it.)* Supposed someone asks you something. Given that you have the feeling to know for sure, you answer. The one asked receives it with joy, keeps it, carries it and might share it further. Later you find out that you have been wrong. What now? What's the impact on yours? What should you do now? What are the consequences of the previous deed and eventuall consequences of your current deeds, now when you found out? What to do to rest possible most at ease and secure, at the time of answer and at times things might be grow different, more clear? Not to speak of what to do in cases when answered without being really sure or a bad mind state (with greed, aversion or not-knowing connected). ___ *Supportive case samples:* Just to give a possible graspable case. One is asking you a secure way through the dangerous forest. You tell him what you think. Later you find out that this way leads through minefields. Maybe apply-able by replacing "intent to kill" with intent that one takes on ones understanding? (Thinking: "Who ever might come accross my answer, way he fall to that."): >from [BMC-Pārājika](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.ch04_en.html) > >The penalty, if an animal dies as a result, is a pācittiya; if a human being, a pārājika. In this case, the intention/perception of killing a living being is broad enough to include a human being, and so fulfills the relevant factors here. > >In discussing this last case, the Commentary notes that if one digs the pitfall but then renounces one's intention to cause death, one has to completely fill in the pitfall in such a way that it cannot cause injury — even to the extent of causing someone to stumble — if one wants to avoid the penalty coming from any injury the pitfall might cause. If the pitfall is only partially filled in and a person stumbles into it and later dies from his injuries, the bhikkhu incurs the full offense under this rule. The same judgment applies to any other attempt to kill not aimed at a particular victim. For instance, if a bhikkhu harboring this sort of general intention builds a trap but then changes his mind, he has to destroy the trap so thoroughly that it cannot be reassembled. Similarly, when a bhikkhu writes a passage describing the advantages of dying (see below) with the thought that anyone who reads it might decide to commit suicide, if he then changes his mind he has to destroy the writing so thoroughly that it cannot be pieced together. If, instead of writing the passage himself, he simply picks up a pre-existing written passage of this sort and then — with a similar intention — puts it in a place where it might be easily seen, he can avoid any penalty simply by returning the passage to the place where he found it. *[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]*

Often my person comes accross certain "*disclaimers*" in regard of the use of Dhamma-Practice, the medicine of the Buddha, his therapy, saying, like just read again [here in an answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/23114/12162) : >"The Buddha did not deal with this kind of suffering. Modern mindfulness centers have therapists who understand this kind of suffering." So coming from such kind of predication, my person would like to ask: - What is the fundation and/or the possible reason of such a claim? - What kind of suffering it should include? and - Where to find possible references in the teachings of the Buddha for such? - Are there any instances where either he or his disciples (with approve) encouraged to seek for diverent ways to cure certain suffering?

I am wondering a simple question: **In what conditions can we surf the internet mindfully? For what purposes is this possible or impossible?**

I noticed that upon watching Youtube videos, I seem to become sucked into merely watching stuff online. I almost 'forget' to do other things. Oddly, this doesn't happen while reading online, or creating something. **Can one directly relate this to lack of mindfulness? Is any such instance of 'forgetting' usually linked with mindfulness?** More so, **why might reading not generate this type of absorbed state?** Thank you

In modern days, 'de-personalization' is seen as negative and in some cases, a symptom of an emotional disorder. In Buddhism, seeing through no-self/identity view is the minimum criteria to attain the first level of enlightenment. These two concepts, seemingly similar; fundamentally, they could be different. Question: 1. Are these two the same or not? Shall they be separated or mutually embraced in our daily lives? 2. As a layman Buddhist, how can we approach this ?

Similarly to [pop psychology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_psychology) , do we have the same effect for Buddhism? I have a feeling that many people subscribing to Buddhism because it seems to explain psychological phenomena that they (unfortunately) can't explain. It is also said that the Buddha taught the disciples in three levels, and in level 1 the goal is just to help the students overcome their problems in life, so I think this level is indeed pop Buddhism. Therefore I think pop Buddhism is a version of pop psychology. I wonder if my understanding is correct.

I see that the goal of yoga/meditation is liberation from the karma and from the birth/death cycle. People say that it is the ultimate happiness forever. But wouldn't that be boring and monotonous if there is happiness forever?

