In commenting a post , I have just been introduced to the *"two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other" Sutta*. The comments have just been moved to chat and I hope it would be kept for awhile since I notice most chats are just rubbish bins to collect "hazardous" information in this forum and later deleted. From Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288 it has this verse: > ...譬如：**三**蘆立於空地，展轉相依而得豎立，若去其一，二亦不立；若去其二，一亦不立，展轉相依而得豎立。**識** 緣名色，亦復如是，展轉相依而得生長。 > *Translation* > ...For example, **three** reeds standing on the floor, they > relying on each other so are able to stand up. If one is removed, the > other two cannot stand; if removed two, one also cannot stand. [Only] > by relying on each other they are able to stand up. **Consciousness** > correlating to name-form, is also the same, [they] relying on each > other then are able to develop. *~ Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288* > > >Remark: Chinese 識 has multiple meanings, depends on the context of the text, it either just refers to consciousness - the faculty of cognizing, or the total of mind However, Pali Sutta Nalakalapiyo Sutta : Sheaves of Reeds reads: > "Suppose there were **two** bundles of reeds leaning up against each other. In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. If the first of those bundles of reeds were to be pulled away, the other would collapse. And if the other were to be pulled away, the first would collapse. In the same way, when name and form cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease.” *~ SN 12.67* The Chinese Agama said **three** reeds can lean againist each other, but the Pali Nalakalapiyo said **two** reeds can lean against each other. My questions are: 1. Are these two Sutra/Sutta equivalent but different versions?1 2. If they are equivalent Sutra/Sutta, which is more reliable? Or, more accurate? 3. They obviously have marked disagreement - can three reeds leaning against each others to stand up, or two reeds? I welcome non-dogmatic, non-sectarian answers, and thanks in advance. Reminder, this is a professional academic comparison, please appeal to logic, reasons and facts. That would be much appreciated. ---------- Footnote: 1. From my knowledge, Chinese Samyutta Agama has two versions, one is from Ceylon (Sri Lanka). But also from my knowledge, there wasn't any script of Pali Canon being brought back from Ceylon to China by the ancient Chinese Buddhist pilgrims in the Chinese Tripitaka. 1.1 Just excuse me rumbling, the Chinese pilgrims took scripts from other sects in Ceylon, not the Mahavihara sect - called Theravada today, who kept the Pali Canon.

I've been practicing Vipassana and reading "The Art of Living" by S.N Goenka. My questions is, I have obligations. When I wake up in the morning I have a thought to go to the bathroom and brush my teeth. Then I follow with that thought and perform the actions. How is this different from me craving that action? If I simply observe the thought of brushing my teeth, and mentally note "thoughts", it will help the thought fade but now I do not accomplish anything in my life. How do I know what thoughts must be left to "fade" and what thoughts I must act on? If I'm acting on a thought, isn't that due to aversion/craving? Where do you draw the line?

When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies what do they mean: do they mean that conventional desginators like "I" only refer to different concrete things (a baby, an old man) but they also mean something different? Specifically: can we say, conventionally or otherwise, that the old man or the baby have aged, or that the baby grew up into an old man? > “Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the > Blessed One, it is the same consciousness that runs and wanders > through the round of rebirths, not another.” > > “What is that consciousness, Sāti?” > > “Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here > and there the result of good and bad actions.” > > “Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in > that way? Hope I haven't misread it! He then goes on to describe dependent origination.

The first effort states **to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states** How is this done? How can we prevent something beforehand? By avoiding situations? By trying to be in a rational and/or 'dhammic' frame of mind? If there is contact with an object, either ignorance or wisdom arises subsequently in response, and AFTER THAT, we can use sati-sampajañña to get rid of the unwholesome state (2nd factor of right effort). But how is the first factor to be practised?

Read somewhere that Buddhism does not advocate to go away from the beliefs of a person. Or in a way accommodate one's rooted beliefs from childhood. The main objective of following the path of Buddha is for self-realization. That too not disturbing others and their beliefs. - Since Buddha advocated for education to all humankind without considering race or color, will it be like a revolutionary thought came before centuries (_like communism, socialism ..._)? - But most of the world refers to it as a religion. Is it because of the transformation to idol based community from a spiritual community created by Buddha? - Does Buddism has more affinity towards a free-thinking society based on modern science OR towards a ritual-based society based on fears that remind the mind to do good acts?

