I asked a question which indirectly asked about Adhamma. However there was no direct refutation of Adhamma. So , I had to ask this question directly: Is there anything called as Adhamma in the Suttas ? In Sanskrit there is a word Adharma as opposite of dharma. > Adharma (Sanskrit: अधर्म) is derived from combining "a" with "dharma", > which literally implies "not-dharma". It means immoral, sinful, wrong, > wicked, unjust, unbalanced, or unnatural. Suppose I say forms are you or yours or yourself . Feelings are you or yours or yourself. Perceptions are you or yours or yourself. Choices are you or yours or yourself. Consciousness is you or yours or yourself. Then can the above observation or teaching be called Dhamma or Adhamma? I am asking this to clarify the meaning of Dhamma.

I've been looking around online for an answer to this question, but have come up empty handed. My understanding of *The Blue Cliff Record* is that it's a collection of famous cases compiled from the history of Zen. But what I'm wondering is how *The Mumonkan* differs from it? (I haven't read this one yet). Is there any overlap in the cases? And what was the purpose of having two different collections of Koans? Is it an entirely new collection? If so, what is the difference in the history of their respective collections?

Adhamma word is used at few places in the Suttas . Adhamma is opposite of Dhamma. If Dhamma means Right then Adhamma means Wrong. There is a characteristic of existence: Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Can I say “ Sabbe Adhamma Anatta “? Does “ Sabbe Dhamma Anatta “ exclude Adhamma? If not then how do we reconcile?

Sabbe Dhamma Anatta says Form is not me , mine or myself.Feeling is not me , mine or myself .Perception is not me , mine or myself.Choices is not me , mine or myself.Consciousness is not me , mine or myself. Suppose I give one million dollar to somebody then am I doing Adhamma (not Dhamma , not supporting the path of Nibbana)? Because giving money means Money is yours. Feelings resulting from becoming rich is yours. Perception of rich is you , yours and yourself. Choices of luxurious living is yours. Consciousness of richness or luxurious living is yours. By giving money to somebody am I not propagating a wrong notion of Self(which in my opinion is adhamma)? Following is link to definition of Dhamma as an answer to “Is Anatta a phenomenon ? ” To quote : > While the word 'dhamma' is used AN 3.136 is in relation to 'natural > law', it is a 'dhamma' because the wisdom/understanding of anatta as > natural law 'supports' liberation from suffering.

In *Beacon of Certainty* (tr. Pettit), Mipham Rinpoche addresses key questions about how to practice based on Madhyamaka philosophy. The first question has to do with distinguishing absolute negation from implicative negation. - An affirming negative (or “implicative negation”) “expresses the absence of one predicate while implying some other.” (Pettit 109) In short, this is not a good way to conceive how *appearances* are empty of any true and inherent existence: because the implied *object* has to somehow stand apart and have some kind of inherent existence that is immune from further analysis. - A non-affirming negative (or “absolute negation”) “simply excludes something, without implying anything else.” (Pettit 109) This is a much more fruitful stance because it does not hold some kind of appearance as standing separate from emptiness; and therefore it can serve as a conceptual segue to meditative experience of the coalescence of emptiness and appearance. I think this distinction is a very powerful tool in overcoming the tendency to take appearances as concrete realities that somehow have emptiness within them; and to understand how appearance and emptiness coalesce. Is there a similar distinction within Theravadin buddhism? It seems like this would be a useful distinction when exploring the 3 Dharma seals, particularly that of not-self *(sabbe dhammā anattā*). But I've never encountered such an analysis when reading in the Pali Canon or Theravadin commentaries.

Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. It means all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are not-self. Is not-self or Anatta a phenomenon?

We are conditioned beings. Process of conditioning begins at a very early age and continues till we die. My question is : Does the process of conditioning affect the conditioner ?

