It might have been from easiest cultivatable brahmavihara to the most difficult. Such that equanimity is the hardest and metta being the easiest. Is there any indication in the sutta to answer this question ?

[Here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/28498/254) I summarised, and [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9595/254) I referenced, this little essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi: [Dhamma and Non-duality](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html) (the first four paragraphs seem to be about Advaita Vedanta, the remainder about "Mahayana Buddhism"). The first time I referenced it was for a question about non-duality, and the second for a question asking whether "enlightenment" (which I took to include, "nearly enlightened behaviour") is the same for all schools of Buddhism -- because it seems to contrasting Mahayana with Theravada. I guess it's likely that what Ven. Bodhi wrote is partly true, but written from a Theravada point of view. I was wondering whether you could read and critique the essay (or if that's too much, especially the bits of it which I quote below); for example: - Is it (or are bits of it) misleading or wrong? - Are bits of it unclear, could be better expressed? - Does it focus on (put undue emphasis on) the wrong thing, e.g. "non-duality")? Or does it concentrate on atypical examples, or on outliers that it's better to ignore, e.g. "crazy wisdom"? --- At least [one or two people here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9594/what-does-nonduality-correspond-to-in-buddhism/9595#comment36654_9595) thought it was wrong: > Bhikhu Bodhi views on Mahayana are false and denigrate Mahayana. In fact, emptiness in Mahayana is empty itself. Therefore in **Virtue** it doesn't reject rules, but only shows their conditional (empty) nature. In **Meditation**, it doesn't refute that causes lead to effects, it only shows their conditional (empty) nature, which helps to abandon them, for example, instead of keeping attempts to battle them. So Mahayana doesn't refute the truths of Buddha, it only shows better ways to their realization. In **Wisdom**, true reality is NOT the One. "The One" is just an illusory idea. Be careful. I'm not sure I understand all of this comment/explanation though; for example, does it suggest that the rules of virtue are empty (conditional)? Does it say that causes are empty, or that effects are empty, or is it that Pratītyasamutpāda itself is empty, and what exactly should be abandoned? Does "abandon that which is empty" suggest that the rules of virtue too should or can be abandoned, and if so isn't that partly (or even mainly) what Ven. Bodhi seems to be complaining or puzzled about? --- Here's a quote from [Wings to Awakening](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/index.html) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: > The regularity of the Dhamma, here, denotes the causal principle that underlies all "fabricated" (saṅkhata) experience, i.e., experience made up of causal conditions and influences. Knowing this principle means mastering it: one can not only trace the course of causal processes but also escape from them by skillfully letting them disband. The knowledge of Unbinding is the realization of total freedom that comes when one has disbanded the causal processes of the realm of fabrication, leaving the freedom from causal influences that is termed the "Unfabricated." I understand that to mean: - Observe (fabricated) phenomena - See the causal processes - Make choices which lead toward cessation To that extent I thought that Pratītyasamutpāda itself isn't empty nor abandoned -- instead it's used. And the whole doctrine is dualistic -- things are skilful or unskillful, wise or unwise, right or wrong, attentive or inattentive, leading to cessation or not, etc. So, for example, this time from _Dhamma and non-duality_ again: > When we investigate our experience exactly as it presents itself, we find that it is permeated by a number of critically important dualities with profound implications for the spiritual quest. The Buddha's teaching, as recorded in the Pali Suttas, fixes our attention unflinchingly upon these dualities and treats their acknowledgment as the indispensable basis for any honest search for liberating wisdom. It is precisely these antitheses — of good and evil, suffering and happiness, wisdom and ignorance — that make the quest for enlightenment and deliverance such a vitally crucial concern. The bits of the essay where he seems to me especially critical of (or misunderstanding of) what he perceives as a non-dual doctrine of Mahayana are: - Virtue: > Such distinctions, it is said, are valid only at the conventional level, not at the level of final realization; they are binding on the trainee, not on the adept. Thus we find that in their historical forms (particularly in Hindu and Buddhist Tantra), philosophies of non-duality hold that the conduct of the enlightened sage cannot be circumscribed by moral rules. The sage has transcended all conventional distinctions of good and evil. He acts spontaneously from his intuition of the Ultimate and therefore is no longer bound by the rules of morality valid for those still struggling toward the light. His behavior is an elusive, incomprehensible outflow of what has been called "crazy wisdom." - Meditation: > Since, for the non-dual systems, distinctions are ultimately unreal, meditation practice is not explicitly oriented toward the removal of mental defilements and the cultivation of virtuous states of mind. > The meditative themes that ripple through the non-dual currents of thought declare: "no defilement and no purity"; "the defilements are in essence the same as transcendent wisdom"; "it is by passion that passion is removed." - Wisdom: > In the non-dual systems the task of wisdom is to break through the diversified appearances (or the appearance of diversity) in order to discover the unifying reality that underlies them. [...] For such systems, liberation comes with the arrival at the fundamental unity in which opposites merge and distinctions evaporate like dew. > In the Ariyan Dhamma wisdom aims at seeing and knowing things as they really are (yathabhutananadassana). Hence, to know things as they are, wisdom must respect phenomena in their precise particularity. Wisdom leaves diversity and plurality untouched. It instead seeks to uncover the characteristics of phenomena, to gain insight into their qualities and structures. It moves, not in the direction of an all-embracing identification with the All, but toward disengagement and detachment, release from the All.

