Is there any mentioned in the sutras about specific approaches to resolving conflicts? Specifically, I am looking at applying an objective process. For example, if a person disagrees with another on the interpretation of a passage in the sutra, one way is to look at the Pali translation as an objective approach. I am looking at a generic approach, one that presumably can be prescribed to resolve other disputes/conflicts in life. It might consist of a series of prescriptive steps. I understand that the attitude we take is equally important as mentioned in these answers ((https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/39050/how-to-get-along/39139#39139) and (https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/39050/how-to-get-along/39141#39141)) . Lastly, I believe if such an objective process/approach is possible, it would develop one's ability to self-correct one’s own wrong views and positions. The rationale is that wrong views do lead us to [wrong places (SN56.43)](https://suttafriends.org/sutta/sn56-43/) . Appendix A (extracted from [answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/50958/24967)) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If views/positions are not in accordance with accepted rules, prevailing standards and general morality, they are outright considered wrong. Where this is not obvious, the following steps can be prescribed: 1) Having acceptable ombudsmen/mediators or umpires/referees to the disputing parties. 2) Decision via majority or consensus (preferably consisting of experts in the subject matter). Parties involved in conflict/dispute should process presence of mind, be conscientious and truthful. In addition, they should not: - be easily angered or vengeful - be spiteful or vindictive - be jealous and possessive - be scheming and deceitful - be obstinate Factors to consider before engaging in conflict/dispute resolution - appropriate time (and place) - matter should concern something factual - resolution should be fruitful and beneficial - follow the spirit rather than the letter ------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read the following on the internet: > Yes. The Buddha repeatedly states his awareness to be separate from > the consciousness aggregate. > Lord, freed (nissaṭo), dissociated (visaṁyutto) & released (vippamutto) from how many things does the > Tathāgata dwell with unrestricted (vimariyādīkatena) awareness (cetasā)? > > Freed, dissociated & released from ten things, Vāhuna, the Tathāgata > dwells with unrestricted awareness. Which ten? Freed, dissociated, & > released from form, the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness. > Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling… Freed, dissociated, & > released from perception… Freed, dissociated, & released from > fabrications… **Freed, dissociated, & released from consciousness**… > Freed, dissociated, & released from birth… Freed, dissociated, & > released from aging… Freed, dissociated, & released from death… Freed, > dissociated, & released from stress… Freed, dissociated, & released > from defilement, the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness. > > Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in > the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering > to it, in the same way the Tathāgata — freed, dissociated, & released > from these ten things—dwells with unrestricted awareness. > > [AN 10.81 Thanissaro translation](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_81.html) Does a Buddha really have an "awareness" separate from the five aggregates? Are there any suttas that explicitly say a Buddha is with or without the five aggregates? Are there any suttas offering insight into the meanings of the words 'nissaṭo', 'visaṁyutto'. 'vippamutto' and 'vimariyādīkatena'?

Specifically, I mean this meaning of locus-of-control The way I see it, if one doesn't have a strong internal locus of control, it becomes very hard to go through daily life, since you keep considering the outcomes of your actions to be driven by external forces outside of your control. On the other hand, it makes sense to me that the self is an illusion (anatta), that it is in constant flux, and impermanent. From this logic, it seems like an internal locus of control also means buying into an illusion. How does one not have a strong internal locus of control, and still deal with the myriad challenges in daily life?

The [Brahmana Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html) , for example, mentions "effluent": > So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended ... Or in [Adhimutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.16.01.than.html) , > One gone to the far shore without clinging without effluent his task completed, welcomes the ending of life, as if freed from a place of execution. This [Glossary](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#asava) gives a definition but I don't really understand it, > āsava: Mental effluent, pollutant, or fermentation. Four qualities — sensuality, views, becoming, and ignorance — that "flow out" of the mind and create the flood of the round of death and rebirth. There's a longer (perhaps easier to understand) article on Wikipedia: [Āsava](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asava) --- - What is "effluent" (do you have anything to add to the Glossary and Wikipedia definitions above)? - What is the difference (or connection) between "karma" and "effluent"? - Is there a specific practice for ending "effluents"? Are they an effect or a cause? - Three of these effluents (ignorance, becoming, and sensuality) are also listed as 'defilements' ... what kinds of 'views' are considered effluent? If this is too many questions, please feel free to answer just one or two.

