What are the odds of getting nirvana during this lifetime? I suppose, given a worldwide population of 8-9 billion, of that what percentage is likely? > an arahant whose effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, > done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally > destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right > gnosis.

Can anybody explain to me about "nibbana" and how it is different form "nirvana"? Are there views about it and ways to get to it?

Since Buddhism is is a western term combining Buddha with the common "-ism" suffix, I wonder whether there is/are eastern self-designations of Buddhism as a religion. Of course there are self-designations of various schools (Theravāda, Zen, ...), Dhamma/Dharma and Sangha refer to teaching and community, but is there some overarching terminology in asia?

If someone shot an arrow at Buddha's heart, Bhudda will focus on the pain caused by the arrow. What will be Buddha's views on the shooter? If it was unintentional, forgiving the shooter is understood. But if that was intentional what will be the opinion of Buddha about the shooter? And why? Forgive the shooter? But why and how? And if forgive the shooter, then how to react if he pulls up another arrow to shoot?

I was thinking about tilakhana and cittanupassana. and this question occuerd to me. that there is no mention in tipitaka about nicca/anicca nature of citta. So something is very obvious that I am missing. and hence this question.

Even though I am Catholic, I am discovering the Truth of the existence of karma through personal experience in my own spiritual journey. There is a certain habitual sin that I am struggling with. After reading the Buddha's teaching, he said that when habitual sin repeats, it is because there is a pattern of karma that comes together under very specific logical conditions (conditions that can be numbered 1, 2, 3) to result in you making the choice to sin. What strategies does the Buddha offer to: 1. Loosen this bad karma 2. Discover the logical conditions that cause this sin to repeat 3. Change the context so that the logical conditions causing this sin no longer arise?

💚If you're a non-returner and you go to the Brahma realms, then that is the only way to attain Nibbana in the Brahma realms? Is it possible to attain Buddhahood in the Bramha realms? Did the Buddha ever pass through the stage of non-returner or did he just jump straight to Buddhahood? An Arahant cannot become a Buddha? Aren't the 4 stages to enlightenment about mastering certain insights that one goes through momentarily? He was the Buddha when he taught the Abhidhamma from Heaven?

When I search for the word "debt" on this site -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=debt -- many of the posts are from the same author -- including two recent ones: - https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/48450/254 > seek out for people teaching the Dhamma not training consuming fools and suggestions that they could escape the debts - https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/48452/254 The answer to the latter question puzzled me -- because I'm not sure what the difference is between a state welfare recipient thinking "I have a right", compared with an employed wage-earner's having the same kind of thought. --- What is Buddhist doctrine on that subject? The only reference that come immediately to my mind is the debt towards parents, which is so immense that it cannot be repaid, and which is acknowledged by the fact that monks are allowed to help care for their own parents in person. There are few references on [Access to Insight](https://accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?q=debt) : - [Ina Sutta: Debt (AN 6.45)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.045.than.html) sounds like it might be a parable or analogy -- i.e. that a monk who behaves badly suffers consequences like a layman who goes into debt - [The Lessons of Gratitude](https://accesstoinsight.org/ati/lib/authors/thanissaro/lessonsofgratitude.html) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu seems to say to repay your benefactors by becoming a better person - [Anana Sutta: Debtless (AN 4.62)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.062.than.html) says that "debtless" is one of the states that a house-holder can enjoy -- along with "having" and "using" wealth, and being "blameless" -- the debtless isn't the import bit in this sutta, which says it's next to nothing compared with being blameless - [Vasala Sutta: Discourse on Outcasts (Sn 1.7)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.07.piya.html) says that denying a debt is one of many examples of misbehaviour that would cause someone to be considered an outcaste Can you summarise Buddhist doctrine about debt? Should you try to be more conscious of debts? If not what should you try to be more conscious of? Part of this question is exemplified by this from Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay: > In other words, as the first passage shows, it's perfectly fine to appreciate the benefits you've received from rafts and other conveniences without feeling any need to repay them. You take care of them simply because that enables you to benefit from them more. The same holds true for difficult people and situations that have forced you to develop strength of character. You can appreciate that you've learned persistence from dealing with crabgrass in your lawn, or equanimity from dealing with unreasonable neighbors, without owing the crabgrass or neighbors any debt of gratitude. After all, they didn't kindly go out of their way to help you. And if you were to take them as models, you'd learn all the wrong lessons about kindness: that simply following your natural impulses — or, even worse, behaving unreasonably — is the way to be kind. > > Debts of gratitude apply only to parents, teachers, and other benefactors who have acted with your wellbeing in mind. They've gone out of their way to help you, and have taught you valuable lessons about kindness and empathy in the process. As a corollary, if the "raft" there might be an analogy of the Dhamma, what do you think of that? If people publish the Dhamma, after which find and use it, you may appreciate that -- is it something to feel "indebted" about, and if you don't feel properly indebted then are you like stealing it from its rightful owner (e.g. the Sangha), and/or is the person who published it some kind of thief?

