What's the difference between desire (chanda) and craving (tanha)? From my understanding, tanha is always unwholesome but chanda can be wholesome or unwholesome. How is this the case? Craving (tanha) arises from feeling as many suttas say "from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving". What does desire (chanda) arise from? There are three types of craving (tanha) - sensual, becoming and unbecoming. How many types of desire (chanda) are there?

Buddha said he taught only the suffering , origin of suffering , cessation of suffering and path to cessation of suffering. He also said whatever arises must perish and that is why whatever arises is a source of suffering. However Buddha arises too. Therefore is it correct to say that Buddha is also a source of suffering?

If you are a meat eating buddhist, is there any support that eating in this way lessens the karmic impact of consuming meat?

In the movie Samsara by Pan Nalin, an older monk shows some sketches to the protagonist monk. The sketches are erotic in nature but when held in front of flame reveal true nature as skeletons. It's a very powerful teaching. Do these sketches have any significance? What are they called? This is the youtube link for the movie (look @44:37). Screenshots from the movie are copied below -- they are hidden using 'spoiler' tags because they are "erotic in nature", so mouse-over the image if you want to make them visible. >! And after changing the angle of the 'paper' (there's light from a candle on the other side): >!

In modern society most politicians and banks are corrupt and only care to gain more money & power. They do not care about the welfare of the citizens. What would the dhammic response be? Activism and Dhamma should be incorporated or not or partially?

Can anyone give me a clear answer? What does the Buddha say?

Where can I find the Tripitaka source of the Death of Ven. Moggallana? The part of him being beaten by thugs and then came to the Buddha to take permission to go into parinibbana.

1. Is there some standard Mahayana doctrine about dreams and illusions? 2. How is the doctrine meant to be used -- assuming it's a view, how is it meant to be effective? 3. I ask because of [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/28998/254) : > Consider how it feels to wake up from a dream and realize that all you felt during that dream was, “just a dream.” All the passion you felt while dreaming would dissipate upon waking up with the certain knowledge that it was “just a dream,” right? > Now, what if you knew you were “just dreaming” while you were dreaming? Like in a lucid dream? The passion and zeal would dissipate right then and there as you would know it all to be unreal. I don't think I have the experiences of dreams, described above -- instead: - The feelings, the emotional content, of a dream -- how I feel towards a someone in a dream, or about the place or surroundings in dream -- is not very different from the emotional content of waking life: similar feelings whether I'm asleep or awake. There are some childhood nightmares I remember -- of falling out of a tree, or being chased by a dinosaur -- I still remember the fear ... I probably am (or could be) still afraid of being a young child chased by a dinosaur, even though I know that was/is a dream. - When I know that I am dreaming -- e.g. because I'm with someone in my dream who I know has died in waking life -- the passion doesn't dissipate. The passion is part of the dream, part of the memory perhaps, part of the fabrication you might say, just as much as the person's form (appearance, voice, character, actions) is part of the dream. The "lesson" I get from the experience isn't that passion and zeal dissipate -- instead the lesson is that experiences (e.g. views of people and relationships) are mind-made. I assume that to whatever extent they're mind-made in a dream, they're similarly mind-made in waking life. The experience even leaves me doubting (because it's contradicted by experience) whether sankharas (if that's what dreams are) are really "impermanent" -- or perhaps they should be called "attachments" or I don't know. In summary I don't get the impression that dreams are less real than waking life, I do get the impression that waking life is mind-made like a dream. I'm not sure these are the right "lessons" to derive from the experience though -- or are they? -- since they seem to contradict the answer quoted above. 4. Inaccurate/approximate portrayals of the word illusion might imply: "everything is an illusion, nothing exists, nothing matters" -- I think that's a kind of nihilist wrong view according to the suttas: how about in Mahayana? 5. Another problem I have with "dreaming" as a characterisation of or analogy for waking life, is that I think I'm quite passive in a dream: i.e. things happen to me, things come out of nowhere, unpredictable. I fear that may be an unhealthy, unwise, unskillful attitude to have towards waking reality -- is one supposed to be, instead, active (not just reactive) and intentional? What does "awake" mean, in context? --- I note that the above doesn't mention anatta -- which, to the extent that the above is a problem, may be part of the solution -- but maybe the above question makes some sense as-is.

