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)?

What do Buddhists - modern day and historical - think of Anekāntavāda ? There is this cryptic remark by Dharmakirti: > With the differentiation removed, all things have dual nature. Then, > if somebody is implored to eat curd, then why he does not eat camel?" > The insinuation is obvious; if curd exists from the nature of curd and > does not exist from the nature of a camel, then one is justified in > eating camel, as by eating camel, he is merely eating the negation of > curd. I could summarize it at such: *the truth/reality is complex and many-sided.* How does the quote apply to the subject matter? The truth/reality being complex and many-sided doesn't seem to end suffering, but at least it gives individuals some solace. Am I wrong?

What is the meaning of the Pali terms "takkahetu" and "nayahetu"? Those terms are named in AN 3.65 when in his talk to the Kalamas Buddha dismissed these methods as a means to end suffering.

I have often seen the [Anguttara Nikaya 4.77](https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html) being quoted as in [this post](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49150/causes-of-specific-illnesses-death) against pondering on the precise workings of karma. **My question:** is there a misunderstanding of the Buddha’s words thus misconstruing his intentions. My understanding on the Buddha’s caution on karma (in AN 4.77) is that we should not try to figure out its exact/precise/detailed workings if 1) we don’t have the tools (i.e. divine eye faculty or recollection of past lives) and 2) we don’t have the discernment or wisdom to see anicca and anatta in the process. The danger is that we may draw the wrong conclusion as was the case with [certain mentioned recluse](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html#fnt-5) in Brahmajala sutta. But the Buddha did not prevent anyone from having a deep understanding of paticca-samuppada (dependent-arising or conditionality) which is the basis of karma. And through the insights on conditionality, have a deeper understanding of karma; why it works in general. I believe a deeper understanding of karma is within our abilities as ordinary humans as we have the ability to observe, recall and analyse conditions and events in our lives. For example, if I am staring at the ceiling at 2 a.m. in the morning, unable to sleep and I tried to recall what I did to cause this, I may then remember giving in to temptation and drinking a nice cup of coffee after dinner. So, there was an unskillful craving involving certain pleasure and a bad consequence. This is observing karma-in-action and anyone can do it. Incidentally, I have friends who claimed to be able to drink coffee or tea just before hitting the bed and still sleep like a log. One common theme is that they don’t experience the caffeine-high like I do. Although I always find it strange why people drink coffee if they don’t get any pleasures from it. Whether we talk about karma or the other four niyamas, conditionality is their foundation. Millions of scientists, researchers and engineers all over the world are working hard daily, trying to tease out the conditioned causes that govern the phenomena of the world we lived in, from climate change to superconductivity. They are trying to harness their understanding to improve the lot of humanity. We should also deepen our understanding of karma for our own long-lasting well-being and happiness. If one is not in samsara, they need not bother with the rule of the game i.e. karma. But what choice do we have? Surely, the Buddha understand this and would want us to have a better grasp of karma to improve our own lives. ### Addendum: ### *Suppose we assume the Buddha intended for us to investigate the workings of karma through proper verification by keen observation, analysis and even experimenting on ourselves and not by mere speculation. Furthermore, if we assume this is possible because not all karmic fruits are from our or others’ past lives, many are the results of this life. Would we be doing an injustice to the Buddha by quoting him out-of-context with AN 4.77? Also, wouldn’t discouraging investigations into the workings of karma be totally inconsistent with the entire teachings of the Buddha?* *If we postulate the above is correct, how can we quote AN 4.77 in the right context without giving the wrong impression that the Buddha discouraged investigating and understanding the workings of karma?*

I am a complete beginner who was looking for a good Buddhist guide for meditation. I discovered the book "The Mind Illuminated" by Culadasa and I thought I had found the grail: the shape of the guide seemed perfect to me. It is simple and clear, based on the anapanasati, up to the jhanas, step by step. But I have just discovered the scandals surrounding Culadasa and now I totally doubt the quality of his teaching. I attach great importance to the morality of a teacher of these issues. Where do I go from here? What do you recommend? Is there another guide as good in its form made by a recognized teacher, without scandals? Thanks.

