नमो भगवते बुद्धाय I'm reading Candrakīrti's madhyamakavatāra. I came across this passage - > "That they are the particular circumstance means that that which acts > as the cause for the circumstance of being a tathāgata is the > circumstance of being a bodhisattva. That they inspire the adoption > refers to the case of noble Mañjuśrī who as a bodhisattva was the very > first to inspire the illustrious Śākyamuni and the other tathāgatas to > adopt the mind of awakening. Being thus regarded as the principal > cause that enabled the final result, it is taught that the tathāgatas > are born from the bodhisattvas." What is the story of the Noble Mañjuśrī inspiring Śākyamuni and other tathāgatas to adopt bodhicitta? Thank you Source - https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index.php?page=fulltext&view=fulltext&vid=1113&cid=828169&mid=1927089&level=1#FN5550rn6:~:text=That%20they%20are%20the%20particular,are%20born%20from%20the%20bodhisattvas .

There can be different kinds of reality. Reality as experienced by dogs, cats, elephants, lions, pigs, snakes, humans, gods, maras or reality as experienced in hell or reality as experienced in heaven or reality as experienced by water born animals or by birds etc., differ widely in their nature. The word I am comfortable using for reality is dhamma. However, sankhara is another word which might be used as all realities are impermanent therefore they must be a sankhara. My question is : Which word - dhamma or sankhara - should be used to translate the meaning of reality from english to pali?

I'd heard about Heinrich Dumoulin's two volume History of Zen a number of times, but Dumoulin not being a Buddhist himself led me to avoid it. However, I ran into the set at a library recently, and to my surprise it's actually reading pretty well, and appears to be somewhat objective / extensive. What I'm curious about is the good and bad of the book. What did he get right, and what did he get wrong about Zen's history? Essentially a short critical analysis of this book and where / where I shouldn't be skeptical. If there are too many factual errors in the book to list them all, then calling this out and a few small examples should suffice.

If you have means, Buddhist notions are much easier to live by. If you do not, you may have to break the precepts in order to survive. This is particularly true for women and other vulnerable peoples. Is true Buddhism an elitist ideology?

What does the Tibetan book of the dead say happens 14 days after death? I don't have my copy to hand. I'm asking, because I suspect a dear friend of mine may have died last week.

I understand that vaping nicotine is not a particularly healthy habit and is addictive. However, I’ve used it to quit smoking cigarettes and it has resulted in me abandoning them entirely, which I consider to be a huge milestone. I also have a significant mental illness that I am very effectively managing with the help of medication and therapy. But I have read studies which suggest that nicotine can offer some psychological benefits for people with psychotic conditions like mine (I can offer a source for anyone interested), and I have found this to be true in my case. Does vaping nicotine break the fifth precept?

I’m 23 years. I don’t have a partner. But I’ve agreed to them to look for a partner but I want to marry if I like the person only. My parents brought about 6 proposals but I didn’t connect with any. They are forcing me with a final one. They say they don’t want to look for more because it is a humiliation for them. But I don’t like the person. I spoke to him but I feel like we’re very different. And I am not physically attracted to him at all. My dad says he’s supposed to marry me off before 25. Now they are fixated on this person. But I don’t like him. My dad said he will force me into it despite my preference. I offered the option that I would like to become a Buddhist nun. They are not willing to comply with that either.

Questions: 1. What is "feature of beauty" in MN 5? 2. Why does the type of person mentioned ("the person who doesn’t have a blemish but does not understand it"), focus on it? 3. And why does that cause them to become infected by lust? 4. Does beauty here refer to physical beauty or something else? 5. Is this *subhanimitta* the same as the *nimitta* for entering jhana? > Take the case of the person who doesn’t have a blemish but does not > understand it. You can expect that they will focus on the feature of > beauty, and because of that, lust will infect their mind. And they > will die with greed, hate, and delusion, blemished, with a corrupted > mind. > MN 5 With footnote from Ven. Sujato: > “Feature of beauty” is *subhanimitta*. In early Pali, *nimitta* is used > for a feature or quality of the mind that, when focused on, promotes > the growth of similar or related qualities. Thus focusing on beauty > fosters the desire for that beauty.

Sabbe Sankhara Anicca. But it is not clear why all Sankhara are impermanent? Can I ask ,who is responsible for making all Sankhara impermanent? Are we responsible for making the Sankhara impermanent? Is it some kind of God who is responsible for making all Sankhara impermanent? Or Does it happen on its own ?