We are social animals and while living in a society we make relationships with other humans. Relationships like mother,father,son,aunt,etc. are determined by default ie, we don't have choice. While some relationship have to be chosen by us eg wife, friends, religious master, political leader etc. While doing so I feel majority relationships are more like **treatise** or **agreements** they thrive on mutual interests and break once they are not met. Some relationships are temporary which exists till both parties are involved in particular task and get over once the task is completed like relationship of boss and employee. Some relations are considered pure since they are said to be driven by emotions rather than any purpose like that of parents and their children, but I am doubtful that there is mutual interest hidden deep under them, which maybe realised if we end our attachment. I find understanding nature of our relationships is very crucial to avoid suffering arising due to ignorance of truth behind them. Is there any discussion on this issue in Buddhism?

From the Rooted Sutta (AN 10.58) we have the following paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Sujato. What does it mean? What are "things" or "phenomena" in this context? Please explain the whole paragraph. > ‘Reverends, all things are rooted in desire. Attention produces them. > Contact is their origin. Feeling is their meeting place. Immersion is > their chief. Mindfulness is their ruler. Wisdom is their overseer. > Freedom is their core. They culminate in the deathless. And > extinguishment is their final end.’ > > *‘chandamūlakā, āvuso, sabbe dhammā, manasikārasambhavā sabbe dhammā, > phassasamudayā sabbe dhammā, vedanāsamosaraṇā sabbe dhammā, > samādhippamukhā sabbe dhammā, satādhipateyyā sabbe dhammā, paññuttarā > sabbe dhammā, vimuttisārā sabbe dhammā, amatogadhā sabbe dhammā, > nibbānapariyosānā sabbe dhammā’ti.* The same paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi here : > “‘Friends, (1) all things are rooted in desire. (2) They come into > being through attention. (3) They originate from contact. (4) They > converge upon feeling. (5) They are headed by concentration. (6) > Mindfulness exercises authority over them. (7) Wisdom is their > supervisor. (8) Liberation is their core. (9) They culminate in the > deathless. (10) Their consummation is nibbāna.’ The same paragraph translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu here : > All phenomena are rooted in desire. > All phenomena come into play through attention. > All phenomena have contact as their origination. > All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place. > All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state. > All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle. > All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state. > All phenomena have release as their heartwood. > All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless. > All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end.

What is a fake Buddhist? I am unsure what 'fake' means in this context. I don't necessarily think it's the same thing as not believing in rebirth, pretending to be enlightened, arrogance, hostility and deception in general, but it's probably linked to some of those.

Believing that 'there is mother and father' is listed as right view affected by the taints.

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions. MN 117

1. To what extent does right view *not affected by the taints* deny that there is a mother and father?
2. What logic or analysis does right view *not affected by the taints* employ to deny this?
3. Are mother and father to be denied altogether?
4. Is there no such thing as mother and father for one who is awakened?

Should a person be concerned or worried where they ("I") will be reborn? Also in which way would or could a sotappana be concerned with future existence/rebirth, when he would have already been free from the fetter of strong clinging to self, as well as assured liberation.

In Dhammapada, verse 129, Buddha states: > All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. Taking this at face value, obviously however, not everyone fears death. People who had their amygdala removed or atrophied due to a disease do not have fear of death. Likewise, psychopaths seem to have no such fear. Many people do not tremble at violence at all, like psychopaths and military personnel. Then Buddha says that to not kill or cause another to kill, one should put themselves into another's shoes. But many people are incapable of this, like people with autism spectrum disorder. Taking all this into account and given that what Buddha says here seems to be wrong, how are we to understand this? (I believe this question would only apply to the Theravada Buddhists since AFAIK Mahayana does not acknowledge the Pali Cannon and therefore the Dhammapada, though of course, everyone is free to answer).

This Dhamma Wiki article, [Nibbana](https://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Nibbana) , says that "Nibbana (Pali), nirvana (Sanskrit), is the highest spiritual state and the ultimate goal of Buddhism." Please describe nibbana. What is it? How do you know you are in Nibbana? How can somebody describe Nibbana if it's impossible to know what follows after death?

It is said that when you experience nibbana the first time you are sotapanna. but why buddha did not crossed all these stages. and directly become buddha?

> Arising dhamma is ceasing dhamma so much as ceasing dhamma is arising dhamma as well. What does this mean? The answer should be nibbana is not eternal either. I'm asking about the Pali in this quote from [SN 56.11](https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/sujato) : > And while this discourse was being spoken, the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in Venerable Koṇḍañña: > > *Imasmiñca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṃ bhaññamāne āyasmato koṇḍaññassa virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi:* > > “Everything that has a beginning has an end.” > > *“yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman”ti.*

Fame seems to be associated with e.g. the early zen cults that formed in china, and must have been essential to the life of buddhism, but in general I'd have thought it is frowned upon, though perhaps not with the same seriousness as infidelity and using alleged buddhist status to procure sex. Anyone have anything to add?

