It's said that desire for gains as intention for one undertakings, beyond simply that for liberation from suffering, is a huge hindrance, obstacle. No, the Buddha also warned even Arahats, at least in regard of the accumulation of sakkara (honor, amassing honor, [Labāsakkara](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/sn/sn17/sn17.005.than_en.html)) , as being a cause that leads to unease. Now, what could, should one do, should avoid, that all kinds of such accumulations do not take place and do not endanger ones intention, aspiration, to bend from highest path and fruits, awakening? Which role does maccharia (stinginess of five kinds and one primare cause) plays here, and if related, what kind of practice would work against such? *(Note that this task is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainments but just to bind toward liberation)*

In ten Noble path the sequence is right knowledge and right release. (Samma Nana and samma vimutti) In SN 12.23 it says: Dispassion is a vital condition for freedom. virāgūpanisā vimutti, Freedom is a vital condition for the knowledge of ending. vimuttūpanisaṃ khayeñāṇaṃ. https://suttacentral.net/sn12.23/en/sujato

We all know the limits of a married person.We all know the definition of cheating in Buddhism. But Buddhism existed in a time Porn did not exist. So if a married person watch porn is it cheating?

I searched, but I couldn't find, where these "10 merits of life liberation" are included in the Tripitaka. Here you can find the "10 merits" I mentioned: [Why do Buddhists practise life liberation?](http://www.purifymind.com/SB51.htm) There is also a Pali verse I found about this, but it's not in English, and also I don't study Buddhism in English normally -- so'll be thankful if anyone can point out where it is in the tripitaka. I guess it may be in the **therapadana** part, according to that Pali verse -- I can't write it clearly in English letters as I found it only in Sinhala letters, but nearly it's like this: > abhayadanan dhatwana - jaththuno bhayajjite dasanisanse anubhomi - kammanuchchawike mama

The core of the Buddhist teachings are the four noble truths which talks about the existence of suffering. Other religions criticize Buddhism telling that this focusing on suffering makes the followers to be aware of the existence suffering and to feel more suffering instead of trying to enjoy the good things life can give us. One answer Buddhism gives to this review is that, yes suffering exists and we are in a suffering situation but the four noble truths continues and tells us that it's possible to stop suffering. On the other hand, suffering is stopped when enlightenment is achieved and yes, it is possible to stop suffering but also very unlikely even for monks and for an average person that would be even more difficult. Does it means Buddhism will make the average follower to feel more suffering?

In recent years in "Western" culture, teachings derived from Buddhist practices have been increasingly common. These teachings are often of a secular nature and are about compassion, meditation and mindfulness. However, some of them expressly bring out teachings about dharma, dukha, metta, etc. Some of these teachers charge significant sums for retreats, which may have dozens or even hundreds of people attend. It's obvious that a lot of money is being made. While I don't begrudge someone making a living - even a comfortable one - in a few cases, I know that these teachers are living very well: driving expensive cars, living in the most expensive neighborhoods/suburbs of their cities, etc. Am I misunderstanding something, or does this go against the Buddha's teachings? Edit: For clarity's sake, let me elaborate on the type of teacher I'm discussing. I'm NOT referring a monastery charging a fee to cover operating costs for retreats, classes, etc. What I'm asking about are people who have best selling books, charge $100 for 1 day retreats with 100 people attending, and who have observable significant wealth in that they live in neighborhoods where the houses cost millions of dollars and drive cars that are a hundred thousand dollars or more.

Is there anyone knows and has experience in past life regression? How can I do to recall my past life memory? Thank you.

