Once in a Dhamma talk I heard a Theravada Monk saying he did not believe in such stories, because some of them contradict the Buddha's teachings (suttas), I don't know if that was his personal opinion or a general view in Theravada Buddhism.

In this video , Ven. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu says that the whole of the Buddhist teachings could be summarized as Appamāda (heedfulness), at the risk of oversimplification. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (DN16) , the Buddha conveyed the last message of his life: > Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Now, then, monks, I exhort > you: All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by > being **heedful**." Those were the Tathagata's last words. According to the Appamāda Sutta (SN3.17) : > "There is one quality, great king, that keeps both kinds of benefit > secure — benefits in this life & benefits in lives to come." > > "But what, lord, is that one quality...?" > > "**Heedfulness**, great king. Just as the footprints of all living > beings with legs can be encompassed by the footprint of the elephant, > and the elephant's footprint is declared to be supreme among them in > terms of its great size; in the same way, **heedfulness** is the one > quality that keeps both kinds of benefit secure — benefits in this > life & benefits in lives to come." Questions: 1. What really is Appamāda (heedfulness)? 2. How does one practise Appamāda (heedfulness)? 3. What are the benefits of Appamāda (heedfulness)? 4. Why is this one of the most important concepts in Buddhism, that the Buddha chose this to be his last message? 5. What is the relationship between Appamāda (heedfulness) and mindfulness? This answer equates the two.

In the video documentary Go Beyond Samsara - Part 2 , it mentions that Buddha had said: > "The number of dust on the earth could be counted, but the number of > beings that had been one's parents is in no case calculable" I'd like to see this in its fuller context. Where in the pali canon or other scriptures did the buddha say this and can you point me to it? I have researched and I can only find similar biblical references like here . Note: The video link above will play at the very moment in question.

Wondering if anyone knows the sutta where the Buddha talks about the aggregates and multiple selves. As in there is a changing group of khandas, and in one moment there is a self, (which could be called a self though it is fleeting) and another moment another self. (But its so fleeting it can hardly be called a Higher Self or Soul ect, as its only momentary). Its been about 6 years since I read the sutta, but I did find it, I am not explaining very well. It is quite short and direct. This is not talking about just the body as a self, its talking about the fleeting moment of the four or five aggregates (khandas). I know the simile that will likely be quoted but this was a more obscure reference. Some groups use this reference to refer to the "billions of selves". I am sure it exists in one place probably the Connected Discourses. Blessings in the Buddha Dhamma

Tsongkhapa and the Gelug school in general place great emphasis on the analysis of the emptiness of each thing. However, after this analysis, they also insist on having an "insight" into this object. It is, so to speak, like seeing "floaters" in my eyes and my doctor telling me that it is an ocular problem, not actual flies. I still have the experience of seeing flies, but I know that the object of this perception is an ocular condition. If I undergo surgery, this object is also confirmed subjectively, phenomenologically, and my experience aligns with the object. Something similar happens with the method Tsongkhapa proposes. What I want to know is: what kind of *act* does Tsongkhapa understand this to be? Is it a non-conceptual *perception*? Is it an *intuition*?

I have an anxiety disorder and I sometimes wonder if Dukkha could be viewed as anxiety. In other words in the four noble truths: This is anxiety. This is the cause of anxiety. This is the cessation of anxiety. This is the path of practice of anxiety. Isn't Dukkha really just a form of anxiety? Anxiety about emotional pain and even the suffering associated with physical pain is probably anxiety, horror at the pain and the risk of death. I don't know. I think this could be a translation of Dukkha. But maybe I should just use it myself because I have an anxiety disorder...

When a person becomes a stream enterer/Sotapanna, I understand they no longer have the first 3 fetters of belief in a self, doubts about the Buddha, his teachings or the noble sangha, or attachments to rites and rituals. But what's not clear to me is the mechanics of it. Does a person have a glimpse of Nibbana in a moment of true mindfulness and the three fetters drop away? Or does a person work at eradicating the first 3 fetters and if successful have a taste of Nibbana? Or can it happen either way?

