For instance if I go to a forest and a dog bites me on my leg while there. How do I know whether: example 1: a) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka from my intentions and actions from the past or from a past life or b) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka for being in that forest ? example 2: I do something bad and something bad happens to me 2 days later. How do I know whether: c) The bad thing happening to me is related to the bad thing I did. or d) The bad thing happening is not related to the bad thing I did. ?

In the Dīgha,jānu Sutta, *accomplishment of diligence* leads to the joy of ownership. Isn't "joy of ownership" just clinging onto one's wealth? What do other Buddhist schools say about this? A possible equivalent to this in Kabbalah is *Bread of Shame*, defined as not earning what we receive, or in other terms, receiving without giving. Yehuda Berg states, "As the ancient kabbalists teach us, it is part of human nature and the nature of this world that no matter how much is given to us, as long as we are the ones who are receiving and not the ones who are giving, we will always feel Bread of Shame. We will always be the vessel and not the Creator. We will always feel powerless. We will always find someone to blame for our unhappiness." It is said to be the cause of all darkness in the world. Another Stack Exchange user, Ian Taylor, states that it "refers to the fact that unearned attainments are not rewarding the same way that things you work hard for are. Part of noble eightfold path is exerting effort to attaining enlightenment— i.e. YOU must work for it." While the purpose of both teachings is a bit different, I think the Kabbalastic notion of "bread of shame" wants to make people less selfish by attributing the feeling of shame when just taking for the self alone whereas the Buddhist Sutta reveals how to find joy in one's wealth--both of which stress the importance of effort. But, isn't being stuck in the concept of receiving and giving just another way of saying "I" and "them" - a dualistic notion that shames others or yourself. Also, "working hard for something" is a concept: one can just claim to have worked hard for it, but in reality earning something is a reflection of cultural standard. Someone can work hard but not earn what they deem to be the equivalent of their work. Is that feeling wrong, or should one accept the "joy of ownership"? The concept of earning is only rewarding insofar as it feeds our pride vis-a-vis the notion of achievement, the idea that "I" earned it-- a form of spiritual egoism when enlightenment is "attained."

How does one know if one is destined to attain Nibbana? (In future lives)

 Any information I would be grateful for. I have no idea be am very curious about this any a few other items I purchased recently. 

I have heard that the 5th precept was not a core of Buddhism, it was created later by the Buddha after some monks returned drunk from alms because they had something with alcohol (accidently I believe) My first question is: Is this story true? Many Buddhist school claim that the problem with alcohol is that it can cloud the mind and make it easier for breaking the other (more important) precepts. Based on that some schools are ok with lay people drinking in moderation, with the commitment of not getting to a point of losing control of their acts or doing something they will regret. So, is drinking with moderation (socially) breaking the 5th precept?

I'm not firm in tibetan buddhism, but my old daddy had wanted to make a spiritual gift to me 12 years ago- I'd put it into the bookshelf after I'd read a handful of pages, and was a bit puzzled why this might have such a big reminescence as I've heard somewhere (and expected because of having got it by my father as a special birthday present). Recently I was beginning a small research, especially about Padmasambhava, and there it occured to me that he was said to be the autor/to have been the spiritual background of the "tibetisches Totenbuch" (german name). I was surprised and saw now, that the book of my father was "tibetanisches Totenbuch" - which is a suspicious change - at least suitable for better business. On amazon I've found both titles and that of mine was looking color- and playful and that what I don't own looked more serious. > Q: Are the books at least related? Is the "tibetanisches Totenbuch" something like "tibetisches Totenbuch for dummies" or is it a complete different work *(possibly just profiting from the extreme similarity of the titles - but what do I know...)*? ***Addendum***: in the book they say: subtitle "...or The after-death-experiences on the Bardo-stage" and then "... after the english edition of Lama Kazi Dawa-Samdup, published by Evans-Wentz, (...) newly edited commented and introduced by Lama Anagarika Govinda" On the next page they write: "the title of the original edition was "the tibetan book of the dead". But I do not find yet any reference to Padmasambhava (may be deeply in the book itself?) which was irritating me. ***Addendum 2*** Ah, now I find something which looks relevant. The first 150 pages are simply introductions (which made me silly when I read into it and tried to make any sense of what was said), on pg 148 Padmasambhava is first time mentioned and then on pg 159 it seems that the traditional text does really start. So I think this answers my (stupid?) question ...

Is something a lie if I don’t have bad or evil intentions but what I said turns out to be false? I’m trying to protect my five precepts but sometimes when I say something it turns out to be false but I just said what I know at that time. I wasn’t trying to deceive or tell lies. I just said what I know but I found out later that I was wrong. So is that a lie? I didn’t have any bad intentions. I just said what I know and I found out later that it was false.

In which school of Buddism is dukkha nana a recognised term? Where is dukkha nana discussed in the Pali canon? The nearest I can find to dukkha nana is klesha-mara which maybe related in some way. Speaking specifically of dukkha nana that has arisen as a result of practice, what is your experiential interpretation of dukkha nana?

