I think its essentially the fear of death but I am discouraged/demotivated of continuing on the path of meditation by listening about what is at the end of it. The goal of enlightenment is sounding a bit depressing for me and I am scared of it. Its also the same as my fear of death. I am very much attached to my intellect and thoughts. Its something identify with. Yes my fear comes from being attached with my mind maybe? But ultimately its my mind which has to be convinced to continue. Ofcourse it doesnt want its own "death". After reading things about what will happen after enlightenment, I am backing out. I have tasked the bliss more than once. I know the feeling, its great, its literally the purpose of life. But I am again attached to my mind. Seems like I need an intellectual reason to transcend my intellect.

What is the acceptability of the Jataka literature across various Buddhist traditions? Please answer with references from both traditional and modern perspectives if possible.

As I understand it, “bare awareness” is a meditation technique whereby anything that arises is noticed without judgement and allowed to pass without interaction by the meditator. Shikan Tasa means “just sitting” and is employed in Soto Zen. I’m not sure what the difference between the two techniques is.

Is it commonly taught in buddhism to 'deem' one's thought or actions to be of a category? Example: Thoughts are about how to redeem oneself after having said something to a crush that makes us look unattractive. Then, we become aware of this thought, and categorize it as "Worrying about sexual/romantic attainments" or "Worrying about reputation", sort of "labeling" the thought. I have noticed that doing this helps me detach from aggregates, so I wonder if this is an established practice.

When you meditate with ADHD, the difficulty level of life drops a lot. If you then practice the noble eightfold path in order to come closer to nibbana, you're sort of doing that on a wheelchair. If you stop meditating, ADHD will come back full force, and you still have 0 experience of being on the noble eightfold path on that difficulty level. Could meditating be a hindrance toward enlightenment, for that reason? Aren't you making it too easy for yourself?

I have been focused on the breath in meditation and I am interested in Vipassana, but I am confused about the object of meditation. I have read that you focus on the breath and as thoughts arise, you should observe them and then return to the breath and that it is the returning to the breath that increases one's mindfulness. I have also read that in Vipassana meditation, one shifts the object of meditation to the thoughts that arise and make them the object of mediation. This approach seems to be just sitting and letting your thoughts wander. Do I misunderstand the meaning of making arising thoughts the object of meditation? As it is now, I continue to make the breath the object and observe my other thoughts but generally do not pursue them, rather just categorizing the thought (like "planning the future" or "reliving the past") and then return to the breath.

According to SN51.10 : > So at the Cāpāla Tree-shrine the Buddha, mindful and aware, > surrendered the life force. When he did so there was a great > earthquake, awe-inspiring and hair-raising, and thunder cracked the > sky. Then, understanding this matter, on that occasion the Buddha > expressed this heartfelt sentiment: > > “Comparing the incomparable with the creation of prolonged life, the > sage surrendered the life force. Happy inside, serene, he shattered > self-creation like a suit of armor.” Why did Buddha surrender his life three months in advance, or was it a foregone conclusion? Is perfection of concentration, the four bases of psychic power , mandatory to surrender it? What is required?

Caucasian skin is peachy and sandy (due to having no pigmentation) while the great man's body in nibbana is, according to the 32 perfections of a great man , "his skin is the color of gold". White skin requires some pigmentation. Currently my journey with white skin represents the Trix rabbit's (1994 commercial) attempt to take his own cereal. All he gets is "silly rabbit Trix are for kids!" And the fact that some saints may have received such a miracle to change their skin color forever makes the pain that much more serious. And what should I do regarding the psychologist? I am visiting one to drain my emotions of this, and that might make my eternity as a yellow man all that much more permanent!

I am fairly new to the Dhamma and this site specifically. I was told by an Indian person that dyana (meditation) was a part of a yoga system which became zen in china, dharma became dhamma, most of Buddhists texts are sutras, ideas of reincarnation, maya (phenomenon), nirvana, samaddhi, sat (truth), chitta (conciousness), daya (compassion), ahinsa are all Hindu themes reinterpreted. How much did Sakyamuni reinterpreted on Brahmanism and how much is disinformed?

