Assuming that in a hypothetical multitude of so-called "enlightened masters", a future Buddha would actually arise and we were alive at that time, how would we be able to recognize him? The question could also be valid for acknowledging an Arahant or any enlightened person not necessarily a Samma Sambuddha, but would be much more interesting to answer it in the context of just before a new Sangha is formed, assuming a person declared that the Dhamma has been discovered again.

Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "*I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do*" when this seems to contradict anatta? **Isn't thinking "*I am X*" contradicting the teaching of anatta?** There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. SN 22.93 . **Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "*owner of kamma, heir of kamma*" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?** Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "*there's no self in this body and mind doing anything*"? What's the consequence of this view? From AN 5.57 : > “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a > householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of > my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my > relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, > good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech, > and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct > is either completely abandoned or diminished.

I remember the 1st book I read on Buddhism was about 'dharma' and that this has a few meanings, including, at least 'teaching' and 'element' (I suppose both of these are English glosses). > (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) The natural order of the universe; > natural law, cosmic order. > (Buddhism) The teachings of the Buddha as a practice to > be promulgated and taught. These are different senses: teaching / reality. Would you say that the teachings explain the elements? By "explain" I mean show how they are caused. ---------- Follow up question (I'm posting enough!) is whether *either* the teachings are about something real, *or* what they are about the elements in the present.

In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause? I'm not asking if the effect makes the cause, which I think would amount to "ontic" dependence; but if the effect can exist without the cause. I can't remember the word for this, but take smoking. It causes cancer, and some people's cancer is caused by smoking: but not all cancers are from smoking. And what has that got to do with 'emptiness', in any Mahayana tradition?

Some texts speak of 'compounded' phenomena etc. - What does it mean for something to be 'compounded' or 'uncompounded'? For the former, does it just mean 'things that are composed of other things, which themselves are composed of smaller things, ad infinitum? For the latter, something 'indivisible'? - If something is uncompounded, how can it exist as a 'thing'? - Why are some things compounded or not? What makes them that way

Bearing in mind that ignorance is in opposition to knowledge and the starting point for all the suffering, it seems still unbelievable that there were people contemporary to the Buddha that contradicted and refused his teaching. Considering that he was the culmination of human intellect and the embodiment of pure knowledge, how is it possible to be in such stubborn opposition with the truth?

What is the interpretation of parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation? This seems to have different interpretation and translations? What are the different interpretations and translations and what might be the most correct interpretation according to different line of practice? How is the particular interpretation rationalised?

Compassion seems to be a central insight in Buddhist thought. When someone truly grasps Buddhist ideas they find themselves de-emphasizing their own ego, and understanding that they're interconnected with the world and everything in it. I've lived this way for a long time and have become very effective at helping others, serving others, cultivating meaning in the lives of others. However, lately I'm realizing that this compassion is often not reciprocated, and at worst is taken advantage of as others know they can count on me to help them. So I'm wondering if Buddhist thought has ever touched on this issue? How do we reconcile striving for unconditional compassion toward others, when many of those around us are happy to cheat, steal, and take from us?

What is sex without attachment to sense pleasure actually like? Does it feel different? Do you only ever have sex to please the other person? I'm asking both about the relationship and the act itself. Clearly, you don't need celibacy to achieve jhana (some zen monks have wives). What is being renounced if we continue to engage in sexual relationships? Would engagement in sex with oneself (only) be proof that one cannot obtain the jhanas? etc.. ---------- > For achieving these absorptions, the overcoming of the five > hindrances [including sensual desire], at least temporarily, is a preliminary condition. It is > especially in the context of achieving the absorptions that the Buddha > often mentions the five hindrances in his discourses.

From a purely Theravada perspective, how much important is it to read and know Abhidhamma? Is the knowledge of Sutta Pitaka enough to realize nirvana?

I appreciate that religion can be many things but I want to consider the more soteriological aspects of religion. If we can take as a premise that religions including Buddhism have a strong concern about salvation - this would mean that Buddhism and other religions have competing views on this matter. Do Buddhist texts and Buddhist teachers think that other religions are wholly wrong in this regard or maybe partially right or even perhaps everyone is correct in some sense? I'm particularly interested in references for reasonable authoritative texts or quotes from teachers either ancient or contemporary. Also are certain schools of Buddhism more open to other religious views and perhaps other ones more exclusive in their views?

I consider the profession unwise and harmful to all. But I'm looking for a compelling argument against it. PS. Maybe "compelling" is too strong a word.

