Once Nagarjuna has demonstrated the emptiness of all exaggerated existential positions, including the existence of the Dharma and the Buddha's doctrine, how does he then affirm the validity of the Dharma? Is it because the Dharma teaches nothing other than its own emptiness (as well as the emptiness of everything) and thus is conventionally affirmed as the supreme teaching? Why does the Dharma hold a privileged position?

New Kadampa Tradition is a prominent Buddhist movement in the UK with many centres and meditation classes. However I've always been confused about the relationship between them and Tibetan Buddhist. So moving on from this question - what is the relationship between the New Kadampa Tradition and the Tibetan schools? What lineage if any do they claim? Are they a minor school or a subset of another school? I heard somewhere that they had a disagreement with the Dalai Lamaso maybe they are linked with the Gelug school. However that might not be true - all kinds of things get reported about Buddhist organisations that can be classified as new religious movements, some of which are just sticks to beat them with.

Is being mindful of feelings in-and-of-themselves according to the triad of pleasant, unpleasant, neutral the Middle Way? Is is also auto-suggestion? Is it normalization of a distribution? Does it attempt to root out the extremes by placing us in the context of three categories? I really like the simplicity of Buddha’s model but what then about agony and ecstasy or rapture? I am happpy to do away with them, but I’m not sure how beyond lifestyle overhaul

I was just answering a question on Hindu.SE as to whether Ithihasas were copies of Jatakas. While looking for sources I found two Ghata Jatakas found on different sites. [WisLib Ghata Jataka](https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/jataka-tales-english/d/doc80525.html) [Sacred Text Ghata Jataka](https://sacred-texts.com/bud/j4/j4018.htm) Why two Jatakas after the same name?

For some context, I have been practicing the paramitas in daily life—one each day, and then repeating them when they're done. But I felt the need to include a few other things that were missed in ancient times, but are probably important, at least in the beginning, in the modern world. So, I'm looking for a list of such virtues that I can add to my daily practice list. Few examples could be confidence non-deceitfulness fearlessness etc. Any suggestions ?

I read the following on the internet: > The birth that is going to take place, by which I mean the past life > of the being that is going to take another birth, will do so > regardless of one deciding to have children or not. Now I have read in the suttas & Visuddhimagga certain actions respectively lead to the respective godly, human, animal, ghost & hell realms. The Visuddhimagga appears to explain how only spontaneous birth in certain heavens & hells has no physical component. Thus spontaneous birth ([opapātika](https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/opapatika)) is often defined as 'birth without parents'. Therefore, if many people chose to follow the Noble Eightfhold Path and be celibate, how will the past life beings (destined by their kamma for the human world) be reborn if there is a limited supply of embryos? Will there be more twins, triplets, etc? What do various Buddhist texts say about this question?

I’ve been going to Vipassana meditation retreats for a while now. Every single time, I am plagued by sex idea and fantasies, almost like going crazy by it. During the sittings sometimes the whole hour passes with planning and imagining scenarios of sexual nature. Of course, the things I plan never actually get carried out once the retreat is over. But I am quite stumped at this pattern. Can you give me some insight on it, and an approach to manage/outgrow it? I should also mention that sadly I am not able to keep the precepts during these retreats- I end up “flying solo” multiple times . Thanks

Couple of questions: 1. According to the Dhamma, is it allowed to critisize someone in a constructive manner? 2. If someone gossips about me how do I deal with it? Compassion and kindness aside, sometimes it is necessary to be assertive. One can only be compassionate if one is healthy inside in that moment in time. 3. Intention is a little bit more important than the act itself, (isnt it- at least in Buddhism) (only in a few instances is the act more important than the intention for example stealing is wrong even if one's family is poor), however, if for example I slice my bread in the supermarket and I see remaining pieces of bread in the machine and I take them with me because no one did I then so no reason why I would largely violete the "not taking what is not given". Sure, it wasn't given but if my attention or thought is: "Well, if I don't take it it will be wasted" then that should rather influence my kamma, right? So it's largely about my intention. If I hurt someone out of compassion because he attacks someone and injures them severely I have better results because my intention was to safe others, correct?

This was a question here: > Do all good and/or all pleasant intentions have pleasant outcomes for one/or another? It may be good to investigate in frames of the Buddha-Dhamma. And could that be always traced by anyone, the line of cause and effect?

As I understood it from the abhidharma, nama-rupa is just another way of looking at the five skandhas, a different scheme for the same thing, along with others (e.g. the dhatus). But, as far as I can tell, this is never quite explicitly stated. Why? And are they identical ways of saying the same thing?

In Buddhism having a rebirth is itself a origin of all the Dukhhas. Doesn't it imply that Buddhist laymen who are married should not have children to stop this cycle of rebirth. This leads to a more generic hypothetical question as to what happens if all people in the world stop having children? I would like to have the answer in the Buddhist perspective.

