Since beginning insight practice over ten years ago I have practiced daily and attended many retreats. As a result I feel more peaceful and have gained an understanding and insight into the true nature of reality and I can see clearly the consequences of my actions etc and so I make better choices but it also feels like I have become more alone and less tolerant of people. I do metta practice and do not wish harm to anyone but I'm now painfully aware of the hatred, ignorance and delusion in the world and I don't like being around people because of it. So I am pretty much a recluse apart from when I see people on retreat and an online Sangha I attend. I feel very compassionate and loving towards animals to the extent that I try hard to not step on ants etc but humans I just don't feel the same way. I guess I see animals as more vulnerable and innocent whereas humans are capable of doing way better but they dont. Instead they just perpetuate greed and violence etc. Is this a normal part of the path or am I completely misguided?

Did I imagine that official tantric sex without orgasms is extremely dangerous for the practitioner? I cannot recall where I may have read this (and it is extremely unlikely anyone has ever *told* me it).

Do the children and grandchildren etc. of eminent "buddhas" get blesssed in any way? I know the buddha had a child, before his enlightenment, and that most important buddhists are celibate, but I wondered, supposing I were the great great... grandchild of e.g. Linji or Dogen or Mahakasyapa or whoever, if it's be fortunate of me etc.. Don't worry, I am not!

There are many scientific truths which seem to be absolute. For example- matter attracts matter , whether it is the matter of earth or sun or stars or dark matter etc ,they all attract each other. How do we identify such truths as and are they really permanent?

Some teacher (Goenka) says vedanānupassanā is bodily only because sukha and dukha in general are bodily. But the definition of sukha includes cetasikaṃ vā sukhaṃ too > Yaṃ kho, āvuso visākha, kāyikaṃ vā cetasikaṃ vā sukhaṃ sātaṃ vedayitaṃ: ayaṃ sukhā vedanā. > > (Cūḷavedalla sutta) So my question is, how a cetasikaṃ sukhaṃ different from somanassa?

i read this on a website: "...Nama is the appearance of Rupa, 'what it looks like' and not 'how it is',.." is it correctly said?

There are many people, especially from other religions, who say, ‘The Buddha is just a human being; he is not a god,’ but I know the Buddha is greater than the gods because he attained Nirvana by himself. However, I need every sutta where the Buddha claimed he is greater than the gods. I heard the Buddha claimed it, but I don’t remember the names of the suttas. If someone knows those sutta names, it will help all of us.

Is there any mentioned in the sutras about specific approaches to resolving conflicts? Specifically, I am looking at applying an objective process. For example, if a person disagrees with another on the interpretation of a passage in the sutra, one way is to look at the Pali translation as an objective approach. I am looking at a generic approach, one that presumably can be prescribed to resolve other disputes/conflicts in life. It might consist of a series of prescriptive steps. I understand that the attitude we take is equally important as mentioned in these answers ((https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/39050/how-to-get-along/39139#39139) and (https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/39050/how-to-get-along/39141#39141)) . Lastly, I believe if such an objective process/approach is possible, it would develop one's ability to self-correct one’s own wrong views and positions. The rationale is that wrong views do lead us to [wrong places (SN56.43)](https://suttafriends.org/sutta/sn56-43/) . Appendix A (extracted from [answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/50958/24967)) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If views/positions are not in accordance with accepted rules, prevailing standards and general morality, they are outright considered wrong. Where this is not obvious, the following steps can be prescribed: 1) Having acceptable ombudsmen/mediators or umpires/referees to the disputing parties. 2) Decision via majority or consensus (preferably consisting of experts in the subject matter). Parties involved in conflict/dispute should process presence of mind, be conscientious and truthful. In addition, they should not: - be easily angered or vengeful - be spiteful or vindictive - be jealous and possessive - be scheming and deceitful - be obstinate Factors to consider before engaging in conflict/dispute resolution - appropriate time (and place) - matter should concern something factual - resolution should be fruitful and beneficial - follow the spirit rather than the letter ------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read the following on the internet: > Yes. The Buddha repeatedly states his awareness to be separate from > the consciousness aggregate. > Lord, freed (nissaṭo), dissociated (visaṁyutto) & released (vippamutto) from how many things does the > Tathāgata dwell with unrestricted (vimariyādīkatena) awareness (cetasā)? > > Freed, dissociated & released from ten things, Vāhuna, the Tathāgata > dwells with unrestricted awareness. Which ten? Freed, dissociated, & > released from form, the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness. > Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling… Freed, dissociated, & > released from perception… Freed, dissociated, & released from > fabrications… **Freed, dissociated, & released from consciousness**… > Freed, dissociated, & released from birth… Freed, dissociated, & > released from aging… Freed, dissociated, & released from death… Freed, > dissociated, & released from stress… Freed, dissociated, & released > from defilement, the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness. > > Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in > the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering > to it, in the same way the Tathāgata — freed, dissociated, & released > from these ten things—dwells with unrestricted awareness. > > [AN 10.81 Thanissaro translation](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_81.html) Does a Buddha really have an "awareness" separate from the five aggregates? Are there any suttas that explicitly say a Buddha is with or without the five aggregates? Are there any suttas offering insight into the meanings of the words 'nissaṭo', 'visaṁyutto'. 'vippamutto' and 'vimariyādīkatena'?

Specifically, I mean this meaning of locus-of-control The way I see it, if one doesn't have a strong internal locus of control, it becomes very hard to go through daily life, since you keep considering the outcomes of your actions to be driven by external forces outside of your control. On the other hand, it makes sense to me that the self is an illusion (anatta), that it is in constant flux, and impermanent. From this logic, it seems like an internal locus of control also means buying into an illusion. How does one not have a strong internal locus of control, and still deal with the myriad challenges in daily life?

