I read the following on the internet: > MN140 - "Having gone beyond all conceiving, one is called a sage at > peace. The sage at peace is not reborn, does not grow old, and does > not die. They are not shaken, and do not yearn. For they have nothing > which would cause them to be reborn. Not being reborn, how could they > grow old? Not growing old, how could they die? Not dying, how could > they be shaken? Not shaking, for what could they yearn?" Note that > "they do not die" is only because of rebirth has ended. Best not to > get that confused. Is the above translation accurate? If a person is already biologically dead, why would they be shaken & yearn? Does the term "Deathless" mean "rebirth" (reincarnation) has ended?

I have heard the following story, from a source I do not consider very reliable. Are there sources for this story? A Buddhist nun has killed a bandit deliberately (not in an act of self-defense, but to generally stop him from being a bandit and possibly killing people). She has told this to her spiritual teacher (possibly, the story of one of the previous lives of the Buddha in which he has killed a person deliberately, came to her mind). However, her spiritual master told her that she has committed a major offense, and that she is no longer a nun. He said that in contrast to the Buddha in his previous lives, she A) did not try to change that person for the better B) did not consider the possibility of lower rebirths, when killing. Note : The story is more probably to come from the Mahayana (due to the reference to the Bodhisattva killing a person)

I started practicing meditation (I am a beginner), and I struggle to understand what the exact goal of the session is. In case it helps: my current goal is mainly to remove some stress/anxiety (I am not doing it for spiritual purpose but mainly for the practical implications it can have on well-being). In the beginner books I am reading, it is explained two things: 1. You should focus on your body's sensation 2. Whenever a thought arrives, you should acknowledge it, but let it go away to focus again on your body. What I struggle with is that I don't differenciate what is the goal from the tools/tricks we can use to reach it. In particular: is focusing on your body's sensation the actual goal? Or is it a trick used to get to the goal? For instance, it could be that the goal is not to focus on the body's sensation, but rather to not let a thought occupy the mind. In this case, focusing on the body's sensation is a trick we use so that we avoid a thought to occupy the mind (because we focus on what we feel). Overall: what is the actual concrete goal of the session. If it exists, I would appreciate an answer based on scientific studies (if they exist) that explain how exactly the session should be done so that it provides the best benefits.

I started to learn and read Buddhist teachings, everything is very logical and compassionate. However, there is one thing that makes me wonder and confused: as far as I know, all evil karma can be repented and overcome, so why are there some particularly serious crimes that cannot be cured? For example, killing parents, causing Buddha to bleed, killing arahant, dividing the Sangha. Is there any way for them to repent to reduce their sins? In case they realize their mistakes, do they still have the opportunity to practice and attain liberation? - If the 5 major sins I just mentioned cannot be mitigated through repentance, then does it contradict [this sutra](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN42_8.html) ?: "There's the case, headman, where a certain teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who take life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell. All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' A disciple has faith in that teacher, and the thought occurs to him, 'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: "All those who take life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell." There are living beings that I have killed. I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell. - If someone accidentally creates the above evil karma without anger, will the result be different? I would be very grateful if someone could help me answer my question.

I have been in search of a higher truth as far as I remember, like a stargazer looking for the brighter one and dropping the dimmer. I started from Christianity or generally from the Abrahamic religions just because it was close at home, then progressed on to the early Greek philosophy when I found out that the theology of these religions is just a makeshift of Plato's Philosophy. The Greek thought kept me for a while, especially the Stoics which I still respect the most, but then I discovered the wisdom of the East mainly because of the proximity of the Taoist with the Cynics. I explored the Eastern thought and religions for many years Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I read, inquired and tried to practice some for longer and some for shorter years. There is an apparent similarity between these religions and it can be said that a common theme is repeated again and again That said, Ashtavakra Gita is very distinct and truly a higher teaching. I know it is a Hindu scripture, but it’s just by name, the Gita presents almost all Hinduism as a bluff of vanity. By my understanding none of the philosophy or religion of the world that i encountered, except perhaps the higher teaching of Buddhism, Laozi Tao and some few thoughts in the west, will stand its truth. So, I'm looking for a comparative study between Buddhism and this specific scripture Ashtavakra Gita.