Last year, I applied for the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) Tech Visa in the UK. From the two criteria: "prove at least 2 innovations in tech" and "demonstrate how your engagement with the community helped advanced the sector", I picked the first one, because I don't spend much time socialising online, just doing my programming work. I did give link to my GitHub profile and showed my programming work. Still, the response that I got was negative and stated that "the applicant is expected to have the profile in the community" which I know is false, because it's not my criterion. This all happened because initially there were errors made by experts in their decision, and when I complained and applied for the review, the manager of the organisation that is supposed to provide fair reviews, hated me and wrote the review herself which is not based on any true facts. If you're interested, you can read the review yourself, but after each sentence please ask "why should I believe this, what are the objective facts that support statements". I'm a Senior Software Engineer, and I know that I didn't use frameworks in my work, instead I made dem frameworks myself. The manager just lied about me to the government because they're mental and there's no-one regulating this enterprise that issues reviews. In any way, I will sue the company for breaking the GPDR since my choice of criteria is my personal data and it was not processed according to my consent and that's settled. However, I also want to prove that telling me that > "Although early in his career, an applicant who wants to be considered as Exceptional Promise is expected to have a profile outside of his immediate employer. This is feasible even with limited experience." is limiting my opportunities on the religious grounds, such as that I'm a buddhist. This is in addition to the fact there was a clear choice between the two criteria, I picked the innovations, and was judged for the community profile because the manager without Computer Science education is not even in the position to evaluate my work (that's why there's no technical details in the review and the lies of my work not being innovative everywhere without any proof of that). Sorry for the long preamble, I just want you to understand the background to my frustration when I'm a professional developer, spend 10+ hours a day coding my software, and at the moment not really keen on engaging with the community because I want to finish my software to the extend that I'm happy with it to be presented to the world and because I'm naturally OK by myself and also don't really like the state of what the "community" is doing, with anyone calling themselves developers after taking an online course, whereas I'm a Software Engineer with a master's degree. I'm not a stuck up person it's just annoying how I showed a distinction in masters, a senior software engineering position by 25 yo, and none of these things even matter for the visa? For non-tech sections, people have to have at least a PhD to apply for the same visa, but apparently for the tech one, you can get it just with the community profile "feasible even with limited experience"! The tech bubble is pretty annoying, you can read more . The best way to express my attitude is with a quote > But recall that Nietzsche is not attempting to defend values for everybody to adopt. He wants to free higher people from living by the standards (of equality, modesty, mediocrity) of the ‘herd’. I think that Nietzsche is aligned with buddhism, and although he did attack it, it was only the part that is related to people becoming ascetics and thus denying their nature, which is exactly what Gautama Buddha was against iirc. To tell me I have to have a profile in the community is like punishing a kid in the kindergarten for "not playing with other kids". We're adults and I'm building my business and I had shown how I contributed over 60 packages to Open Source, which were dismissed as "not track record". The woman is clearly insane and I know that because I met her and she talked to me in such patronising tone that I knew she thinks I'm upset about not getting the visa for my work not being good enough, rather than because the experts make mistakes and the organisation didn't even ensure that the recommendation they return is correct. Back to the buddhism, this is the main theme I want to use: > SRAMANA, sramana. This is closely allied to the word shaman, and a > shaman is the holy man in a culture that is still hunting, it isn’t > settled, it isn’t agrarian. There is a very strong and important > difference between a shaman and a priest. A priest receives his > ordination from his superiors. He receives something from a tradition > which is handed down. > > A shaman doesn’t. He receives his enlightenment by going off into the > forest by himself to be completely alone. In other words, a shaman is > a man who has undergone solitariness. He has gone away into the forest > to find out who he really is, because it’s very difficult to find that > out while you’re with other people, and the reason is that other > people are busy all the time telling you who you are, in many many > ways, by the laws they impose on you, by the behavior ruts they set on > you, by the things they tell you, by the fact that they always call > you by your name, and by the fact that when you live among people you > have to be in a state of ceaseless chatter. > > But if you want to find out who you are before your father and mother > conceived you, who you really are, you almost have to go off by > yourself. You go into the forest, and stop talking, and even stop > thinking words, and be absolutely alone, and listen to the great > silences. **"Thusness" by Alan Watts** In buddhist lectures, I always hear about how society brainwashes you by giving you a name, setting the rules and standards that are there to ensure its (temporal) victory over time in trying to establish itself as permanent, but buddhists know that nothing is permanent. Therefore, I'm trying to extract the essence of the idea that a man, as an individual, does not owe society, he is free to live for himself and pursue his/her own goals. This is best reflected in Ayn Rand's philosophy, > “Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary. **The Fountainhead ** *Zen is concerned with what actually is rather than what we think or feel about what is.* What things are, is that my code works, gives result and solves problems. What others think or feel about it is the community profile which I don't care about. Can you please give me all possible quotes/parts of teaching that would prove that according to buddhism I don't owe society a community profile, I can work on my own and make significant contribution to the sector with just my development work (i.e., the criterion I chose for the visa), without having to prove anything to anyone with the profile. > “A leader is best > When people barely know he exists > Of a good leader, who talks little, > When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, > They will say, “We did this ourselves.” **Lao Tzu** I tried searching for "buddhism and society" topics, but all comes up vague. What I'm really looking for is anything that resembles Alan Watts's saying that a buddha is not the one who's been conditioned by the society and "community", but on contrary, the one who leaves it to find his/her own way. I know that working on my own on independent software is the way of dealing with suffering, therefore it's irrelevant if I have the profile or not. Gramercy.

