Some song lyrics are hard to understand at their face value. But a careful exploration can often reveal their hidden messages. All this is similar to the study of Zen kōans. So the question is: Can the study of Zen kōans help understand song lyrics and vice-versa?

In many Buddhist explanations, pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) states that all phenomena arise dependent on causes and conditions. However, a common philosophical objection is that if every phenomenon depends on a prior cause, this seems to imply an infinite regress of causes, with no ultimate grounding. If every conditioned phenomenon requires another conditioned phenomenon to give rise to it, how does Buddhism avoid either: an infinite regress of causes, or the need for some first, unconditioned cause (which most schools reject)?

Recently I have come across A Social media post which happens to be circulating across several platforms that claims Siddhārtha Gautama and the Śākya clan were originally devotees of Śiva i.e, followers of Śaivism before abandoning this earlier religious affiliation and later embracing Buddhism. The post also cites various textual sources in support of this assertion. ---------- Enquiring From a purely academic perspective grounded in the scholarly study of early Buddhist history :- 1. I would like to know whether the sources cited are authentic and whether the conclusion presented in the post is accepted by mainstream scholars of Buddhist history. 2. Additionally, do the Nikāyas, the Vinaya, or early non-Buddhist sources provide any indication of Śaiva devotion by Siddhārtha Gautama or among the Śākyas? Seeking a Proper fact-based assessment grounded in proper citations of primary sources and established academic research. ----------

In Abhidharma (“abhi-” roughly means “meta-,” so Abhidharma can be understood as meta-dharma, or “one level above dharma”), there is a concept called kṣaṇabhaṅga, or “momentary decay.” It holds that all existence lasts only for a split second, and this includes human beings. A related term is ēkacitta, or “one unit of consciousness,” according to which consciousness arises in discrete units rather than as a continuous stream. Under this understanding, is it fair to say that each person dies and is reborn from one split second to the next?

My mother grows organic vegetables so she doesn't spray pesticides. I warned her that killing snails would add to her karma of taking life; she said, "If I don't kill them, what will I eat?" So she no longer smashes the snails on the ground to kill them — she puts the snails into a plastic bag and throws them in the trash. Is that the right way to handle it? What other alternatives are there?

I do both samath, vipssana for like 4 years, but without a time schedule. When I have time I do. Few of my hobbies are reading books, learning damma, watching TV series etc. But for few months now, I have lost interest in almost everything. I don't know what to do. I feel like I have seen it all and nothing to do. It's hard to do even daily life stuff. Please give some directions. 🙏

I find it difficult to assign a meaning to the word 'rebirth'. Here are some hints that rebirth might not be real: - Views regarding one's past and future existence are included in the "62 false beliefs" - Those views are ascribed to non-Buddhist ascetics - Views regarding the future of the Tathagata (after death) are in the 10 or 14 "unanswered questions" - The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth? - If rebirth happens that seems difficult to prove by personal experience; is it an article of faith, not something one can verify by direct experience? If so isn't that (faith instead of experience) unusual in Buddhist doctrine (isn't doctrine meant to be measurable against one's experience of the world)? Or if it is experience, what kind of experience (of other lives) is it, how are you supposed to know that so-called experience is not just a dream? - [This web site](http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm) (which seems to be Thai) says that rebirth is a "parable" for "simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha". It says that "Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person" and "This notion of the transmigration of the soul definitely does not exist in Buddhism." The end of that page suggest that people "lower themselves into hell" or "rise to the Enlightened state of the Buddha" *in this life*. I think I remember reading, sometime in the distant past, than when someone asked the Buddha about the afterlife, he replied "I'm not here to talk to you about the afterlife: I'm here to talk to you about *this* life." Is it OK to believe, is it OK to say that a belief in rebirth isn't important to Buddhism? Not a big part of the historical Buddha's teaching? That when he mentioned it at all, it was to say that it didn't exist ("anatta" and "anicca"), that he didn't expect to be doing it himself, and that it wasn't worth talking about? And/or is it a non-core part of Buddhism: something which some Buddhists believe and other Buddhists don't, a local/cultural viewpoint? The article [Two Main Schools of Buddhism](http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/59.htm) says, > The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows: > - Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher. - The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools. - The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. - The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the same in both schools. - Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world. - Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference. A belief in rebirth (even Karma) isn't especially on this list. I think I agree that the above are essential: that the historical Buddha talked about them, and that they're a necessary part of Buddhist belief. I agree that tales of rebirth and of other lives feature in some Buddhist literature, e.g. Mahayana literature seems to have the Buddha being reborn. I don't know a lot about Buddhism so, please, if you answer with a paraphrase of scripture, please include the name of the scripture you're quoting so that I could look it up.

