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.

I read the following on the internet by a Pali translator & independent monk some use as their first choice go to reference or 'refuge': > In any case, this makes it clear why the Sutta says the gandhabba must > be present, while the Veda says Viśvāvasu must depart.... This is not > something new, or something that has been left unaddressed by cultures > in the past. Anxiety about potency and paternity is a fundamental > component, perhaps the single most important distinguishing feature, > of the male psyche, and forms the foundation of misogyny. Patriarchal > institutions like marriage traditionally aimed to subjugate women, > yes, but they also tried to temper the worst of men. In freeing women > from patriarchal suppression, it is crucial to find ways to address > this deeply irrational male anxiety. > >[On the gandhabba and male anxiety](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on-the-gandhabba-and-male-anxiety/30928) In Early Buddhism: 1. Is marriage a patriarchal institution? 2. Is marriage the patriarchal subjugation of women? 3. Is the above utterance read on the internet an example of the wrong view in MN 117 that there is no mother & no father? Please quote Early Buddhist texts for & against the above propositions.

Is it possible to complete all paramitas without physically doing anything? If so, then how & where is it mentioned in tipitaka? In previous birth, while bowing down to dipankara, Gautama thought that if he wants he can destroy all dukkha just now and liberate.. how? Or these paramitas are for someone aspiring to be self enlightened only? If yes then sutta-refence.

There are two doctrines. Existence of self and existence of no self. Existence of self means eternalism. Existence of no self means nihilism. If self is eternal then there is no escape from suffering. If there is no self then there is no meaning of good deeds and bad deeds. There is a middle path. Depending upon ignorance , volitional formations arise,depending upon volitional formations ,consciousness arise , depending upon consciousness , name and form arise, depending upon name and form, six senses arise, depending on six senses , contact arises, depending upon contact , feelings arise, depending upon feelings , clinging arise, depending upon clinging, cravings arise, depending upon cravings,attachments arise, depending upon attachments , becoming arise , depending upon becoming , birth, ageing , death and whole mass of suffering arises. My question is: Why is it important to keep away from the doctrines of absolute self and absolute non-self?

Given that except Nirvana everything is impermanent, is it true that everything is unconditionally changeable? In other words whether, given something ,isn't it true that it will change no matter whether there is any reason behind it or not? Can we say all conditions are superfluous for a change to happen? Can we say change happens with or without conditions ?

I understand that the storm gods are the cause . I hope the sun never returns. How can I appease or offer those gods to have my wish?

To clear my and my friends doubts I ask the following question : Does the word Dukkha mean the same in every context of Buddha Dhamma? My opinion is that yes ,it is a general term for all kinds of stress. There is a range of stress , from subtle to deep,and kinds of stress, depending on nature of contact of six senses. Stress of heat , stress of too much cold , stress of sharp pinch , stress of bad smell , stress of loosing loved ones and so on..

And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years. Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit. These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras. Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives. That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question. *(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell. The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted. Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now? If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush? This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)* The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal. And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives. Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people. “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices. Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation. Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers. Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism. Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better. Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin. Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India. Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them. One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life. I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life. However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question. Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions. Am I missing something?