Another naive question... Further to e.g. [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26040/254) , which may be an overview of **what** Mahayana teaches about emptiness, my question is **why** does Mahayana teach that? I gather that the *purpose* of the anatta doctrine in the Pali canon is, at least partly if not wholly, to end suffering etc. -- e.g. [MN 22](https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato) : > It would make sense to grasp at a doctrine of self that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. *Taṃ, bhikkhave, attavādupādānaṃ upādiyetha, yaṃsa attavādupādānaṃ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā*. > But do you see any such doctrine of self? *Passatha no tumhe, bhikkhave, taṃ attavādupādānaṃ yaṃsa attavādupādānaṃ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā”ti?* > No, sir. *No hetaṃ, bhante.* > Good, mendicants! *Sādhu, bhikkhave.* > I also can’t see any such doctrine of self. *Ahampi kho taṃ, bhikkhave, attavādupādānaṃ na samanupassāmi yaṃsa attavādupādānaṃ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā.* What is the benefit if any of the emptiness doctrine? Does it have a "soteriological" purpose? How does that work, i.e. what is the mechanism by which the doctrine is beneficial? Or is it meant to be simply true, an observation or description of fact, without benefit?

What is the Pali or Sanskrit term for a breach of a precept? I have checked http://dictionary.tamilcube.com/pali-dictionary.aspx and found breach of morality defined as sīlabheda . Is there a broader or more inclusive term?

I find it very difficult. I get bored sometimes and other times simply struggle to stay focused on the breath and the body. Does my attention span improve over time? I'm ADHD so it's very difficult to keep thinking out. Is it ok to think?

Are any Buddhist holidays associated with gift giving? If so, which holidays and what types of gifts are customarily given?

>"Sanketa vacanam saccam - loka sammuti karanam Paramattha vacanam saccam - dhammanam tathalakkhanam" According to the above quote, all the words (cenventional truth) made by living beings using any language considered as truth because they are enacted by living beings. We use words to mention ultimate truth. For example when we say "Nibbana", the real dhamma or actual Nibbana exists but the word "Nibbana" has been enacted. The actual dhamma and the word used to refer it are two different things. The word may not contain the actual characteristics inherent to Nibbana. I suppose Shakyamuni Tatagata Lord Buddha used many words to explain ultimate truth (Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, Nibbana) because of this reason. So my question is: Does the word "Nibbana" (as well as the other words used to mention ultimate truth) belong to the conventional truth while only the actual dhamma belong to the ultimate truth?

I have been trying to analyse NDE stories from a meditator's point of view. The way people change after a NDE is, in some cases, similar to the changes a person goes through after meditating for a while (i. e. less materialist, more calm, serene, not affraid of dying, less attachment to the "I"...). It is a life changing experience just like meditation when taken seriously. In general NDE fits well in the Dhamma, showing for instance that the mind does not depend upon the body. Let's accept NDE as true for a while. What I don't get and want some help is: almost all NDE are nice and positive (similarly to going to heaven). In the Dhamma we usually hear that most people are reborn in the awful planes due to their kamma. Some monks even say people sometimes get a glimpse of their future realm of rebirth. That would suggest NDE should be bad and traumatic for most people, but it is not! I don't believe so many people are going to be reborn in heaven, based on the way people live and all ignorance and anger in the world. Also, most people after a NDE claim to have seen and talked to dead family members or even pets, would that imply necessarily that they were all in the hungry ghost realm? Or could they be devas, but keeping the same old shape?! I know fitting NDE 100% into the Dhamma may be impossible, but I appreciate any help!

Being acquainted with Buddhism (although in a pretty shallow and intellectual fashion) since a few years now, I've just realized that I had almost no experience in meditation at all. It was only recently that I started training on and studying about Samadhi, and all this time without a teacher or proper guidance, mainly because in my country Buddhism is still "in diapers". As I'm more inclined to Theravāda teachings, I'd like to have some advice from more experienced theravadin meditators (i.e. from people whose main source of information are the Pali Suttas). A few questions (all coming from almost complete ignorance, so excuse me if I using some words in an incorrect manner): 1) What is the best way, according to the suttas, to cultivate the mind in right attention and right samadhi? 2) Should "noting" meditation be used when doing samatha or jhāna meditation? 3) (For those of you acquainted with the works of Upasaka Culadasa) Is the guide offered in The Mind Illuminated compatible with other Theravāda teachers' guides, such as those from Venerables Thanissaro, Brahm , Yuttadhammo, Mahasi Sayadaw, Ajahn Chah, Analayo and Goenka? I just bought this book and I like to know what to keep and what to ignore from it. 4) How do the methods from the above mentioned teachers differ from one another? And are these differences reconcilable? I would appreciate any advice or knowledge from you. Even if only one question of these can be answered, I'd be grateful. Thanks for your time and patience!

