Obviously, Buddhists often applaud silence, but what about not talking to someone in a relationship, which is often associated with passive aggression and abuse. What about a silence that ends up destroying someone?

Are there instances in the Pali Canon of the Buddha offering teaching without being asked to? I know he often decided the topic of his discourses himself, and also often seems to have started the discourses spontaneously. These seem to have been cases where the audience (Buddhist monks) can be seen to have been more or less expecting a teaching from him at some point, after all they had chosen to become monks and remained in his presence. I think this also goes for his first discourse with the group he used to practice asceticism with, since he knew very well that they were desperately looking for the kind of thing that he had discovered. Instead, I'm asking for examples of him basically seeing or hearing of a person who isn't a monk, or at least a Buddhist monk, and deciding to offer them teaching. Or even more specifically, I'm interested in whether or not that ever seems to have happened, and how common it seems to have been compared to the usual pattern of people coming to him asking questions.

Does the Buddha suggest how the laity should relate to their own death? Is there anything about e.g. it being a more extreme version of the suffering we experience day-to-day, that it can possibly end up as something better, etc.?

In Buddhism, there are a few realms that exist. Does each realm have the same life expectancy, or does it vary from realm to realm?

Is karma a virtue ethics? I know that some people link the path to virtues such as wisdom or charity, but what about the theory of karma in general? I am asking because I wondered whether unvirtuous actions that are not easily explained in terms of violations of the precepts (e.g.) are bad karma. e.g. the virtue of good will and benevolence is often said to be "wholesome" in intent; I definitely don't think it's for monastics only, but that wholesomeness means good (karma) > In the Pāli Canon, the term metta appears in many texts such as the > Kakacupama Sutta and Karaniya Metta Sutta. Other canonical materials, > such as in the Paṭisambhidāmagga, elaborate on it as a practice. Yet > other canonical sources, such as the Abhidhamma, underline the key > role of benevolence in the development of wholesome karma for better > rebirths likewise, the converse > Greed (lobha) is a root of unwholesome karma; Hatred (dosa) is a root > of unwholesome karma; Delusion (moha) is a root of unwholesome karma There is a difference between non attachment or elimination of the poisons, and not being ruled by them; isn't that difference that of religion and virtue?

I am recently observing the effects of "asceticism" or in my case, simply reducing food/taste related pleasures. I know the Middle Way in Buddhism advocates avoiding the both the extremes of asceticism and indulgence in sense pleasures. However, I find that in contemporary Western society, there is a significant lean towards sense pleasures and material comforts. Given the prevalence of indulgence in things like food, luxury, entertainment, and other sensual pleasures, I’m curious about the role of asceticism for lay practitioners today. 1. How should lay practitioners approach ascetic practices in the context of modern Western society? 2. Is there a recommended balance between asceticism and engaging with the comforts of modern life? 3. What specific ascetic practices can be beneficial for lay practitioners to help reduce attachment to sensual pleasures and support their spiritual growth? Any answers/opinions are appreciated. Thanks!