I have been meditating for quite a while now. I practise mindfulness as far as possible. I no longer brood about the past or fantasize about the future (except occasionally). Now a new hindrance has popped up that is affecting my meditation as well as daily life. I experience this debilitating energy of fear around my heart. This fear takes form of thoughts. Although knowingly I don't create these thoughts. This energy of fear scans through my mind and creates thoughts which then perpetuate this fear energy. To tell you an example. In the past I was not a very good person, I was egoist with superiority complex and have hurt many people.Those people in turn have taken revange and hurt me. Now I don't harbour ill will against anybody or I am not angry at anybody knowing fully well that it was all my own Karma.I don't brood on this past anymore. The energy of fear pops up now and then and brings in to consciousness the memory and image of these people who have hurt me and tell me that they are going to hurt me again. This is all in the imagination. I can do with the associated thoughts. I can be mindful of the thoughts and let them go. But I don't know how to deal with the emotional energy of fear. This is affecting my life and my meditation. This has been so for the last 1-2 months. In my online research I read that fear is there because of desires. That we are afraid that our desires wont be fulfilled and so we fear. But that is not in my case. I don't have any particular desires (sexual or otherwise). Currently, I listen to the Ratana Sutta every evening and do mantra chanting with the monks (on YouTube). I feel ok, but haven't gotten over the energy of fear. I have also tried doing Metta Meditation practice, but it makes the situation worse as the thoughts and emotions not only persist but are amplified. I don't have any illwill against anybody, so I don't want to create Metta towards anybody. I just want this fear emotion energy to leave me. I want more of equanimity rather than loving kindness. My question is how do I deal with and let go of this energy of fear. Is there any meditation practise to deal with such situation?

As far as I can remember, this stmt is at the beginning.

For example, in the picture below the Buddha has a walking stick in one hand and a white ball in the other hand. This statue is another example with the stick and the ball: What is the meaning, the symbolism, of those two objects?

Recently, there had been a lot of market turmoil in the world as a result of one man’s action in imposing unilateral tariffs. The justification was that free trade is not as good as fair trade. I suppose if you think about it there is some truth in that free competition tends to benefit those who are more competitive or had some kind of *fair or unfair* advantages. I know the Buddha encourage the practice of dana or giving to those who are needy and worthy. But in any competition, there are bound to be losers. Giving to losers appeared unnatural and even in the wild, weaker animals perish. I am not saying this system of free competition is perfect but I can’t think of any better solution either. How does Buddhism strike a balance view in all of these? ---------- ***Appendix A*** In [SN4:20](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN4_20.html) , the Buddha was mentioned to have thought about this issue of just and righteous rule of societies. One that does not cause sorrow to the ruler or the people. Sadly, it appeared that there was no mention of any solution.

What is the Buddhist view on crying? I don't remember hearing or reading about the Buddha ever crying. Is crying a consequence of "lack of understanding" of the ultimate reality?

so , a few days ago i have experienced weird phenomenon . you can call it something like supernatural phenomenon , etc. my Air Conditioner suddenly turned on without any action from me. as a Buddhist, i'm asking for answer to this occurrence. Thank you .

I'm attempting to bring the Mahasi Sayadaw method of *labeling*, off the meditation cushion, and into my everyday actions. But I'm encountering a few difficulties and contradictions hindering the practice. I've noticed that when I'm doing intricate or engrossing things, such as conversing, studying, working, or playing a musical instrument, it becomes *impossible* to be mindful, or have any awareness (or 3rd-party objectivity) of what I'm doing. If I tried to say "playing", or "lifting index finger" while playing a complicated piano piece, I would lose my place. Or if I'm deep in study or work, entirely engrossed in a subject, I have to discard mindfulness or any 3rd-party objectivity, and just do the work. If I were to say "reading", or "working out the author's thoughts on covalent bonding", I would lose the track, or be forced to come to a dead stop. Indeed, mindfulness seems to *oppose* mastery in action, and I have to discard it anytime an engrossing or intricate action is required. Then inevitably I have to wait until I'm done with the activity, then restore mindfulness when my body and mind can be more stilled. Mahasi suggests that actions should be done in a slow, deliberate way, as though one were physically limited. But I can't see how one could do something as engrossing as playing music, learning a language, or studying molecular biology in this way.

