In the context of the sutta below, what does the following phrase mean? - "**whatever bad deed I did here in the past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will not follow along**" (*yaṃ kho me idaṃ kiñci pubbe iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ idha vedanīyaṃ; na taṃ anugaṃ bhavissatī’ti*) This phrase seems to apply to one who practises the Brahmaviharas . How is it different for one who does not practise the Brahmaviharas (or the Dhamma in general, for that matter)? What does deed-born body (*karajakāya*) really mean? Also related is the phrase "**A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals have mind as their core.**" (*Itthiyā vā, bhikkhave, purisassa vā nāyaṃ kāyo ādāya gamanīyo. Cittantaro ayaṃ, bhikkhave, macco.*). What does this mean? From AN 10.219 : > “What do you think, bhikkhus, if a youth were to develop the > liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and also, compassion, > altruistic joy and equanimity) from his childhood on, would he do a > bad deed?” > > “No, Bhante.” > > “Could suffering affect him if he does no bad deed?” “No, Bhante. For > on what account could suffering affect one who does no bad deed?” > > **“A woman or a man should develop this liberation of mind by > loving-kindness (and also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity). > A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals > have mind as their core.** > > “The noble disciple understands: **‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the > past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will > not follow along.’** When the liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and > also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity) has been developed in > this way, it leads to non-returning for a wise bhikkhu here who does > not penetrate to a further liberation.

A while ago I wrote a question [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/31913/are-all-forms-of-dukkha-related-to-a-sense-of-self) about the relation between dukkha and the sense of self (whether from identity view, from conceit or both). There, most answers said that, indeed, that sense of self was at the root of all forms of dukkha. Now I want to ask some things related to that: I know that that sense of self is part of what we call ignorance (avijja) in buddhism. And at the same time I know that the first link of the Dependent Co-Arising (or Dependent Origination, DO) is Ignorance. Is ignorance only referred to the illusion of the sense of self? Is ignorance in the DO just referring to that sense of self? Are the rest of the distortions ([vipallasa](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.olen.html)) of the mind (seeing the impermanent as permanent, the unsatisfactory as satisfactory, and the unlovely as lovely) included in the definition of ignorance? If the answer to the last question is "yes", then can we say that not all forms of dukkha arise because of a sense of self, but rather from ignorance in general, i.e. from the distortions of the mind? Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

According to Salguero (2017): > The Five Pungent Roots generally refer to garlic, leeks, scallions, onions, and asafoetida, as well as their subvarieties. In some sources, the list includes ginger and chives. I am looking for a more definitive reference for this. In particular, I am looking for any early Buddhist texts that proscribe the "Five Pungents" and, better still, explicitly names the five.

I noticed that when I'm mindful of what I'm doing, it seems different and even more helpful than merely paying attention to the senses, i.e. vision or sound. **Are there any noted difference between these two practices?**

According to wikipedia article on the eightfold path, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path >The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and **right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union')**. In early Buddhism, these practices started with understanding that the body-mind works in a corrupted way (right view), followed by entering the Buddhist path of self-observance, self-restraint, and cultivating kindness and compassion; and **culminating in dhyana or samadhi**, which re-inforces these practices for the development of the body-mind. My question: Is meditation necessary in Buddhism? Is the practice of Buddhism incomplete without meditation?

What is Sanna Samapatti and Nirodha Samapatti? How this differs from Sanna Vedaniya Nirodha? What is the sutta reference? This question based on the following Dhamma talk in the Sinhalese language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1422&v=IdvO1AvwOrQ > Yā cāyaṃ bhikkhu ābhādhātu yā ca subhādhātu yā ca ākāsānañcāyatanadhātu yā ca viññāṇañcāyatanadhātu yā ca ākiñcaññāyatanadhātu imā dhātuyo **saññāsamāpatti** pattabbā . yāyaṃ bhikkhu nevasaññānāsaññāyatanadhātu ayaṃ dhātu **saṅkhārāvasesasamāpatti** pattabbā . yāyaṃ bhikkhu **saññāvedayitanirodhadhātu** ayaṃ dhātu nirodhasamāpatti pattabbāti . Paṭhamaṃ. Source: http://84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/pali_read.php?B=16&A=3621&w=%CA%AD%DA%AD%D2%CA%C1%D2%BB%B5%DA

I want to know whether the action of ancestors will be pass down to their children in the form of karma?.. A father's decision can affect his children like father quitting his job and staying at home can affect his children...but What i want to know is, if someone has a very crual father does atleast some of his bad karma gets pass down to his later generations not just to his childrens but maybe to great grand children...like for example a person's great grand father may have killed someone...and due to that this person is having a major disease... Does karma works in this way?

I'm wondering if mental illness is carried over into the space between lives and then subsequently to the next birth?

I read on the internet Mahasi Sayadaw once said: > "For example, if a generous person obtains something precious and > valuable, his first thought is to offer it to someone else rather than > to use it for his own pleasure." So a person, in being devoid of craving, or in cultivating detachment, shows "generosity" in giving someone else the object of the craving and allowing them to bear the craving in themselves. This seems both perverse and ubiquitous in the literature. Where is the "generosity" in spreading the disease of attachment?