>It goes without saying that alcohol makes you mindless. Theres debate about pot creating conditions for enhanced mindfulness in SOME individuals. My question is not "is it okay". I know what to expect. Are there any specific stories involving Buddha on the subject of someone ingesting an herb or something, specifically to be mindful... and how that is bad. I'm asking for the story or stories.

What are the teachings and books that are good for inspiring the sick and soon to be dying? If your brain is getting eaten away, what are the best practices for that? Anyone know of any doctors who would understand all this insight meditation stuff? Doctors often seem to me far too smart to be wise.

Is there any convincing interpretation of [Vessantara Jātaka](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j6/j6013.htm) that isn't in conflict with morality? Vessantara gave away his children to serve as slaves for no particular reason; it is not clear how not giving them away would hinder his own awakening. I can see how one might argue from the Buddhist perspective that attachment to one's children and anger towards their oppressors is a bad thing. One can, however, protect one's children from oppressors in a completely detached way, without generating any attachment or hatred. Moreover, it's not that he just didn't resist; instead he actively looked for his children when they had run away, in order to give them away to Jūjaka. All in all, Vessantara's behaviour caused a lot of suffering to his children for no reason whatsoever, and he not only didn't get condemned, but was even presented as the one who did the right thing. Is there any way to reconcile this story with morality?

Is it true that the Buddha will never be a woman? If so, why is this? To be specific, I am particularly asking whether or not the Buddha itself can be female. I am *not* asking whether a woman can become a Buddha in her future life.

Vietnamese sentence: Như nói có linh hồn người chết, nói có Phật tánh, có thế giới siêu hình là nói dối, vì đó là cảnh giới tưởng, cảnh giới không có thật. - AI version 1: For example, asserting the existence of souls after death, Buddha-nature, or supernatural realms is false speech because these belong to imaginary realms, which are not real. - AI version 2: For instance, asserting the existence of souls of the dead, Buddha-nature, or metaphysical worlds is lying, as these belong to the realm of imagination, an unreal realm. - Thu: For example, saying there is the spirit of the deceased, saying there is Buddha-nature and a metaphysical world is false speech / lying, because there are realms of imagination, realms that do not truly exist. - Loi: For example, saying that there are spirits of the deceased, that there is Buddha-nature, or that there are supernatural worlds is false speech, because these are imaginary realms that do not exist. - Nhan: For example, saying that there are spirits of the deceased, that there is Buddha-nature, or that there are metaphysical worlds is false speech, as these are imaginary realms that do not truly exist. - Lin Đa: For example, saying there are spirits of the deceased, saying there is Buddha-nature, saying there are metaphysical worlds is false speech, because these are imagined realms, realms that do not exist. As a native-English speaker, you read an English sentence and you can understand the meaning of it translated by Vietnamese people. Does that help you understand the same Vietnamese text? I mean the structure, grammar and other things. You can get the Buddhism terminology and C2 and it will help you practice and understand Buddhism easily. Thank you very much for your reading.

Vietnamese paragraph: Nếu không có Tăng Bảo thì không bao giờ chúng ta giác ngộ chân lý được, không giác ngộ chân lý thì biết gì mà hộ trì chân lý, chân lý không được hộ trì thì làm sao chứng đạt được chân lý. There are two options, which one is better? 1. Without the Sangha Jewel, we can never realize/comprehend the truth; without realizing the truth, we do not know how to uphold the truth, (if the truth is not upheld, it cannot be attained) (not having been upheld, the truth cannot be attained). 2. Without the Sangha Jewel, we can never realize the truth; without realizing the truth, how could we possibly uphold it; and if the truth is not upheld, how could it ever be attained? Thank your for your reading. Please consider and correct the translation related to Vietnamese Buddhism.