Does the middle way -- **between annihilationism and eternalism** -- apply to objects? Like a mountain, will it either exist forever or be destroyed, or is it too the middle way? > The expression “middle way” refers to the Buddhist understanding of > practical life, avoiding the extremes of self-denial and > self-indulgence, as well as the view of reality that avoids the > ***extreme positions of eternalism and annihilationism***. That is one way of reading the meaning of 'middle way'. Do objects -- supposing they exist -- we have consciousness of have substance, according to any Mahayana Buddhists? That seems to ask the same question, I'm not sure.

Science categorize physical world in to solid,liquid,gas and energy(thermal,kinetic,nuclear,radiation etc....) when it analyze, prove that nothing more than those three state of material and energy and science has already proven the interconnection of energy and matter(in nuclear technology). Also the three state of matter is conditioned by energy.E.g when you apply heat(energy) to ice (solid) it will convert into water(liquid) and further reach steam(gas). Once we consider four great elements patavi,apo,thejo,vayo; is it an equivalent of above scientific categorization?

How should a Buddhist respond to being bullied / bullying? Obviously there are many admonitions against bullying / related behavior in the suttas, but I'm looking for specific actions that should be taken in response to bullying. Some examples: - Being bullied at school by a stronger person. - Being harrassed at work by a coworker. - Being robbed / attacked in the street. - Dealing with racial/sexual/other forms of bigotry. - Dealing with neighborhood gang / police violence. - Dealing with colonialism / imperialism.

https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/80747 "POM1: Presume that other minds can be perceived. Then, they shall be like external forms and have no real existence. POM2: Presume that other minds can be perceived and still have real existence. This epistemic realism contradicts the idealist position held by the Yogācārins, insofar as there is one type of really-existed objects that can be directly given to one’s mind and this givenness is independent of one’s own mind. POM3: Presume that other minds cannot be perceived. Then, the doctrine of consciousness- only also becomes untenable, because there is one type of objects that falls outside of the scope of one’s experience." "Other minds are then perceived through the second-person perspective." **That is, when the Yogacarin communicates with other people, does he directly communicate with other minds? Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just imaginations created by his mind Thank you.**

I read this: > In Zen, it's generally understood that "When you meet the Buddha, kill > him" refers to "killing" a Buddha you perceive as separate from > yourself because such a Buddha is an illusion." Should we kill illusions of Buddha? I do wonder, in the time of Buddha, some people wanted to kill him — perhaps this too is a reason I ask, although that may have been for many reasons.

On researching Zen Buddhist literature I'm seeing a gap after Dogen's Shobogenzo in the 13th century, and before Hakuin's Commentary in the 17th century. Was there any notable Zen writing produced during this period? What was happening in Zen history during this time?

In Buddhism, bad Kamma begins with a bad intention. What can we say about animals, let's say a tiger or a lion that kills other living beings by instinct? They don't have the same understanding as we do as human beings and they simply cannot become vegetarians: so are they creating bad Kamma that might ripen in a next life? For instance, if I used to be a lion will I suffer bad Kamma consequences in this human life because I killed and ate living beings?

I asked this question in Philosophy and was advised to ask the question here on Buddhism as I may get better answers HERE. So I am pursuing Spirituality for quite some time now, I've had REALISATIONS but not the Proverbial Self-Realisation because questions remain. So was kinda wondering what is it EXACTLY that they realise. I've been told, you realise, "YOU ARE THE ONE" but it does nothing to me, no effect. So DEFINITELY IT'S NOT THE WORDS. What is it then?