I've seen statements like "When one is in jhana, all defilements are suppressed temporarily." Is there any scriptural source for this?

I've seen pictures that depict the Buddha floating in the air and emitting fire from this torso and water from his legs. The fire and the water might be the other way around. I think the picture illustrates a sutra or other text. Does anyone know what the original text might be?

I read when the British came to Sri Lanka (Ceylon) during the colonial era, Buddhism was virtually extinct in Sri Lanka and has degenerated into very low forms of superstition. However, because some Sri Lankans wanted to stop British Christianity, they requested the Burmese Sangha to reinstate a Sri Lankan monastic Sangha. I read some intellectual Sri Lankan laymen had debates with Christians, where both sides (logically) accused the other side of superstition. Why did Buddhism become virtually extinct in Sri Lanka? Was that 'extinction' somehow related to the form of Buddhism or how it was practised, or something else?

What is the destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhava Tanha? There are three kinds of Tanha. (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava) some description of Vibhava Tanha: > “And how do some slip right past? Some, feeling horrified, humiliated, & disgusted with that very becoming, relish non-becoming: ‘When this self, at the break-up of the body, after death, perishes & is destroyed, and does not exist after death, that is peaceful, that is exquisite, that is sufficiency!’ This is how some slip right past. > > [Itivuttaka 49](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Iti/iti49.html) See also [What is Vibhava Tanha?](https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33188) (on Dhamma Wheel).

From [What is the Buddhist view in Socratic questioning?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31241/13525) , I get that it is important to ask questions to get out of sufferings. However, when we are getting stuck it is very difficult to realize that we are stuck. With concepts such as sunyata, nirvana, papanca, dharma, [detachment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_(philosophy)) , does Buddhism have any guideline to ask questions in such situation? Or is the answer simply "when you are aware that you are in papanca, then try to get to nirvana and the questions will come"?

his question is based on the sutta translation of MN60. What is the Pali translation of “apannaka” https://suttacentral.net/mn60/en/sujato Ven. Sujato translate it as “guaranteed” Bhikkhu Bodi translate it as “incontrovertible truth” I.B Horner translate it as “the sure” Ven. Thanissaro translates it as “Safe Bet” When I read the Sutta, my understanding is that the meaning is very close to the word “safe bet” even though the gambling is very un Buddhist. Perhaps I would say “safe action”

My son will be four soon. I would like to introduce him to Buddhist philosophy, and some meditation practices. However, stillness is, at this point, completely foreign to his personality :) My wife is Christian, and has taken him to church a few times, but not regularly, or recently. She and I are okay with sharing our differing beliefs with our son. I'm not active (or aware of, really) any local Buddhist groups, and, unfortunately don't even meditate regularly anymore. Still, I think meditation, and an understanding of the philosophies, would be very helpful to my son, and I'd like to get him involved as soon as is practical. How do I best introduce him, both to meditation and Buddhist philosophy? At what age is he likely be ready for either?

During my past several meditation sessions, which have been getting a little longer (approx 20 minutes now), I have noticed that my eyes twitch and move involuntarily -- it feels similar to the eye movements you can see when people are in REM sleep. As far as my meditation is concerned, it feels very distracting -- it typically occurs when I feel like I'm on the precipice of deeper concentration, but it results in so much motion and tension that it typically breaks my concentration. Has anyone else encountered this before? After googling around, I found one meditator explain that this was a sign of slipping into "trance," not of deeper concentration. Is that a thing? Any thoughts on remedies? Thanks!

My conclusion from tipitaka and commentaries:

Most of Tipitaka canons and commentaries, except Kathāvatthu the forth of abhidhamma, began before 1st saṅgāyanā, but catagorize at 1st saṅgāyanā (see: DN.Commentary.) But some tipitaka canons had done at 1st saṅgāyanā, some at 2nd, some at 3rd, and just vinaya-history in parivāra had done after 3rd saṅgāyanā (because vinaya have serious rule about the qualification of vinaya-successor, so list of vinaya-memorized successor's names were required, in parivāra, that began in upāli-thera school). What canons were done at 1st? Because of unanimous decision of 500 saṅgha at 1st saṇgayanā, that saṅgha must not add/cut/change any buddha's words off teaching. So this canons must done in 1st saṇgayanā: 1. Buddha's literal canons, that was learn & memorized by ānanda, upāli: - 7 vinaya-pitaka (except sattasatikakhandhaka in cullavagga), parivāra-content (except vinaya-history), 4 nikāya, buddha's literal canons in kuddaka-nikaya. 2. Sāriputta's literal canons, that was learn & author by sāriputta-mahāsāvaka and memorized by his students, who were in 1st saṇgayanā instead of sāriputta, who died before 1st saṇgāyanā. Buddha chose to support sāriputta as the best teacher (etadagga) like himself. So no one can change his speech, too. So his canons should had done in 1st saṇgayanā, too: - Sāriputta's literal sutta in 4 nikāya, sutanipāta, sāriputta-theragāthā, niddesa, paṭisambhidāmagga, sāriputta-apadāna, cariyāpitaka, 6 abhidhamma-pitaka, Mahāaṭṭhakathā (The great commentary). - In my opinion I think buddha-apadāna and many jātaka are memorized by sāriputta, too. Because of buddhavaṃsa's and cariyāpitaka's characters. And in nidāna of DN.Commentary. also have an conversation between ānanda (dīghabhāṇaka) and sāriputta's students (macchimabhāṇaka) at first saṇgāyana about the categorization of KN. & buddhavaṃsa & cariyapitaka that should include in suttanta or in abhidhamma. 3. The other sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech, that were memorized by some saṇgha in 1st saṇgāyanā: - Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were memorized by ānanda: Itivuttaka, The remaining speech in 4 nikāya. - Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were told by the owners: Some thera/therīgatha, Some thera/theri-apadāna. - Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were told by their students: Sāriputta-theragātha/therāpadāna, Moggallāna-theragātha/therāpadāna, etc. What canons were done at 2nd? 1. Some thera/therīgatha, Some thera/theri-apadāna (some thera died after 1st saṇgāyanā such as ānanda, kassapa, anuruddha, upāli, etc.) 2. Sattasatikakhandhaka in cullavagga and just sattasatikakhandhaka's commentary. (In my opinion arahanta, in 3rd saṇgāyanā, did not author 3rd saṇgayana history anymore because they realized that it will be over responsibility of future-generations-vinaya-memorizers). What canons were done at 3rd? 1. Kathāvatthu and just kathāvatthu's commentary. 2. Commentary about 3rd saṇgāyanā history. What canons were done after 3rd? 1. Vinaya-history in parivāra. 2. None-Pali commentaries' translation and extension (andhaka-aṭṭhakathā, kauanadī-aṭṭhakathā, pañcarī-aṭṭhakathā). 3. Visuddhimagga and Abhinava-aṭṭhakathā (the combination of commentaries. It is just old commentaries in new package. Buddhaghosa wrote that he never add/edit anything. He just remix fussy/duplicate texts and translate siṇhala commentaries to pali language). 4. Abhidhammatthasaṇgaha, abhidhammāvatara, and many conclusion-commentaries. Related Answer: - Beginner's Buddhist Course Syllabus By Ancient Pali Canon (Ganthadhura And Vipassanādhura) - Layers of pali literality already being in buddha-living-period.https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/21166/10100

The mahaparinirvana sutra seems to claim that there is an eternal blissful and pure self 'Self' appears in the positive very many times in that sutra, e.g. [here (Chapter 33)](http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Nirvana_Sutra:_Chapter_Thirty-Three:_On_Bodhisattva_Lion%27s_Roar_(A)) ,,, > Knowledge ["jnana"] sees the Void and the non-Void, the Eternal and > the non-Eternal, Suffering and Bliss, the Self and the > non-Self. The Void refers to all births and deaths. The Non-Void > refers to Great Nirvana. And the non-Self is nothing but birth and > death. The Self refers to Great Nirvana. or [here (Chapter 37)](http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Nirvana_Sutra:_Chapter_Thirty-Seven:_On_Bodhisattva_Lion%27s_Roar_(e)) ... > ""The Eternal of Great Nirvana is the Self. "The Self is the Pure. "The Pure is Bliss. "The Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure are the Tathagata. > "O good man! For example, space is not the east, > nor is it the south, nor the west, nor the north, nor the four directions, nor up or down. It is the same with the Tathagata etc. e.g. [here (Chapter 23)](http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Mahayana_Mahaparinirvana_Sutra:_Chapter_23:_On_Bodhisattva_Lion%27s_Roar) ... > The Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha truly exist, and the > Tathagata always expounds the essentials of all laws [Dharma] Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self, or that a self exists?

Some Brahmans, strangely those learning Abhidhamma and give into meditation, draw excuses of deeds and weight of kamma from the Vinaya, arguing that a lesser transgression must be lighter kamma. Is such an idea legitimately or just another cherry-picking around to justify personal incapacities and giving favors? What's the different between "retaliation-justice" (in cases one likes to judge god-like) and the Vinaya, the difference between conduct-rules and kamma? Acting according certain community-rules or according the law of nature? *[Note: this is not given to give a stand, nor to trade, exchange or Buddh-ism, but for liberation, gaining rightly unbound.]*

Some suggested to take precepts not so serious, saying "The Buddhist teachings do not exist for you to create suffering for yourself." and approved kill by putting his happiness as more worthy then that of "lower". Do this "Buddhist teachings" have any thing to do with the Buddhas and that of wise? *[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism but for release and might be not welcome for those seeking for trade.]*

What is the duration of Jhana? How long the duration of each Jhana. For instance, what is the duration of the first Jhana? Say if I have first Jhana only for one minute, can I say that I was in the first Jhana?

