I come from a Theravada background because I like how seriously they (forest tradition) take the Vinaya, and their pragmatic approach to the teachings. But in my opinion Theravada doesn't understand love. Many suttas speak of the benefits of ethics as it pertains to concentration. Other suttas speak of "looking after others to look after yourself". Other suttas speak of the kammic benefits of making merit. The logic is simple: do good and you will be rewarded. But that is not caring for another, it is not metta or love or what have you. It is child logic, like how you might motivate a child to clean their room or look after their sibling. Truly caring for another is looking after their welfare, for the sake of their welfare. Your motivation is seeing their benefit. Your joy is in seeing their benefit. This relates to another point. Love is a taboo word. But love doesn't just mean erotic or overly attached love. Love can be of a universal kind. Love can mean to expand your circle of concern for others. Truly and deeply you feel sympathetic joy, compassion, and kindness for them. What motivates love is not self gain, my own narrow sense of merit or pride or a negative sense of moral shame. What motivates love is caring about another being. Personally, I think love is the truth at the heart of the way. Otherwise, why did the Buddha teach? Why not live in bliss and ignore the rest of the world? But he didn't do that, and he didn't do it to make merit. He did it 100% for the sake of the benefit of sentient beings, motivated by their benefit. At least, I hope so. Is there a tradition in which this selfless conception of love is found and celebrated?

Is there any record of the longest period the historical Buddha stayed in meditation? I have heard rumors ranging from many days to many weeks. Also when? Prior to his first sermon or after?