Below is from Ariyapariyesana Sutta > "Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search. > And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being > subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise > subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness... > death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is > likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement. > > "And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... > sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... > goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... > gold & silver **[<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.accesstoinsight.org%2Ftipitaka%2Fmn%2Fmn.026.than.html%23fn-2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">[2] <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>][2] ** are subject to aging... illness... death... > sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... > sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to > them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being > subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... > illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search. > > "And what is the noble search? There is the case where a person, > himself being subject to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeks > the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Himself being > subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing > the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, > seeks the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled, > unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. This is the noble search. When this is closely read, it seems the word Birth which is relevant to Buddha's noble search (and this comes in the first Noble Truth of Dukkha as well) is not about birth from a mother -- because if it is, then how come the gold & silver are there? Although [this footnote 2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html#fn-2) says ... > The Burmese, Sri Lankan, and PTS editions of the Canon exclude gold and silver from the list of objects subject to illness, death, and sorrow, apparently on the grounds that they themselves do not grow ill, die, or feel sorrow. ... however it's not excluded in Sri Lankan editions of the Canon, no it is not. And who can do such a change? Only Buddha or Arhat only can understand this totally, isn't it? And in the last paragraph, it's very clear that noble search is concluded to unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Is it unbinding from birth? Yes (because that's told). But birth of what? it's not the someone's birth is it? It should be birth of Yoke. And this yoke is generated on the mentioned objects (Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver) thinking they are worth or nice. Then what we should think: Birth is dukkha, or Yoke is dukkha? Because birth, ageing or death can be a pleasurable things for some people, while some other people suffer (Dukkha) on that (e.g. death of a terrorist is not a suffer, birth of a baby is not a suffer to his parents, ageing is not a suffer to 17 years old boy...) What do you think, am I mistaken on this? If so please explain why the gold & silver is there? And why Birth, Age, Death are treated as Dukkha?

Where can I find the English / Chinese translation of the Kalachakra Tantra? (not commentary) Thank you.

Path and fruition for the 4 stages of holy disciple are frequently mentioned. I understand that the fruition is the removal of the fetters and realization of the knowledge of that respective attainment (stream entry, once returner, non returner, arhatship ). The holy disciple knows that he is a stream entrant upon attainment of stream entry fruition.......he knows he is an arhat upon attainment of arhatship. But what is the attainment of path? How would one describe rightly the attainment of the path? What is the difference in an ordinary person, a faithful disciple who has not attained any path and the holy one who has attained any of the respective path? I would really appreciate actual words of the Buddha for this answer.

As I've heard, the "world" referred by Buddha (mentioned in the Loka Sutta and in Samyutta Nikaya - 4 -> LokaSamudaya Sutta) is the same as "Five Aggregates of Clinging" (Five-Updana-Skandas). That's why the world in one's mind is different than the other's world. It would be great if anyone can explain this further.

On what basis can a person who chooses to forgo enlightenment (arahant status) for any reason (for the supposed benefit of others, for example) be considered a Buddhist? If there is such a basis, can a person who intentionally retains a wrong view (seeing the body as self, for example) also be considered a Buddhist when they won't renounce such a view once corrected? Or a person who intentionally retains wrong action (stealing), saying that such action benefits others? I am mostly referring to the choice some people make to be a "bodhisattva" when they see that choice as intentionally putting off the efforts and strivings necessary to become enlightened because they would rather work "selflessly" for others' benefit. Where is the support for such a choice found within the Buddha's teachings?

