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?

I'm soon getting my wisdom teeth removed. Like always, I don't plan on using any anesthesia for the procedure - the pain is probably going to be excruciating, like always. So how can I use it as a meditation object for doing insight meditation? The logic behind it would be that my mind would be entirely hyperfixated on a single sensation, distractions subsiding completely due to the lack of spontaneous mind moments caused by other sensations. Firstly I plan on investigating on how my mind reacts to pain, constantly self-reflecting on all the intricate mind mechanisms related to it. This would prove insightful in getting my mind to give up resistance to the pain, which is something that would be practically impossible for me to do at an intrinsic, fundamental level, but somewhat possible to accomplish at a concious level. Afterwards, I plan on investigating The Three Characteristics directly in the sensations I'm experiencing related to pain. This, for me, is the most confusing part of insight meditation. How exactly does one notice The Three Characteristics in sensations? How are you supposed to realize that everything is transient and ephemeral when the pain you're experiencing is excruciatingly constant? How are you supposed to meditate upon no-self and unsatisfactoriness? This question isn't limited to the context of the post. I'm genuinely confused about what they mean, and I would be deeply grateful to anyone who could answer my questions.

I recall regarding a sutta awhile back of an encounter between Buddha and some wandering ascetic (not Bahiya). in that, the ascetic might have been too old or whatever, and buddha discourages him and explains **his** grief if things didn't work out. note: i don't recall if it was an ascetic or old, just that it was an encounter with non-sangha person. any arhat saying something similar would suffice.

How should one say the nembutsu: "as if your life depended on it"? This is an English idiom, though I think it is quite literal. Would anyone agree, and if so who?

I'm a computer science student striving to uphold the principles of Buddhism, particularly the precept of "not taking which is not given." In my journey to learn coding, there are moments when I struggle to write code independently, leading me to seek help from platforms like Stack Overflow or Google. However, I often find myself copying and pasting code from these sources to solve my problems. While this helps me progress in my learning, I'm concerned about whether this practice aligns with ethical standards, especially considering the precept mentioned earlier. My question is: Does using code from online sources in this manner constitute a violation of ethical principles, particularly the concept of "not taking which is not given"? I understand the importance of integrity in academic and professional settings, but I'm also eager to learn and progress in my coding skills. How can I navigate this ethical dilemma while ensuring that I uphold virtuous principles in my coding practices? Any insights or guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Already in the dedicatory verses of the MMK, Nagarjuna tells us that there is no origination or cessation of any kind. There is no arising whatsoever. I understand that this absence of arisen things is identical to the doctrine of dependent origination. But if that's the case, what sense does it make to speak of an dependent origination if it has already been established that there are no things that have arisen? Doesn't dependent origination presuppose the existence of things to make any sense?

If the ultimate goal is to reach nibanna and no longer be reborn into the samsaric realm then why would any sane practicing Buddhist want to bring children here and put them through the endless lifetimes of suffering and struggle to reach nibanna??

In SN 35.93 quoted below, it reads intellect-consciousness arises in dependence on the intellect and ideas, but if this consciousness is also a thinking about the work of intellect on ideas then it in itself is an intellect. and if so we have to look for another consciousness which higher and the search continues ad-infinitum. This, of course, is not my own though it's a classic platonic thinkers response to Descartes's misguided saying Cogito ergo sum ( I think, therefore I am), quoted below is from Plotinos Ennead Book Nine explaining the relation of intellect and consciousness. ---------- SN 35.93 Dvaya Sutta: A Pair > "In dependence on the intellect & ideas, there arises > intellect-consciousness. The intellect is inconstant, changeable, of a > nature to become otherwise. Ideas are inconstant, changeable, of a > nature to become otherwise. Thus this pair is both wavering & > fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. ---------- *PLOTINOS: - SECOND ENNEAD, BOOK NINE.* > Though there be a difference between thinking, and thinking that one > thinks, these two nevertheless constitute a single intuitive > consciousness of its actualizations. It would be ridiculous to deny > such a consciousness to veritable Intelligence. It is, therefore, the > same Intelligence that thinks, and that thinks that it thinks. > Otherwise, there would be two principles, of which the one would have > thought, and the other consciousness of thought. The second would > doubtless differ from the first, but would not be the real thinking > principle. A mere logical distinction between thought and > consciousness of thought would not establish the (actual) differences > between two . Further, we shall have to > consider whether it be possible to conceive of an Intelligence which > would exclusively think, without any accompanying consciousness of its > thought. If we ourselves who are entirely devoted to practical > activity and discursive reason were in such a condition, we would, > even if otherwise considered sensible, be insane. But as true > Intelligence thinks itself in its thoughts, and as the > intelligible, far from being outside of Intelligence, is Intelligence > itself, Intelligence, by thinking, possesses itself, and necessarily > sees itself. When Intelligence sees itself, it does not see itself > as unintelligent, but as intelligent. Therefore in the first > actualization of thought, Intelligence has the thought and > consciousness of thought, two things that form but a single one; not > even logically is this a duality. If Intelligence always thinks what > it is, is there any reason to separate, even by a simple logical > distinction, thought from the consciousness of thought? The absurdity > of the doctrine we are controverting will be still more evident if we > suppose that a third intelligence is conscious that the second > intelligence is conscious of the thought of the first; we might thus > go on to infinity

Is there anything of value in any world? I feel incapable of conceiving of a world with a single valuable thing in. > there is no wisdom and there is no attainment whatsoever