I've never been taught psychology so I'm no expert but modern vocabulary includes the words "denial" (like "in denial") and "ego defence". - "Denial" appears in [this context](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial) for example: > In psychoanalytic theory, denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The concept of denial is important in twelve-step programs where the abandonment or reversal of denial that substance dependence is problematic forms the basis of the first, fourth, fifth, eighth and tenth steps. - Denial is explained (perhaps defined) as a "[defence mechanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanism) ", of which I think "ego defence" is a synonym. > In psychoanalytic theory, a defence mechanism (American English: defense mechanism) is an unconscious psychological operation that functions to protect a person from anxiety-producing thoughts and feelings related to internal conflicts and outer stressors. A lot of questions about "ego" and "self" on this site are related to the definition of [tag:anatta]. --- Is there Buddhist doctrine on the subject of "denial" though? - Doctrine which explains why or how it happens (how can it happen if in reality there is no ego to defend)? - Perhaps more importantly, how to recognise and overcome the problem if it arises in yourself or someone else? Note: - Denying the existence of the "ego" and claiming that anatta is the only reality might be part of the problem. Do the suttas have something to say about ego? Does Mahayana? - Doctrine's saying that "ignorance" and "wrong view" and "clinging" exist is Ok but maybe not very specific/actionable. Or is that hitting the nail on the head, i.e. is "clinging" precisely what people mean nowadays by "ego"? Here are some Buddhist doctrines that I've heard of, which might be related to "overcoming ego": - Generosity (e.g. *dana*) - Doctrine about [pity](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9997/254) (which I think is to do with implying that someone is inferior) - Doctrine about conceit ([here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9424/254) and [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81na)) , though the Bhikkhuni Sutta [[AN 4.159](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html)] also says that conceit is instrumental There's also [this sutta](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22913/254) that "it's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others": > 4. ... > 5. The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without hurting myself or others.' > > Note: According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting oneself. "Hurting others" means putting other people down. Maybe one footnote should be enough as in, "[a nod is as good as a wink](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a_nod_is_as_good_as_a_wink) ". But if "denial" and overcoming it are as important as described in the definition above -- i.e. "the basis of the first, fourth, fifth, eighth and tenth steps" -- possibly Buddhism might have said more about it? Maybe it's in texts that I'm not familiar with -- e.g. "admitting faults" is presumably (important) in the Vinaya; and Andriy [uses the word 'ego'](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A43+ego) frequently in answers, perhaps "ego" is more explicit in Mahayana doctrines. --- A related topic might be "urgency": > [Saṃvega](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83vega) > > Saṃvega is a Buddhist term which indicates a sense of shock, dismay and spiritual urgency to reach liberation and escape the suffering of samsara. According to Thanissaro Bhikku, saṃvega is the "first emotion you're supposed to bring to the training" and [etc.] > > ... > > For saṃvega to be an effective drive to practice, it must be accompanied by another emotion called pasada, a "clarity and serene confidence." Pasada is what keeps saṃvega from turning into nihilistic despair by providing a sense of confidence that there is a way out, namely nibbana. Because I think that procrastination is another form of defence or denial.

Mark 2:17 of the Bible says: > And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no > need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the > righteous, but sinners.” Did the Buddha appear for the sake of "sinners" (the immoral)? Or did the Buddha appear to show the "righteous" (the moral) the way to Nibbana?

Does rupa regarding jhana mean material or fine (subtle) material according to Buddhism? According to source it says: > This is the first of the Absorptions belonging to the Fine-Material > Sphere (rupavacarajjhana). It is attained when, through the strength > of concentration, the fivefold sense activity is temporarily > suspended, and the five Hindrances are likewise eliminated. (Dîgha > Nikaya, 22)

So far I was under impression that cetasicas are elementary mental factor. but I did not pay attention to all 52 of them.Today when I show **Samma ājiva** is also a cetasika. It changed my view toward cetasika. They are not elementary mental process which comes along with birth. I now think that cetsikas are programmed subminds or **parallel minds**.and it can be dynamically added.**Most of the beautiful cetasikas are developed by practice of buddhism. isnt’it?** And with little exaggeration I can say that, I can develop a modern cetasika like **samma-mobile**. samma-mobile is the right usage of mobile.dont try to justify that right use of mobile as part of something already there in so-and-so cetasika.. just take it as example only. With total re-programming process only dedicated to right usage of mobile. I can build a fresh submind /cetasca related to mobile usage.and then it will be mounted so effective to the level of mind moments. and evaluate each mind moment from the perspective of mobile usage.

How do you reconcile Buddhist concepts/faith in a non-Buddhist society? For example if you live in a society where you are to kill(stray or sick animals) or expected to lie as part of your livelihood? If you aren't able to leave, how does participating in these forced actions effect your karma?

I have been doing meditation for around 20-30 minutes a day for 5 years. One thing I have noticed is I absorb my mind in both the awareness of my whole body (as in physical sensations such as pressure etc), and also the sensation of the breath in the whole body, I can reach a state where thoughts slow down lots, sometimes even stopping for a while. It’s a pleasant state, but I doubt if I am practicing correctly as I’m not sure if this was the method recommended by the Buddha. Any advice would be appreciated. All the best :)

There is one specific Sutta in which the Buddha details the rebirth destination of a patriotic soldier who dies in battle for the sake of his country? Can someone please help me find it. Metta to all.

In Buddhism, gods are acknowledged to exist. So, according to Buddhism, who is considered the most powerful god?

I am still confused about the meaning of Dhammas. Here I take the example of science. Science has many truths. Science explains the reality in its own ways. My question is: Can we consider Science a Dhamma? If yes, then why is it a Dhamma? If not, then is science a Sankhara? Is yes, then is it Anicca? Or Is Science both a Sankhara and Dhamma?

Science can be called Dhammaniyama as per the following answer to a question. Can I say Dhammaniyama Anatta ? And what does it mean and why ?

Because there are several meanings of sanskharas and Dhamma, I am unable to exactly pin point when and what I should identify as sanskharas and when I should identify Dhamma. Please help me identify sanskharas and Dhamma in the following sentence: Max ate ice cream hurriedly and found it cold and sweet. He loved the taste of ice cream.