In this famous [video](https://youtu.be/BHMI1en_B1A?si=hGQUVYIUYBW9XTYa&t=79) , the young independent Australian monk named 'Sujato' famously recollects, when as a junior newbie monk in Thailand, he inwardly censured the senior monk Ajahn Sumedho for saying the bright luminous mind is 'unconditioned'. Reflecting upon the above yesterday in regard to this [answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/50928/8157) i previously wrote, I quickly wrote the below about the Pali term 'sankhata'. I am seeking refutations of my conclusion the EBT Pali term 'saṅkhata' *exclusively* refers to 'mental conditioning' rather than to, as suggested by Sujato in the video, the generic (I guess Theravada Commentary) view of 'produced by a cause': > The Pali word – ‘Saṅkhata’ > > A standard definition of the Pali word ‘saṅkhata’ is ‘[produced by a > cause](https://suttacentral.net/define/sa%E1%B9%85khata?lang=en)’ . The purpose of this article is demonstrate the term ‘saṅkhata’ > appears exclusively used in a mental way, to refer to ‘mental > construction’. In other words, the conditioned physical components of physicality is > not ‘saṅkhata’ (unless imputed or defined by the mind). > > AN 2.83 says: “Bad, unskillful qualities, mendicants, arise with a > conditioned basis, not without a conditioned basis (saṅkhatārammaṇā); > by giving up that conditioned basis (saṅkhatassa pahānā), those bad, > unskillful qualities do not occur.” AN 2.83 obviously refers to > ‘mental construction’. > > SN 4.16 says: “Form, what is felt, and perception, consciousness, and > what is mentally constructed (saṅkhataṁ); ‘I am not this’ and ‘this is > not mine’; that’s how to be detached from them”. SN 4.16 obviously > refers to the five aggregates; therefore saṅkhata here obviously means > what is mentally constructed, per SN 22.79. > > SN 22.79 says: “And why do you call them mental formations (saṅkhāre; > nominative; plural)? Because the mentally formed (saṅkhatam; noun) > they form/generate (abhisaṅkharontīti; verb). Thus they are called > ‘mental formations.' What mentally formed things do they form? For the > sake of materiality (rūpaṁ; accusative) receiving ‘materiality-hood’ > (rūpattāya; dative), what is mentally formed (saṅkhatam; noun) is > formed/generated (abhisaṅkharonti; verb). For the sake of > perception-hood... For the sake of mental formation-hood... For the > sake of consciousness-hood....” SN 22.79 literally says what is > ‘sankhata’ is mentally constructed. > > SN 12.20 says all twelve conditions of Dependent Origination are > ‘saṅkhatā’. Since every condition of Dependent Origination refers to > something tainted by ignorance**, SN 12.20 again is obviously referring > to things that are mentally constructed. > > AN 10.93, in affirming SN 12.20, as mentally constructed phenomena, > refers to: “that view (diṭṭhi) is produced (bhūtā), mentally formed > (saṅkhatā), intended (cetayitā) , dependently originated > (paṭiccasamuppannā). > > Iti 43 says: “What is born (jātaṁ), produced (bhūtaṁ), co-arisen > (samuppannaṁ), acted (kataṁ), mentally formed (saṅkhatam) , not > lasting (addhuvaṁ), wrapped in old age and death > (jarāmaraṇasaṅghāṭaṁ), frail, a nest of disease... “. ‘Old age & > death’ are mental phenomena ** therefore obviously saṅkhatam in Iti 43 > refers to what is mentally formed. > > SN 22.55 says: “They truly understand materiality —which is > impermanent—as impermanent. They truly understand feeling … perception > … mental formations … consciousness—which is impermanent—as > impermanent. They truly understand materiality … feeling … perception > … choices … consciousness—which are unsatisfactory —as unsatisfactory. > They truly understand materiality … feeling … perception … choices … > consciousness—which is not-self—as not-self. They truly understand > materiality … feeling … perception … choices … consciousness—which is > saṅkhataṁ —as saṅkhataṁ.” It appears SN 22.55 is not unambiguous and > requires interpretation. Since AN 5.159 and the Pali Suttas in general > demonstrate the Buddha teaching from more coarse to more refined, the > sequence of dhammas from impermanence, to unsatisfactoriness, to > not-self and to saṅkhataṁ in SN 22.55 must refer to saṅkhataṁ having > the meaning found in SN 22.79, namely, the very subtle illusive mental > labelling of materiality, feeling, etc, as existent ‘materiality’, > ‘feeling’, etc. While this use of saṅkhataṁ in SN 22.55 is not > mentioned elsewhere in the Pali Suttas as a requisite of liberation, > in SN 22.55, it appears to refer to a deep insight into the illusive > nature of mentally constructed labelling, as described in SN 22.95, > which refers to mental formations as “not even sapwood, let alone > heartwood”. > > Lastly, MN 115, while not unambiguous, gives the impression of > summarizing all of the elements as two elements: saṅkhatādhātu and > asaṅkhatādhātu. This said, MN 115 does begin its list of elements with > also including material elements but then progresses to only mental > elements. Thus, it is uncertain whether the two elements of > saṅkhatādhātu and asaṅkhatādhātu represent a ‘summary’ of all elements > rather than represent the ‘most refined’ (per the teaching principle > in AN 5.159) view of elements. Given the evidence presented from the > Pali Suttas leads to the conclusion the term ‘saṅkhataṁ’ refers to > ‘mentally constructed’ (rather than ‘created by a cause’), it appears > the meaning of ‘saṅkhatādhātu’ in MN 115 refers to the element of > mental forming. > > ** Refer to: [Dependent Origination from the Pali Suttas](https://www.academia.edu/82769817/Dependent_Origination_from_the_Pali_Suttas) ______________________________________ Note: for clarification, '**produced by a cause**' means as described in SN 22.82 about the five aggregates, which says: the cause (hetu) of the physical body is the four elements; the cause (hetu) of feeling is contact, the cause (hetu) of perception is contact; the cause (hetu) of mental formations is contact; the cause (hetu) of consciousness is nama-rupa. In contrast to the five aggregates 'produced by a cause' in SN 22.82, SN 22.79 says the mental forming of '**sankhata**' gives rupa 'rupa-hood', gives feeling 'feeling-hood', gives perception 'perception-hood', gives formations 'formation-hood' and gives consciousness 'consciousness-hood'. In summary, SN 22.79 appears to say 'sankhata' refers to mentally imputing a sense of 'existence' or 'solidity' upon the five aggregates. ___________________________________ My question: Are there any suttas that unambiguously refer to 'sankhata' as 'created by a cause'?