In this excellent answer giving an in depth explanation of the various uses of sankhata in various suttas, the first usage is explained as 'conditioned things' based upon the famous phrase, "sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā" which is translated in various ways by different translators. Observe:

’All conditioned things are impermanent’ I.B. Horner

’All formations are impermanent’ Bhikkhu Bodhi

’All form is impermanent’ Bhikkhu Bodhi

‘All processes are inconstant’ Thanissaro Bhikkhu

’All conditional things are impermanent’ Suddhāso Bhikkhu

’All conditional things are impermanent’ Ācāriya Buddharakkhita

’That all conditional things are impermanent’ Peter Feldmeier

‘All conditions are impermanent’ Bhikkhu Sujato

‘All conditions are impermanent’ Bhikkhu Ānandajoti

Questions:

1. Are the differences in these translations meaningful?
2. If so, what is the correct translation/meaning?
3. Is it incorrect to translate sankhara in the context of 'sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā' as 'a thing' or 'a phenomena?'
4. Is there any other place in the suttas where we can definitely say that sankhara is used to mean 'a thing' or 'a phenomena?'

Surely The Buddha appeared quite emaciated when he realized full enlightenment. Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art?

I've been to a nice restaurant (pictured below) where the bar was decorated with statues of the Buddha. Given the 5th precept and all; this seemed a bit odd. Would it be correct to surmise that the 5th precept is understood in different ways among Buddhists?

Good Morning, Recently I have been soul-searching and looking for a missing spiritual aspect of my life. I have been reading **Introduction to Buddhism** by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. After reading part one of the book, I felt a strong connection to Buddhism. Although I don't see myself as seeking total enlightenment in my lifetime, I feel a want to continue my path and perhaps become what I think is called a lay Buddhist. With this personal realization has come a lot of confusion. I plan to continue reading Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's book, however I'm wondering if there is another resource that could help me answer the questions I have more directly at this point. Which is why I'm making this post. I feel like I have almost no resources other than the intention I have to learn. I live in the Southern United States and so I have come up short on finding local resources. In my book, I find myself reading some of what Geshe Kelsang Gyatso says and then wanting to know more, but being at the mercy of what is said later in the book to explain it. It's been a wonderful exposure so far enough that I want to continue learning, but I'm just not sure which resources to seek out. I understand that there are several schools of Buddhism and that has added to my confusion. I think that my book is related to Mahayana, but I could be mistaken. I know that to call myself a lay Buddhist in the first place involves taking refuge in the three jewels and committing to the five precepts. There seems to be discourse on whether or not this is something that can be done alone or needs to be done at an official venue. In a way, I almost feel like I have already taken refuge. There is a prayer to Buddha, Sanga, and Dharma in my book that I have recited intentionally. I'm not sure if that prayer is a prayer for taking refuge specifically, however it almost feels like the lines are bleeding together. In my book 12 commitments of refuge are talked about in addition to the five precepts. This has caused me some confusion because elsewhere on the web I've seldom seem these mentioned. I guess overall to summarize what I'm asking for: I feel a strong connection to Buddhism. I want to continue learning, but feel like I am missing resources. I feel like what I want is a complete guidebook to how I can continue learning and how to practice. Something to give structure to this thing I feel the need to seek out. I know that what is important is learning from the three jewels and applying that to live a better life, but I still feel a need for something to follow to help me do so. A lay Buddhist guidebook if you will. Some questions that have come up for example: - How can I study more Dharma teachings? The book mentions Dharma books which I guess this book would technically count as itself, but are there books specifically for Dharma teachings from Buddha in one book? - The book mentions offerings on occasion. I'm unsure of what this means exactly or how to make offerings. - Can you take refuge alone? - If you do something against the five precepts, do you repent? Or do you just continue living up to the five precepts as well as you can. - Is the Buddhist stack exchange part of Sangha? I apologize if this post is a little messy or rambling. I'm hoping it will be looked on with kind-eyes and someone can point me in the right direction and I can continue learning.