It's hard to imagine that there is any valid and not actually defeat group of monks out their, Dhamma has been sold out, reformed, reproduced and shared by blind. AI will soon be, or is already, your only 'friend'. What now? What to do if getting clear that their is no more refuge to be found? What should one go after, if having missed the last train leaving, finding oneself booked in the mass train? YouTube: [Stop That Train (I Want to get off)](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iD41dy-AFgg) -- a reggae song

From M43 the Mahavedalla Sutta: > It is said consciousness. Friend, what is consciousness?: It knows, > therefore it is called consciousness. Knows what? Knows this is > pleasant, this is unpleasant and knows this is neither unpleasant nor > pleasant. Knows therefore it is said conscious. Friend, this knowledge > and this consciousness, are they associated or dissociated? Is there a > method to differentiate them and show them apart? What is known is > consciousness and consciousness is knowledge. Therefore these things > are associated and not dissociated and it is not possible to > differentiate them and show them apart. then later: > Friend, this feeling, perception, and this consciousness, are these > associated or dissociated? Is it possible to differenciate them and > show them apart?: Friend, feelings, perceptions and consciousness are > associated and not dissociated and it is not possible to differentiate > them and show them apart: Friend, the felt is perceived, and the > perceived is consciously known Therefore these things are associated > and not dissociated and it is not possible to differenciate them and > show them apart. If these three - consciousness, perception, and feeling - cannot be told apart, how are they conceptualized separately in the first place? It's a contradiction. If they cannot be told apart, why bother listing them as 3 separate aggregates? Why not just say the three arise together?

The 3rd precept is: >I undertake the training rule to avoid sexual misconduct. How is this precept explained? Marriage is defined differently in different cultures, so are the commonly accepted rules in a given society considered as non-misconduct? If not, how should one determine the scope of misconduct according to the precept?

Is a logical questioning process of every thought(almost) a useful way to break through thought itself and possibly understand enlightenment? For eg:- What is this thought? What is the mind? And try to inspect it clearly. If no answer appears, (because you see they are difficult, almost impossible questions) that is still ok, but you begin to question things with a scientific temper and rationality.

I've heard Zen Buddhism characterised by the notion of 'Everyone is already enlightened'. Is that correct? - does Zen Buddhism actually say that and if so can someone give a reference to a text where it actually says that or something like it. Many thanks as always

I hold the view that Buddhism may not be suitable for all individuals. For instance, a person born with a mental illness who is unable to differentiate right from wrong may struggle to practice Buddhism. Similarly, individuals with disabilities such as tinnitus may find it difficult to meditate. In my opinion, this presents a limitation of Buddhism compared to other religions, where prayer may be an easier means to gain insight. In one sutta, the Buddha mentions the need to be fortunate to encounter his teachings. Doesn't this exclusivity make Buddhism an exclusive religion for attaining liberation? If the Dharma does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to strive for liberation in every birth, wouldn't it be unrighteous? I am curious to know whether Buddhism is the sole path to liberation from human suffering. Does this imply that individuals who cannot comprehend sutras or meditate cannot attain liberation?"