From MN 49 (trans. Sujato): > Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s > what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water, > fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming > radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the > Overlord, and the all. > > *Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ* ... The invisible consciousness (*viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ*) from MN 49 seems to be different from the sense consciousness described in MN 18 e.g. eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness etc. because it is not within the scope of sense experience, according to MN 49. It is also found in DN 11 . It is also translated as "consciousness without surface" (from here , trans. Thanissaro). Question 1: What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface described in MN 49 and DN 11? Is it a cosmic consciousness like the one found in Hinduism? I guess not. Question 2: This answer implies that this invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface is the re-linking consciousness (*patisandhi-viññana*) that connects one lifetime to the next. This also implies that the re-linking consciousness (*patisandhi-viññana*) which is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface (*viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ*) is the consciousness that descends into the womb causing materiality-mentality (*nāmarūpa*) to arise (from DN 15 ). Is this right? Question 3: Also, the description of "invisible, infinite and radiant all round" sounds very similar to the "luminous mind" (*pabhassara citta*) from AN 1.51-52 . The same word "*pabham*" (luminosity) or "*pabhassara*" (luminous) is used in both MN 49 and AN 1.51-52. How is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface related to the luminous mind?

I don't believe you can die when in absorption (at least if you are reborn), but tricycle says > The attitude of the mind at death is very important, Buddhists > believe. The less fear and aversion we experience at death, and the > more focus, calm, and equanimity we have, the more likely we will be > reborn in good circumstances. Which is why preparing the mind for > death through meditation is a core element of Buddhist practice. Is there a reference for claims of their sort? If so, then how do we cultivate the right attitude, and does it really matter at all, given that results are about our own karma, rather than what happens at the end of this life or even one more life.

Why people recommend to sit in meditation for 1 hour not 55 mins 59 mins or 61 mins .Is it something special for 60 mins ? Can I use binaural beats in headphone while meditating ?

I asked ChatGPT, *Is vedana a sanskhara?* Following is its answer: > In Buddhist philosophy, "vedanā" (feeling or sensation) is distinct > from "saṅkhāra" (mental formations or volitional activities), though > they are both components of the Five Aggregates (pañca-khandha) which > constitute a being. > > The Five Aggregates are: > 1. **Rūpa**: Form or physical body. > 2. **Vedanā**: Feeling or sensation (pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral experiences). > 3. **Saññā**: Perception or recognition. > 4. **Saṅkhāra**: Mental formations or volitional formations (includes all types of mental activities such as intentions, thoughts, desires, > and emotions). > 5. **Viññāṇa**: Consciousness. > > So, vedanā is not the same as saṅkhāra. Vedanā refers specifically to > the experiences of pleasure, pain, or neutrality, whereas saṅkhāra > encompasses a broader range of mental activities and processes, > including the volitional acts that condition future experiences and > actions. Do you agree with the answer?

According to my understanding Koṇḍañña was the first to understand the Buddha's teaching and reach enlightenment at the Deer's Park . The senior monk was held in high-esteem, then he retired to the Himalayas in his last years. Where is the story of his retirement found? I already searched the wikipedia , but it seems controversial. Was he the same one as Vimalakoṇḍañña - born to King Bimbisāra (wiki makes a relationship but I am doubtful)?

I'm facing a dilemma. There are 2 cats that often come nearby my house. One is the mother (who happened to come to my house even before I fed it) and the other a kitten that was born also nearby my house. I think the mother might have been abandoned by previous owner because she was comfy with humans. At first the mother was skinny and had infection. I helped her by feeding whenever she comes and buy medications from vets to treat her skin and cough. Now she's healthy. The kitten is also well fed because I helped it since it was a little. However because of my actions, both have a dependency towards me. Sometimes they ask for attention, which I give from time to time. On top of it, the mother cat keeps getting pregnant, which led to my neighbor who don't want their kids to play with kittens, throwing away the kittens. I think some of the kittens might have been dead too without me knowing it. I have very little control about this because the cats are always outside and anyone can do whatever they want. I don't bring them in or keeping them as a pet, because I don't think a Buddhist should keep pets. Which brings me to these questions: 1. Am I wrong for feeding these cats? my heart tells me to feed hungry animals if possible but of course not everyone sees strays as animals that need help. By feeding I also invite them to stay around my house (being more dependent on me and causing annoyance for the neighbor) 2. Am I wrong for thinking Buddhist aren't allowed to keep pets? 3. Since stray cats usually breed a lot. Should I neuter the mother cat? my hope is so that there will be no more kittens thrown away from their mother not long after birth, or to experience suffering. Is it wrong to neuter animals? Answers to these questions will help me decide on what to do next. Thank you. Namo Buddhaya.