I have a blocked nose and I can’t feel the breath sensations. Should I put my finger to feel the breath? Is it ok if I focus on other things like finger touching each other? How do I feel the breath sensations if my nose is blocked?

I did 2 10 day Goenka Vipassana courses. And years later developed adult onset psychosis, I have not maintained Vipassana practice. Just had a physical and it appears that otherwise I’m relatively healthy if that can be said. I can read without interference. It appears that off and on rhythmic repetitive simple worded voices, sounds and difficulty sleeping might be labeled metaphysical “spiritual emergency.” Difficult to label it as “spiritual.” Maybe more like warfare. Needless to say, long term the above has a tendency to occlude what is known in secular society as normal function. Can Vipassana dissolve psychosis?

What do the suttas say about such people? Surely they're acting on their ignorance (dependent origination), but can't they make use of restraint/self control? Is there no penalization in such cases according to the Dhamma? If murderers show no regret, then they aren't even born in hell right now.

This normally gets translated as mindfulness. In particular, does it mean remembrance, as in to actively think using words about the past. Or is it about thinking about the present, and not the past. Or is it about suppressing ones internal dialog. If the meaning has changed, is it a relatively modern thing, or does it trace back to some sort of new development in the history of Buddhism.

This question is from the Theravada perspective only. 1. How are memories of this life stored and recalled? Is it stored in the physical brain? 2. There is the concept of latent tendencies (anusaya). Conceit is one of them. How are the latent tendencies of this life stored? Is it stored in the physical brain? 3. Does the bhavanga-citta of the Abhidhamma include some kind of storage function or not? If yes, what does it store? 4. If someone suffers from brain damage or dementia, they can lose their memories and/or have their personality altered (possibly including some change in latent tendencies). How does this work within the Theravada framework for moment to moment birth and death? The answer to this question may depend on the earlier questions.

Does anyone know where I can find a version of the Diamond Sutra that is in one of these three formats: 1. Classical Tibetan with Romanized Tibetan and English 2. Devangari with Romanized Sanskrit and English 3. Japanese with Romaji and English

Below, it says that "craving" is the habit of reifying things, resulting in the notion that we need ever-increasingly more things to live happily. How could craving (tanha) be the habit of reification (papanca)? How does it link? From Piya Tan's commentary of Cetana Sutta (SN 12.38-40) : > What is interesting here is Mahā Cunda’s statement (from MN 144 ) > that rebirth and suffering are rooted in "emotional dependence" > (*nissita*), which the Majjhima Commentary explains as arising on > account of craving and view (MA 5:83). **"Craving" is the habit of > reifying people, things and ideas, resulting in the notion that we > need "more and more" to live happily;** "view" is the delusion that > sustains and moves craving, and its necessary opposite, hate.

I am confused by the variety of views within Buddhism. It appears to me that Nagarjuna provides a complete philosophical justification and explanation for the Buddha's teachings and that this is accepted by many Buddhists. But not all. I'd like to ask: - Which sects or schools reject Nagarjuna's metaphysics? - On what grounds do they do so? - How do they deal with the difficulty that Nagarjuna proves all theories of Reality except his own are logically indefensible? There are three issues here: there is N's proof of the absurdity of all positive metaphysical positions (in _Fundamental Wisdom_); his 'theory of Emptiness'; the doctrine of 'Two Truths'. I wonder whether some Buddhists cherry-pick from these -- or do those who reject or accept one of them tend to reject or accept all three?

