Is there any thing that Buddhism can add to a Stoic Pursuit? Below is a friendly laid-back discourse between a Stoic and a Buddhist, which could be used as a guide to what I’m trying to compare. Buddhist: *Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.* Stoic: *Yes, if you attach yourself to what is not given you will sure suffer. These five aggregates you counted must have been something not in your power. Have you nothing which is in your own power, which depends on yourself only and cannot be taken from you, or have you any thing of the kind?* Buddhist: *what do you mean, there are only five aggregates there is no I or mine* Stoic: *what? Is any man able to make you assent to that which is false or compel you to desire what you do not wish?* Buddhist: *No* Stoic: *In the matter of assent and desire then you are free from hindrance and obstruction?* Buddhist: *Yes* Stoic: *So, if we let go of the body which is subject to revolution of the whole and withdraw from externals, turns to our will to exercise it and to improve it by labor, so as to make it conformable to nature, elevated, free, unrestrained, unimpeded, faithful, modest, and virtuous will we not achieve tranquility and avoid suffering.* Buddhist: *Well said, training an act of will is a noble did, but until you learn that there is no “I or my-self” you would remain in cycle of rebirth.* Stoic: *what do you mean?* Buddhist: *But what is that you call my-self or I?* Stoic: *Sir, it’s my soul. If you ask me what is a soul I can’t say this or that, but I have just told you an attribute of mine which is not bound by suffering. Will you be kind enough to show me that my act of will is not mine?* Buddhist: *If that you call mine is the volitional formation you should know that it has ignorance as conditions and he who assume volition to be the self will surely be afflicted in mind.* Stoic: *I do not understand, you seem to me to be talking very obscure, you surly do not mean that the all wise will not act?* Buddhist: *No, I’m saying you should not say volition is mine.* Stoic: *Why?* Buddhist: *Perhaps you will understand if you look at it from another angle. Answer my question, by acting virtuously and by wisdom you are training the will towards the good?* Stoic: *Yes* Buddhist: *When the will become all virtuous, all wise and attain the good with no trace of ignorance will you claim that all wise will to be yours.* Stoic: *Far from it, there is but only one wise. If at all possible to reach of what you speak without quitting the body then the act of will be one with the one.* HE

I picked up these two statues today. I have been searching for an hour or two, to identify them or learn anything at all I can about them. I've searched through thousands of images, been comparing Buddhas from different countries, etc. I found this website and saw the [tag:statue] tag and now feel relieved. Please someone tell me anything you can about these. I hope I'm not posting this in the wrong place. Thanks so much

Are the five aggregates all saṅkhāras -- are they impermanent and dependently originated? I guess that "perceptions" and "feelings" are perhaps dependent on sensual contact. Is there anything else they're dependent on? Are "form" and "consciousness" dependently originated, and what (conditions or causes) do they depend on? Does "eye consciousness" exist when there's no contact? In a blind person, for example? If all five aggregates are indeed saṅkhāras, then what is the aggregate called "formation" (saṅkhāra)? What is the difference in the meaning in the word "saṅkhāra" when it's used to identify that one aggregate, as opposed to when it's used to characterise all aggregates? Is it right to call e.g. the doctrine of the "four noble truths" a dhamma instead of a saṅkhāra? Is the doctrine unconditioned and not subject to decay ... or is this a theory about Dhamma (i.e. a meta-dhamma) proposed by some schools and not others? Is awareness of (e.g. perception of) the dhamma a saṅkhāra, which depends on contact (e.g. contact between mind-object and mind-consciousness), and impermanent?

I had someone ask me this afternoon: > If Buddhism teaches that all things are impermanent, then how can it > make absolute assertions such as **there are 5 aggregates** or **there > are 4 noble truths**? Since I am very new to all of this I had to honestly answer, "I don't know". I would appreciate any insights on this question.

I am searching if Buddhism can be studied in Universities academically. I searched for PhD positions, most are in US with ambiguous postings. There are programs in Thailand but most of the postings look expired. So, can you help me know if there is any way to be an Academic Buddhist scholar? Are there any universities you know offering Buddhist studies? Any other suggestions in this direction.

