There is a sutta AN or SN, I believe, I read months ago that discussed about a kingsman who wanted to give respect to the Buddha by bowing but couldn't because he would lose a good job, family, and reputation. He went to The Blessed One to pay respect but told him that, instead of bowing, when he rides on his horse and tips his hat, that is the sign that he is bowing to The Blessed One. He gives other like signs to hide the respect he wanted to give The Buddha by bowing. The Buddha's religious neighbors in town questioned The Buddha and were particular about the Blessed One's teachings and practice, and, thus, opposed anyone who followed The Buddha would be opposing the religious teachings of the land. The Buddha didn't complain. Like other suttas, there is a lot of repetition, but the main message is it doesn't matter how you do X action it's your intentions that count. I ask because in western culture bowing in respect to others isn't common. Shaking hands or eye to eye contact takes precedent. We may nod our heads when acknowledging a person equally (say walking pass each other) but not insofar out of hierarchy (spiritual, political, etc). To many it can be seen as an act of submission; but, in general, people usually "bow" to people closer to them than they would strangers. With that in mind, this sutta I can't find really caught my attention about The Buddha looking at intentions rather than requiring the practice of his teachings be congruent with the cultural norms in his day. -Specifically, I am looking for that particular sutta or one very close to it. Any of you familiar with this story?

According to Theravadic Buddhism there’s no self. Self is an emergent illusion of a collection of smaller entities ( citta, chaithasika etc), in the same way, the physical body is an emergent result of the 5 elements (āpo, thejo etc.). This is also somewhat coherent with modern scientific understanding, which explains mind/self is an emergent result of chemical reactions in the brain. Modern science is also on the path which states there is no free will, but rather responces and interactions to stimuli in a complex system. My main question here is, if there is no self in Buddhism, what is the meaning of the concept of taking the right-effort (viriya) to attain nirvana, as there’s no actual actor to exert an effort? Conscious action itself is an illusion and there was no control for an alleged self in the first place. There never was an actor, and there never were conscious actions. Everything was an emergent illusion. So why talk about exerting an effort to reach Nirvana?

There has been many questions on whether Gautama Buddha was casteist or not. The answer to that is, of course he was. Majjhima Nikaya > If, sometime or other, at the end of a long period, that fool comes back to the human state, it is into a low family that he is reborn - into a family of outcasts or hunters or bamboo-workers or cartwrights or scavengers - one that is poor with little to eat and drink, surviving with difficulty, where he scarcely finds food and clothing... AN 5.191 > In the past, brahman males mated only with brahman females and not with non-brahman females. At present, brahman males mate with brahman females and with non-brahman females. At present, male dogs mate only with female dogs and not with female non-dogs. This is the first ancient brahmanical tradition that is now observed among dogs but not among brahmans... Astasahasrika ch 25 > A Bodhisattva who trains thus is not reborn in the hells, nor among animals, nor in the realms of the Pretas, nor among the Asuras, nor in outlying districts [among barbarous populations], nor in the families of outcasts or fowlers, of hunters, fishermen or butchers, nor in the other low class families of that kind, in which one is addicted to low deeds It is pretty much established that yes, he was a casteist. Buddhism seems to regard him as Lord and often Infallible. Yet, most Buddhists doesn't seem to be too casteist. I am guessing the attitude towards caste changed. My question is, what changed this? Did you guys get influenced by Abrahamic religions or did you guys change by yourself? How do you separate yourselves from the stance that Gautama Buddha took? I asked Hindus how they are not casteist. Most of them responded they indeed believe in caste and justified it, while others simply said 'times are different'. When looked into Hindu history, we understand it was Abrahamic religions that made them change their stance. My question to you guys is what made Buddhists change? Or are Buddhists mostly secretly casteist too?

A number of people have become enlightened since Shakyamuni Buddha's realization of the truths. I'm curious as to who the latest person to have obtain enlightenment and become a Buddha is (as considered by the consensus of Buddhists)?

1. anicca: things only exist for a moment: I infer that every rebirth that occurs does so in a present moment. 2. dukkha: I am suffering: I infer that I am conclusively not in final nirvana. 3. anatta: there is no soul: I infer that I am nothing in addition to what is reborn. 4. ***we cannot fully establish when now occurs***. I think 1 and 4 mean that the time of rebirth is vague, because every rebirth occurs in the present and it's borderline when that is. **Assuming, then, that every rebirth has a vague truth value for occurring at some time, then all times have a vague truth value for being when some rebirth occurs, because if some time has a sharp truth value for being when some rebirth occurs (which must be the case if the conclusion if false) then some rebirth has a sharp truth value for occurring at some time (which cannot by the case if the assumption is true).** Given A. I have not at this time borderline realised final nirvana (see 2) B. I am borderline reborn at this time (see above) I might conclude: C. Not being reborn is not identical to final nirvana. Seeing as I am nothing in addition to what is reborn (see 3), I might conclude that ***final nirvana is nothing***. ---------- The section in bold is the part that I am most confused about: and I would especially want an answer that refutes its reasoning. The italics are my own asusmption and conclusion. Answering that 1-3 are poor descriptions of their terms would be unhelpful in this instance, but worth commenting about.

I saw many monks sit in the nets, what is the point of meditating in the forest if one cant handle the forest? Might as well just stay indoors imo. Did the ancient monks use nets? what do you think? I think it is kind of silly and is an attempt to have a pleasant experience.

Similar to "The Mind Illuminated" and "Core Teachings of the Buddha". Are there any books that offer a pragmatic and objective guide on vipassana meditation, rather than a "spiritual" one?

Why is Nanavira considered controversial? I've overheard conversations about Nanavira Thera, and people seem to be in three groups: 1) He's a heretic. 2) He's a genius sotapanna. 3) Nyana-who? But I've never heard why group 1 consider him to be a heretic. I know he claimed to be a stream-enterer in a letter after he committed suicide... Super controversial, but there has to be more to it than that?

I read the following on the internet: > The suttas describe many conditions in Indian society and the world in > general, but you won't find any teachings recommending monks or anyone > else practice bigotry, oppression and vanity. Did the Buddha describe caste as "bigotry, oppression and vanity"? Please provide examples from the "suttas"?

Is the thought of killing someone without actually killing him bad Karma? How powerful is it? I think it is certainly bad karma. But I am willing to know the Buddhist explanation of it with more detail. What will happen, if a person forcefully resit those thoughts when thoughts are arriving?

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?