I have a couple of questions regarding the Viewpoints of sexuality in Buddhism for lay people. 1. Why is lust seen as being unskillful? Lay-people are lay-people because they don't want to renounce worldy life; they strive for 'heavenly realms' instead of nibbana. What's unskillful in a natural urge? Non-engagement won't decrease the urge either. 2. In a sutta the Buddha said the consequences of an action are important, and this is the reason why he abandoned thoughts of sensuality, because it harms **others** and **himself**. It obstructs wisdom (this is true because it hinders Nibbana), but why are sensual/sexual thoughts dangerous? If I lust after a woman in a healthy, non pathological way, I see no danger there. As long as I don't sexually harass her? Maybe she has sexual fantasies as well? 3. Samadhi is 'achieved' by the momentarily stilling of the 5 hindrances. Elsewhere it was stated that past sankharas influence present sankharas, and present sankharas in turn condition future sankharas. If past sankharas were 'kama chanda' it is likely that I engage in the present in such a manner. Suppose I do, isn't it possible to cleanse present sankharas during meditation (after some while) in order to concentrate the mind, resulting in seeing things as they are ('vipassana)?

In this answer , Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu wrote about various types of death (quoted below). 1. Where can I find references to and more info on the various types of death that is mentioned - khaṇika-maraṇa, sammuti-maraṇa and samuccheda-maraṇa? It can be from the Pali Canon or other sources. 2. Are there also other types of death? According to this source , there is also paramattha-maraṇa (ultimate death). 3. Does sammuti-maraṇa refer to physical death? This source calls it "conventional death". Any other additional info or explanation is welcomed. > The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as > "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against > orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, > it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not > rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old. > > ... In this > life, there is what is called *khaṇika-maraṇa* - death of a moment. > Each momentary experience is born and dies, never to arise again. At > the moment of conceptual death (*sammuti-maraṇa*), this process of > momentary birth and death continues unimpeded unless one has > experienced "death by cutting off" (*samuccheda-maraṇa*) - i.e. of the > defilements (q.v. Vism VIII.167) - in which case there is no further > arising. > > To put it succinctly, physical death isn't even real according to > early Buddhism; it is a concept based on the artificial construct of a > "being" who is "born". > > (And in this comment :) New birth is related to old birth, but nothing > is ever reborn.

How could anyone recognize the difference between experiencing a past life recall and simply experiencing a vivid imagining of the mind? While meditating I often slip into states that take me outside my current sense of self and into another experience. Though I don’t believe this to be a past life recall, I often wonder if I experienced this 2000 years ago in Indian society, would I have consider this a past life? Just like past lives can be consider endlessly varied so can these vivid experiences. ---------- It’s seems a typical answer to this question is, either, 1. Your not meditating good enough... or 2.There is no self and hence no past lives. I feel these are insufficient answers. In regards to 1, I think maybe people misunderstand my interpretation of imagining. I do not mean an intentionally based conjuring of thoughts or day dreaming. It is in deep stillness that these conditions arise, taking on the appearance of life experiences, and they appear distinct from my current life situations. In regards to 2, I take non-self or the emptiness of self and things to mean the impermanence of states of being or existing. We are confined to bodies, that is to say, the neurons in my brain control the movement of my thumb typing this. Of course we are socially, biologically, and environmentally interconnected and none of our actions goes uninfluenced by the actions of others as a hole. Yet at the end of the day my bank account number belongs to me and I am legally responsible for my actions within society.

In a lot of discussions here in B.S.E, the topic of the exact meaning of some terms keeps recurring, and nobody seems to have the last word. Words such as 'upapajjati', 'paccājāyati', 'abhinibbatti' are often translated as "rebirth", but for some, that doesn't seem to be the case. Or other terms as 'deva' or 'abhiñña' are understood as "god" and "psychic powers", respectively. Or even outside of Buddhist culture we find some terms such as 'prana', 'chakra', 'messiah', and so on. How can we now the way people contemporary to the origin of such words understood those terms? It is possible that they used those words to describe phenomena that we currently know by other more scientific terms? For instance, in this entry (https://torvol.wordpress.com/2017/11/27/the-chakra-system-is-an-analogy-to-get-your-shit-together-not-spiritual-woo-woo/) , this blogger assures that 'chakras' were the way used to talk about the regulation of emotions. I hope you can understand my point. Have a nice day, and thanks for your time!

This answer says that: > in terms of wisdom, a Hinayana arhat is more powerful than a > bodhisattva before the 8th bhumi, because he abandoned afflictive > obscurations while the bodhisattva abandons them from the 8th ground. Is there a sutra (if not, a commentary) where I can read more about this?