Why do we not remember our past lives? If it is possible to recollect one's previous lives by deeply concentrated thought,is it not possible for us to visit the hermits living in Himalaya area and verify the truth of doctrine of rebirth?

Having read translations of suttas in English and also in my native language, I noticed that every single one of them renders the phrase '(this or that person) etadahosi (quoted thought)' (but see the ETA footnote below) as 'then the following thought occurred to (this or that person)'. If I was left to my own devices (i.e. no easy access to the Commentaries - I have the texts, I'm more or less all right with Pali grammar, but my Pali vocabulary is not very good, making reading slow and skimming over Pali text in search of a topic an impossibility), I'd surely come to the conclusion that this construct means something akin to the modern slang 'then (this or that person) was like: ...'. In other words, the literal meaning seems to convey an outsider's perspective while the - assumedly canonical - translations give sort of an inside view of what happens in - or rather: to - the mind of the person in question. So my question is: why is this particular translation chosen, apparently every time? I assume, of course, that it is chosen because an explanation to this effect is found somewhere in the Commentaries, and in that case I'd also like to know where can I find it? ETA: @ChrisW drew my attention to the fact that the original phrase is actually '(**to** this or that person) etadahosi', the person is not in nominative but in either dative or genitive. ETA2: I ended up being convinced that the meaning is clear from the grammar alone and not coming from commentaries. The person to whom the thought occurs is in Dative (or Genitive - Dative is my bet, though), and that it is a thought that occurs to them is clear from the fact that a thought follows the construct. So I'm accepting the answer which draws my attention to the fact that the subject is not in nominative.

Is selfless charity to the non-monastic poor and needy, recommended for Buddhists as part of their practice? How do the different Buddhist traditions differ from each other on this topic? Quotes from scriptures to support this, would be appreciated. The target recipients include the hardcore poor, the homeless, victims of natural disasters, abandoned old folks, orphans, shelterless disabled persons, victims of human trafficking, refugees of war, victims of oppression and other displaced persons. Animals can also be included. "Selfless" here means "concerned more with the needs of others than with one's own".

Recently, I read an insight by the Dali Lama in the book "Buddhism:One Teacher, Many Traditions" that caught my attention: "When I reflect on the three higher knowledges mentioned in the Pāli suttas, I recognize a correspondence with what the Tibetan sage Tsongkhapa later called the three principal aspects of the path— renunciation, bodhicitta, and correct view. While these are generated before one becomes a buddha, they reach their fulfillment at buddhahood. With the first higher knowledge, the Buddha saw his previous lives— their duḥkha and transience. Knowing all that misery was caused by afflictions and karma, he responded with full renunciation of saṃsāra, making the determination to attain liberation. With the second higher knowledge, he saw the passing away and rebirth of sentient beings under the influence of afflictions and karma. His reaction to this horror was impartial love, compassion, and bodhicitta . To fulfill this altruistic commitment, he freed his mind of all pollutants and obscurations by realizing the correct view of the subtle selflessness of persons and phenomena. Through repeatedly using this wisdom to cleanse his mind, he gained the third knowledge and knew that his mind was totally purified and that he had attained nirvāṇa." - Dali Lama What are the Pali's suttas commentaries on the three higher knowledges? How may I integrate them into my meditation practice? Thank you for your time and consideration. All the best!!!

In SN 56.11 we find a famous passage: > “Bhikkhus, these **two extremes** should not be followed by one who has gone forth into homelessness. What two? The pursuit of **sensual happiness** in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of **self-mortification**, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. Laity frequently interprets the above as *moderation of sensual pleasures*, even though the above passage seems to refer to monks (those "gone forth into homelessness"). **Are there suttas where the Buddha or his disciples teach specifically laity on the subject of sensual pleasures (e.g. to be in anyway cautious about them)?** Also, a minor curiosity: how the above passage is interpreted by the Theravada tradition, since the suttas clearly teach the abandonment of sensual pleasures for those who become monks/nuns.

