Where are the 70 verses of Nagarjuna from? Is it from Mulamukhyamakakarika or elsewhere? Is it a reconstruction of other works or original?

I read the following in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/49852/254) : > Snp 5 is a great example in usage that proves kāya in meditation > context is rūpa-kāya by default. > > https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/10/kn-snp-5-buddha-knew-about-ambiguities.html [Snp 5.7](https://suttacentral.net/snp5.7/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) says, per Sujato translation: > “As a flame tossed by a gust of wind,” > > “Accī yathā vātavegena khittā, > > replied the Buddha, > > (upasīvāti bhagavā) > > “comes to an end beyond reckoning; > > Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ; > > so too, a sage freed from mental **phenomena** > > Evaṁ munī nāma**kāyā** vimutto, > > comes to an end beyond reckoning.” > > Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ”. > > I ask the Sakyan about knowledge for them; > > Ñāṇaṁ sakkānupucchāmi, > > how should one like that be guided?” > > kathaṁ neyyo tathāvidho”. [Snp 5.15](https://suttacentral.net/snp5.15/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) says, per Sujato translation: > said Venerable Posāla [to the Buddha], > >(iccāyasmā posālo) > >Consider one who perceives the disappearance of **form**, > > Vibhūta**rūpa**saññissa, > > who has entirely given up **the body**, > > sabba**kāya**ppahāyino; > > and who **sees nothing** at all > > Ajjhattañca bahiddhā ca, > > internally and externally. > > **natthi** kiñcīti **passato**; > >......... > >“Viññāṇaṭṭhitiyo sabbā, > >said the Buddha, > >(posālāti bhagavā) > > “all the planes of consciousness. > > Abhijānaṁ tathāgato; > > And he knows this one who remains, > > Tiṭṭhantamenaṁ jānāti, > > committed to that as their final goal. > > Vimuttaṁ tapparāyaṇaṁ. > > Understanding that desire for rebirth [**coming to be**] > > **Ākiñcaññasambhavaṁ** ñatvā, > > **in the dimension of nothingness** is a fetter, > > Nandī saṁyojanaṁ iti; Where/how do Snp 5.7 & 15 prove kāya in meditation context is rūpa-kāya by default?

Namaste! Speaking of Theravada Buddhism, I've seen some authors conflating what we know now as Theravada with the whole Sthavira Nikaya / Sravakayana. So they would say that extinct Sravakayana schools like Sarvastivada - Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Vatsiputriya - Pudgalavada are a part of the Theravada Buddhism itself. But I honestly doubt this is the case. I think what we call as Theravada Buddhism nowadays (or perhaps we can call it "Tamraparniya") is the only remaining sect of Vibhajjavada (which itself is one of many sects of Sthavira Nikaya / Sravakayana). Its doctrines was only codified by Buddhaghosa during 5th century CE. Even before 12th century, Buddhism in Sri Lanka wasn't even uniform. We had Mahavihara monastery where the orthodox Sravakayanins were centered, then we had Abhyagiri monastery where the Mahayanins were centered. If I remember correctly, it was during 12th century, a Sri Lankan king unified Buddhism in Sri Lanka with the Mahavihara monastery as the lead of Sri Lankan Buddhism, and then its teachings spread to the Southeast Asian nations (i.e Myanmar, Thailand,etc.). Would it be correct & safe to say that Theravada Buddhism (as we know today) actually originated from Anuradhapura Maha Viharaya in Sri Lanka? Thank you!

The pali phrase "Kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā" is found in many suttas. Bhikkhu Sujato translates this as "when their body broke up, after death" Bhikkhu Bodhi translates this as "with the breakup of the body, after death" Bhikkhu Suddhāso translates this as "When there is separation from the body after death, following the completion of this life" In another translation of Bhikkhu Sujato we see "Kāyassa bhedā" specifically translated again as "body breaks up" We also see this phrase "Kāyassa bhedā" alongside "jīvitapariyādānā" which I believe means termination of life. Are these correct translations referencing the breakup of the body? Does the body refer to the aggregates? Is this referring to the biological death of the body? If not, what is the proper translation?