Trying to understand what mental level and constitution the meditator needs to be to make actual progress towards the higher levels of concentration meditations, as well as the external conditions needed. Obviously a person cannot realistically gain traction while living a mundane householder life. So any personal advice, or sources or books/teachings regarding the matter would be appreciated. I did find a quote here that someone mentioned it could take 3-8 years of serious practice to gain any real attainments. This is obviously a "how long is a piece of string" scenario though the ability to practice with that much daily dedication and the requisite location is what I am asking. What persons constitution and what location is required for serious practice. Is a genuine teacher who can help with the immediate issues/pitfalls needed? Does one have to be in complete solitude etc? I do remember reading that Buddha gave 10 locations that would need to be avoided in attaining concentration. Which generally meant places where other people congregate.

In a number of the books I'm reading on Buddhism, and in a number of talks I've heard on the subject, I repeatedly encounter the idea that the Buddha "saw the Dhamma" or that he "witnessed Dhamma" or the like. Other times, I've heard/read that the Buddha "saw" beings dying and taking rebirth, or that he "saw" the reality of anicca, dukkha, anatta, and the Four Noble Truths, etc. I'm having difficulty understanding what this all means. Is this metaphorical sight? Is it literal sight, in the sense of a vision or dream? In terms of our own meditation practices, when we are told that we should "see" certain things, e.g. seeing a nimitta, should we expect something similar? Metaphorical "sight"? Literal sight? Something else entirely? Thanks!

Meditation is powerful karma. But if someone practices meditation daily and wishes for **physical pleasure in future lives,** will it bring that kind of pleasure? Or does meditation only lead to a purified mind and higher realms, but not physical results like those gained through physical dāna?

In MN 38, a monk named Sati The Fisherman's Son has some wrong views about 'samsara', as follows: > “tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā tadevidaṁ viññāṇaṁ > sandhāvati **saṁsara**ti anaññan”ti. > > “As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same > consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.” (Sujato translation) > > “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.” (Bodhi translation) > > As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this very consciousness which wanders in Saṁsāra, and nothing else. ([Suddhāso](https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/suddhaso?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false) translation) > > As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on [from birth to birth], not another. (Thanissaro translation) The translation of [MN 38 by Sujato](https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=sidenotes&highlight=false&script=latin) includes a footnote asserting the view "*the primary locus of transmigration is consciousness (viññāṇa)*": > Sāti attributes three teachings to the Buddha. First, that there is a > “transmigration” (saṁsāra) from one life to another. Second, that **the > primary locus of transmigration is “consciousness” (viññāṇa)**. And > thirdly, that the consciousness that transmigrates remains “this very > same” (tadevidaṁ), not another (anaññaṁ); in other words, it retains > its self-same identity through the process of rebirth. **The Buddha did > in fact teach the first two of these ideas**, but not the third, as he > will explain below. | The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad says that as death > approaches, the senses and vital energies withdraw into the heart > (hṛdaya), from the top of which the self departs. That same > consciousness proceeds to a new body (4.4.2: savijñāno bhavati, > savijñānamevānvavakrāmati). This core Upaniṣadic chapter on rebirth > reflects Sāti’s wording as well as his meaning. Sāti asserts emphatic > identity using doubled demonstrative pronouns conjoined with (e)va > (tadevidaṁ), and identical constructions are found throughout the > Bṛhadāraṇyaka chapter: sa vā ayam (4.4.5), sa vā eṣa (4.4.22, 4.4.24, > 4.4.25); see also tameva (4.4.17). For anaññaṁ we find the inverse anya for the “other” body (4.4.3, 4.4.4). For the Pali verbs > sandhāvati saṁsarati we have instead avakrāmati (4.4.1, 4.4.2). But > the connection with saṁsarati is made in the Brahmanical tradition > itself, for it says below, “That self is indeed divinity, made of > consciousness” (sa vā ayamātmā brahma vijñānamayo; 4.4.5, see too > 4.4.22), which the commentator Śaṅkara explains as “the transmigrating self” (saṁsaratyātmā) Here, does the footnote asserting "*the primary locus of transmigration (samsara) is consciousness*" have the same wrong view as Sati The Fisherman's Son? In other words, in the Pali Suttas, did the Buddha really teach the primary locus of samsara is “consciousness” (viññāṇa)?