Perhaps for the enlightened ones, those on the path to enlightenment and those aiming for higher goals, worldly pursuits are not issues of concern. But they are important to many ordinary folks. What is/are the proper Buddhist attitude(s) and actions to be adopted with regards to goals in life that a person had failed to achieve such as sporting excellence, top academic grades, a meaningful relationship, a satisfying career, achieving wealth and fame, marrying the one we loved rather than the one who was there or even just being normal like everyone else. What if the likelihood of achieving these goals is diminished or are no longer there e.g. already out of school, past the prime for sports, too old and so on. Should a Buddhist adopt one of these thinking: a) Nevermind, there’s always the next life. b) We should try other things instead. Maybe we are just not cut out for *fill-in-the-blank* (e.g. sports, study, corporate, love, family and so on). Who knows? We might find ourselves happier doing other things. c) No, we must keep trying. We should adopt the Bodhisattva attitude i.e. keep trying and learning from our mistakes in order to perfect the paramitas. Thanks for sharing any insights.

I read the following on the internet: > Any topic for satipatthana "mindfulness", can be a topic for samādhi > nimitta, or a subject for jhāna meditation to investigate with > dhamma-vicaya, vitakka and vicāra, upekkha, sati and sampajāno in the > higher jhānas. 1. Does mindfulness investigate? 2. Does sampajāno investigate? 2. Does vitaka & vicara perform the function of dhamma-vicaya (investigation) in jhana? 3. If vitaka & vicara cease in the 2nd jhana, is there no dhamma-vicaya in the 2nd, 3rd & 4th jhanas?

MN 4 says: > And with the fading away of rapture, I entered and remained in the > third absorption, where I meditated with equanimity, mindful and > aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones > declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’ > > Pītiyā ca virāgā upekkhako ca vihāsiṁ, sato ca sampajāno sukhañca > kāyena paṭisaṁvedesiṁ; yaṁ taṁ ariyā ācikkhanti: ‘upekkhako satimā > sukhavihārī’ti tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja vihāsiṁ. Sujato has subjectively opined here: > The emotional response to bliss matures from the subtle thrill of > rapture to the poise of equanimity. Mindfulness is present in all > states of deep meditation, but with equanimity it becomes prominent. Why do we personally think sati sampajāno is mentioned in the 3rd jhana?

In some suttas like SN 22.95 and Snp 4.14, the Buddha is called the Kinsman of the Sun (*ādiccabandhu*). Why is he called the Kinsman of the Sun? What is the origin of the term?

Where can I find the Chinese Canon Agamas in English translation?

I'm a bit confused about "not self". How do you take responsibility for your actions if you don't see them as your actions but just a process happening? For example if you're an alcoholic part of the process of healing if you go down the AA route is the importance of admitting to yourself that you are an alcoholic and stand up in AA meetings and say "I'm an alcoholic" But Buddhism would seem to say there is just alcoholism (or whatever the issue is) happening and it's not happening to a self. I'm just beginning to become aware of some very entrenched personal emotional issues regarding relationships stemming from childhood etc and in order to find a way to heal I need to admit I have a problem and seek help but wouldn't the Buddhist view be - it's just stuff happening, passing and arising and not self? Sure it passes and arises but the same pattern of issues continue to pass and arise and definitely feel like they are happening to me for many many years causing a lot of havoc and unhappiness in my life. How do I integrate the Buddhist view into my life and take responsibility for what is occurring at the same time without kind of denying stuff by saying "it's not self"

Can someone provide a canonical explanation to Sanskara/Sankara? I appreciate if you can provide some sources, Suttras/Suttas so that I can expand my knowledge.

I read the concepts of "standalone sankhara" vs " composite phenomena" on the internet. Do these two concepts have any basis in any school/s of Buddhism? If so, which one/ones?

In Buddhist philosophy, the Pali term 'atta' is frequently translated into English as 'self.' However, this translation can be misleading since in common English usage, 'self' often implies an inherent identity or individuality that the Buddhist concept of 'anatta' (not-self) seems to refute. Some might argue that 'essence' could be a more fitting translation, as it suggests the fundamental qualities of a person or thing. Given this, why do translators choose to use 'self' rather than 'essence' when translating 'atta' from Buddhist texts, especially when the term 'essence' might avoid the misconception of an enduring, independent self that Buddhism actually seeks to dispel?