Disciples of the noble ones are supposed to take the Buddha as the role of the Father, and Dhamma as Mother. When a disciple attains full liberation, completes the path to self-enlightenment, becomes a Buddha/Tathagata, does he become his own Father and his own word becomes his own Mother? Specially: did Gotama Sakyamuni take himself as Father and his own speech as Mother? and would all of his arahants be expected to do the same, or keep the Boddhisatta and his Word as Father-Mother? Also maybe, how about the disciples committed to the (Mahayana) bodhisattva vows?

Ok well I got the leather jacket years before I started to follow Buddhism. Would it be alright to still have the coat, or do I have to give it to a friend, or someone else?

**This is NOT a duplicate question**. Have seen other similar questions but their questions were very different from what I am about to ask. The modern Cosmology is clear. 13.8 billion years ago, the Universe started to form, then 4.5 billion years ago the Earth was formed, then 3 billion years ago primitive forms of life was created, then 200,000 years ago early humans came to existence, and finally we have modern human civilizations about 5000 years ago. This is in sharp contrast to Buddha's claims of having past lives hundreds of thousands of years ago, millions of years ago, billions of years ago, trillions of years ago, etc when there was either no life or no humans. Buddha already lived close to the formation of human civilization, he couldn't have possibly lived so many lives given in vivid details in Jataka tales and other scriptures when there were no human civilizations or humans to begin with. So, how do Buddhists deal with this? Do they deny science? Do they think that millions of years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, there was Buddha? Do they think when the Universe wasn't even formed trillions of years ago, Buddha lived a life? If you guys accept Science, does that mean Buddha lied all along? Did he just make up those stories to attract more followers?

Im too anxious,in the past my brother play football he kicked the ball to Guanyin statue i don't know he is intent or not did he committed shedding the blood of Buddha sin? the statue did not break

How old were each (or several) of the Buddha's students when they became arhats? I know Buddha was 35. I researched so far by Googling it and also by looking into Sariputra's life and also trying to infer based on what station in life that arhat was at. My question comes from the thought, "Hey, if a 37 year old can become an arhat, maybe I can too!" As a way to motivate and inspire myself.

A little context to describe what I am looking for and why I am looking for it: It is my strong intuition that "suffering" is a label that we give to a phenomenon that, upon deeper inspection, we discover to be an "inner conflict" between (1) a part of us that craves a particular sensory experience (kāma) and (2) a part of us which desires to see things as they actually are (yathabhutañanadassana) and that the resolution of these inner conflicts by relinquishing sense-desires in favor of clear seeing is the means by which suffering is ended and that the āsava are the biases which keep us clinging to sense-desires until we are strong enough to relinquish them and that each resolution of an inner conflict of this nature results in a destruction of the āsava (asavakkhaye ñana) and that each such destruction brings us closer and closer to full awakening wherein all āsava have been removed inner conflicts no longer go unresolved because avijjā (the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths) has been destroyed i.e. we no longer respond to dukkha (the arrow in the heart who purpose is to alert us to that the map of the world we have constructed has made a misprediction that should be corrected) by ignoring evidence that our views are compelling us to make bad decisions in favor of clinging to sense-desires. and that this works because the sensory motor wherein all āsava have been removed inner conflicts no longer go unresolved because avijjā (the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths) has been destroyed i.e. we no longer respond to dukkha (this discomfort of misprediction) by ignoring evidence that our views are compelling us to make bad decisions. brain evolved because it enabled beings to respond to sensory experience with moves in the world that improved the probability of gene survival i.e. the trait of making accurate predictions (saṅkhāra) originally served the master of the zero-sum game of gene-survival (aka "Māra) but the zero-sum game intensified competition which created selection pressure for ever more accurate predictions leading to the point where clinging to the original gene-survival compulsions actually become an impediment to clear seeing and that the choice to relinquish this impediment in favor the welfare of all living beings was the choice the Buddha made when he renounced Māra and attained nibbana. Although everything is a hypothesis, and all hypotheses should be considered impermanent (sabbe saṅkhāra annicā), and all hypothesis are subject to the discomfort of misprediction (sabbe saṅkhāra dukkha), I have a very high degree of certainty that this hypothesis is correct. Nevertheless, the "fly in the ointment" is the uncomfortable truth that I am not familiar with a Pali term to represent the concept of an "inner conflict" between these 2 parts. My best guess is that (1) I am attributing an incorrect meaning to a term that I already know which represents this concept or (2) The term was removed from the canon by the same forces who removed the 4 resolves (adhiṭṭhāna: sacca, pañǹa, cāga, upasama; which described how to actually resolve the unresolved conflict). I'm hoping that (1) is true and that someone here can point me in the right direction.