What is the "meditation on emptiness" in MN 121 ? What does "emptiness" refer to in this sutta? Also, what does "oneness dependent on the perception of ..." mean in this sutta? > “Indeed, Ānanda, you properly heard, learned, attended, and remembered > that. Now, as before, I usually practice the meditation on emptiness. > > Consider this stilt longhouse of Migāra’s mother. It’s empty of > elephants, cows, horses, and mares; of gold and money; and of > gatherings of men and women. There is only this that is not emptiness, > namely, the oneness dependent on the mendicant Saṅgha. In the same > way, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the village and the > perception of people—focuses on the oneness dependent on the > perception of wilderness. Their mind becomes eager, confident, > settled, and decided in that perception of wilderness. They > understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the perception of village > or the perception of people. There is only this modicum of stress, > namely the oneness dependent on the perception of wilderness.’ They > understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of > the village. It is empty of the perception of people. There is only > this that is not emptiness, namely the oneness dependent on the > perception of wilderness.’ And so they regard it as empty of what is > not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present. > That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure. > > ...... > > Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, > supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them > enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness. So, > Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the > pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’ That’s how you should train.”

What are they? Where are they found in the literature? Are there any significant differences in them among the traditions?

I've been practising insight meditation daily for over a decade now and attended a silent retreat usually every year except during covid. I do feel that I have changed significantly. I am a lot more aware from moment to moment of the arising and passing of phenomena and I have recognised that this phenomena and the knowing of it is all there really is. There is no fundamental 'me'. Just a knowing of what is arising. So anyway I feel I have become a lot more sensitive and find people very hard to tolerate for very long. The trashing of the environment, the mass slaughter of animals to satisfy people's gluttony, the greed, hatred and delusion of leaders intent on wrecking the planet for their own benefit etc etc. I'm a recluse most of the time as I just don't like the toxic energy out there at this point in time. My question is about the arising of ill will. I feel disgust and hatred of people a lot. How do I work with this hindrance and afflictive emotions. I don't want to wallow in them as I know they are not skillful. Do I need to be proactive in some way and uproot them? If so how? Or do I just see them as more phenomena arising and passing?

I came across this excellent discussion of nirodha recently: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3116/2493 wherein nirodha was defined to be "the cessation of suffering" i.e. "the third noble truth". I tend to use the word "nibbana" to represent this phenomenon, so I am a little bit confused about the need for 2 different terms here. If one were to set aside the concept of physical rebirth after death, would any difference between the concepts of "nirodha" and "nibbana" remain? If so, what is the nature of this difference?

I've come across many stories in the Tipitaka where people attained arahanthood or became non-returners through meditation. However, I cannot recollect any instance where someone becomes a sotapanna through a meditation practice (including vipassana). Can someone provide me a reference for such an instance (or multiple instances) from suttas, commentaries or any other source in the Pali canon (ideally excluding Visuddhimagga)? The reason why I'm asking this is that there's a claim by certain lineages that stream entry cannot be reached through meditation, at least based on Tipitaka evidence.

Does the practice of Tibetan Buddhism reconcile with early Buddhist teachings? I have read a lot of books in that tradition, and it seems to me that it is; but it would be helpful to gain some insight from others.