Here's the main question: - What doctrine or practice is there to minimize "conceit"? I suppose that canonically "abandoning conceit" can only be attained by an Arahant and therefore a monk, so, it would be alright to answer in that context (the answer needn't be tailored to a lay-person if it cannot be). --- Background 1. I asked this question ... - https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9415/254 ... and the main answer there seemed to be: - "Conceit" is a habit - It's a temporary phenomenon, which arises sometimes - It's not a "held view", which would be more fixed - It's related to or present in comparing people e.g. "thinking one is superior" - Semi-enlightened (but still conceited) people make "true" comparisons - Conceit is a fetter, a higher fetter, not easy to eradicate 2. I also found this article on Wikipedia: > [Māna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81na) > > Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering. So this article focuses on conceit as being a or the source or reason for disputes (which I think many suttas say also). --- So some related questions: - Is there something I should understand about conceit, other than or beyond these two explanations? - Would this be an example of conceit? > I keep the precepts better than you do -- or, I understand the Dhamma better than you do? - If you make that comparison, and see or justify it as being "true" or truthful, does that make it ***more*** pernicious -- because then it becomes a "view"? - Is this an example of a comparison that one should avoid making? Why or why not, and if so how? - There's an expression or phrase in conventional English, "holier than thou", which is meant to be understood as being "wrong": > *Self-righteousness* (also called *sanctimony*, *sententiousness*, and *holier-than-thou* attitudes) is an attitude and belief of moral superiority derived from a person deeming their own beliefs, actions, or affiliations to be of greater virtue than those of others. Self-righteous individuals are often intolerant of the opinions and behaviors of others that they deem to be less virtuous. It's original use in the Bible (which I don't understand, haven't studied) was in the context of creating social distance: > Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. ([Isiah 65.5](https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%2065:5)) If this might be an example of Buddhists call "conceit" then it's a universal human "problem", not specific to a single society. - Occasionally someone -- someone who's house I'm visiting as a guest for lunch with my mum, someone who is old enough to be my parent -- wants me to accept an alcoholic drink when I'm offered one. I suspect they maybe prefer that because it's "normal" (maybe ceremonial) -- and something to do with equality or community, and not my acting "differently".

Recently, I came across a [Scientific American article](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-improve-prospective-memory-the-ability-to-remember-to-remember/) on prospective memory (PM). I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between PM and mindfulness as below: 1. Both have significant impact on our well-being. Failure to be mindful just like failure to remember or carry out a future intention have a direct impact on our happiness. 2. Both mindfulness and PM deals with the future. In the case of mindfulness, one needs to keep the Dharma in mind and apply it to whatever circumstances (involving thoughts, speech or actions) that may arises. 3. The quality of both are affected by alcohol consumption. So, could mindfulness be a form of PM? I suppose one way is to measure PM quality in practitioners of mindfulness to see if there is a positive correlation. If there is a positive correlation, could this also be [an objective measurement](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/brain-impairment/article/abs/memory-for-intentions-screening-test-psychometric-properties-and-clinical-evidence/2AE5CD8ACE6252CC3E83B6B894053C75) w.r.t the quality of a person’s mindfulness?

V. Vakkali is sick : > "Are you feeling better, Vakkali? Are you bearing up? Are your pains > getting better and not worse? Are there signs that they are getting > better and not worse?" > > "No, Lord, I do not feel better, I am not bearing up. I have severe > pains, and they are getting worse, not better. There is no sign of > improvement, only of worsening." > > "Have you any doubts, Vakkali? Have you any cause for regret?" > > "Indeed, Lord, I have many doubts. I have much cause for regret." > > "Have you nothing to reproach yourself about as regards morals?" > > "No, Lord, I have nothing to reproach myself about as regards morals." > > "Well then, Vakkali, if you have nothing to reproach yourself about as > regards morals, you must have some worry or scruple that is troubling > you." Later: > Then the Blessed One went with a large number of monks to the Black > Rock on the slope of Isigili. From afar he saw Ven. Vakkali lying dead > on a couch. Now, at that time a smokiness, a darkness was moving to > the east, moving to the west, moving to the north, the south, above, > below, moving to the intermediate directions. The Blessed One said, > “Monks, do you see that smokiness, that darkness…?” > > “Yes, lord.” > > “That’s Māra, the Evil One. He’s searching for the consciousness of > Vakkali the clansman: ‘Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the > clansman established?’ But, monks, through unestablished > consciousness, Vakkali the clansman has totally unbound.” — SN 22:87 Where is the story between these?

A bill signed into law this week makes Louisiana the only state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every classroom, in public schools and colleges because they claim there is no separation of church and state as popularly claimed. Would the Buddha be against reminding children about wholesome morals even if they were Christian interpretations? Would the Buddha be against reminding children about wholesome morals given in a Buddhist context? Why? Why not?