If brain cease to function all phenomenon also cease to function as well. Body including brain is so vulnerable to break up and Buddha emphasized that no one should cling to this body and its function to avoid all sufferings. Evolution is truth and all religions are mere fantasy which originated from ignorance to the scientific findings. Everything which is brought about should perish in no time. That's the essence of Buddha's teaching(Dhamma).

If all of us are re-incarnations of prior human beings, how do we account for the growing population? Where do “new” humans come from?

This is really confusing to me. Buddha himself was an ascetic, and his teachings seem to imply that the path to nirvana is attained through renouncing one's worldly possessions. Isn't this in direct contradiction to the Middle Way?

I recall a story that goes something like this > A Buddhist monk was giving a lecture on Buddhism. At the start he said > 'Who hasn't yet started on the Buddhist path?' Half the audience > stands. He continues 'To those people I say if you haven't started > then do not start. Please go to the entrance and your entrance fee > will be refunded'. Half the audience then leaves. He says 'to those of > you who are left who have started on the path I say you must continue. > Do not stop.' This is paraphrased but that's the essence of it. Has anyone heard of this and get the reference, the exact story and who said it. Is it true at all? Many Thanks as always

I have few doubts in buddha teaching. Just wondering my mind since i start reading the various teachings. 1. Lets assume we all achieve the enlightenment then what will happen to world? No one will exist .. no life will exist... that will be the end of this universe. 2. If we really know the path then why even one percent leaves behind and could not achieve nirvana. 3. Buddha says we lose what we cling to. But he talks about love too. Loving your son or wife will bring attachment for sure. What one should do when a person rapes/molest your close one in front of you? Anger and emotions will take over.

What is exactly meant by "Material rebirth lust", and how is it properly abandoned?

*Question is grammatically similar to this question but different in content.* Apparently, Equanimity is not indifference but a feeling in itself. According to the Note at the bottom of Potaliya Sutta. ; > MN 137 (passage § 179 in The Wings to Awakening) identifies **"equanimity based on multiplicity" as equanimity with regard to forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations**. It identifies "equanimity based on singleness" as the four formless attainments. In the context of this sutta, however, the Commentary defines **equanimity based on singleness as the fourth jhana**, and this interpretation seems correct. Toward the end of this passage, the equanimity based on singleness functions as the basis for the three knowledges, a function that is normally filled by the fourth jhana. As I understand, there is Equanimity with regards to sense bases and one generated through Jhnana. My question is, **How to Cultivate this Equanimity wrt multiplicity? Will the one wrt Jhnana get cultivated by itself**? The Indriya-Bhavana sutta mentions it as **peaceful and exquisite**, does developing that feeling in face of changing circumstances account to equanimity?

>There is the case where a monk is content with any old robe cloth at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old robe cloth at all. He does not, for the sake of robe cloth, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. **Not getting cloth, he is not agitated**. Getting cloth, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old robe cloth at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones. ~ > **Not getting almsfood, he is not agitated.** > > **Not getting lodging, he is not agitated.** AN 4.28 And the well-known simile of the Saw: >"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves. MN21

"Idea of reincarnation(rebirth) is due to craving for existence" I'd like to listen to your opinion about this.

I have seen people using the words *Pin* ("good deeds") interchangeably with *Kusal*; and *Paw* ("bad deeds") interchangeably with *Akusal*. But there are clear differences between them -- per my understanding: * *Pin* (Good deeds) - Actions done physically, verbally or with mind that has good karmas * *Kusal* - Anything that would lead you in the path to nirvana. (*Paw* (Bad deeds) and *Akusal* are the opposites of the above.) But I'm not sure about these definitions. I would like to know the exact meaning of these and how they are related to each other?

I am interested in knowing more about Buddhism especially the pursuit of happiness. Which book would you recommend me for introducing me to Buddhism philosophy on this subject?