When I am doing meditation, if people or neighbors are making noise or playing music, should I hit them hard and beat them ruthlessly? It's very disturbing and annoying. Can I do violence without hatred and anger if someone is disturbing me by any means?

I lost my brother 8 years ago in a tragic accident. He never was interested in dhamma, how to ensure he is alright wherever he is, how to ensure he is doing fine, Will i ever meet him again? How to find out where he is now? Unable to talk to anyone about this.

According to the Buddha's teaching, is it more wholesome to feed a domesticated cat meat or let a cat catch it's own food? Is it wholesome to feed a cat at all or possess a cat? How should one who lives by the Buddha's teaching approach cats?

I always have this question in My mind. in Buddhism, when we share the merit of our good deeds with devas or deceased relatives, does it reduce the strength of our own karma? In other words, does sharing or transferring our merit mean that we lose or lessen the karmic fruits we would otherwise receive?

I have heard Buddhist literature Mentions Maha Brahma, a diety attributed with creation but he is still held as a conditioned being. Does any literature of the buddhist canon (Any tripitaka or sutta) mention vishnu or shiva as deities? If so, what position are they accorded? Are they held to be conditioned beings similar to Brahma or something else?

Today I see a great Vajrayana khenpo monk (also a vajra master) sharing an interesting opinion in this video : > (Translation) > > One of the 5 Silas of monks forbids stealing... However, you will not break the Sila if you steal from a bodhisattva. > > Why? Because a bodhisattva has no obsession (on material posessions), > he has given them up. So, if you take something from a bodhisattva... > you steal something from a bodhisattva, it is not breaking the Sila. If you steal from a normal person, because he will be obsessive on his possesions, so it is breaking the Sila. > > What the Sila forbids is robbing or stealing something from another person who cares about them...what about an enlightened bodhisattva? His thing is practically owned by no one (because of his Dāna). Remember this. > > This is how the bodhisattva's Dāna is different with normal person's Dāna... The Khenpo mainly wants to tell us bodhisattva's Dāna donates everything, and a normal person's Dāna does not, by this example. But this really sounds strange. In modern legistration system, a crime of theft or robbery is determined by the convict's will and action, and not by whether the victim cares about his/her property. The Khenpo says otherwise, since a bodhisattva does not care about his/her property, then it is not owned and can be taken away freely. Does the Sila here work more like the police than laws, that if the victim does not call the "police" (Sila? Karma?), then the convict will not be arrested? My question is, 1. Is it really legal (in perspective of Sila) to steal from a Bodhisattva? Is there any books or written creeds confirming this? Or the Khenpo just makes simile and not really means it is legal? 2. Is it also legal (in perspective of Sila) to steal of other enlightened people, like, an Araham? 3. Is it also legal to steal from a monk who claim him/herself as bodhisattva, or vow to follow a bodhisattva's standard?

So, I'm not a Buddhist, but my understanding is that in Buddhist thought, existence is the root of suffering, and Buddhists seek to end suffering by attaining a state of spiritual enlightenment that, after death, will cause them to cease to exist instead of reincarnating ("Nirvana"). Since this spiritual oblivion is viewed as a good thing by Buddhists as a result, and that existence is viewed as a bad thing that causes suffering, why aren't there any murderous Buddhists that seek to bring about this oblivion more directly by killing everyone? You can't reincarnate into a new life if there's no new lives to reincarnate into, after all. Even if reincarnating into animals might be possible, you could prevent that by systematically wiping out all life on Earth down to the smallest microbe. However, I've never heard of any Buddhist sects that actively seek to murder everybody. Why is this the case, when it seems like "murder everybody" could very easily be a logical conclusion of the Buddhist belief system? Have there actually been these sorts of Buddhist death-cults in the past, that simply haven't survived to the modern day (presumably due to having been violently suppressed by the governments of the nations they lived in once they started trying to murder everyone)?