Counterfactual definiteness is, "is the ability to speak "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed." The classic question to illustrate is, "When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and no animal is near by to hear it, does it make a sound? Why?" Another classic example is Einstein asking Bohr whether he really believed that, "the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it?" What does Buddhism have to say about these questions if anything at all? The standard procedure for understanding anatta is to investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined. However, doesn't this procedure implicitly rely upon the supposition that existing things can be found if one investigates and looks for them? That which can't be observed must not truly exist? Couldn't someone relying upon counterfactual definiteness just say that even though we can't observe the self that it still truly exists just like an unobserved tree in the forest that falls still makes a real sound?

My new understanding (based on this post ) is that the self is not permanent and is always changing. However, I still can't make the logical assertion that **the self does not exist at all**. At this point, it makes more sense for me to say: "there are multiple versions of the self that pass through time, each of those selves being slightly different than the ones before. So, I am self version 1.0.1, self version 1.0.2, self version 1.0.3, etc". In short, here are my present assertions: 1. a configuration of energy and matter intersects with the 4th dimension of time over and over again, producing the by product is what we understand as self. 2. if some version of self did not exist, then the subject of knowledge could not be observed. Example: without a self, there would be no one to respond to this post. Are my assertions correct? **Does Buddhist philosophy teach that the self does not exist or merely that it is impermanent**?

Lately, I have been reading (again!), more and more, the workings of the roman stoic philosopher Epictetus: and I think Buddhism and Epictetan Stoicism share a bunch of similarities; and I would now like to ask: **Are there any sutta references in how to deal with negative events?** If I may give you some examples of that Stoic advice: > - "If anyone tells you that a certain person speaks ill of you, do not make excuses about what is said of you but answer, "He was ignorant of my other faults, else he would not have mentioned these alone." - "Bear and forbear" - "What ought one to say then as each hardship comes? I was practising for this, I was training for this". - "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid" I have missed this kind of advice in Buddhism: is there similar advice in Buddhism?

I am quite fond and connect deeply to the Buddha's teachings. I have been a soft lay buddhist for almost a year now. I am sure that it is one of the best ways to develop as a being, as well as help others, although some deep stuff about shunyatta still confuses and eludes me. However, I am also sure that "other religions" (in quotation marks since it is debatable whether buddhism is a religion) also have a lot of wisdom to teach, help and love to give. This exerpt from The Triple Refuge, by Sayagi U Chit Tin made me worry: "Taking refuge will be broken for ordinary people when they die, but this breaking is blameless and does not bring bad results. On the other hand, breaking the taking of the Triple Refuge during one's life is very serious. This is broken whenever a person goes for refuge to a teacher outside the Buddha's Dispensation or when a person is disrespectful to the Triple Gem." It seems to me that after taking refuge, if you go to other religions and religious teachers for their teachings on how to develop further down the path, it would be a bad thing (the author does not seem to say why this is a problem nor what happens if you do it). So, is it possible to take refuge, follow the buddhist path to nibbana and still to other religions for help with the path? What about religions that directly contradict buddhist teachings or precepts?

I am having trouble with the concept of "unchanging entities which exist on their own". > Attachment to the false view of self means **belief in the presence of unchanging entities which exist on their own**... > *The Miracle of Mindfulness* p. 48 Questions: 1. What are some examples of "false ideas" of "unchanging entities that exist on their own"? 2. How do they contribute to the false view of self? Thank you all for your time.

I was wondering if helping others who are suffering prevents them from receiving their karmic dues. For example, if Person X caused great suffering to others, then according Buddhism, his Karma will come back to haunt him in the same life or a next life. Now suppose, he does suffer in another future life but a Good Samaritan rescues him before all his karmic debts are paid. The Good Samaritan improves his karma account with the good deed but he has still rescued someone who still has a debt to pay to society. How can one justify helping others in this case? I'm not trying to find fault with Buddhism.

Is he considered a great leader? an unusual leader? Does he represents Buddhism? Are his books largely accepted as Buddhist books? The reason I asked is that Osho is (whether you like it or not) very popular in the west, and many people associate him with Buddhism. Once my grandpa came to me saying, "I finally read a book on Buddhism!", showing a book by Osho. So, before giving my personal view I would like to understand the point better. (some of his books are sold in Buddhist libraries!)

