Questions in the title. What is the significance of this term and how it is used by the Buddha in the suttas?

In the below passage from MN 58 >In the same way, prince, the Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be untrue, false, and pointless, and which is disliked by others. >The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be true and correct, but which is harmful and disliked by others. >The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is disliked by others. >The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be untrue, false, and pointless, but which is liked by others. >The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be true and correct, but which is harmful, even if it is liked by others. >The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is liked by others. Why is that? Because the Realized One has compassion for sentient beings. There seem to be some (three?) couplets (and a triplet?): 'true/untrue', 'correct/false', 'beneficial/pointless/harmful', and 'likeable/dislikeable'. My reason for posting is to ask the difference between 'true' and 'correct', but if anyone has anything more general to say about these guidelines, that would also be appreciated.

I'm wondering if anything is known about the origin of this formulation, which is ostensibly a summary of the first noble truth: >"Life is suffering" Beyond whether this is a poor summary or translation: where did it come from? An English-language popularizer, maybe?

I was wondering if this could be scientific or dhamma proof of the eminence of suffering coming from a physical and mental root. If you touch and rub the front right part of your forehead you can feel the dukkha or suffering from rubbing it. You will even feel a residual paste on your skin that contains stress and suffering. What is this and do other people experience this? Is this actual physical scientific proof of suffering and Buddhism?

I've been trying to find some information on oratory practices in ancient times. Strangely, I am not finding much. What technique(s) were used? It's hard to imagine the Buddha raising his voice to address large crowds, but maybe I'm just projecting. Maybe he could really holler. Did they rely on echo, repeating at intervals, hand gestures, a loud person, etc.? > At one time the Blessed One was living near the city of Gayā, on > Gayāsīse, together with a thousand monks. There the Blessed One asked > the monks:

I'm interested in learning more about Metta Meditation, and wondering if there are different approaches to this style of meditation. I understand that the history of this practice is quite long, and it would be difficult to be comprehensive, but for the sake of brevity an answer could include only broad differences in approach. Or is there generally only one style of practice?

Does the buddha ever speak on time? Does he ever say, "...time doesn't matter..."? I have this weird feeling he is said to have spoken that. I don't know in which sutra that is, or it might have been in a dream, but really, I'm not sure where I got the idea. I assume it was in a certain context if it was really said, and that he wasn't dismissing the time element as trivial, such as a lifetime...

I remember reading many years ago about Buddhist deities who help their devotees transmute their bad qualities into good ones. In particular, I remember reading that one of the Buddhas (possibly the Amitabha Buddha) helps transform envy into achievement. Is there any Buddhist literature/practice on these lines?

If someone enters the stream and becomes a sotapanna (stream winner), then he would have at most, seven lifetimes left. What the stream is, is defined in this answer as: > This noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, > right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right > concentration — is the stream. (SN 55.5) Thanissaro Bhikku further comments here that: > The coming-together of these factors is called the stream because it > leads inevitably to two things, just as the current of a tributary > will lead inevitably to a major river and then to the sea. In the > immediate present, the stream leads directly to the arising of the > Dhamma eye, the vision that actually constitutes this first awakening. > Over time, the stream ensures that — in no more than seven lifetimes — > one will be totally unbound. The Dhamma eye is explained as the ability to see firsthand and experientially, the impermanence of the five aggregates and dependent origination. My questions are (for rebirths as a human): 1. How does a reborn stream-winner know that he or she is one? 2. Does being a stream-winner in a previous lifetime, mean that one would be reborn into a devout Buddhist family in this lifetime or would definitely be led to the Dhamma eventually? 3. Is the reborn stream-winner's Dhamma eye open immediately at birth, or only after he or she encounters the Dhamma and returns back to the Noble Eightfold Path? 4. How is it guaranteed that the reborn stream-winner would not choose another path or another teacher, and drop out of the stream, considering that we do not remember previous lifetimes? 5. Please provide any info from the canon regarding this.

I come from a culture where marriage is seen as a must. Both of my parents are good parents, they never harm me in anyway, took a very good care of me. I am now almost 30 and they really want me to get married and have a kid, they love children. I can't blame them because it's all they've ever known in their life -- once you become an adult, marriage and having a kid is a must. I am also the first child and have always been single in all my life. However I don't see marriage as a necessity. I'm not very interested in sex nor having a kid. In my mind, I just want to live a single life so I can achieve financial freedom faster (no kids and wife) then I will donate to charities and spend my time doing things I enjoy instead of always chasing more money (it's tiring), I want to do more charity work than working for money. I take care of my parents but to take care a wife and kids I'm not very interested. Let's be realistic... kids are not cheap. What's the Buddhism view on this..? am I egotistical?

Are hungry ghosts in Buddhism believed to be "alive" or at least "undead" since hungry ghost is one of the options of rebirth?