The Theory of "Emptiness" is the concept that all phenomenon are empty of inherent existence. Something has the illusion of existence when the right causes and conditions arise. Example: there is no inherently existing chicken soup. You only get chicken soup when you put together a dead chicken, hot water. Veggies etc. in this theory, you illusory sense of self comes from the right causes and conditions, parents, a body, a brain etc. following this logic, upon death, the self should simply cease to exist because that which made you a self has dissolved and since you do not inherently exist you should just vanish, and yet the Buddha is clear we take rebirth. This is illogical and makes no sense. Perhaps this is why the Buddha never taught a theory of emptiness. This idea is nowhere in the entire Pali Canon.

When does a Buddhist begin to and fully master skilful means? I am asking because I think that this world contains a dilemma for everyone who takes it seriously (rather than their karma): a choice between virtue and power or skilful means. I think that's what I enjoyed about the lotus sutra, when I read it, how it elegantly illustrates the Buddha's ability for skilful means.

When we say the phrase may I be healthy may I be free from suffering? Isn’t that kind of not accepting where we are if we are suffering or in pain or not healthy? Can someone help me understand what we’re trying to achieve by saying that?

What is the Tusita heaven, and how can I be reborn there? I just think it sounds fun, plus Maitreya might be there!

What lesson did the Buddha teach concerning the singling-out of a group in society based on their perceived transgressions?

I have read some of the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh about mindfullness and anchoring oneself in the present by focussing on in-breath and out-breath. I am curious what teaching there may be about imagination, because imagination seems to take oneself away from the "here and now". How can mindfullness and imagination be reconciled? Is there any place for imagination? Thanks

>the Aṣṭā­daśa­sāhasrikā­prajñā­pāramitā: > >Furthermore, Subhūti, you should know that a sentient being is nonexistent because a self is nonexistent. You should know that a living being, a creature, one who lives, an individual, a person, one born of Manu, a child of Manu, one who does, one who feels, one who knows, and one who sees is nonexistent because a sentient being is nonexistent. You should know that the very limit of reality is nonexistent because … one who knows and one who sees is nonexistent. You should know that space is nonexistent because the very limit of reality is nonexistent. You should know that the Great Vehicle is nonexistent because space is nonexistent. You should know that the infinite, the countless, and that which is beyond measure [F.201.b] are nonexistent because the Great Vehicle is nonexistent, and you should know that all dharmas are nonexistent because that which is beyond measure is nonexistent. Therefore, Subhūti, the Great Vehicle has room for infinite, countless beings beyond measure. And why? Subhūti, it is because a self, up to one who knows and one who sees, the very limit of reality, space, the Great Vehicle, the infinite, the countless, that which is beyond measure, up to all dharmas all cannot be apprehended. And why? Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom do not see form; do not see feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness; do not see eyes; do not see ears, nose, tongue, body, or thinking mind; do not see a form, a sound, a smell, a taste, a feeling, or a dharma; do not see ignorance; do not see volitional factors, consciousness, name and form, the six sense fields, contact, feeling, craving, appropriation, existence, birth, or old age and death; do not see greed; do not see hatred or confusion; do not see a self; do not see a being, a living being, one who lives, an individual, a person, one born of Manu, a child of Manu, one who does, one who feels, one who knows, or one who sees; do not see the desire realm; do not see the form realm or formless realm; do not see śrāvakas and the śrāvaka dharmas; do not see pratyekabuddhas and the pratyekabuddha dharmas; do not see bodhisattvas and do not see bodhisattva dharmas; do not see buddhas [F.68.b] and do not see buddha dharmas; do not see awakening, up to do not see all dharmas. And while not seeing all dharmas they do not tremble, feel frightened, or become terrified.” My question is : Are all sentient beings non existent as the sutra claims ?