Does offering water to a Buddha statue increase merits? Can I get more merits from offering food or drinks to a buddha statue than from giving money to beggars?

Often people refer to nibbāna with the cessation of all mental defilements. However, does nibbāna also encompass 'momentary cooling off', for example when one engages in the various contemplations / mindfulness of breathing? If I, for example read suttas, I feel my mind is getting calmer and calmer, as if a heavy burden wanes. Another 'momentary nibbāna' would probably be samādhi, where all hindrances lie dormant, right?

Can anyone direct me to the full audio version of the satipathanna sutta? NOTE: I'm not looking for a guide or a talk just the plain sutta spoken clearly in English.

I can see that there is no self to find in the 5 aggregates. But what about their container ? I have a recurrent thought which troubles me : I imagine the 5 aggregates happening within a frame, which is a different one for every living creature. There is this frame, this *perspective*, which is unique for any of us, starts at birth, and ends at death. The five aggregates can only be experienced through that *perspective*. I can't feel what my cat is feeling when I touch it, I can only experience the aggregates appearing inside *my perspective*, not the one of the cat. I don't feel like this is contradicting any buddhist view. The problem is that I don't see how one is suppose not to identify with his own *perspective*. 1) Where is the impermanence in this ? 2) How can identifying a self there can lead to suffering ? 3) Is there a reference about it in the suttas ?

I read in a book while I'm studying the path, that you should practice the path all at once. It can't be separate. That seem to me like a very large task. Is this true.

**What did the Buddha say about wholesome types of motivation?** Is there a difference in the Pali language between "intention" (as in Right Intention) and "motivation"? From what I understand Right Intention is renunciation, good-will and harmlessness. I can understand how good-will and maybe renunciation can be a sort of motivation, but harmlessness seems to be more passive and therefore maybe not a motivation in the same way **Basically what I'm looking for are the things that motivate us (as in "drives us") to do things, which are considered wholesome in Buddhism** (Maybe there is also a connection to Right Effort here) Grateful for help with understanding this better!

Attachment is clearly something that we have all experienced, from a baby who is attached to their mom to an adult who is attached to their family. It is clear that attachment leads to suffering, so becoming non-attached helps alleviate suffering, but should all attachment be removed(one is bound to their physical body as long as they are living). Is it even possible, doesn't just one become attached to non-attachment? So, perhaps one has to attain a "middle way" - recognizing attachment and not resisting it, but also not letting it control us. I am curious what Buddhist texts say about this.

What is the view of Nichirenism/ Nichiren Buddhism on rebirth and reincarnation? What was the opinion of Nichiren on rebirth and reincarnation? What was the opinion of Gautama Buddha on rebirth and reincarnation according to Nichiren?

The Buddha encouraged us to find out for ourselves whether what he was saying was true. I say the same. Feel free to find what is true for you. The Buddha invented a rite of passage to adult age. He said that we need to accept impermanence. This makes us adult. As long as we refuse impermanence, we are still children. Impermanence is a polite word for failure, illness, decay, loss, death and all the **** life throws at us. During the years 50s and 60s teenagers lived a rite of passage to adult age consisting in racing on the edge of a cliff, possibly to death (see film Rebel Without a Cause). They thought that it's better to die than to live your entire life as a never-grown child. Society abolished rites of passage to adult age. Every time we accept impermanence we make our adult self-image stronger. Every time we accept discomfort, failure, mistakes, illness, decay, suffering, pain, loss and death we make ourselves invincible. The base of this rite is that what we accept helps us, what we refuse kills us. This is a psychological law. Every time we decide to accept impermanence we are Enlightened. Impermanence is not the key here, acceptance is. What do you think? What's the core of Buddha's teachings?

I recently completed a 10 day Goenka retreat. When we began vipassana on the 4th day, I noticed that I was getting a lot of tension/pressure/movement around my eyes. I informed the teacher of this and she instructed me to try practicing with my eyes open to train my eyes to not move to the same point of focus as my mind (presuming that that's what was happening). It's been several weeks now since the end of the retreat and I've remained practicing 2.5-3 hours a day, every day, except since the end of the retreat I've practiced with eyes closed. The tension/pressure/movement hasn't gone away; if anything its gotten worse, to the point now that it's getting very difficult to do full body scans because the intensity of sensation around my eyes fully averts my attention back to the forehead area. Sometimes it's just a very intense but dull pressure, other times it's random and very sporadic movement of sensations, other times its a very intense energetic feeling. How do I deal with this?

Can we know what kind of Samskars are being eradicated from the kind of sensation? Like while doing Vipassana I feel cooling or stretched sensation on forehead; itching on throat; burning & tingling in other parts. (for now). So is there any way to know the kind of Samskars these sensations represent?

**I've closed the question. No need to answer** It's a sore and sensitive subject, emptiness. The Cula-suññata Sutta: The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness. What else is there in the Pali canon that has a direct mentioning of these types of emptiness? My teacher had mentioned that Mahayana goes into emptiness with quite some depth. (There's something really wrong with that sentence!) Can you provide any Mahayana teachings that can help me unpack the types of emptiness mentioned in the Cula-suññata?