I was listening to a podcast featuring Alan Watts and he stated that Buddhism was Hinduism stripped for export. He also says it at more length in his book Buddhism the Religion of No Religion .... > Hinduism [..] is a religious culture. Being a Hindu really involves > living in India [...]. You cannot be a Hindu in the full sense living > in the United States or India. > > Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export. The Buddha was a reformer in > the highest sense: someone who wants to go to the original form or > reform it. There is a sense here of Hinduism being a culturally specific religion and Buddhism being it's universal equivalent. Is there any sense in which that is true or is 'Buddhism is just Hinduism stripped for export' just a pithy soundbite that actually doesn't mean very much?

Can lying be the correct action in certain situations? Bhikkhu Bodhi gave an example of a situation where lying might be appropriate: In World War II some nice people would hide those oppressed by the Nazis. If Nazis come and ask these nice people if they are hiding Jewish people, would it be the appropriate action to tell the truth?

I hope you are all well. I have been studying Buddhism for a few months and I am very grateful for the teachings. I've visited this website frequently for similar questions and this is the first time I am reaching out to this community. Since bringing Buddhist practices into my life, my relationships have improved, especially with my mother. However, I am finding it difficult to navigate what would be the most helpful or skilful actions for myself and my mother during the suffering she is experiencing at the moment. A bit of background on my mother: she has narcissistic tendencies and since my childhood, has leaned on my siblings and I for her emotional needs especially in times of suffering. I am now 20 years old and the relationship we share I feel is much healthier than even a year ago, as I struggled to understand my own suffering and suffering of others before I began studying Buddhism. My mother is in the midst of a break up with her ex-fiancé and I am the only one she has shared this with in our family unit (I live with her and my younger sibling who is 17 years old). While sharing with me her feelings about this and having my shoulder to lean on, she began sharing things she dislikes about my father and his family (ex-fiancé and my father are different people). I understand the importance of boundaries and I am not sure how to lend a compassionate ear for her during this time while communicating that I cannot be a therapist for her. I recognise that everyone is in care of their own suffering and that it is not your responsibility to alleviate the suffering of someone else, only they can do that. I would like to share compassion with her in a healthy way for both of us as our past had no boundaries, and I had felt that her emotions were my responsibility. In other words, I want to do what I can to support her during her suffering in the most healthy and skilful way for both of us. How would one go about this? I appreciate all comments and advice and I'm happy to go into more detail if you would like. Thanks for reading.

Ok, so i am kind of an outsider on this topic, so i assume i got something basic wrong. But even if thats not the case, please try to explain this to me: As i understand it at this point, Karma works somewhat like this: Person A has bad/negative karma so Person B does something bad to them. Through this, Person As negative karma is quasi removed and Person B aquires negative karma for their bad deed. Reaching nirvana requires one to reach karmic neutrality, having neither positive nor negative karma. This setup leads me to one conclusion: Once basically everyone has reached nirvana, in the end there has to be one individual being that holds all the combined karma, and this one being has thus no chance of ever reaching neutrality and thus nirvana. Now, i am pretty sure something in my setup is false, so can someone please explain it to me?

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?

I am a Buddhist and during the Eight Precepts Observance Day, am I not allowed to keep money, but after 24 hours, I can use money, but the money on Observance Day must be transferred to my cousins or my spouse or my relatives? I mean how can I show that I keep the precept, particularly with respect to Early Theravada?

Vietnamese sentences: Thánh tăng, Thánh ni và Thánh cư sĩ còn ăn thịt chúng sinh thì Thánh đó là Thánh gì? Câu hỏi này để tự quý vị suy ngẫm trả lời. English sentences: If Noble Monks, Noble Nuns, and Noble Lay Disciples still consume the flesh of sentient beings, then what kind of Noble person is that? This question is for you yourselves to reflect on and answer. Do you think this is a good translation for our international Buddhists?