Is there some website or book somewhere that lists suttas on different criteria like what suttas are more core or more likely to be authentic do to scholarly analysis like comparing Chinese translations or other ways of analysis...that brings me to another question. What are the different ways scholars can find clues or evidence of a sutta's authenticity?

I read the following on the internet: > *Thus we can say that consciousness is a result of contact.* > > *It looks like ocean waves: there is something beneath (water, an organ of perception) and something above (wind, perceived object).* > > *We can say that consciousness doesn't exist if there is no contact of organ of perception and object of perception.* Is consciousness a result of contact? Or contact a result of consciousness? What did the Lord Buddha, the Master, have to say about this?

Watching bodily sensations is simple ,there is **always** a sensation to recognize in the present moment .Same with breathing ,hearing and seeing.Always a reception exists realtime. > For example:- > > In breathing: there is a slow breath ,heavy breath ,refreshing breath. > > In the body:There is comfort ,tightness ,discomfort. But the mind as a sixth sense isn't as easy .It doesn't seem like it always keeps receiving a continuous stream of thoughts to recognize in the present. Is there a meditation practice that can help recognize thoughts continuously ?.Or do thoughts pop out erratically and according to ones interaction with the aggregates?. **Edit** What I mean by thoughts as in ideas coming to the mind.

I have been practising breathing meditation for some time. Now, I feel compassion meditation would benefit me more. I was thinking of practising 30 min of *each* every day. **Would such interspaced practise (one session breathing, one session compassion, etc.) be beneficial, or discouraged?** In other words, **is it better to stick to the same practice on the long term?**

It is common practice to speak of Nagarjuna's *theory of emptiness* and Doctrine of Two Truths. Why do we call one a theory and the other a doctrine?

Are the genders male/female a result of Kamma, or is it associated with it in any way?

In this sutta, the Buddha teaches how different people should approach sense-restraint. Here, the enlightened ones can perceive objects in a different light (positively, negatively or dwelling in equanimity), whereas beginners should be repelled in sense-objects. My question: (i) What does "repelled/disgusted" mean literally? (ii) Isn't everyone capable to perceive the good in the bad and the bad in the good? Why did the Buddha made such a distinction?

I want to start with this Buddha quote from the Dhammapada > As rain breaks through an ill-thatched house, passion will break > through an unreflecting mind. Ch. 1: The Twin Verses, verse 13 Last night I was playing chess with a close friend and he beat me 4 times consecutively .The first time I almost beat him but my performance worsened linearly .The last time my performance was the worst. Aside from realizing that each time I lost the more I wanted to beat him ,I realized that while playing I was constantly **thinking** about the possible moves and wasn't mindful or aware during the game.Its almost like I was constantly surprised by unanticipated moves Its **during** the game that the feeling of defeat struck me and during this I was thinking about the plan . How can watching and strategic thinking occur,if when I watch there is no thinking?. A fellow here stated that thinking and watching are antagonistic .I think this has some truth as when I watch the thread of thoughts subsides. I think this leads to a more general question and that in any sport or activity that requires a certain skill .How can mindfulness be incorporated during that activity?. I know there are already related questions but,there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer.

It appears many of my doubts and questions about Buddhism is the result of not being able to marry the teaching of conventional truth and the ultimate truth. For instance, when we take Jati in Dependent Origination, in terms of Vohara Desana it applies to the physical rebirth of a person. However, in the ultimate sense, there is no person then who is re-born? Ultimate sense what is re-born is the attachment, aversion, and ignorance. We can apply this duality to all 12 links of DO. Actually, this dilemma is very similar to the problem of scientists who are trying to understand the relation between the universe and the atoms. Does Dependent Origination cover both conventional teaching and Ultimate teaching?

I noticed all the emotions mentioned in the title have a certain similarity. **Does Buddhism talk about movement or gratitude?** Similarly, movement seems to occur spontaneously, but gratitude and compassion may be practised. **Is movement more of a reaction, and less constructive on that basis?** Finally, movement seems akin to sympathetic joy. Would feeling sympathetic joy in itself -- i.e. the feeling or experience of it -- be constructive independently of practice, or is the *implementation* more constructive? **In other words, would practise like meditation or action bring benefit much beyond merely feeling moved?** I guess I'm somewhat implying the question as well: **Do experiences without effort (e.g. merely *feeling* compassion) have any potential for spiritual growth?** Thank you.

If I recall correctly, the term *karma* is used to explain the concept of dependent origination and how one thing leads to another, consequently creating every event that happens in our lives. It is also emphasized in Buddhism that we should conduct wholesome deeds to obtain good karma, which will lead to good things as a result. However, when we face unfortunate events like natural disasters and terrorist attacks, can karma explain the causes of these events and why seemingly innocent people suffer because of it? Furthermore, if we accept the notion that karma is behind everything in our lives, is that equivalent to saying those who die in these unfortunate events DESERVE it? Much appreciated.