I had a quick question in regards to the Buddhist view on the recent pandemic. What would the stance be of a Buddhist towards the government tactics of losing jobs if not vaccinated, being locked down etc and mandating the vaccine? Should we be free to choose based on our personal educated opinion or is it a case of always following authoritative orders even if they can be seen as detrimental by a certain percentage of the population? Would compassion, understanding be the best answer towards all sides? Would it make you 'not a Buddhist' if you choose a certain view? Regards, Nik

I asked this question recently to understand why consciousness is different from the intellect itself and considering the answer given I now think that Consciousness is not something higher than intellect but just the working of intellect i.e. "consciousness of". But now I encountered another type of consciousness Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam) which seems to be beyond the intellect itself, as Bhikkhu Thanissaro explain it here it is beyond the six sense media. I read somewhere else that it is consciousness of arising of Dhammacakka, The Eye of Wisdom. Could you please direct me to a detailed exposition of this type of consciousness, if any. Thanks a mil.

Can emptiness be understood as a conservation law? In other words, is it true that to posit a true end to any existent is to necessarily presuppose that it truly existed before it ended? Another way of saying it, to posit that with death and the break up of the body that a person truly ended is to presuppose that the person truly existed in the body beforehand? Doesn't viewing the true destruction of a chariot presuppose that the chariot truly existed in the first place? Doesn't viewing the true destruction of the body presuppose that the body truly existed in the first place? Can an illusion ever truly end? Or does illusion necessarily give birth to subsequent moments of new illusion? To my understanding a person is an impermanent ever changing phenomenon. That the person is like an illusion that continues from moment to moment in this life. If that is so, then how is death different? Doesn't supposing a true end for an illusion-like phenomenon necessarily imply that someone has mistaken the illusion for something real? Is this one consequence of the equation emptiness === form?

According to **Theravada** Buddhism: 1.How does Decisive Supporting Cause (Upanissaya Paccaya) work? For example, when Venerable arahant Anuruddha asked Sangha what to do to attain divine-eye in Lord Padumuttara Buddha's dispensation, why did Sangha tell him to offer light to Buddha's stupa instead of practising kasina meditation? Did that offering become a supporting cause for him to attain divine eye? If yes, how? Aren't sensual wholesome kamma and fine-material (rupavacara) kamma different and unrelated? 2.Similarly, Venerable arahant Panchadeepadaika (Apadana pali - Bhikkuni apadana, 15th apadana) says that she became proficient in samadhi and dibba-caccu abhinna (divine-eye) as a result of offering 5 lamps to Lord Padumuttara Buddha's bodhi tree. She must not have practised kasina because she was born in the second deva realm in the subsequent life. How did this happen? Does the results of light-offering kamma give you the ability (such as a clear mind) to succeed in kasina meditation therefore attain samadhi and abhinna? 3.Also, Venerable arahant Pilindawachcha (Apadana pali - Bhikku apadana, 391st apadana) says that he obtained a great wisdom power as a result of offering knives, needles, razors and fragrance to Lord Padumuttara Buddha and Sangha. Can you please explain how offering can increase wisdom through Upanissaya Paccaya? I thought wisdom can only be developed through meditation. 4.I think my samadhi and wisdom faculty, out of five faculties, are very weak. If I made an offering to Buddha (such as light, fragrance) and Sangha and make a wish that in future lives, I get the ability to attain all 8 jhanas and abhinna quickly in one sitting and to develop vipassana meditation quickly and deeply, would such a wish become true? Can that kamma develop my five faculties so that I become proficient in meditation in future lives and attain nirvana? Thank you. May the Triple Gem Bless you all!