> **the foot feels the foot when it feels the ground** I see this in a book. I cannot understand exactly what it means. what is the deep meaning of this Buddha's quotes.

Having read the following: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10247/are-actions-in-computer-games-bad-for-karma Background: I have watched the latest Doom Eternal gameplay, its brilliant in terms of Graphics and dynamics. The actions and details are more "real" than ever before. I used to be a fan of the doom franchise and enjoyed the game like any other gamer. Having touched Buddhism, it is the first time I question the origin of these games and the effects it brings onto the players, from a karmic perspective. I never had such thoughts and questions before I learned about Buddhism and the Dharma. My question: 1. What would be Theravada's take on this issue? If we know the in-game "killing" isn't real, will this create any negative karmic effects? 2. From a hypothetical perspective, are these cultures being carefully prospered by the ruling class of this planet to keep individuals chained to Samsara for as long as possible? (preventing enlightenment)

The following touches on the ability to know other people's thoughts at a much grosser level than developed through meditation: How we read each other's minds . What are the research based or scientific explanation on the working of Abhiññā / Iddhi? What kind of cues do Jhāna help pick up?

Consider an inventor who has nothing to do with spirituality but her innovation helped change lives of millions. Her innovation helps people even after her death. Further, innovations can be used for evil as well.

From the different answers that I have received on various questions that I've asked, I have come to the following ideas: According to Mahayana Madhyamaka emptiness (shunyata), all phenomena is empty of intrinsic essence (svabhava ), and even this emptiness itself is empty of intrinsic essence. However, this intrinsic essence appears to be the essence given to phenomena by reification or objectification-classification (papanca ). So this means that my mental idea of how some phenomena is, is not how it actually is. Now, Nirvana is not a sankhara (conditioned and/or compounded thing) but it is also empty, in the sense that it is empty of the essence given to it by reification. So this means that my mental idea of how Nirvana is, is not how it actually is. Even "emptiness is empty" means that my mental idea of how Mahayana emptiness is, is not how it actually is. This is interesting, because it does not mean that a chair, a dog and Nirvana are mind-independently unreal or non-existent according to Madhyamaka. Rather, the mental idea that I have of a chair, a dog and Nirvana is unreal or non-existent. Now in Theravada, all suffering is related to clinging. Clinging is always related to the self, as seen in this answer . According to Sutta Nipata 4.14 (below), the root of all reification or objectification-classification (papañca ) is "I am the thinker". > Seeing in what way is a monk unbound, clinging to nothing in the world?" > "He should put an entire stop > to the root of objectification-classifications (papañca ): > 'I am the thinker.' > > **Commentary (Thanissaro):** > The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the root of these > classifications in that it reads into the immediate present a set of > distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being; thinker/thought; > identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate into mental and > physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this perception thus forms > a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one must learn to examine > these distinctions — which we all take for granted — to see that they > are simply assumptions that are not inherent in experience, and that > we would be better off to be able to drop them. Also from MN 1 (below), an arahant who is fully liberated from suffering would see phenomena as they truly are, without reification where his mental idea of phenomena associates it with his self (of persons). This is apparently also known as tathata . > “Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has > lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, > reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is > completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows > earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not > conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he > does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth > to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he > has fully understood it, I say. According to the Suñña Sutta , the five aggregates are empty of a self (of persons), including that they have no association with self (of persons). All reified mental ideas are mental fabrications (sankhara), so they too are empty of a self (of persons). So, linking the Mahayana Madhyamaka emptiness to the Theravada emptiness, I can say that **all phenomena is empty of a mentally reified intrinsic essence, where this reification or objectification-classification is rooted in "I am the thinker"**. Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains this as "*the perception, 'I am the thinker' lies at the root of these classifications in that it reads into the immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being; thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate into mental and physical conflict.*" I take it here that "I am the thinker" creates a duality between self (of persons) and non-self (of persons) that creates mental and physical conflict. **So, since Mahayana emptiness says that all phenomena is empty of mentally reified essence, and since all reification is rooted in a self (of persons), and Theravada emptiness states that all phenomena is empty of a self (of persons), then these two definitions of emptiness could be logically linked in this way.** Furthermore, the enlightened one who sees the Theravada emptiness of all phenomena through wisdom, will also simultaneously see the Mahayana emptiness of all phenomena, due to having his reification (papanca) ended, due to having his fetters concerning a self (of persons) uprooted. So, the enlightened one sees things as they truly are, which apparently is called tathata . Both these emptiness seem to be connected together in Bahiya Sutta (Udana 1.10) : > "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the > seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the > heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to > the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train > yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the > seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in > reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the > cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When > there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When > there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the > two. This, just this, is the end of stress." I believe my description of the Theravada doctrine above is correct, but I am not sure if my description of the Mahayana Madhyamaka doctrine above is correct or not. So, my questions are: 1. Is the Mahayana Madhyamaka doctrine described above correct? 2. Would this linking of Mahayana Madhyamaka emptiness to Theravada emptiness according to the description above make sense to you, as a Mahayana or Theravada Buddhist? Or am I missing something?