I don't know where I am getting all these ideas; perhaps it's my failing memory, or whatever. But which sutta does it say something about, "...in-between worlds..."? I'm fairly certain I read this in the text...bummer i can't find it...what quality standard?

I have tried to meditate regularly, and closed my eyes. However, as I kept my eyes closed, not even a few minutes would pass until muscles of my eyelids and surrounding regions began to twitch/spasm. I guess it strains my muscles. How should I deal with this, as it makes concentration quite difficult?

What is the Tibetan term for describing the realm containing all of one individual mindstream's karma? I think it starts with the letter A. Thank you 🙏

After I sit for about 45 minutes my mind becomes very a lot more still and there is barely any wondering thought. If there is thought I notice it very quickly and it disappears. It feels like awareness becomes wider and I'm aware of everything at once without losing mindfulness of the breath. I then begin to wonder what to do next. I usually just enjoy the calm and serenity but after a while I open my eyes and get on with the day. Sometimes I feel bored which I note. Is there something else I can do next?

I've been practising meditation for many years now but I feel like instead of becoming more compassionate and understanding I hate people more than ever. I notice so much their selfishness and lack of awareness of those around them etc. In particular I cannot tolerate loud people who don't seem to care about the noise pollution they subject others to. Social media has made everything worse. Seeing people constantly staring at their phones and taking selfies for their instagram etc makes me cringe. Narcissism seems to have become normal behaviour. Much of the time when I'm at home I wear ear plugs so I cannot hear the children screaming their heads off, dogs barking, people laughing and shouting, cars with unnecessarily loud mufflers, doors banging etc etc. Nature sounds I find soothing but people sounds I absolutely hate and feel very triggered. Instead of practising metta I find myself wishing people would drop dead. So I know this is all not what Buddhism is about but it's how I feel and I feel conflicted about it. Is this common? Is there something I should do to try and change it. Metta practice feels useless to me. Its like pretending to feel kindness but underneath I feel nothing but hatred. Its just a glossing over.

the unborn , is described by Buddha: > The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, fabricated > of aging & death, a nest of illnesses, perishing, come-into-being > through nourishment and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for > delight. **The escape from that is calm, permanent, a sphere beyond > conjecture, unborn, unproduced, the sorrowless, stainless state, the > cessation of stressful qualities, stilling-of-fabrications bliss.** Doesn't this describe nirvna? Can the description infer us to a true-self (*atta*), not-self (*anatta*), or anything else other than what is listed? Can you infer emptiness? As I was saying to other, losing with a self is so bad, I couldn't justify calling this so-called unborn a self, and it wouldn't be me or mine unfortunately. Regardless, this text says permanent, and what is the harm in selfing this permanence? What is the harm? What was permanent is no longer mine? It doesn't say 'end of defilements', 'end of existence', but perhaps you can infer that. How do you infer it?

In examining the Buddhist doctrine of 'Nirvana,' a scholarly critique emerges. Does Nirvana, often portrayed as the ultimate goal, withstand rigorous scrutiny? Can it be dissected as a concrete destination, or is it a nebulous concept, resistant to precise definition? This critical inquiry prompts an exploration into the interpretive challenges, potential inconsistencies, and scholarly debates surrounding the elusive notion of Nirvana within Buddhist philosophy.

I'm looking to get a tattoo and have these word written in Pali. Can you help me with how to write this in Pali script?

When being mindful in Mahasi walking meditation, should the meditator walk very slowly in order to get time enough to fit the noting in? What should the meditator's attitude be if they skip a mantra note? Should one strain hard to get the prechosen mantra note right? How should one approach mistakes? What kind of concentration is needed? Is it enough to just be mindful with superficial concentration or must a high degree of concentration be developed? With momentary concentration, can the meditator get stuck to an object like with non-momentary concentration? What would right-concentration be with this kind of walking meditation practice?