The [Brahmana Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html) , for example, mentions "effluent": > So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended ... Or in [Adhimutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.16.01.than.html) , > One gone to the far shore without clinging without effluent his task completed, welcomes the ending of life, as if freed from a place of execution. This [Glossary](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#asava) gives a definition but I don't really understand it, > āsava: Mental effluent, pollutant, or fermentation. Four qualities — sensuality, views, becoming, and ignorance — that "flow out" of the mind and create the flood of the round of death and rebirth. There's a longer (perhaps easier to understand) article on Wikipedia: [Āsava](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asava) --- - What is "effluent" (do you have anything to add to the Glossary and Wikipedia definitions above)? - What is the difference (or connection) between "karma" and "effluent"? - Is there a specific practice for ending "effluents"? Are they an effect or a cause? - Three of these effluents (ignorance, becoming, and sensuality) are also listed as 'defilements' ... what kinds of 'views' are considered effluent? If this is too many questions, please feel free to answer just one or two.

We are social animals and while living in a society we make relationships with other humans. Relationships like mother,father,son,aunt,etc. are determined by default ie, we don't have choice. While some relationship have to be chosen by us eg wife, friends, religious master, political leader etc. While doing so I feel majority relationships are more like **treatise** or **agreements** they thrive on mutual interests and break once they are not met. Some relationships are temporary which exists till both parties are involved in particular task and get over once the task is completed like relationship of boss and employee. Some relations are considered pure since they are said to be driven by emotions rather than any purpose like that of parents and their children, but I am doubtful that there is mutual interest hidden deep under them, which maybe realised if we end our attachment. I find understanding nature of our relationships is very crucial to avoid suffering arising due to ignorance of truth behind them. Is there any discussion on this issue in Buddhism?

From the Rooted Sutta (AN 10.58) we have the following paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Sujato. What does it mean? What are "things" or "phenomena" in this context? Please explain the whole paragraph. > ‘Reverends, all things are rooted in desire. Attention produces them. > Contact is their origin. Feeling is their meeting place. Immersion is > their chief. Mindfulness is their ruler. Wisdom is their overseer. > Freedom is their core. They culminate in the deathless. And > extinguishment is their final end.’ > > *‘chandamūlakā, āvuso, sabbe dhammā, manasikārasambhavā sabbe dhammā, > phassasamudayā sabbe dhammā, vedanāsamosaraṇā sabbe dhammā, > samādhippamukhā sabbe dhammā, satādhipateyyā sabbe dhammā, paññuttarā > sabbe dhammā, vimuttisārā sabbe dhammā, amatogadhā sabbe dhammā, > nibbānapariyosānā sabbe dhammā’ti.* The same paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi here : > “‘Friends, (1) all things are rooted in desire. (2) They come into > being through attention. (3) They originate from contact. (4) They > converge upon feeling. (5) They are headed by concentration. (6) > Mindfulness exercises authority over them. (7) Wisdom is their > supervisor. (8) Liberation is their core. (9) They culminate in the > deathless. (10) Their consummation is nibbāna.’ The same paragraph translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu here : > All phenomena are rooted in desire. > All phenomena come into play through attention. > All phenomena have contact as their origination. > All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place. > All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state. > All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle. > All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state. > All phenomena have release as their heartwood. > All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless. > All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end.

What is a fake Buddhist? I am unsure what 'fake' means in this context. I don't necessarily think it's the same thing as not believing in rebirth, pretending to be enlightened, arrogance, hostility and deception in general, but it's probably linked to some of those.

Believing that 'there is mother and father' is listed as right view affected by the taints.

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions. MN 117

1. To what extent does right view *not affected by the taints* deny that there is a mother and father?
2. What logic or analysis does right view *not affected by the taints* employ to deny this?
3. Are mother and father to be denied altogether?
4. Is there no such thing as mother and father for one who is awakened?

Should a person be concerned or worried where they ("I") will be reborn? Also in which way would or could a sotappana be concerned with future existence/rebirth, when he would have already been free from the fetter of strong clinging to self, as well as assured liberation.

In Dhammapada, verse 129, Buddha states: > All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. Taking this at face value, obviously however, not everyone fears death. People who had their amygdala removed or atrophied due to a disease do not have fear of death. Likewise, psychopaths seem to have no such fear. Many people do not tremble at violence at all, like psychopaths and military personnel. Then Buddha says that to not kill or cause another to kill, one should put themselves into another's shoes. But many people are incapable of this, like people with autism spectrum disorder. Taking all this into account and given that what Buddha says here seems to be wrong, how are we to understand this? (I believe this question would only apply to the Theravada Buddhists since AFAIK Mahayana does not acknowledge the Pali Cannon and therefore the Dhammapada, though of course, everyone is free to answer).

This Dhamma Wiki article, [Nibbana](https://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Nibbana) , says that "Nibbana (Pali), nirvana (Sanskrit), is the highest spiritual state and the ultimate goal of Buddhism." Please describe nibbana. What is it? How do you know you are in Nibbana? How can somebody describe Nibbana if it's impossible to know what follows after death?

It is said that when you experience nibbana the first time you are sotapanna. but why buddha did not crossed all these stages. and directly become buddha?

> Arising dhamma is ceasing dhamma so much as ceasing dhamma is arising dhamma as well. What does this mean? The answer should be nibbana is not eternal either. I'm asking about the Pali in this quote from [SN 56.11](https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/sujato) : > And while this discourse was being spoken, the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in Venerable Koṇḍañña: > > *Imasmiñca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṃ bhaññamāne āyasmato koṇḍaññassa virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi:* > > “Everything that has a beginning has an end.” > > *“yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman”ti.*