In SN3:8 ([Mallikā Sutta](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN3_8.html)) , when asked by King Pasenadi if there is anyone dearer to her than herself, Queen Mallika answered: > “No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?” Likewise, the King answered that he saw himself to be of utmost importance. When the Buddha was informed of this conversation, he affirmed that such is the case with *all beings*. In our modern society, self-centredness (hereby termed as selfishness) has gotten a bad reputation while altruism (selfless concern for others) is widely celebrated. Therefore, I find it interesting and strange that the Buddha did not disapprove of the selfishness as expressed in the above sutra but only stressed that we should restrain from hurting others just as we would not want ourselves to be hurt i.e. [norm of reciprocity](https://www.thebehavioralscientist.com/glossary/reciprocity) . Seeing that selfishness has a tendency to result in [self-obsession as evident in this definition](https://www.berkeleywellbeing.com/selfishness.html) : > the state of being very focused on one’s own needs and well-being with a correspondingly decreased focus on the needs and well-being of others Thus, my questions as below. 1. Why didn’t the Buddha disapprove of selfishness? 2. Isn’t selfishness a cause for people to hurt/harm others either intentionally/consciously or unintentionally/unconsciously. 3. Why didn’t the Buddha encourage his followers to “love thy neighbour as thyself”? Wouldn’t it help reduce self-obsession and potential problems in relationship due to selfish behaviour? 4. Could this be one possible cause for the philosophical difference between Theravada and Mahayana? Whereas the former is neutral on selfishness, the latter encourages compassion and pursuing enlightenment for the benefit of all beings.

When we see with an eye of Dhamma , we realise that that which has a beginning must have an end because birth is conditional. (I am using Bhikkhu Sujata’s translation of SN 35.74 ) If we reverse the Truth then is it true that that which has an end must have had a beginning? PS: To clarify , I share an example, suppose a candle light is put off then can we conclude that sometime in the past the candle was lit? It was not always burning.

Equivalently, is there any Buddhism with room for accepting a person who subsequently chooses to return to material drives as having, in any valid sense, "been enlightened"?

Is doing 10 min meditation 6 times same as doing 1 hour meditation? Or is doing 30 mins 4 times same as 2 hour meditation ? Thanks for answer can i go more than 1 hr say 90 mins?

> "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than > feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In > fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... > Elsewhere than consciousness?" > > "No, lord." > > "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without > consciousness?" > > "No, lord." > > "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to > declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative > man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is > described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata > exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not > exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" > > "No, lord." > > "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only suffering that I describe, and the cessation of suffering." Based on the above, who is it that is really suffering? And who is I?

I am long time student of Chogyam Trungpa. Unfortunately, the current situation at the sangha (now Shambhala International) is in a state of chaos. I am interested in becoming B. Alan Wallace's student. I'm wondering if his path is similar to Vajradhatu, in other words, start with shamatha/vipassana, then ngondro, and then abhiseka. Thank you

What Buddhist distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"? I view "mindfulness" as a purposeful application of awareness. However, I am at a loss for a clear distinction between awareness and consciousness.

1. Was Pali the language spoken during the time of the Buddha, and would he have spoken this language? 2. Are the suttas contained in the Pali Canon verbatim what the Buddha said, or would things have been changed due to centuries of oral transmission?

Some part of my mind always watches/is aware of breath whether I am studying, playing, eating, watching movies, etc. Is it ok? Any long detailed answer?

Here is another non-essential question born from a dead thing. Is Pali the native language of Buddha's birth town? Apparently the Shakyas are bilingual (according to wiki), and they derived from a **Munda** people (according to wiki). Was Pali spoken by Munda people? It makes me wonder if Buddha uttered, muttered the Pali b/c he was unfamiliar with it, or b/c maybe the language was a spontaneous birth? Instead, was Pali native to Magadha - according to wiki Buddha was born north of Magadha - where Buddha enlightened? wiki (unreliable source) says : > Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, lived much of his life in the > kingdom of Magadha. He attained enlightenment in Bodh Gaya,

In the Jewish tradition of Hassidut Chabad, there's a well-known story about the need to be ready to abandon practice towards enlightenment in favor of compassionate action which is the manifestation of enlightenment itself. Here's the story ([source](https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/1973508/jewish/Heeding-the-Cry-of-a-Child.htm)) : >The Alter Rebbe shared his house with his oldest married son, Rabbi Dov Ber (who later succeeded him as the Mitteler Rebbe). Rabbi Dov Ber was known for his unusual power of concentration. Once, when Rabbi Dov Ber was engrossed in learning, his baby, sleeping in its cradle nearby, fell out and began to cry. The infant’s father did not hear the baby’s cries. But the infant’s grandfather, the Alter Rebbe, also engrossed in his studies in his room on the upper floor at the time, most certainly did. He interrupted his studies, went downstairs, picked the baby up, soothed it and replaced it in its cradle. Through all this Rabbi Dov Ber remained quite oblivious. > >Subsequently, the Alter Rebbe admonished his son: “No matter how engrossed one may be in the loftiest occupation, one must never remain insensitive to the cry of a child.” Is there a similar story in the Buddhism tradition, with a similar message?

This may be an unusual question but I'm wondering if any monk or scholar has written work or made lectures about the spiritual obstacles of Capitalism. Namely the atomization, alienation, crippling entertainments, omnipresent advertising, the uncertainty of holding jobs and fluctuating markets, the need to wage wars to reduce the overall wealth of the society and obtain resources. We are not living in the time of Shakyamuni, Padmasambhava or Athisha. This is a spiritually confused, decadent world. Our spiritual obstacles are more complicated and strange than the obstacles of previous times. Any ideas? Sadhu.