During meditation stop hearing sounds and going into darken space experience.After that there is a gap between inspiration and expiration.short breaths.what's it ?

Is it frowned upon in Buddhism to undertake homelessness without ordination? Let us presume that part of this homelessness also includes a focus on meditation, with mind and body able to work for oneself.

Does the Dalai Lama have bodyguards? And if so what does Buddhist philosophy have to say about that? Are they necessary, or are they just to keep with appearances? ps. The Dalai Lama is one of my heroes so this should in no way be taken as a joke.

During practice of meditation when notice thoughts disappear . experience peace and happy . innerconversation has lost. what is this state?

Are there resolved authorities in what is called Buddhism or is there an array of separate, respected lineages practicing different things, believing different premises, and therefore in dispute on innumerable points of knowledge and aim? Are monks and nuns more advanced than what are called lay practitioners? Can we assess someone's 'Buddhist progress' by how they look, the way that they dress, speak, and behave? Will someone with knowledge of the Dharma necessarily have read a large number of sermons, tracts, or scriptures from known and agreed authorities. Are there 'solitary saints' whose innate knowledge of the Dharma is so forged as part of their being that exposure to the religion which is Buddhism was unnecessary for their role as a catalyst in waking people up?

Does wise practice of compassion ever lead to suffering or bliss for the practitioner? Is there a difference between compassion cultivated through the Brammaviharas and compassion cultivated through Vipassana insight? If one is enlightened does that mean one is compassionate or fully compassionate? Why does wisdom lead to compassion or compassion lead to wisdom?

According to Buddhist tradition are there different types of craving? It occurs to me that the following could all be described using the English word craving 1. Being thirsty (for water) 2. Really wanting a new car 3. Wistfully missing a loved one when they are temporarily absent from your life However they do feel like they are very different things. So are there categorisations of craving within Buddhist philosophy and if so how would my examples fit into those categories. I'm interested in answers from any tradition but I suspect that there might be some kind of list of craving within something like the Abidharma **EDIT** These are great answers so far but I wonder does anyone have anything to add on a more experiential basis perhaps referencing meditation practice.

I got introduced to Buddhist meditation through the practice of meta and the cultivation of the four bramaviharas. It was going well but I decided I needed the ability to separate my ego and my will. For this, I thought vipassana would be the right tool. After doing some readings, however, it became apparent that to properly do vipassana I would have to develop my concentration with samadhi. At this time I almost solely do samadhi concentration meditation. I am a lay person and feel I don't have time to do the different meditation sessions per day, one each for meta, samadhi, and vipassana. Yet I see benefits in them all and would like to master all three. Do you have any guidelines on how to incorporate different styles of meditation into my practice? Is it best to stick with one for a while, then move on to another? Is it best to rotate on a daily basis? Is it best to do a combination of all three in one sitting? Also, the question can be repeated for meditating on the four bramaviharas. Is it best to do them one by one, all at once, or something else?

I come from a background where my interpretation of the world naturally fall as into the reductive methods of its determination and have subsequently had an interest in mathematics and physics which are a pinnical of this reductive process and a major approach of the western world. Now I don't now if This natural approach I have is a function of western conditioning in education. I am able to concieve of its opposition as that of wholism which its source is Persian and eastern and have had personal revelations along these lines. Like when a tree falls in the woods. There is no sound because physically sound is the interpretation of pressure differences in the air that the consiousness is provided with and is personal to that consiousness etc. That may be a reductive view. My question is iam at a crossroads in life and iam not certain in which direction I should take, with my age I should be mature enough to a sensible descision but I have had supernatural experiences like that that make the path I should take a difficult choice. Iam adult and should need no guidance but iam at a loss lol

Has any Buddhist philosopher claimed space is ideal because it is a whole, and wholes can't be real? With emphasis on *space*, not what takes it up, except perhaps to say they're "in" space likes parts in a whole, and / or the contents of a whole.

