I often find that in real life people I know are doing things in a "wrong" way. By this I not only mean profound things related to Dhamma, but also small everyday things. Because of these small things, which are most often due to a small gap in their understanding, they keep suffering in a worldly manner. Example clip I feel compassion for them and I feel that only if they could simply know the right thing their particular problem would go away and they will get some peace of mind. With this in mind (mostly) I try to gently tell them what the cause of the problem is... but I have found it unfortunately that 99% of them not only not act, but even not think about my words. It has caused me suffering, I'm not sure how... maybe because I'm not being taken seriously even though I'm telling something very important to them... anyways so I wanted to ask if what I am doing is incorrect, or maybe it is correct but it is impractical, or I'm doing something wrong somewhere? I feel like I should stop helping but then I think even if it makes me lesser in others' eyes, it is worth it if it helps them. Do you experience this situation in people surrounding you? How do you find a middle ground... like have you stopped helping thinking that they cannot comprehend at once deep insights? Any responses are appreciated. PS: Sorry, if my english is bad.

Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but many Theravada teachers warn against practicing restraint in the commonly understood sense of the word. For example, if I understand correctly, Yuttadhammo Bhikku says to not stop and quit a behavior but to try our best to remain mindful. I understand to some extent that the reasoning has to do with non-self, and trying to stop a behaviour may involve deluding oneself with more of this self. However, in the texts it is frequently mentioned to practice restraint for bad habits (for eg. 9:11) . So I am a little confused here...both approaches make sense to me in their own right. Which one is the right way? or what are the conditions under which these are applicable? Hope this makes sense. Thanks

This is a practice-related question. In Buddhism the goal is to not suffer, but empathy seems to mean suffering because someone else is suffering. In several places in the Pali Canon and elsewhere, compassion, loving-kindness, and sympathetic joy are mentioned, but so is equanimity. [Here](Https://suttacentral.net/vb13/en/thittila) is an instance. I assume this means one should feel free from malice towards someone while also being unpained by this, but how does one deal with the wrong empathy that emerges, which is an energetic pull towards even codependency (If I were to say it in psychological terms)? In the moment, empathy seems very blinding, so how does one extricate from it without losing the non-violence, happiness, and positive feelings? It seems from the fetter view that empathy is at least one of the 3 forms of craving, or perhaps it is some form of restlessness. I wonder if there is an antidote for this particular complex.

I have been trying to pratice vipassana with abdominal movements- Q 1. I never feel the movements getting settled or a state of no movements 2. about 5 min after starting the meditation I feel tightness in the upper part of rhe nose, forehead and the vertex of my head which lead me to stop the meditation. What can i do for this?

In comments to this question I saw a disagreement over the proper translation of various Pali words in suttas commonly translated with the english word rebirth or reborn. According to Ajahn Sujato various Pali words are correctly translated as rebirth/reborn. However, another very detailed and extensive analysis by 'Element' on the linked website comes to the conclusion that none of the Pali words in the suttas are properly translated as rebirth or reborn. It appears implied that the english word 'rebirth' is synonymous with the idea of reincarnation as commonly understood by the non-Buddhist contemporary religions of India and Nepal in the time of the Buddha. The question arises: if none of the Pali words in the suttas cited in the links above are suitably understood or translated as 'rebirth', then what Pali words in the suttas *were* used to describe the idea of reincarnation as commonly understood by the non-Buddhist contemporary religions of India and Nepal in the time of the Buddha?

As the title states, there are no explicit references to Nirodha Samapatti in what is widely considered to be the earliest stratum of the Pali canon (which includes texts such as the Sutta Nipata, Atthakavagga, Parayanavagga, Itivuttaka, Udana). I'm interested to hear from those who consider Nirodha Samapatti to be a canonical teaching of the Buddha - why do you think there are no references to this attainment in the aforementioned texts?

As someone in his 30s, I wish to find a partner to grow old with. At the same time, it’s quite stressful that nowadays my family and friends are constantly pushing me to find someone quickly as I am getting older. I never had a relationship and never felt this pressure, but I don’t understand what I am missing here to feel this restless. 1. I can’t function in daily life if I’m constantly thinking about “How will I get this girl to date me?” 2. If I rush into a relationship, I might end up with someone not compatible which will cause more suffering. I tried reading about it from a Buddhist perspective. But everything I found mostly describe how to sustain romantic relationships. I would really appreciate if someone could help.

Some Buddhist teachers and writings I have seen differentiate between (students of) “high capacity” and “low(er) capacity”. As far as I’ve understood, some of the criteria for saying that some people are of “high capacity” is intelligence and morality. It also seems to me that you actually have to have heard about the Dharma to be of “high capacity”. Can someone give explicit criteria for what “high capacity” and “low(er) capacity” actually means? Or a reference to an explanation?

I know that Tibetan Buddhism has the Rime movement, which is positioned as non-sectarian Buddhism. But I like Theravada methods. Can I practice Theravada while staying within Tibetan Buddhism?