I am reading a transcript of a talk given by a Tibetan lama, and the word 'sur' is used. What is it? Does it have something to do with food offering?

My loving grandma passed away on 1st April 18 so we want to have death anniversary. So I want to ask when should we arrange ceremony, on first April or first March? We tribute a person with chanting **Refuge** and **Panchashila**. So is something missing?

I am only getting fake and/or altered versions of the Dhammapada. This is a serious problem. They get changed regularly, sometimes a verse is just completely false as it describes something that is not Right View, other times the translations are poor, some verses seem untouched. Is anyone else experiencing this?

I find this troubling. My poor relationship with my adult children causes me distress. Logic and the dharma would suggest that severing ties with them would be a positive for both sides. But I cannot get over the feelings for neglect and guilt. Plus I may be causing them some current discomfort. They neglect me because they don't understand me seeking the jewel so I try to respect that BUT how do I get past this guilt and sadness?

I am interested in Buddhism and the book Tao Te Ching, written by Lao-Tzu in c. 600 BC. Is there common ground between these two Eastern philosophies? link to audio of *Tao Te Ching*

I see that Buddhism is absolutely not nihilism, but I wonder what could go wrong if one misconstrue one with another. This is especially true with people with psychological issues, because they have to experience an amount of suffering more than normal when they are young. For example, for persons with [borderline personality disorder](https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Borderline-Personality-Disorder) , they constantly has these feelings: - Extremely fear of being abandoned - Unstable self-image In this example case, since Buddhism teaches that acknowledging everything is impermanent you won't be afraid of being abandoned. The unstable self-image also matches with the idea of anatman, therefore the idea of impermanence will have a strong impact to them. But in fact, this is just clinging on the idea of impermanence. Many people with psychological disorders knows that they are the trouble, so they want to limit relationships at all cost to protect the person involving them. To justify this behavior, they may use nihilism. But when it become a habit, it's really hard for professional therapists to help them, because they now have a reason to continue the behavior. I know you may not have much understanding on such cases, but I'm not asking about it either. I just want to know that if someone is misconstruing Buddhism with nihilism, then what suttas/teachings they contradict with. Note that my understanding on philosophy is not very concrete. It's possible that I should replace "nihilism" with "impermanencism".
Related: • [Is Buddhism Nihilistic?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/25409/13525) • [How to not slip into Nihilism from Vipassana?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8748/13525) • [Why is Buddhism not Nihilism?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/2245/13525) • [Is there a kind of consulting service in Buddhism?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31353/13525) • [When would a Buddhist want to attach?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31324/13525) • [Does Buddhism give methods to ask questions when you are proliferating?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31296/13525)

I often see in some suttas that there are some habitual tendencies that, after the arising of pleasent feeling or painful feelings, lead to suffering due to passion for the pleasure and aversion for the pain. But beside those two modes of feelings, there is a neutral kind of feeling, which neither-pleasent-nor-painful. In the suttas, such as MN 44 and MN 148, it is stated that neutral feeling accompanied with ignorance leads to suffering, because one does not see the gratification, the danger and the escape from suffering. I do understand the reasoning behind the two former modes of feelings and their relation with passion and aversion, but I can't grasp the idea behind neutral feelings and ignorance. Can someone explain the influence of ignorance over neutral feelings and its connection with suffering? Maybe some examples from the suttas or from everyday life might be helpful. Thanks for your time and patience!

Some people are obsessed with making a great personality and revolutionary like the Buddha a follower of their own faith by making baseless, historically inaccurate and factually incorrect claims. One such claim is that Buddha was a Hindu Yogi who actually preached Vedanta. How do I refute this claim?

The question says it all. I'm not much familiar with either. I've read the book of Tao a few times and have read a few Buddhist scriptures. To me they seem so different and so alike at the same time, but I barely have any surface knowledge to draw any conclusions.