I was raised in an area where the usual answer to the question of what Buddhism is was "I don't know, hippy stuff", and any religion outside Christianity was considered "the work of Satan". That said, in my adult life I have been drawn to Buddhist philosophies and concepts as I understand them, but I'm not really sure where to start in my study of the religion. I've read a couple "Intro to Buddhism" type books that were very interesting and enlightening. However I'm pretty fuzzy on what historical texts I should be looking to read when it comes to the actual teachings of the Buddha as pertains to all Buddhism (not specifically Mahayana or Theravada etc.). Basically I'm looking for some information on what writing(s) could be considered the "Bible" of Buddhism, but from what I understand there is no central text in that sense. I've found lists of sutras (and suttas? I'm not too clear on the difference), but they are extensive and not really catagorized or anything.

I have always wondered if insects belongs to the animal realm in Buddhism, and I have yet to read stories about rebirth as an insect, such as a butterfly, a mosquito, or a praying mantis.

The third visuddhi of the Satta Visuddhi is "ditthi visuddhi". But what is the exact meaning of it ?

Based on the quote below, it seemed that the Buddha did not allow his teachings to be translated to the royal or priestly language of Sanskrit, that was the liturgical language of Brahmanism, the language of classical literature and the language used by the royal court. The common people at the time did not speak Sanskrit in their daily conversations. They spoke various dialects of Prakrit. The Buddha wanted his teachings to be transmitted in the dialects of the common people. It appears that Pali, although not a genuinely spoken language of the past, seems to be a mix of various Prakrit dialects from Buddha's time, that underwent partial Sanskritization. It also makes sense to me that the Pali Canon was transmitted mostly by oral tradition and was written down only late in its history compared to Mahayana texts because Sanskrit was the main written language for a long time in northern India. This is similar to the role of Latin in European history. I also guess that the Chinese scholar monks who visited India, took with them the Sanskrit Mahayana texts back to China, instead of the Pali Canon, partly because the Sanskrit texts were committed to writing much earlier, while the Pali Canon was still transmitted mostly orally at the time. Question: If the Buddha did not want his teachings to be taught in Sanskrit, why and how did the Indian Mahayana texts (agamas, sutras, vinaya etc.) end up being in Sanskrit? According to the (Theravada) Vinaya from Cullavagga, fifth Khandaka, chapter 33 : > And so sitting those Bhikkhus spake to the Blessed One thus: > > 'At the present time, Lord, Bhikkhus, differing in name, differing in > lineage, differing in birth, differing in family, have gone forth > (from the world). These corrupt the word of the Buddhas by (repeating > it in) their own dialect. Let us, Lord, put the word of the Buddhas > into (Sanskrit) verse.' > > 'How can you, O foolish ones, speak thus, saying, "Let us, Lord, put > the word of the Buddhas into verse?" This will not conduce, O foolish > ones, either to the conversion of the unconverted, or to the increase > of the converted; but rather to those who have not been converted > being not converted, and to the turning back of those who have been > converted.' > > And when the Blessed One had rebuked those Bhikkhus, and had delivered > a religious discourse, he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said: > > **'You are not, O Bhikkhus, to put the word of the Buddhas into > (Sanskrit) verse. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata. I > allow you, O Bhikkhus, to learn the word of the Buddhas each in his > own dialect.'**

What if there is no rebirth but karma is not eradicated by the path? I think that would mean that the agent experiences the results of their actions even without rebirth. Am I right? At least if the buddha self is not just impermanent.

Is smoking tobacco acceptable in any school of Buddhism? I think it shouldn't be considered acceptable: - because of the fifth precept - because of the first precept (smoking is physically harmful, so trying to logically defend smoking is rationalizing suicide) - and because smoking is addictive. The reality of smoking, as I see it, include: - 400 chemicals poisoning your physical body - pictures of diseased lungs on cigarette packages in Canada - having a parent with emphysema spend the last ten years of life hooked to an oxygen tank - seeing someone die suddenly from a heart attack or complete heart failure - seeing someone go through chemotherapy with toxic chemicals to kill a cancer tumor and the hair loss and vomiting that comes with it - seeing people treated for cancer using radiation therapy that leaves behind second and third degree burns on the skin Also, I think this is not exactly "craving", but rather, "addiction". The power that is has on us is purely a physical addiction: it is not due to the intentions (volition) which the mind creates, it is due to a physical chemical controlling the brain. I find it amazing that Buddhists want to dance around the issue of addiction and their unwillingness to discuss addiction in modern terms. I challenge Buddhists to not hide from modern addiction problems using irrelevant Buddhist philosophy.

The Three Pure Land sutras contain descriptions of a beautiful and serene place with trees, ponds, and palaces all made of jewels and surrounded with heavenly music and fragrance. How is this Pure Land understood by followers of Pure Land schools? Is it thought of as a place one will literally go after this life or is it more of an inspiration or source of imagery for meditation? Or something else entirely? Thank you for helping me to understand this.