While reading Bhagavad Gita I just wondered what buddha would have done in *this* situation? It's truly not good to ask such questions they may seem speculative to some but I want **probabilities** not speculations, I feel that a mind versed in Buddha's doctrine should be able to give me Buddha's perspective. at onset of war between Pandavas and Kauravas who happen to be cousins Arjuna from Pandava side was inspecting war arrangements. In middle of war field, Arjuna got demotivated when he saw that he is going to fight his own relatives and teachers. He decided to surrender and told same to his charioteer Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna as an answer to Arjunas confusion told him what is now called as 'Bhagavad Gita'. The major arguments Lord Krishna gave in favour of Arjuna fighting the war was: - Arjuna was kshatriya by varna (ancient Indian class system) so war was his duty, he should fight as he will get heaven by fulfilling his duty. - Atman or Soul is immortal so it doesn't matter even if opposition dies since we will destroy only their body their soul will take another body. - Even if you think atman don't exist then also the being will reincarnate again, so it's not virtuous to cling to your relatives. - A person should follow Karmayoga which is doing own duty without thinking about it's result. One should fix their mind on God and carry on their duty without being attached to it's result. If Buddha were in place of Krishna what he would have done when Arjuna expressed his desire to abandon war? Below is background of war > The cause of the Kurukshetra War was a complex and multifaceted one, involving political, social, and moral factors. Some of the main reasons that led to the war were: > - The rivalry and hatred between the Kauravas and the Pandavas, who were cousins and descendants of the Kuru dynasty. The Kauravas, led by Duryodhana, were jealous and resentful of the Pandavas, who were favored by their elders, such as Bhishma and Vidura, and by the gods, such as Krishna. The Kauravas tried to harm and kill the Pandavas on several occasions, such as by poisoning, burning, and exiling them. >- The dispute over the throne of Hastinapura, the capital of the Kuru kingdom. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son of the king should inherit the throne. However, Dhritarashtra, the eldest son of Vichitravirya, was born blind and was deemed unfit to rule. Therefore, his younger brother Pandu became the king. Pandu, however, was cursed by a sage that he would die if he ever had sexual intercourse. He retired to the forest with his wives, Kunti and Madri, and entrusted the kingdom to Dhritarashtra. Pandu's sons, the Pandavas, were born through the boon of various gods, while Dhritarashtra's sons, the Kauravas, were born through the intervention of Vyasa, the sage and author of the Mahabharata. When Pandu died, the Pandavas returned to Hastinapura and were raised along with the Kauravas. However, the question of who should be the rightful heir to the throne remained unresolved. The Kauravas claimed that since Dhritarashtra was the eldest son of Vichitravirya, his sons should inherit the throne. The Pandavas argued that since Pandu was the king, his sons should succeed him. The elders and the people were divided on this issue. >- The injustice and oppression of the Kauravas, especially Duryodhana, who was the eldest and the most wicked of them. Duryodhana, with the help of his uncle Shakuni, a master of deceit and gambling, cheated the Pandavas of their share of the kingdom in a rigged dice game. He also humiliated and insulted Draupadi, the wife of the Pandavas, by trying to disrobe her in public. He refused to give back the kingdom to the Pandavas even after they completed their exile and agreed to a peaceful settlement. He also amassed a huge army of allies, such as Karna, Drona, Bhishma, and others, to wage war against the Pandavas and their supporters, such as Krishna, Arjuna, Bhima, and others. >- The need for dharma, or righteousness, to prevail over adharma, or unrighteousness. The Mahabharata war was not only a human conflict, but also a cosmic one, involving the intervention and participation of various gods, sages, and supernatural beings. The war was seen as a necessary and inevitable event to restore the balance of the world, which was corrupted by the evil deeds of the Kauravas and their allies. The war was also a test and a lesson for the Pandavas and their allies, who had to face various moral dilemmas and challenges in the course of the war. The war was ultimately a victory for dharma, as the Pandavas defeated the Kauravas and established a righteous rule over the land.

I had this dream in an afternoon 3-hr long nap today where I was so drunk that I could not keep track of the present. I remember, at one moment I was conscious that I feel drunk and then the next moment I knew of, much time had already passed from that previous moment of awareness. This all was in the dream itself. There were also accompanying signs like heart palpitations which are actually true for me in real life too. The surprising thing is that I did not drink in real life at all in the past few weeks, and neither did I drink within the dream. I was just curious if there is any insight in Buddhism on this - does it hint at any blockages, or hindrances that I may have in "real life"? Thanks for any insights.

SN38.14 describes three types of duhkha: > “Reverend, there are these three forms of suffering. “Tisso imā, > āvuso, dukkhatā. The suffering inherent in painful feeling; the > suffering inherent in conditions; and the suffering inherent in > perishing. Dukkhadukkhatā, saṅkhāradukkhatā, vipariṇāmadukkhatā—These > are the three forms of suffering.” I have found a few instances that allude to vipariṇāmadukkhatā being the stress associated with being wrong, having wrong view, wrong perception, not knowing, etc. > Thag 21.1 “Your mind is on fire “Saññāya vipariyesā, because of a > perversion of perception. > > an3.117 It’s when someone has right view, an undistorted > perspective, such as: > > AN 10.85 ‘My dear friend, I didn’t lie or speak hollow words. But > I had gone mad, I was out of my mind.’ There are other like usages (see DN33 ). So why is vipariṇāmadukkhatā translated as stress of change or disappearance of happiness - these seem to be within the scope of saṅkhāradukkhatā (impermanence of conditions)? I have not found any usage that resembles the 'stress of change'. can you point it out?