Music can be used to uplift one's mood and alleviate depression, as depicted in this article : > In Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness American author William > Styron's autobiographical account of his struggle with depression he > describes how in desperation he planned to shoot himself, but at the > last minute he heard the music of the German composer Johannes Brahms > and this saved him. > > His life began to mean something and he found solace in the > melancholic and uplifting moods of Brahms's German Requiem. In other religions like Christianity (like this song ) or Hinduism (like this song ), music (both lyrics and melody) is used to boost one's devotion to God, and could be uplifting too. However, in Buddhism, this is against the seventh of the Eight Precepts : > I undertake the precept to refrain from **dancing, singing, music**, going > to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and > beautifying the body with cosmetics. The Gitassara Sutta (AN5.209) also states: > There are, bhikkhus, these five drawbacks of reciting the Dhamma with > a sustained melodic intonation. Which five? > > **Oneself gets attached to that intonation, others get attached to that > intonation**, householders get angry: 'Those ascetics who are followers > of the Sakyans' son sing in the same way that we do!', there is a > break in concentration for those striving [to produce] musicality, and > the upcoming generations imitate what they see. > > These, bhikkhus, are the five drawbacks of reciting the Dhamma with a > sustained melodic intonation. Questions: 1. Is it ok to use music to induce positive states of mind, especially to uplift one's mood and alleviate depression? 2. If music can be used to uplift one's mood, then why is it considered unwholesome and against the seventh precept? 3. How does music cause attachment or craving?

In the [Anguttara Nikaya 4.73](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.073.than.html) , the Buddha said that a "person of integrity" possesses these four qualities: - when asked, does not reveal the other person's bad points and when pressed, speaks of the other person's bad points not in full, with omissions. - when not asked, reveals the other person's good points and when pressed, speaks of the other person's good points in full, with no omissions. - when not asked, reveals his own bad points and when pressed, speaks of his own bad points in full, with no omissions. - when asked, does not reveal his own good points and when pressed, speaks of his good points not in full, with omissions. I have paraphrased here, but the above is basically my understanding of the sutta. My question is how this can be considered an honest answer, or how someone answering this way could be considered a "person of integrity". I am thinking about a job candidate that has given a reference. If the reference answers in the way a "person of integrity" should answer, they would omit vital negative information and would furthermore only reveal that negative information when pressed. I am having trouble understand how these "shifty" and "slippery" answers are those given by a person of integrity and would appreciate someone clarifying these points to me.

Did Pudgalavada Buddhists claim the the "person" existed between lives and / or in one life? The Pudgalavadins were an old school of Buddhists who thought there was a person. I'm currently unclear whether that is ultimately, in the sense that Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists use the term 'ultimate'. They debated about this with e.g. the Vibhajyavada sect, which I think later became Theravada Buddhism. You can read about the canonical dismissal of it in Theravada Buddhism in the 1st chapter of their Kathavatthu . ---------- To clarify, one of my links say > It is this self, they maintained, that dies and is reborn through > successive lives in Samsara, continuing to exist until enlightenment > is attained. Is this the *same* person, each life?

Food for thought: It's in modern or western world common regarded and even broadly taught that such as preaching, in more dhammic words, giving [a sermon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon) , is unskillful, not the way Dhamma is taught. Now my person like to ask if that actually is really true? - Is preaching to be regarded as the wrong way? - If not generally, where would be the point that preaching, teaching, giving a sermon might turn out to be not of use (either for giver nor for receiver)? - What might be a possible "psychological" reason, or cultural reason for aversion in regard of sermons? - Under which circumstances a possible gift turns out to *be* a kind of red flag? *[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]*

I talked to a monk at a Thai Theravada based monastery recently and he told me that they primarily use breath meditation and jhana to gain awakening. And then there are other traditions, like yours, that emphasis vipassana to gain awakening. To me, they seem like completely different paths. Do you know why it is that different monasteries within the same regional tradition of Theravada have completely different approaches? Are they equally useful in gaining awakening?