> “Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.” This quote by the Buddha makes no sense to me. Firstly and perhaps tangentially, it speaks of an "eternal" rule, but anything related to humans and other living beings including transcendent (who are the only entities that can experience hatred - inanimate rocks can't) are not permanent according to the Buddha. But okay, leaving that aside, two questions arise: 1. Why is hatred something that one should strive to cease? Clearly it involves important psychological functions, and had an evolutionary benefit. 2. How can hatred cease by love? If I love someone from another group, and that group hates me and wants me dead including any particular person from what group, they will be stronger and more motivated to destroy me, and so there will actually be less love. Moreover, there are many cases in history where two tribes hated each other, and one exterminated the other one, and the result was no more hatred. So hatred ended up ceasing through hatred. If someone could help me on these two points, I'd appreciate it.

I asked this question on the Philosophy StackExchange, as some belief systems have deep belief that everything is on a spectrum of polarity/opposites: - [What philosophies don't say things boil down to polarities (opposites)?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/118562/what-philosophies-dont-say-things-boil-down-to-polarities-opposites) What does Buddhism say about polarities/opposites? Does everything have an opposite? If so, how? I have several examples in my linked question, of what I think cannot be polarities: > I have thought a little about this and it appears that there are not > just polarities, but at least 3 classes of property values: > > 1. [On-off values](https://gist.github.com/lancejpollard/aa3b2eb6d03c997c6c42c214bf8c6701) > (not opposites, but a single property like "itchy" or "spikey", which > can have "more" or "less" of an intensity. _There is no opposite to > itchy or spikey._ At least the way I look at things. If you say > "non-itchy" as an opposite, what does that even mean? Basically it > boils down to "no value" or "some value", of one property. > 2. [Opposite values](https://gist.github.com/lancejpollard/5cd76ba84a1773fcd9228565baeb3423) . > These are your typical "polarities" like hot/cold, bright/dim, > heavy/light, etc.. Each is a single property with a pair of values on > a spectrum, ranging from one side to the other. > 3. Multidimensional values. These are things like "color", which has at least red/blue/green (rgb, 3 values ranging from 0-255 on modern > computers), or hue/saturation/lightness (hsl). I think most > "properties" belong to this category TBH, but I can't think of many > more. In coding, these are "data models" or "types with attributes".

Is there a short discourse that says something like 'the dhama is not for the discontented, but for the content'. I am pretty certain there is. Can you post it?

I read the following on an internet site: > First of all, there are no men or women, no gender at all. Only > arising and vanishing causes and effects. Where are the notions above found in the Tipitaka? Otherwise, where are the above notions refuted in the Tipitaka?

Please provide sources from the original text or your own experiences and understandings of how to make progress in overcoming background negative feelings? For years I have been greatly harmed by harboring these feelings in the back of my mind which has not only created great suffering but altered the course of my life. Doing some mindfulness work made me realize that these feelings are there in my mind due to past experiences, and are harming me more than anything else in my life. How can I overcome, even slightly, this kind of mindset?

In the conventional sense, views on dukkha (stress/hardships/difficulties/suffering) are rather mixed. We have the saying, [“No pain, no gain”](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/no-pain-no-gain) that implies that suffering is needed to make progress. There is also the saying, [“Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger”](https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/what-doesnt-kill-you-makes-you-stronger/) , again implying how difficult experiences make a person more resilient. Yet, it is known today [many diseases are stress-related](https://www.webmd.com/balance/stress-management/features/10-fixable-stress-related-health-problems) . I have friends/acquaintances who suffered from diseases which I strongly suspect is a result of their stressful lifestyles. What is strange from my observations is that most of the time, they are either not aware or simply feel that everything is normal. I suspect that over the years and decades even though the stress had reached [chronic level](https://www.yalemedicine.org/conditions/stress-disorder) , their mind had grown used to it even though their bodies did not. In fact, one of them appeared nonchalant when I implied that there might be a link between her illness and stress. Sometimes, I wish doctors are just as good at curing the mind as they are with the body. 1. How should lay Buddhists view and make use of dukkha such that it is helpful not only spiritually but also allow them to make meaningful progress in the world? 2. Is there a way to strike a balance with stress in our personal and professional lives? 3. What advice would you give to non-Buddhist friends who are suffering from chronic stress?