Wikipedia mentions the following translation of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19-20 without mentioning a source: > There is nothing whatsoever of samsara distinguishing (it) from nirvana. There is nothing whatsoever of nirvana distinguishing it from samsara. (That?) is the limit which is the limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara; Even a very subtle interval is not found of (between) them.[citation needed] Where does that translation originate from?

The concept of cuti patisandhi cittas- i.e. generation of patisandhi citta conditioned by cuti citta in a minute fraction of a second- is a very important concept mentioned in Abhidhammaththa Sangaha. This is so important that only by describing the mechanism of cuti-patisandhi in this way the main teaching of Buddhism that there is no soul or ego (anatta) can be justified. Can I find any reference in Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Does a sotapanna still experience afflictive thoughts and or engage in unwholesome activities etc or have they transcended such things?

I formerly practiced with the local Shambhala group. I took my Refuge Vows there, received some random Buddhist name that had nothing to do with my studies or who I am; and was told I was now a member of Chogyam Trungpa's lineage. Since then I found out about the disgusting sexual and physical abuse perpetrated by Chogyam Trungpa and his son, the current Sakyong, and have not been able to continue with the Shambhala teachings. My question (and I apologize for its being so very basic) is: can a refugee somehow change lineages? I asked this of an older woman there whom I respected,and she said no without any explanation. I now am studying the teachings of H.H. the Dalai Lama, and do not really know what tradition I am in. I have practiced on my own -- with the exception of my few Shambhala years -- for about 20 years, but am not very knowledgeable about the scriptures. Any link to a good beginner's guide would be much appreciated. I hope I have not violated any rules. And thanks in advance for any answers. I really don't want to be associated with Shambhala in any way. If there is a way to change my lineage, I'd really like to know.

The following story comes in Udana 1.8 . It is about a monk by the name of Sanghamaji, who, when seated under a tree, was visited by his former wife, carrying their infant son. She tried several times to get his attention, and having failed, left the son at his feet and went a short distance away, to observe his reaction. The monk neither reacted, nor said anything to the woman or her child. She then took back the child and left the scene, while lamenting about her former husband's lack of feelings for them, saying "the monk doesn't even care about his son." The Buddha, who witnessed this supernaturally, praised the monk, saying (I paraphrase here) that he showed equanimity and is free from attachment, and is therefore a brahman. We can say that the monk displayed equanimity (upekkha), but then seemed to lack compassion (karuna). In the essay entitled "Toward a Threshold of Understanding ", Bhikkhu Bodhi discusses this: > The Pali word that the Pope interprets as "indifference" is presumably > upekkha. **The real meaning of this word is equanimity, not indifference > in the sense of unconcern for others.** As a spiritual virtue, upekkha > means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. > It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner > equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, > praise and blame, pleasure and pain. **Upekkha is freedom from all > points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of > the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the > well-being of one's fellow human beings.** True equanimity is the > pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the > "divine abodes": boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic > joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the > preceding three, but perfects and consummates them. How do we interpret the actions (or non-actions) of Sanghamaji? Did he lack compassion? Should he not have addressed his former wife compassionately, and given her an explanation of the Dhamma, and the path to the end of suffering? The sutta does not say if he ensured that the welfare of his wife and son is taken care of, before leaving the lay life of a householder.

How are goals used in Theravada Buddhism and Buddhist practice in general in a positive way. --- How do goals relate to the early teachings, and one's own practice in a positive way. ------ *Prior discussions on Buddhism Stack Exchange:* - Difference between Attachment and Goals - Does suffering motivate us to achieve our goals? - Is it possible to set goals for the future and be present at the same time? - Is Nirvana the goal, for Zen and Theravada? - Why does Buddhism seem to have more than one goal? - Should meditation be practiced without a goal? - Is Nirvana the goal for all Buddhist? - Is mindfulness the path or the goal? - How can someone integrate the Buddhist philosophy on life's purpose into daily life? - Ambitions - Are they Real or just an Illusion - Stopping Tanha or craving - Attachment to practice itself

I was part of a religious group that claimed to be everything that the Buddha teaches. But, when you listen to their teachings, you can tell discrepancies between their teachings and Buddhist teachings. I just saw many people being misguided, but I do not know what to do. (Just to clarify, the religious group I'm referring to is neither Mahayana nor Theravada. But, the question can be generalized further if necessary.) On one end, I do not wish to create any conflict among anyone. On the other end, I feel sad that many people are misguided into the teaching. So, the question is: What should I do? Any answers based on experience would be AWESOME, and experience + Scripture references (said by famous teachers or based on Pali Canon) would be an Awesome+++infinity. :) Once again, I hope to find a method that does not create animosity. Thanks Buddhist Community! Praises to the Dharma. ******As for an explanation on how this question is different from the forum titled "How to address wrong view", it's pretty much the same, except this is more scenario-based. I just wanted a different perspective/insight to this specific scenario. My ultimate goal is to avoid conflict!!!

I'm referring to Mantras listed [here](https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/docs/support/world_religions/buddhism/practices.pdf) such as the **Shakyamuni Mantra**: > *Om Muni Muni Mahamuni Shakyamuniye Svaha* In Buddhist practice throughout the world, what is the predominant practice: are those mantras translated into the local language or do adherents recite them in the original Sanskrit? If one can choose, is there any spiritual benefit from reciting them in Sanskrit during meditation?