If I imagine doing a thing, then do I intend it? Have any buddhist texts spoken about any difference between the imagination as it might feature in intent? Suppose I imagine putting a poison in someone's food, and then suggest they eat it. Surely I haven't intended to poison them, anymore than I intend to kill the bad guy when I watch an action movie. Do the fantastical results of a diseased mind incorporate intent? Suppose I have a delusion that everytime I clap my hand someone dies, and I clap my hands (this looks no different to the poison example, except for the fact I believe - rather than imagine - it): have I intended to kill?

I recently got to know (as written at this [link](https://quangduc.com/a52421/1-buddha-maitreya)) the [Aṭṭha Parikkhāra](https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Eight_requisites) (eight requisites) to be given by the [Maha Brahma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabrahma#:~:text=He%20is%20considered%20the%20protector,found%20in%20different%20Buddhist%20cultures.) to [Maitreya/Metteyya Bodhisattva](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya) at the time of the renunciation has already been created and ready. Is there anything related to this sort of dharma in the Tripitaka?

I am asking this personal question because I am recently found myself in a situation that shook me up quite a bit and I can’t seem to figure out how to deal with it. I made a wrong decision which hurt someone, because I betrayed and broke the trust of that person. I am a very compassionate person and I aim to do no harm to anyone , ever. So consciously putting myself in this situation was probably the worst thing I have ever done simply because I hurt someone. I deeply regret my decision because I was acting out of delusion and ignorance. And I take 100% responsibility for what I did, knowing it was wrong. I try to see the necessity in the action itself (I hope this makes sense, I do not mean it was right and this is not an excuse) as it helped me personally to overcome the delusions and break attachment, only through this I was able to see clear, but I deeply regret hurting someone else’s feelings with it and doing wrong towards that person. I often see teachings on how to overcome betrayal if you are the one getting betrayed - but how can you restore your karma and move on after being the one who betrayed and breaking the trust? And I am not talking about seeking forgiveness from that person, because that is something I simply can not expect as I take responsibility for my actions. I feel like it had to happen in order for me to be able to move on and overcome certain things I was so attached to, and I do not ever in my life want anything like this to happen again, and I make sure it won’t, but it still is haunting and torturing me that I did harm to someone and created such bad karma. So how can I restore it and let go of the fact that I did harm? Thank you in advance for your answers.

I came across this statement made by Ajahn Brahm: > After he became enlightened under the banyan tree, Mara came to him and said, ‘Okay, you’re enlightened, I admit it. Now don’t go teaching, it’s just too burdensome. Just enter parinibbana now, just disappear.’ The Buddha said, ‘No, I will not enter parinibbana. I will not leave this life until I have established the bhikkhu sangha, bhikkhuni sangha, laymen, and laywomen Buddhists: the four pillars of Buddhism.’ Forty-five years later, at the Capala Shrine, Mara came again and said, ‘You’ve done it! There are lots and lots of bhikkhunis enlightened, lots of bhikkhus enlightened, great laymen and laywomen Buddhists . . . so keep your promise,’ and [the Buddha] said, ‘Okay, in three months, I’ll enter parinibbana.’ What those two passages from the suttas demonstrate is that it was the Buddha’s mission; it was why he taught—to establish those four pillars of the sangha. I wonder what passages he's referring to? I understood the Buddha's immediately-post-enlightenment stance on teaching to have been a little more reluctant than this puts it, and ditto with his stance on an order of nuns.

I'm a lay follower because I am too old to become a monastic and I have familial commitments, but I see the general futility in my goals in life. In specific my career goals. I was training for years to be a musician and had been derailed due to injury and health issues midway through my Ph.D. I have since recovered though it has taken a very long time and I cannot go back to finish my Ph.D since the time constraint the university had expired. Thus making it even harder to succeed, and more improbable than before. Though my biggest problem is that I somehow attached my self worth to success, and I dont know how to detach. I know intellectually that success in a career of any kind is ultimately bound with suffering especially when viewd with the knowledge that life will expire. I cannot give up all together though since living a lay life requires working. I would still like to do something but I also need to be detached enough not to get wrapped up into the suffering and clinging of desires. What are some possible practices to do this?

I have been practicing Buddhist meditation for a few years, mostly from reading translations of the Buddha's original discourses, as well as some Prajnaparamita sutras from Mahayana Buddhism. I've always been intrigued by Vajrayana, but most of the source texts don't seem to have quality English translations, especially the more esoteric Tantric practices. Are there any good texts that go into detail about the principles and practices of Vajrayana, preferably with translations of source texts? So far I've read the Robert Thurman book, which was a bit underwhelming in terms of practical value.

From a book called *Pruning the Bodhi Tree* the author writes in the Suttanipata (oldest Pali discourses?) the following is replied by Sakyamuni: > Without ordinary perception (conception), without mistaken perception, > not without perception, and not with the extinction of perception - > one who practices in this way will extinguish form. A mistaken > consciousness of the world arises from conception. I was hoping to find it, but wasn't found. Any help?

I ask a similar question here , but why is it that dependent origination is not part of the Satipathanasutta ? There are a few references to the origin of the body in section 1 (considering the body) but not section 4 (teachings & techniques)...would it be useful if it were?

Does wisdom only exist, in zen, when it is perfect? Do zen monks and laity practice wisdom or is the focus so much on one practice samadhi that it's only there when you are?