Usually Sati is translated as Mindfulness, but according to the Wikipedia entry, Mindfulness is described as follows: >Mindfulness is the psychological process of bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment, which can be developed through the practice of meditation and other training. The term "mindfulness" is a translation of the Pali term sati, which is a significant element of Buddhist traditions. According to suttacentral's entry, Sati is defined as memory, recognition, consciousness, intentness of mind, wakefulness of mind etc. My question is then, is it a mistake to call Sati Mindfulness, since Minsfulness means awareness. Now Sati is always used with his close companion sampajañña, which in turn makes the attention always directed to moral attitudes etc., whereas "mainstream mindfulness" just observes inner and outer phenomena with an open, curious and beginners mind. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness https://suttacentral.net/search?query=sati

Or, what would be the best teaching to spark an interest in someone who knows little or nothing about the teachings of the Buddha?

I often hear this word and I think I have some doubts because in Hinduism Jupiter is called Guru. So maybe I could be misunderstanding. What do lamas mean when they say guru? Could Shree Ganesha be my Guru? Thanks

I learned that the monks of a monastery draw and consecrate or bless sacred images and then resell them. Is all this permitted by the law of dharma? Don't we fall into materialism by commodifying the things of the spirit? I wonder the same thing about other objects, statues, malas, etc...

I have a hypothetical question. Let's say I don't believe in karma, reincarnation, or any deities of any sort. I also saw in some texts and videos that, to achieve higher awareness, I should not define good or bad either. That I should be equanimous towards everything. If there is no distinction between good and evil, where does morality come from then, in the absence of karma? How do I justify my inclination toward doing good to humanity? Is my question nonsensical? Please help me resolve this conflict.

The doctrine of [pratītyasamutpāda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da) states that: > **all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other dharmas**: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". **The basic principle is that all things (dharmas, phenomena, principles) arise in dependence upon other things.** However, on the [Wikipedia page on Nirvana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)) , it is stated: > According to Dhammapala, **nibbana is an objective reality** which is the opposite of samsara. **Nibbana has its own nature (sabhava) which is unlike all conditioned phenomena.** From this, I'm curious to know the following inter-related ideas: a) Is all there is to reality these conditioned Dharma and if yes, where does Dhammapala's idea of nibbana fit into this if its a non-conditioned phenomena which an intrinsic essence/nature? b) In the view of Dhammapala, are all conditioned phenomena ultimately dependent on this Absolute and Objective Reality which has an intrinsic nature? Does nibbana originate anything itself or is it merely like a principle? Just as an idea, perhaps the doctrine of the Two Truths is related to this, with nibbana belonging or being identical to the Ultimate Truth.

Everyone born in this world is bound to suffer. Mara tempted Buddha so many times to abandon his quest which he did not. Yet Mara herself never suffered due to her own Karma or due to her belief system. Mara is alive even today. My question is why not Mara, the tempter, suffers or suffered due to her belief system and actions ?

This is more directed to someone who understands Sinhalese. Is there difference between Rahath and Maha rahath? Is it interchangeable? In the texts some places it says rahath and in some places it refers as maha rahath.

A very famous, so famous it may be apocryphal, zen quote says: > Before Enlightenment chop wood carry water, after Enlightenment, chop > wood carry water. What does this mean? Specifically, is the discourse saying that time without effort is wasted time?

How does craving (taṇhā) manifest with respect to neutral feelings? In Dependent Origination (or dependent co-arising, however you'd like to call it), it is said that Craving (taṇhā) follows on the heels of Feeling (vedanā). Feeling, in general, is of 3 main types: pleasant, unpleasant, neutral. I do see how craving/aversion manifests with respect to both pleasant and unpleasant feeling. But how does it relate to neutral feeling? How is it that I either lust after or try to avoid something that is truly neutral?