I start with some quotes, to show how I got to two specific questions about Buddhism, then a question that is more philosophical and general. Batchelor's translation of Nagajuna's MMK : > I bow down to the most sublime of speakers, the completely awakened > one who taught contingency (no cessation, **no birth**, no > annihilation, no permanence, no coming, no going, no difference, no > identity) to ease fixations. Looking at the section on birth, 7.4 (I'm more or less choosing interesting parts at random to get to my particular point, below) > The birth of birth gives birth to the root birth alone. The root > birth also is that which gives birth to the birth of birth That seems like an infinite regress of births, suggesting birth is caused (7.19) > If another [thing] that has been born gives birth [to it], this would > be endless. If it is born without [another] which has been born [OR > if it is born without being born], everything would be born like that > [i.e. causelessly]. which may be why he concludes (7.34) > Like a dream, like a magician’s illusion, like a city of gandharvas, > likewise birth and likewise remaining, likewise perishing are taught. perhaps via support from 1.3 > The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on. If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist. birth is not an other thing, its essence is not in others, and in conjunction with the argument in 1.5 > Since something is born in dependence upon them, then they are known as “conditions”. As long as it is not born, why are they not > non-conditions? we're back to birth being an infinite regress, but the apparent way out, it being caused, makes no difference, because ***cause too is a birth*: birth is no birth.** My questions: ----------------- We can pile up adjectives as long as we want. The red of the rose is a red that is red, and so on. Whereas actions, verbs, take up time, and suggest an infinite number of tasks, births, need to occur for one to. 1. Is there, in Nagarjua's Sanskrit (different grammars teach different rules ), an adjective for the past tense of born? 2. Even if we do use an adjective for birth does this offer any problems? Does the meaning of "born" always involve an incomplete infinite regress of actions, or can that be avoided if it itself is not an action? I suspect that we can get out of the infinite regress only through the claim that the born thing *exists* to have such and such aspects. Am I right? ---------- Does my presentation of the idea that born things must exist because they are caused, unlike nirvana, makes sense to yogacarin theories of trisvabhava?

There are some very influential meditation masters of the 20th century such as Mahasi Sayadaw and S.N. Goenka who have many people today who follow their methods. Is it possible to summarize the methods particular to modern meditation masters (type of meditation, etc.) and provide links to their teachings? This might be helpful to those new to meditation or those looking to expand their understanding of the many styles of meditation available today. This is a community wiki and a work in progress. Please consider adding your knowledge to this post. Thank you!

Many people believe that their good or bad thoughts can materialize in the future. So some people try to be always in good mood and think positively. Others are not so happy and just try not to think about bad things too often to prevent them from happening. And finally there are large groups of people that pray to some god. Can thoughts of all these people materialize into a real events, creatures, things? At least sometimes?

Is it possible to have awareness without a self-sense? Does an awareness presuppose a self being aware no matter how refined or subtle that sense of self might be? Or to reframe the question slightly - can awareness be non-dual i.e. the being aware of the subject without the object. Many thanks as always

I have been calling myself a Buddhist for as long as I can remember, but I have never done it right. I notice that my mom would chant the mantras from the book, while usually I would just say anything while I pray. I am wondering... is there a right or respectful way of praying in Buddhism? Just out of curiosity. Thank you!

> The point is that such moment by moment destruction is spontaneous > (ākasmika) and is the uncaused real nature of things, because it > cannot be an effect of any cause. The effect of such a cause, i.e., > the absence of the entity, would have to be a type of non-being > (abhāva), and non-being is unreal. > > A key underlying principle of the vināśitvānumāna is that negative > facts, such as absences, are not part of the ultimate furniture of the > world, but are just fictional conceptual constructions, as they are > devoid of causal powers. Equally, a fiction lacking causal powers is > not the effect of something else. While it is obviously impossible to > deny that hammers smash pots, the absence (abhāva) of the pot, i.e., > the non-existent pot, is not an effect, just as other non-existent > things (abhāva), like horns of rabbits, are not effects of anything > either. Hammers and the like are thus not actually causes of the pot's > absence but of it turning into potsherds. That idea is perhaps > defensible, in that arguably the mere absence of something—a purely > negative fact—might be less real and less efficacious than the > presence of other things. Nonetheless, the rest of the argument > looks to consist in a number of non-sequiturs going from that > difference in efficacy and reality between absences and presences to > the idea that perishing is somehow the real nature of things, that it > must be intrinsic to them, and that therefore things must perish > spontaneously moment after moment. Let's grant the Buddhist view that > the perishing of x is the real property of changing into a new thing, > and not just x becoming absent. If it is accepted that hammer blows do > change pots into potsherds, then why couldn't someone skeptical about > the Buddhist's arguments just take that as the model of how things > perish when they do? It does not follow from that model of perishing > that a pot could not endure for quite a while. Is it a non sequitur? If there are no absences then is nothing excluded from the causal context of an effect? If so, then couldn't we just conclude that causation is beyond conceptualization, so that any cause (the hammer) of e.g. destruction (the broken pot) is also not the cause, and the effect of destruction must be "the real nature of things", so invariant? Is that a good reconstruction of the argument, or have I misunderstood?

Did Buddha mean the term "being or existence" as used in everyday life or different from those such as co-arising with contact and feeling and attachment ? In case Buddha meant the latter I believe the meaning of "being or existence" is quite different from the ordinary meaning. "Being or existence" is not something staying for 30 or 80 years but reborn every moment you become craved on sensual phenomenon.