In the movie, [*“Inside Out 2”*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Out_2) , it was revealed that Riley’s memories contributed to her belief system and sense of self. This is pretty much in line with existing research into [how memory define our beliefs and identity](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23727322231220258) . However, it also begs a few questions. First, how do we prevent wrong memories from forming that create unskilful beliefs or views? Or correct our interpretation of such memories if they are already formed? I am especially intrigued by wrong beliefs (or views) that are formed from bad memories. Like in Riley’s case, *“I’m not good enough”* partly from her anxiety and self-critique but triggered by recalled images of how she almost failed her hockey team. (Of course, there are skilful/wholesome beliefs too like, *“I’m a good person”* when Riley recalled images of making all sorts of friends while growing up). Second, it appears that extremism, intolerance and prejudices arise from wrong beliefs. Yet, tapping on our reservoir of diverse memories and beliefs can pull us out of difficult situations. Such as when Riley was suffering from a panic attack in the penalty box, drawing on all her memories, experiences and beliefs to restore a correct sense of herself. This is possible because she had a myriad and diverse memories/experiences growing up. So, does this mean that having a variegated memory/experience from interacting with various different types of people, beliefs, views and ideologies would be helpful in reducing extremism, intolerance and prejudices? Does this mean that Buddhists should not associate solely with Buddhists and should expose themselves to other religious teachings like the Bible, Koran, Vedas and so on. Ditto for Christians, Muslims, Hindus and so on? (Note: the Buddha himself was exposed to a wide variety of ideologies/belief systems in his search for liberation). Third, can the Dharma be extreme or lead to extreme, intolerant and prejudiced behaviour? Or does it instead have a moderating effect? Lastly, it seems that the process of memory consists of [3 stages: encoding, storage and retrieval](https://bokcenter.harvard.edu/how-memory-works) . I suspect mindfulness practice can help with the storage and retrieval stage, is this correct? Are there any Buddhist practices that can help with the encoding stage? As I suspect existing biases/prejudices could prevent objective encoding. Similarly, wrong interpretation of our memories could also cause issues as research into [cognitive and memory biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Memory_biases) indicated. All these could result in errors in decision making, wrong views/beliefs and ultimately suffering. Is there any Buddhist practice to overcome biased interpretation?

Do we need 10 Parmita for attaining Nirvana? or is it that 10 parmitas are for becoming buddha?

I read this : > “There are four kinds of sameness (*samata*) for those who discipline > themselves in religious life: appearance, causation, **coming into > being**, and the fourth is egolessness.” Can you describe the experience of "coming into being"? Why is it sameness? Do you think these four kinds of sameness are the same *meaning* described by four different concepts?

What does one think, to reflect and investigate: If a Bhikkhu would do efforts that finally lead to lose for at least a non-Bhikkhu (lay man, novice...), such would be easy a downfall transgression (if worthy the price of a pillow...). What do you think if such happens with possessions within the internet realm? Say, for example, making efforts that someone loses access, loses possibility to use...blocked... what ever. Say, a Bhikkhu hunts after you and gets you banned, disabled, deprived by this or that regional authority (equal if using law enforcement for a Non-Bhikkhus lose). As there are many using common tools, like householder, incl. there inbuild weapons, it's something that touches many actually. (Sure, it's possible to consider also other around, yet just in kammic sphere: lay person strives for lose of a monk).

Is there a standardized version of Pali Patimokkha to be memorized? Is there a difference in the recital of the Pali Patimokkha among the monks?

A while back I asked https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49503/how-is-the-romanized-pali-tipitaka-on-tipitaka-org-formatted and now I am back at it, trying to reason through [how the XML on tipitaka.org is organized](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1duvdha/how_the_pali_tripitaka_on_tipitakaorg_is_organized/) . I would like to see an example of the Pali Tripitaka text online as a PDF or book of some sort, to see how they handled the "headers problem", to see if they include all the same headers that the tipitaka.org XML does, or if they do it differently in books, etc.. Would you mind sharing 1, 2, or 3 examples of the Pali Tripitaka in different formats (older copies, so we can look at how it was organized and printed before the web)? I would like to publish a modern version of the Tripitaka online, but need to first better understand how the previous publishers of various sorts organized the content (headings, subheadings, chapter labels, etc.).