Just wondering, since enlightenment is the cessation of all suffering, were there other people or beings that had achieved that and were contemporary to buddha. One such candidate may be the Jain leader Mahavira - he is said to have achieved not only freedom from suffering but also omniscience after that. This is just one person, there could have been many others who were fully enlightened but not teaching maybe sitting in a cave or something; especially when one thinks that Buddha himself after his liberation was considering that. So it seems to me a little bit surprising that buddhas have such long waiting period In between them appearing on earth. Did buddha himself resolve this, or comment on anything like this? On the same theme, where did the prophecy of Maitreya-buddha come from - was it shakyamuni-buddha himself who foresaw that? Thanks

Do Arahants or Buddhas still enjoy music they liked as lay people? Can anyone share their thoughts on why enlightened beings would or would not enjoy the music they used to listen to when they were laypeople? What if the lyrics contained defiled language but the music was appreciated before the process of enlightenment? What can we learn from the appreciation or lack of appreciation that an enlightened being has for music? If the lyrics contain defiled language, would an enlightened one wish to consider the impact it may have on their mind, could there be an impact and if so what is that impact? Can enlightened beings appreciate music without clinging to the music? What if the music and lyrics were in harmony with the Dhamma?

I have some hunch that when rising from the deep meditative states / jhanas, the mind becomes so slow that the world is perceived in frames. Is this true? My guess is that the speed of human brain perception is proportionate to how much craving there is, the lesser the craving the slower the mind due to disenchantment. Experienced ones please shed some light on this.

The five hindrances or obstacles of common buddhism are: 1. worry/restlessness/regret /distraction 2. hate (ill-will) 3. sensual desire 4. skeptical doubt (ignorance?) 5. lazy/lethargy Ignorance is not listed. Do all 5 together imply ignorance? It says: > These are the five obstacles and hindrances, corruptions of the heart > that weaken wisdom. Another theory might be that ignorance (confusion) is the same as doubt. If one doesn’t know any better, the opportunity to gain *access* to concentration (right meditation) are more slim. If one misunderstands that is also ignorance. If one is skeptical that might be ignorance. Perhaps the five hindrances are primarily a technical manual, a means to access concentration or develop tranquility/equanimity/energy (seven factors); in which case ignorance has an indirect role. Why (How) is or isn’t ignorance one of the five hindrances?

I understand that the active seeking of sensual pleasure is not seen as good, but it's not clear to me whether it should be actively avoided. I was preparing some noodles to eat this morning and inside the pack was a sachet of flavouring. I pondered upon this for a moment; should I add it to the food? The following thoughts occurred in favour of adding the flavour: - I am eating the noodles for the purpose of feeding the body, not for the sensual pleasure. Why not add it? - Deliberately depriving oneself of the little sensual pleasure there is in a meal could be regarded as self-mortification. The following thoughts occurred in opposition of adding the flavour: - Does the very notion of considering this only highlight my craving of sensual pleasure? - Why should I feel compelled to add the flavouring for reasons other than nutritional value? I am interested in whether any Buddhist teachings directly address this sensual pleasure in such a situation, and more broadly whether sensual pleasures should be actively avoided in such a manner.

I've listened to many theravada buddhist sermons and something that is always mentioned is how everything that happens, happens for a reason. Does that mean that if we get sick, it's our karma to get sick, but then we get better because of our good karma as well? How does taking medicine fit into this? Does the temporary relief that medicine gives us our good karma as well? What if one never takes medicine thinking that they will get healed according to karma? I've personally found great comfort in the fact that everything happens according to karma. So I feel really confused about the other 'niyamas' as well, which recently came to my mind. How does Utu niyama, Bija niyama relate to the fact that everything happens for a reason? Edit: accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html The Devadaha Sutta answered my questions. Thank you so much to everyone who responded

Greetings, a delivery driver crushed my statue with a giant truck. I would like help with identification so that I may replace it.

Is Papanca always unwholesome? The above question is based on MN 18 the honey cake -- https://suttacentral.net/mn18 Ven. Thanissaro has given a detailed explanation in his translation -- https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html

In Mahayana Buddhism, what is the difference between abiding nirvana and non-abiding nirvana? Are there official Sanskrit terms for "abiding nirvana" and "non-abiding nirvana"? What are they? When a Buddha has achieved non-abiding nirvana, "his enlightened activities are uninterrupted". What does this mean? This question is based on this answer : > A Hinayana arhat abandoned afflictive obscurations by way of realizing > emptiness, but has not abandoned knowledge obscuration. **He has achieved > abiding nirvana**. Therefore, although they are free from the conception > of true existence, and from true suffering, they are not free from the > imprints of ignorance (i.e. knowledge obscurations). We say that it is > like removing garlic from a container: the smell will still be there. > So, because they still have the imprints of ignorance, (1) they are > not free from the appearance of true existence, and (2) they are > reborn with a mental body, due to the imprints of ignorance (in our > case, we are reborn to due karma and afflictions). > > A bodhisattva is a person who generated effortless bodhicitta (the > wish to achieve enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings). > Since effortless bodhicitta is the entry gate to the Mahayana path, he > entered the Mahayana small path of accumulation. When he cultivates > wisdom, it is conjoined with emptiness and that makes his mind vast > (due to bodhicitta) and profound (due to realizing emptiness). **He > wishes not to abide in individual liberation (abiding nirvana) but to > be free from the extreme of peace (abiding nirvana) as well as from > samsara. Therefore, he wishes to achieve non-abiding nirvana, which is > the attainment of a buddha.** > > A Buddha abandoned both afflictive and knowledge obscuration, having > generated the path perfection of wisdom (the wisdom of emptiness > conjoined with bodhicitta). In his continuum, wisdom and bodhicitta > are the same mind: the omniscient mind of a buddha that realizes all > objects of knowledge directly, past present and future, in an > unmistaken way, etc. **He achieved non-abiding nirvana, abiding neither > in samsara nor in individual liberation. His enlightened activities > are uninterrupted.**