I have noticed that when I write spontaneously, a lot of insight occurs. By this, I mean ideas flow in a manner generating many positive emotions as awe, joy, and movement. **In Buddhism, is such creative insight considered what is typically called 'insight' (e.g. insight meditation) or is the Buddhist version of insight something entirely different?**

I guess (perhaps I'm wrong) that humans and life in general tend toward [homeostatis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis) -- i.e. wanting to stay the same as before -- and not just physically but socially and mentally too, e.g. to keep what you have and avoid what's new. An "avoiding extremes" doctrine might encourage that. The [theory of 'flow'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)) in psychology suggests that people want to engage in activities which are not too boring but also not too challenging. I think that school-teachers are aware of that phenomenon, and school-children become trained (habituated) to it. But however useful or pleasant that may be, perhaps that (i.e. the pursuit or maintenance of that 'flow' state) is just samsara. Does Buddhist doctrine challenge this? Or endorse it, use it? Wikipedia says, > In positive psychology, a flow state, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time. > > Named by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi in 1975, the concept has been widely referred to across a variety of fields (and is particularly well recognized in occupational therapy), though **the concept has existed for thousands of years under other names, notably in some Eastern religions, for example Buddhism**. > > The flow state shares many characteristics with hyperfocus. However, hyperfocus is not always described in a positive light. Some examples include spending "too much" time playing video games or getting side-tracked and pleasurably absorbed by one aspect of an assignment or task to the detriment of the overall assignment. In some cases, **hyperfocus can "capture" a person**, perhaps causing them to appear unfocused or to start several projects, but complete few. Can you comment on either of the highlighted statements from a Buddhist perspective? Also perhaps this is related to my previous question, https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31442/254 -- I guess that 'flow' might help you to do things, even useful things, even things you might not do otherwise, like your maths homework at school -- I'm not sure it's a useful tool (or habit) for handling aversion however, i.e. any activity which takes you "out of the zone" is something you might avoid.

I think Andrei might have commented once that the suttas are mostly about (liberation from) *lobha* (including craving and attachment) as a problem, and Mahayana is about *dosa*. That's probably an approximation but, even so, what is to be learned about that from Mahayana? I can think of two possible examples ... - Teacher tells you to do things you don't want to do - Breaking "taboos" in some real though perhaps harmless way, e.g. dipping the top of your finger in alcohol and licking it ... but anything else, in general or in particular? Some related question might include: - I'm especially interested in the type of aversion that would cause you to avoid what might be good for you-and-others, rather than a type of aversion that manifests as anger or hatred. - If *nibbida* is meant as an antidote to *lobha* then is there a corresponding antidote to *dosa*? Or should *nibbida* be an antidote to both? --- I'm aware of this topic -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/4057/254 However that seems to be quite "descriptive" (of what's happening) -- rather than "practical", "actionable", or "prescriptive". Can an answer to this question address more of the latter? Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote ... > If you want an *abhidhamma* answer, you have to speak in *abhidhamma* terms. "Wishing for pain to go away" is a *sutta* statement. It involves a wisher, and describes a *sutta* action. ... so perhaps in asking this question I was hoping for more of a *sutta* answer.

Thích Quảng Đức was a monk who immolated himself to protest against the repression by the Vietnamese government in 1963. It was filmed how he adopted the full-lotus posture an fire was set on him. The picture which was awarded the Pulitzer was known worldwide. In that video he does not show any signs of pain at all and he doesn't seem to be under the effect of any drug. It is said this is some sort of deep meditation or self-hypnosis technique nevertheless Hypnosurgery lacks of scientific evidence. Plenty of other monks even younger have committed self-immolation in Tibet to protest against the Chinese occupation. A lack of fiscal pain is a common trait. Is there more information on how this technique is done, it's difficulties and knowing that some Buddhist organizations are collaborating with modern neuro-science is there a scientific explanation for this and its possibilities or medical potential to treat chronic pain diseases? Video here watcher discretion advised

I'm familiar with the concept of the middle way and how Buddhism is neither Eternalism nor Nihilism. Not being Eternalism seems straightforward to me - all things are impermanent. However Buddhism not being Nihilism takes a bit more thought, for me anyway. So can anyone state for us why Buddhism is not Nihilism? When we start to get into concepts like voidness and emptiness it can start to seem like it is edging towards it. When I practice it seems like anything but Nihilism. However I think I would struggle to write down why that is. Just to clarify the question could we take the existential view of nihilism so quoting from wiki > life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

Is satipatthana a synonym for vipassana? If not, what is the difference between both?