I have been sincerely studying Buddhism for the last 6-8 months. - I have covered most of the famous authors and teachers namely **Ajahn Brahm, Thich Nhat Hanh, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Tenzin Palmo, Alan Watts, D.T. Suzuki, Sharnyu Suzuki.** - I watched a few **youtube videos of Ajahn Brahm** to get some idea of Buddhist outlook towards life. - I read most of the books available out there to cover the history of the Buddha written for the beginners. But I am ***not*** much interested in the history, specifically the progress of sangha and spread of Buddhism in East. - I have read a few topics that interest me on this stack. - I completed 2 10 days Vipassana retreat and one-month long Zen retreat which included a mini shesshin. But now as I see the amount of literature is simply enormous. The Tripitaka, itself is massive. For an e.g., I tried reading an article on 12 nidanas on the wiki but it's difficult to read it that ways. It just feels like information overload. Can you guide me how should I proceed from here studying **Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana**? Give an answer based on the school you are following. In your answer also include the source from where to study, for e.g. '*Read about 8 fold path from this website*'. Please answer in the following format: **Theravada** Study in following order. 1. 4 Noble Truth 2. 8 fold path 3. 10 paramis Also kindly include the recommended retreat and study centers world over that you know of. Imagine that I will be studying this dedicatedly for the next 3 years or so. Also, include the online resources and paper books if required.

I have gradually become a Pure Land Buddhist. I chant as I cycle. But I would also like to read, in English or Japanese. Recently I read the book below (Not generally available I am afraid) and it made me feel good. Please would members recommend some other power Buddhism books. 別府信空上人（2015）『現物者の喜び』法然寺

- Can anyone explain how 'stimulus / response' appears in *Chinese* or *Japanese Buddhism* ? - What does it mean? I can recall barely nothing about it, but I do know that it features in Zhiyi's work, *Chin Fa-hua-hsüan-i * at least. I'm especially interested in how the terms, which I believe are paired, may have a universal meaning.

In tendai, can the 1st (huayen) and 5th (lotus) teachings be called "potentiality" and "possible", respectively? I know the word "potential" from Heidegger's *Being and Time*, who has appeared in comparative studies. The most eye catching phrase, being "my ownmost potentiality for being", that amounting to death therein. By possibility, I just mean the not "necessary" or "actual", in the standard analytic philosophical terms. I won't go into why I might suppose that could be a viable interpretation.

According to this answer : > However, there is another type of suffering that cannot be fixed with > anatta! This type of suffering comes from attachment to forms other > than oneself, forms that have nothing to do with "I". For example, > consider the situation when your teenage son suddenly declares that he > is a gay person (a homosexual). Because you are so attached to an idea > that your son should be a proper man, there is a great mismatch in > your mind between expectation and reality. Because of this mismatch > you experience dukkha, suffering. This type of dukkha has nothing to > do with your sense of "I", it is about your son. But because you have > a fixed idea of how things are supposed to be, you suffer whenever > there is a mismatch. > > So (Theravada) anatta can't help with this type of suffering. > But (Mahayana) shunyata can. Now this is a question directed to Theravada practitioners. Let's say, somebody suffers from aversion when they see any person practising the gay lifestyle, because they have preconceived ideas about what is right or wrong about sexual orientation. This kind of suffering seems to be unrelated to craving or the self (because this is related to other unrelated people). Here, I use the example of a random stranger, not "my son". Sexual orientation is just an example of a non-self-related preconceived notion. It could easily be something else like Brexit or communism or news of a natural disaster taking lives in a distant country. 1. According to Theravada and the Pali Canon, what is the cause of this suffering? Is it in any way related to the self, craving and dependent origination? 2. According to Theravada and the Pali Canon, how can this suffering be eliminated? According to the third noble truth, to end suffering, one must end craving. How does ending craving end this suffering? 3. Please provide references to the Pali Suttas, if possible.

> When the Bod-hisattva Quan the Am, who has been such a source of > inspiration of peace workers in Viet- nam, saw into the reality of the > five aggregates giving rise to emptiness of self, she was liberated > from every suffering, pain, doubt, and anger. -- The Miracle of Mindfulness, p. 48 I have been practicing mindfulness for less than a year. I have had some deep experiences and found benefit. However, when I have a migraine headache my mindfulness feels completely useless. Any guidance or any good resources that would teach me to practice my mindfulness in the midst of a bad headache would appreciated.

What is Citta? What is Dhamma? What is the difference between above two in Satipathana?

Seems to me that memory is notoriously fallible, whatever we think about the nature of the self. I have a copy, but rather than reread it, I thought to ask, whether Dogen's wholehearted way, or right effort in general, from moment to moment, involves relying only on those memories of immediate relevance?