i found this from learnreligions.com: > If you wonder if you have become enlightened, it is almost certain you > have not. The only way to test one's insight is to present it to a > dharma teacher. Don't be dismayed if your achievement falls apart > under a teacher's scrutiny. False starts and mistakes are a necessary > part of the path, and if and when you achieve enlightenment, it will > be built on a solid foundation and you will have no mistake about it. i was reading about LUANGPOR TEEAN. he is a dead thai monk that was enlightened. upon his enlightenment he was asked questions like 'how do you know yourself?' , 'is salt salty?', 'among black colors, which is more black?', etc what is the standard (good) way of interrogating the enlightened?

I came across an excerpt of Thích Nhất Hạnh from his book *No Mud, No Lotus*, in which he says that happiness must be nurtured in order to sustain (full text is here , the excerpt can also be found here ): > Happiness is impermanent, like everything else. In order for happiness to be extended and renewed, you have to learn how to feed your happiness. Nothing can survive without food, including happiness; your happiness can die if you don’t know how to nourish it. If you cut a flower but you don’t put it in some water, the flower will wilt in a few hours. Even if happiness is already manifesting, we have to continue to nourish it. Earlier in the book (here ), he relates this idea to the Buddha: > The Buddha said that nothing can survive without food. This is true, not just for the physical existence of living beings, but also for states of mind. This surprised me a bit, as I was under the impression that happiness *emerges* when one frees himself (even momentarily, e.g. during meditation) from suffering - and not that it should be pursued as a goal. I read (in Wikipedia ) that Thích Nhất Hạnh's teaching combines various sources, and I'd like to know if this idea - that happiness must be nurtured - can be traced to a certain Sutra, or just scattered texts, in the canon?

“Friend, these five faculties—each with a separate range, a separate domain, not experiencing one another’s range & domain: the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the tongue-faculty, & the body-faculty—have the intellect as their (common) arbitrator. The intellect is what experiences (all) their ranges & domains.” Alternative translation for the last line: - “These five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to the mind. And the mind experiences their scopes and ranges.” - They are restored in the mind and it partakes the pasture commonly. - mind is the repository, and mind reacts to their pasture and range.” what does it mean? Is it yogacara in a nutshell? they say mind-only, mere representation....or maybe it means that the pasture was not good enough to contain my evilness? here is another wacky one from the wikipedia: > These internal sense bases (internal faculty) are not the gross organs > themselves (e.g., the eye, ear, etc.), but subtle matter within them.

If I am with someone in person or talking over the phone, they are engaged and care about me. But what happens when I am not with them? Why would anyone care about me when I am not around them? What makes people care about you behind your back? What makes people care, at all? Essentially why anyone would do anything without any reason, why anyone would unconditionally care? Little Background: I have never been a compassionate person, I don't understand compassion. (edit) Or like why would a Buddha care about me? I provided nothing to them, they even never met me, but I feel still they will care about me. Why? How? (will this question suit better in any other StackExchange?)

Can you give a link to read teeka or sub commentaries..

I remember reading a sutta where the Buddha compares how much suffering there is, or grief or pain or whatever, as if it were a grain of sand, or a bit of dirt on the ground, compared to all the grains of sand in the ganges river or all the mud or something kind of quantitative imagery like that. I think his point was a bit like that of the metaphor of the Second Arrow; that there might well be some kind of pain, but then all the rest of the torment is fabricated by the deluded mind through reactivity-obsession or passion-obsession and whatnot. This sutta didn't quote that one, but it had the same tenor: 'you won't believe how little there is to worry about.' I've tried googling for this sutta but I can't find it.