By that I mean, an oak tree that doesn't have a sudden death from fire or being cut down or whatever, will for all intents and purposes live many years. Everyone who comes and visits the tree will see generally the same tree. Of course, the tree is never the "same" moment to moment, every atom is being swapped out and moving around, radiation is coming and going, branches and leaves fall off and regrow, etc.. But still, if I visit the tree today, and you visit it 1 year from now (in the middle of the tree's life), the tree is still "there" (even though it might be slightly different). Everyone who walks by will point "there is a tree over there". It's persistent across time and space, for some period. I understand that everything is technically an "illusion". We are all one unified flow of stuff, and the idea of a self or independence is an illusion in the grand scheme of things. But still, within the illusion, there are basically "natural physical laws of the universe" you could say. It's not like all of a sudden, "zap", the tree is an elephant when you visit. Then boom (magic wand), it is a car, then later it is a piece of cotton, or a sun, etc.. Or it magically jumps around in space. That is, there is some sort of structure somewhat independent of me that obeys some sort of rules to stay somewhat consistent in time and space. Even if my "mind" is projecting this experience or interpretation of such a tree illusion.... Everyone's mind is basically projecting a roughly similar illusion. I saw an example of a "river" from somewhere: > - A deva sees a river as a stream of gems. > - A human sees it as water. > - A hungry ghost sees it as a river of pus and blood. Sure, fine. But it's still at least perceived as a general "flow" by all. A continuous stream. It's not like it's a rock to some and an animal to others, and a river to everyone else. Or an explosion of rippling radiation or some other dispersed and hard to imagine network/system of many things.... It's still a flow, in time and space. Maybe to a fast-moving light-being, it is like a slow moving game of tetris, etc.. But it is still moving! If you account for the change in perspective, you have the same overall "flow" in the place. So my question is, at least in Yogācāra Buddhism (or other schools deeply analyzing consciousness to that degree), how do they account for this? My understanding so far is that, in Yogācāra, everything is mind. Everything is consciousness, from the base consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). So then my question becomes "how do you account for physical form then"? To which they respond (it seems) with, "it's a mental projection". Okay, sure, MY experience of a form is a mental projection in my own mind, but that doesn't change the fact that the form is persistent in time and space (like the tree!). How does Yogācāra account for that? But then my reading/understanding of Yogācāra perspective is basically that: > All appearances, including persistent physical forms like trees, are manifestations of consciousness (vijñapti-mātra) arising from causal seeds (bīja) stored in the storehouse consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). Basically, the tree is a co-constructed, stable illusion due to ongoing karmic resonance, not an independent material substance. Its form is projected within consciousness, but projected in accordance with karmic law, which behaves much like physical law. Something like that is very hard for me to comprehend, and feels circular in reasoning somehow. Is there a way to explain how physical forms seem to persist in time and space, from this sort of mind-only perspective here? _Looking further, it seems they would say "all sentient beings who perceive the tree are doing so because they have karmic seeds that generate similar experiences." But that doesn't make any sense to me, that the tree's reality is based on everyone else's reality. Or something like that. That everything is based on everything else, and if one thing changes all of a sudden, the entire universe could change it's fundamental laws. Doesn't seem to jive with me yet. Maybe I'm also reading it wrong._

I read the following on the internet: > Perhaps, we can infer from the above that the Dha**m**ma is easy to follow > for those who had little dust in their eyes, keen faculties (i.e. > intelligent), with good attributes (i.e. good habits), easy to teach > (i.e. respectful, eager to learn and diligent) and **seeing disgrace > (i.e. a strong sense of shame) & danger in the other world (i.e. fear > of ending up in a bad destination after death)**. This is one angle. In comparison to the above Thanissaro translation and in comparison to the idiosyncratic embellishments bracketed by the poster, the translation of Sujato is slightly different, saying: > And some of them lived **seeing the danger in the fault to do with the next world** (paralokavajjabhayadassāvine), while others did not. > > [Sujato's SN 6.1](https://suttacentral.net/sn6.1/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) The relevant Pali above is 'paralokavajjabhayadassāvine', which is in locative case. The locative case can mean 'in" but also can more broadly mean 'in relation/respect to'. Therefore, Thanissaro used the translation of "in" whereas Sujato used the translation of "to do with". > The locative denotes the circumstance or site in space (where) or time (when), a person is, or an action takes place; and can generally be rendered by ‘in, at, on, near, among, **in respect to**’. > > [Learn Pali Blog Spot](https://palistudies.blogspot.com/2018/06/palis-system-of-noun-cases.html) > The seventh case (sattamī = Skr. saptamī) or the loc. serves to denote the where, i.e., the scene of an action. But it is capable of expressing such nuances as are denoted by the English prepositions in, on, at, among, with, by, near, over or **about**. Moreover its employment is not restricted to actual space as normally understood by ‘where’, but extends into other spheres of thought (cp. SS §38.6) Consequently there are various uses of the loc. which can be classified as those denoting, for instance, the varying conceptions of time, of circumstance, of motive, (the nimitta-sattamī of local grammarians), of **relation**, the loc. absolute with its various subdivisions and so on. > > Here as well as in the above type (c.) the loc. is expressive of **relation**, i.e. the thing regarding which... > > [The Locative Case](https://ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Textual-Studies/Syntax-of-the-Cases/07-Locative.htm) Are there any Pali Suttas which explain the meaning of the term "the other world" ("paraloka") to help us clarify the text in SN 6.1 (which the poster on the internet took omniscient privilege to impute their own personal interpretation of)?

With Sangha Officials I mean high ranking monks/nuns/etc, like Abbots. With "Realms" I mean stuff like "Other world" or "Pure lands", but I mean also stuff like the concept of "Rebirth". Is it ever explicitly taught or even mentioned that they are talking about mental or spiritual phenomena/states, as opposed to supernatural "literally heaven after literally the body is dead" type stuff?