I've been recently observing that I am surrounded by a lot of narcissistic people which include all kinds of relationships friends, family, coworkers and acquaintances. Having been surrounded by these people I believe I have developed a relatively weak ego/low self-esteem over time -which of course translates to suffering. I also have been doing some meditation related work which has made me stronger/confident and also I believe it is the reason I've been recently having clashes/fights with these kind of people. Thus I wanted to understand narcissism from a deeper perspective of Dhamma. Modern psychology has it already in the dark triad personality traits, namely, narcissism, machiavellism and psychopathy. I watched and analyzed some videos from Jordan Peterson and some others; but I am shocked to find such a surprising lack of material and insights about this phenomenon from any good spiritual gurus, and even here on forums like stack-exchange, reddit etc. Thus I am making this post! So I would like to plead here - kindly contribute any deep/thorough analysis of this trait both from classical sutras perspective and from your own understanding: giving arguments/analogies/reasonings for any assertions. Possibly include the following topics - deconstructing what narcissism actually is, what kind of mental states and defilements are involved, how to overcome those as a person who has narcissism and how to minimize the bad karma recieved while dealing with such people. It may be a little bit of effort to write up properly, but I believe you sharing such valuable insights will be very helpful - for both people like me who have to deal with narcissistic people and also for others who want to fix their own narcissism and corresponding defilements. If anyone does contribute here, your efforts and insights are greatly appreciated, Thank you!

If we have no desire or aversion, how can we get up and clean our home, our body, eat more than is needed, or go to work? If one has indifference towards experiences and/or is equanimous to experiences it would make no difference if ones home or body was dirty. If we were in poverty, or if we had any more food than the immediate needed to subside the pangs of hunger. It seems to me that these unwholesome mind states are actually needed to function as a person in society (a householder) just to do the above things that one generally needs to do to maintain themselves and a householders life. Like one needs to have aversion and be disgusted at ones own filth to clean ones home/body or needs to have desire to be clean and to be seen as clean by others (vanity or desire for reputation). Same with finances, one needs to have desire for material possessions or hopes/desires for a "better" future to actively go out and do more work to earn more wealth than what is actually immediately needed. Kind of feels like functioning in society itself is the maras trap. Realistically all one really needs to do to function as a human is ones daily ablutions, have shelter from the elements and enough food to stop the suffering of hunger, which is pretty much what an ordained person does. Water is needed too of course but except in dire places in the world water is abundant everywhere.

This question is motivated by a comment from another user . Highlights in the quote are made by me. It's written: > "**You have no reason to believe that any words of the Buddha are preserved except uncritical acceptance of traditional narratives. There are some Buddhist words, but to attribute them to the Buddha is simple, blind religious faith**. If your criteria is practical application, then your question is meaningless in any case. You can verify the truth of the quotations by putting them into practice. Why have you not done so?". My questions are: - What reasons are there for believing that the words of the historical Buddha are preserved? - What reasons are there for not believing that the words of the historical Buddha are preserved? - Do these reasons apply equally to all "words" or, for example, is it more believable of the suttas than of the Jataka tales, or of some suttas more than others?

Three characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anatta) of existence is experienced by all however different the experience(delusion) or attitude. How does the arhant experience them differently? I am under the impression arahant has transcended all three via maximum understanding (embracing), thus eradicating ignorance (top of Pratityasamutpada). Is it only avoidance, aka flux, being experienced by regular ppl? What is relationship of nirvana and 3 marks? Is it just that arhant experiences 3 dharma seals (nirvana, anatta, anicca), not three marks?

Ever since I was a kid I have pirated and bought illegal copies of many different kind of media such as music, movies, video games and softwares. Now as an adult do I have to pay for all these things legally? The problem is I have a family to take care of and if I had to repay all of these I might end up being in debt. The prices for these items will probably be different now anyway. Besides it will take a lot of time to remember all of the things I pirated.

I have heard the claim that Ajahn Tong deviated from the main point of Mahasi Sayadaw's meditation technique and he taught it as a concentration technique. I don't understand how that could be. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu isn't teaching concentration meditation and he is Ajahn Tong's student. Does anyone know why anyone would make this claim? As I understand, Ajahn Tong was pretty strict about not practicing just concentration meditation.

From MN 148 Bhante Sujato > Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact. Bhikkhu Bodhi > Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Pali > Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṁ, tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso; Can you have the internal base, the external base, and consciousness but they **do not** meet? If so, what is an example?

I can't find concise suttas in English anywhere. I found them before Google and Bing changed so that you can't find anything. By basic I mean all the suttas that you would hear at a meditation retreat or an extended retreat of 3 years. They don't have to be abridged. I just find short suttas more chantable. I like to understand them. I think maybe uderstanding the suttas as you chant them is just crazy enough to work. Just the English unless... Well, playing each Pali sentence with the English just throws me off unless the English is aligned with the Pali in such a way as to sound grammatically incorrect but understandable. That for me helps me understand the Pali because the English words are flowing in the same order as the Pali words. Any help would be much appreciated, thank you.