In how far does one take part on skilfull or unskilfull undertaking? In how far does one receives the fruits of good or bad actions by means of getting involved by toughts, signs and deeds, by assosiation with tendencies and certain objectives and aims? Are there even disadvantages, benefits, for one if just seeming for others to be near of certain undertakings? And how should common-kamma here be understood? *(Note that question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)*

As a young Buddhist, I was taught to respect members of the order and venerate the Sangha. Recently, I was told that the word Sangha only refers to the Noble Sangha (i.e. Ariya-sangha not Sammuti-sangha) in a [comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51150/what-is-the-history-of-mindfulness#comment83988_51154) . > the word Sangha refers to the Noble Sangha My question is whether veneration should or should not be accorded by default to the Sangha (both conventional and Noble Sangha) or should it be reserved only to the Noble ones (i.e. [the eight noble beings](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/50179/who-are-the-noble-ones-and-who-are-their-disciples/50187#50187)) . Why and why not? (A side note: I find [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/37194/should-any-monastic-be-considered-a-noble-one/37198#37198) by the ex-forumer @Yeshe Tenley to be a good read).

*Coming from a closed, probably ill-intended and insulting [question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23210/did-the-buddha-narcistically-judge-people-unfairly-with-self-conceit) , or not, but anyway it's root is actually good to investigate:* How comes that praising oneself is unskillful but the teacher of it does? There are many places in the teachings, where the Buddha speaks in "glorification" of the "Buddha". >`(Mv.I.6.7) Upaka the Ājīvaka saw the Blessed One traveling on the road between Gayā and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing him said to him, “Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?” >(Mv.I.6.8 ) When this was said, the Blessed One replied to Upaka the Ājīvaka in verses: >`“All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering.` >`All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? [=Dhp 353]` >`I have no teacher, and one like me can’t be found. In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart.` >`For I am an arahant in the world; I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I,` >`To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma I go to the city of the Kasis. In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the Deathless.”` >(Mv.I.6.9) “From your claims, my friend, you deserve to be an infinite conqueror.” >`“Conquerors are those like me who have reached fermentations’ end. I’ve conquered evil qualities, and so, Upaka, I’m a conqueror.”` >When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and—shaking his head, taking a side-road—he left.` ([The Discussion of the Group of Five](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,8043.msg13286.html#msg13286)) As this sample shows, such can lead to not benefical situation for one, thinking "how arrogant". Lowering others, praising oneself... yet teaching that such is not good... Broad believe is that the Dhamma teaches generally not so speak about ones good qualities and skills, which seems to be paradox when facing such and lead possible to questions like: >Was his mind defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)? **So what is that all about with this paradox?** **How to explain that his disciples propably blame all others in certain ways and prais just the Buddha and his Dhamma, and his disciples with whole heart?** Just a "[Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi) , or how should this statement be understood in a Dhammic way, so to posible do not react foolish like Upaka the Ājīvaka did? *[[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]*

Bhikkhu Sujato's translation of AN 4.171 says: > Mendicants, there are four kinds of reincarnation. Cattārome, > bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābhā. > > What four? Katame cattāro? > > There is a reincarnation where one’s own intention is effective, not > that of others. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ > attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā kamati, no parasañcetanā. > > There is a **reincarnation where the intention of others is effective**, > not one’s own. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ > **attabhāvapaṭilābhe parasañcetanā kamati**, no attasañcetanā. > > There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions > are effective. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ > attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā ca kamati parasañcetanā ca. > > There is a reincarnation where neither one’s own nor others’ > intentions are effective. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ > attabhāvapaṭilābhe nevattasañcetanā kamati, no parasañcetanā. > > These are the four kinds of reincarnation.” Ime kho, bhikkhave, > cattāro attabhāvapaṭilābhā”ti. What is "*reincarnation where the intention of others is effective*"?

The Abhidhamma says: > 2.4. The Mutuality Tetrad > >PTS cs 246 > >With ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) process, also with a (volitional) process as condition there is ignorance, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, also with consciousness as condition: a (volitional) process, with consciousness as condition: mind and bodily form, also with mind and bodily form as condition: consciousness, with mind and bodily form as condition: the sixth sense sphere, also with the sixth sense sphere as condition: mind and bodily form, with the sixth sense sphere as condition: contact, also with contact as condition: the sixth sense sphere, with contact as condition: feeling, also with feeling as condition: contact, with feeling as condition: craving, also with craving as condition: feeling, with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: craving, **with attachment as condition: continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole mass of suffering**. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs246 Why does Abhidhamma exclude continuation (becoming), birth & death from its 'mutuality' above?

Title. Five aggregates kind of thing, nature of conciousness, perception etc