MN 34 has been translated by Sujato as follows: > “Ayaṁ loko paro loko, > > “This world and the other world > > jānatā suppakāsito; > > have been clearly explained by one who knows; > > Yañca mārena sampattaṁ, > > **as well as** Māra’s reach, > > appattaṁ yañca maccunā. > > and what’s out of Death’s reach. > > [MN 34](https://suttacentral.net/mn34/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=sidenotes&highlight=false&script=latin) Alternate translation is: > This world, the world beyond, are well explained by the one who knows, > And what is accessible by Māra and what is not accessible by Death > > I.B. Horner > Both this world and the world beyond > > Are well described by He that knows, > > And what is still in Māra’s reach > > And what is out of reach of Death. > > Nyanamoli Thera I think the translation should be: > “Ayaṁ loko paro loko, > > “This world and the other world > > jānatā suppakāsito; > > have been clearly explained by one who knows; > > Yañca mārena sampattaṁ, > > as Māra’s reach [this world], > > appattaṁ yañca maccunā. > > and what’s out of Death’s reach [other world]. Do any grammar rules rule out my translation?

Why is buddhism so difficult to follow...the point is that...buddhism does not have gods like hinduism or christanity...who help you in turbulant times or grant you your desire if you worship them...in buddhism entire responsibility is your own you have to practise the dhamma...the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path...in buddhism there is no eternal brahman or kingdom of heaven to inflate the ego but nirvana to blow out the ego permanently...the death of ego is ultimate nightmare...present moment awareness and mindfulness is a very difficult endeavor...the buddha does not fulfill your desires if you worship him...there is no heaven or final resting place...There is no help from the outside for samsaric matters...impermanence, no-self and dukkha feel so gloomy...you can be happy in life without nirvana... Does this make buddhism difficult to follow or there is different perspective?

I’m wondering to what extent belief in some form of afterlife is necessary for one to be considered a Buddhist. Specifically, are beliefs in otherworldly realms such as svargaloka (heaven), pitriloka (spirit world), and naraka lokas (hell), as well as the idea of rebirth or reincarnation, central and non-negotiable within the Buddhist tradition? Is it possible to identify as a Buddhist while setting aside these cosmological elements, perhaps viewing them symbolically or metaphorically rather than literally? Or are these beliefs foundational in such a way that rejecting them would place someone outside the bounds of what can meaningfully be called Buddhism?

How common is it for lay people and for monks both to attain higher jhanas like sixth, seventh and the eighth ? How easy/hard it is? Have you entered any of the Jhana states yourself? If yes, what was your method?

I am learning Mahayana. Today I came across a question on web “ Why Buddha taught Trisvabhava or three natures?”. I was surprised because reality is empty of any essence but I found the word svabhava in Trisvabhavanirdesa which means three self becoming teachings. I am aware of three lakhshana or three marks of existence. Is there any sutta or sutra where Buddha mentions three svabhavas ?

Buddha as part of the noble eightfold path preached that killing any organism is an unskillful action which results in bad karma. He also preached that every buddhist monk's final aim should be nibbana. In the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, it's mentioned that one cause for earthquake is a monk attaining enlightenment. Earthquakes result in the killing of atleast few organisms. So that should mean a monk should not pursue enlightenment. How does a practicing buddhist monk address this apparent contradiction? Thanks.

The sutta below states that eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are old kamma. Why are these called old kamma (*purāṇakammā*)? Is it because of rebirth? Or could there be other reasons? If rebirth is the only reason, then I feel that this explanation seems too simple. From SN 35.146 : > And what is old kamma? > > The eye is old kamma. It should be seen as produced by choices and > intentions, as something to be felt. > > The ear … nose … tongue … body … mind is old kamma. It should be seen > as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt. > > This is called old kamma. > > And what is new kamma? > > The deeds you currently perform by way of body, speech, and mind. > > This is called new kamma. (I replaced "action" with "kamma")

Definitions: - I want to emphasize the mind, the body doesn't ache, isn't sore, isn't itchy, nothing at all; that is the 'an lạc' of the body (bodily ease/well-being). - 'Thanh thản' (serenity) is when our mind doesn't ponder, isn't busy at all; that is 'thanh thản'. - 'Vô sự' (actionlessness/nothing-to-do) is doing nothing at all; the body also does nothing, and the mind also doesn't ponder, meaning it does nothing; that is 'vô sự'. It is normal, very normal like a normal person, yet doing nothing at all. That is: the head/mind doesn't work, and the hands and feet also don't work; that is 'vô sự'. As for the mind that doesn't ponder, doesn't worry about anything at all, that is 'thanh thản' (serenity). As for the body that doesn't ache, isn't sore, itchy, nothing at all, that is 'an lạc' (ease); it is normal. Just like right now, [if] our body has no aches or pains, that is the 'an lạc' of our body. That is the state right now; it's not anything strange or different. It is the normalcy of a normal human being. Therefore, once you recognize that normalcy, now you just need to use the method of Right Thinking (Như Lý Tác Ý), guide it [the mind]: > "A mind unshaken, serene, at ease, and free from involvement.” You just fear it [the mind] will move and ponder about this and that, so you remind it: ‘Mind immovable, serene, at ease, actionless,’ and then just sit relaxedly/idly like that. So, can I use "unshaken, serene, at ease, uninvolved" as a mindful reminder throughout my day to make my mind feel better?