In the pre-Buddhism Brahmanism philosophy, namarupa meant 'name-form' or 'naming-forms', as follows: > Nāmarūpa-vyākaraṇa (Sanskrit: नामरुपव्याकरण ), in Hindu philosophy, > refers to the process of evolution of differentiation into names and > forms i.e. to the unfolding of the primal state into the manifest > world prior to which unfolding there was nothing that existed; it > refers to the conditioned reality. > > The sage of the Chandogya Upanishad regarded the creation of the > universe as a huge chest/egg from a Primeval Being existing as the > undifferentiated whole, who alone existed without a second prior to > the commencement of the process of creation which was the beginning of > the differentiation of the undifferentiated. > > Namarupa-vyakarana - Wikipedia It appears most of the self-appointed famous Western scholars agree the Digha Nikaya was composed for propagation to & conversion of Brahmins. See this topic: Western scholars: Did the Buddha did not speak the Digha Nikaya?. It appears obviously DN 15 contains a description of 'namarupa' that conforms with the pre-existent Brahmanism, as follows: > This is the way to understand how from name-&-form as a requisite > condition comes contact... If the **permutations, signs, themes and > indicators by which there is a description** of name-group and > form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or > resistance-contact be discerned? DN 15 continues with the following verse, for which the Pali must be included so my question can be considered & answered: > Viññāṇañca hi, ānanda, mātukucchismiṃ na okkamissatha, api nu kho > nāmarūpaṃ mātukucchismiṃ samuccissathā”ti? > > If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would > name-and-form take shape in the womb?" > > Viññāṇañca hi, ānanda, mātukucchismiṃ okkamitvā vokkamissatha, api nu > kho nāmarūpaṃ itthattāya abhinibbattissathā”ti? > > "If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, > would name-and-form be produced for this world?" DN 15 continues with the following words: > This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression > and delineation.... To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when > delineating a self? My questions (which probably requires Pali knowledge that I personally do not have) are: 1. Which consciousness is entering into the mother's womb? 2. Is it the consciousness of a disembodied being or relinking consciousness floating in outer space seeking to be reincarnated? 3. Or is it the consciousness of the mother, so the dependent arising of the permutations, signs, themes and indicators that lead to her designating her embryo in her womb as "my baby" can occur?

Does Buddhism preach absolute non-violence? Or is there any instance where Buddha had thought that violence can become a necessity under certain situations?

Together they refer to one's mental processes as a whole. Separately, what are they and how are they different?

I have been trying to find a complete copy of William Hamilton's "Saints and Psychopaths" and although it seems to be distributed on the web in various places in electronic format, it also seems that every single electronic copy appears to be missing pages from the preface, specifically pages xiv and xv. If you know where I can get these missing pages I would be extremely grateful to hear from you. Unfortunately pretty much all of the hard copies available are prohibitively priced and I do not if there is a publishers for this book at present, in the book it appears to be "Dharma Audio Network Associates San Jacinto California 1995" and according to amazon the publisher is "Dana". I have attempted to source a complete copy from documents.mx, www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de, www.scribd.com, books.google.com & .co.uk, docsfiles.com, www.mediafire.com and various less reputable sites, but unfortunately to no avail. Any assistance in tracking these pages, if not the full publication would be greatly appreciated, I also believe that a complete online copy of this title would be of considerable benefit to the world-wide buddhist community.

What is the message of this sutta? > At Sāvatthī. > > “Mendicants, there are these three scopes of language, terminology, > and descriptions. They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the > beginning. They’re not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible > ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them. What three? When form > has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, label, and > description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’. > > When feeling … > > perception … choices … > > consciousness has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, > label, and description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’. > > When form is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its designation, > label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘was’. > > When feeling … > > perception … choices … > > consciousness is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its > designation, label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or > ‘was’. > > When form has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, and > description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’. > > When feeling … > > perception … choices … > > consciousness has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, > and description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’. > > These are the three scopes of language, terminology, and descriptions. > They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re > not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and > brahmins don’t look down on them. Even those wanderers of the past, > Vassa and Bhañña of Ukkalā, who taught the doctrines of no-cause, > inaction, and nihilism, didn’t imagine that these three scopes of > language should be criticized or rejected. Why is that? For fear of > being blamed, criticized, and faulted.”

Does Asian countries has Buddhist law in their parliament/government? Is there thing like this? As we can see that Asian countries like Japan, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Mongolia, South-Korea, North-Korea, Hongkong. In these counties mostly people are Buddhist so I've to know if there is Buddhist law for parliament or government for Buddhist country. And if there what is it or what it'd be?

What's the different between [ku-sala](http://accesstoinsight.eu/en/dictionary/kusala) (good) and [a-ku-sala](http://accesstoinsight.eu/en/dictionary/kusala) (bad), in regard of what the Buddha taught? *(ku - bad, sala - cutting away, a - not)* What are good and bad actions by deeds, speech and mind, and what qualities defines them as such? `Here he grieves he grieves hereafter. In both worlds the wrong-doer grieves. He grieves, he's afflicted, seeing the corruption of his deeds.` `Here he rejoices he rejoices hereafter. In both worlds the merit-maker rejoices. He rejoices, is jubilant, seeing the purity of his deeds.` [Yamakavagga](http://www.zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.bpit_en.html#s-dhp-16) So good to now really good of how to distinguish and alltime worthy to ask, remember and tell for many's benefit, and the own. *(Note that this is not asked/given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to escape this wheel here)*