From [Socratic questioning – Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning) : >Socratic questioning is a form of disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we do not know, to follow out logical consequences of thought or to control discussions. Socratic questioning is based on the foundation that thinking has structured logic, and allows underlying thoughts to be questioned. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, deep and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues or problems. > > Examples of Socratic questions that are used for students in educational settings: > >1. Getting students to clarify their thinking and explore the origin of their thinking e.g., 'Why do you say that?', 'Could you explain further?' > 2. Challenging students about assumptions e.g., 'Is this always the case?', 'Why do you think that this assumption holds here?' > 3. Providing evidence as a basis for arguments e.g., 'Why do you say that?', 'Is there reason to doubt this evidence?' > 4. Discovering alternative viewpoints and perspectives and conflicts between contentions e.g., 'What is the counter-argument?', 'Can/did anyone see this another way?' > 5. Exploring implications and consequences e.g., 'But if...happened, what else would result?', 'How does...affect...?' > 6. Questioning the question e.g., 'Why do you think that I asked that question?', 'Why was that question important?', 'Which of your questions turned out to be the most useful?' Does this sound familiar with any Buddhism teachings/suttas? In specific, I think this has the same idea with koans, but I'm not sure. My interest seems to be about zen and mahayana, however any schools are welcomed.

To most of the questions about Nibbana, the easiest answer is "Avijja ". - But what exactly this Avijja? Improper attention, ignorance? - What are we ignoring, and then what's the fact that we should not ignore or we should look in the world? - How can we uproot it? I know Avijja can be easily answered in few words (e.g. with definitions, or some other synonyms) -- but why I'm asking this question is, it says that uprooting Avijja is the path to Enlightenment. If we take an example: - If someone "ask how to be a mathematician?", an answer would be (I'm limiting the answer set in a way to explain the question), "you need to learn addition / subtraction, integration, differentiation, etc." - So what I'm asking is like "how to be enlightened?", an answer is "uproot the Avijja". - So now I'm asking "what is Avijja?" like "what is addition?". - I'm not expecting an answer like "the action or process of adding something to something else." Instead I'm expecting an answer like, how it is taught to us in elementary school (like using Abacus). Because for Buddhism most of us are like children -- if not we are Arhat by now. Please I just try to explain the answer with these stories, but not to offend anyone. With Metta, I'm expecting a detailed answer from the wise people in the community.

In buddhism what is aarya dukkha? And what’s the reason for it? Dukkha is one of four noble truth. And as I heard it’s because of the impermanence. Can in permanence be the cause for the Dukkha? Is it true? Please provide practical situations when explaining. EDIT: According to some answers, the direct answer to this question is attachment (upadana). To be more specific my question is how attachment become the cause for the Noble Dukkha? Eg: If I like a car, its an attachment. And how does that become the cause for the Noble Dhukka. EDIT 2: According to the answer given by Brian, When attached, you find something desirable and you don't want to let it go; you want to keep it for yourself, permanently. But the thing is, conditioned phenomena are in constant change, and those things will not stay the same or with you forever. But imagine a prince, and a car he owns, It doesn't matter the conditioned phenomena (Saṅkhāra) he can maintain the car as it was. So what's the dukkha in that. Please note: I'm just trying to sharp my question by providing examples, if I'm doing any thing bad, please let me know, as I'm new to this.

Is dependent arising meant for us to understand the arising of suffering -- or is it also meant to describe how phenomena in the outside World arise dependent on other conditions (for instance how water and sun causes a flower to grow)? I think Nagarjuna says that dependent origination is not only showing how suffering arises, but also how phenomena in the World arises. He uses a sutra in the Pali Canon where the Buddha said that this World is dominated by a duality of existence and non existence, then he continued, "when one sees the origination and cessation of the World existence and non existence do not occur to one anymore". This seems to confirm what Nagarjuna said: that dependent origination is not only describing how suffering originates, but how phenomena in the World also originate -- isn't that so? --- I have another question also: how would you describe Theravada, Mahayana, Vajryana and Tibetan Buddhism -- are they non dual or not? Please describe to me the logic why you answered the way you did also.

All living beings (animals + humans) like something, and they don't like some another things? What is the reason for liking and disliking. Eg: Imagine there are two best friends let's call friend A and friend B. Friend A likes a lady call X (very pretty lady) meanwhile friend B doesn't like lady X. What's the reason according to the buddhism. To narrow down the question the point is though lady X is very pretty for friend A but not for friend B. Why is it?

The direct answer to this question is attachment (upadana). To be more specific my question is how attachment become the cause for the Noble Dukkha? Eg: If I like a car, its an attachment. And how does that become the cause for the Noble Dhukka

Leading on from this answer - in the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta it identifies wrong action in one's livelihood as 1. Scheming 2. Persuading 3. Hinting 4. Belittling 5. Pursuing gain with gain What is meant by pursuing gain with gain? It is a problem with the translation that makes it unclear or have I just missed an obvious interpretation?