I have been meditating for a month it happens because i needed to find truth and what is the real happiness.i am meditating 20 minutes(15-20) three times a day . I always thinking while meditating if i have any kusal(merit) please show me the path of truth.recently when meditating i feel only body exists every feeling in only on body.it is like controlling a robo(body) while on it. It was very hard to explain, but now i need to go out on my body and find what im searching . can anyone please explain something about this Actually, what i am saying is that true happiness is now. im too tired of my life every time i saw reality. Everything make me sad , and everything is temporary.

This is a question of practical interest. My personal practice is generally to feel guilty for bad deeds, but today I tried *admitting* fault and guilt without *feeling* guilty, and it was much less stressful. I do not know which is correct. Is there any textual evidence on whether the Buddha suggested feeling remorse or not? ---------- **Sutta 42.8** from the Samyutta Nikaya , *Sankha Sutta*, discusses remorse, but the following two translations seem to contradict each other, in which one mentions remorse is not useful, whereas the other mentions that remorse is part of reflecting on having done something not good. Is one of these translations more historically accurate than the other? ---------- The [Access To Insight](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.008.than.html) translation reads: > 'The Blessed One > in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and > says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have > killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was > not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed > of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right > then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life. ---------- The [Sutta Central](https://suttacentral.net/sn42.8/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=sidenotes&highlight=false&script=latin) translation reads: > But consider when a Realized One arises in the world… In many ways he > criticizes and denounces killing living creatures… And there’s a > disciple who is devoted to that teacher. Then they reflect: ‘In many > ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces killing living creatures, > saying: “Stop killing living creatures!” But I have killed living > creatures to a certain extent. That’s not right, it’s not good, and I > feel remorseful because of it. But I can’t undo what I have done.’ > Reflecting like this, they give up killing living creatures, and in the > future they don’t kill living creatures. ---------- (I’ve been trying to translate the Pali but I've only gotten so far as that one should "renounce" the evil deed.)

I have been ruminating about some existential questions...."what is purpose of life"...."is there a creator"..."what is the best work for a mortal to undertake in their lifetime"...."is suffering from unnecessary burden of study or job justified if they are not bringing satisfaction but are necessary for social survival"... etc, etc. In what sutta(s) has Blessed One talked about this matters? what solution Master gave to get out of this vicious cycle (referring to the vicious cycle of "ruminating about some existential questions.")which drains the energy?

Is it possible for a person to have sleeping disorders or problems with large durations of meditation? I know a few very big siddhas that have astonishing powers and they meditate up to 8 hours a day after office hours and sleep for 4 hours only. When I tried a long duration of meditation, I found a lack of sleepiness, and my sleep schedule was a bit altered. Is there any possibility of a large duration of deviation through meditation? What is the best way to manage that?

Point 8 of the [Noble Eightfold Path](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path) is "Right Concentration". According to Wikipedia and at least some of the (Theravada-leaning) books I have read, with Right Concentration the Buddha meant the first four Jhanas (Rupa Jhana). To what extent can one say that Right Concentration is the same as the Jhanas? * Does it depend on tradition? AFAIU the Mahayanas do not like to talk about the Jhanas so much, so they might feel such a statement to be too narrow. * Is there a Sutta which makes this connection clear?

In the twelve nidanas in the dependent origination it is said that through ignorance arises constructive activities (Sankskara). I do understand that. But the fact that I am still having trouble understanding is how Sankara causes the consciousness to arise and how consciousness cause the name and form to arise. I do understand that cause of name-form the consciousness arises as these two are very interdependent. But my question is as the above. 1. How does Sankskara cause consciousness to arise? 2. How does consciousness cause the name-form to arise?

I'm asking this question based on this comment and this question . It is well known that the goal of Buddhism is to end suffering. However, it is popularly mistaken (as seen in the cited comment and question) that Buddhists have to rush towards destroying their sense of self, skipping over the balanced wholistic practice of the Noble Eightfold Path . I think this is not correct. The ten fetters have the eradication of the identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) as a lower fetter, that has to be done in order to become a sotapanna or stream winner. However, a stream winner, has still not yet eradicated the fetters of sensual desire, ill will, material-existence-desire, immaterial-existence-desire, conceit and ignorance. I take it that total eradication of the sense of self happens with the eradication of the higher fetters, especially ignorance (avijja). After all, if the sense of self has been totally eradicated by the stream winner, it does not make sense that he could still have conceit, right? So, my question here is, if eradication of the lower fetter of identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) is not the complete eradication of a self, then what is it really? Is it an intellectual understanding of not-self? Or is it more? Is it an opinion? Is it a belief? Is it an experience? **How is the eradication of the lower fetter of identity view different from total eradication of the sense of self?**

Does anyone know anything about Tsem Rinpoche? I watched a few of his talks on Youtube recently, and found him to be incredibly charismatic.