I can find various modern English-language translations (and descriptions, explanations) of the four dharma seals (e.g. on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals) or on [Lion's Roar](https://www.lionsroar.com/buddhism-nutshell-four-seals-dharma/)) ; but -- - What's the earliest or original reference (scripture) in which the seals are defined? - What's the best and/or the most famous original description (if that's not the same as above)? - In which canonical language[s] are they defined? Are they (also) defined in Pali or Sanskrit? I'm ideally looking for all four seals together as a formula -- not e.g. the three characteristics as an early version of it, nor a text which only for example describes emptiness.

In relation to the comment in this answer '... regular Buddhism is college - Dzogchen is like a PhD.' Also, Sam Harris seems to endorse Dzogchen. I am reading online like the wiki page etc. Does not seem to be any massive difference or something out of ordinary. Can somebody please explain.

Starting ngondro practice, taking refuge in 3 jewels. As we know most of the Tibetan schools use the pretty common attitude. So if we are not talking about the differences, but the inner feeling and its development during each stage of the practice. What are they? Could somebody experienced walk us through it or refer to relevant text? Please try to avoid general answer - there is already plenty information in the literature. This question is about the essential experience which I consider as the key of the successful practice. Thanks in advance.

Is it correct to say that *dhammakaya* (the sum of all Buddha's teachings) is a synonym of 'the real nature of reality'?

A couple of months ago someone tried to convince me that arahants no longer have sati. He said that sati is like a raft in the sense that it should be given up as soon as the goal, arahantship, has been reached. To give more strength to his claim he also pointed out that sati is not one of the 10 parami (perfections). I myself think that his claim is absurd, I think that arahants have nothing but sati. But, I'm neither a scholar nor an arahant. So, I can be wrong. I also don't understand the link he makes to the 10 parami. Does someone have a reference or source from the tipitaka that would support or deny his claim without a doubt and put my mind at ease? And does someone understand the link he makes to the perfections?

Is Nibbana final? Or if you attain Nibbana, can you be reborn again in Samsara if you wish?

All happenings are phenomenon. Happenings are Anatta. Therefore I am not happening neither happening is myself nor am I the owner of happening. Give the above fact , is it true that I need to abandon the view that I am doing something or something was done by me or I am the work done or I am happening? In short , was something ever done by me?