This question is a sequel to my previous question about First Noble Truth. It seems that there is discord about the exact rendering of the word 'dukkha'. Sorry if I sound like a pedantic dou*h. I am just trying to understand it clearly. So the answer I received in this link and this link translates it as 'stress'. (I personally think it's wrong, but I am not any authority or scholar). The Wikipedia page for dukkha gives the following translations: "suffering", "unhappiness", "pain", "unsatisfactoriness" or "stress". So what's the exact meaning? I am asking because the exact rendering changes the meaning and its effectiveness as teaching a lot.

It seems clear to me that that which is aware of sadness, anger, or anxiety is not sad, angry, or anxious. But shouldn't this work the other way as well? Wouldn't this mean that that which is aware of happiness or joy is not happy or joyful? It feels like by this logic that mindfulness, when applied to positive states, nullifies them or diminishes them and that one wouldn't want to do this. If mindfulness diminishes the power of negative emotions wouldn't it diminish the power of positive ones as well? I'm not sure how this is desirable. What exactly am I missing?

Are there specific practices, meditation instructions, intended to identify and realize/experience emptiness? Is this different than realizing non-self, or the emptiness of the self? or the emptiness of other/objects?

Please see a breakdown of how one may approach the question... - 'Knowings' in this sense has not been influenced by external stimulus. One can know things about our environment using the six senses as a substrate between the seeming reality *out there* and the seeming mind *in here.* However, one can also have a knowing that occurs apparently separate from this process. - Intuition in the question here refers to an instinctual awareness that something is so but interestingly the intuition hasn't arisen through the conventional methods of learning; there has been no previous auto-suggestion. The knowing itself is the knowing of rebirth. It has been something I've steered well clear of but, suddenly, there was the clear knowing that rebirth is so. Thus the conflict occurs - if I have relied on my six senses all my life to know things, how could I know rebirth to be so? What on earth is 'Mind'??? Where is Mind'??? (Rhetorical questions but if you're feeling cognitively malleable then feel free to answer these also!)

How can you explain karma in the genocide of babies and "innocents" (For example: The Holocaust) in Buddhist terms to a non-Buddhist, without seeming cold and uncaring? Yesterday, I tried--by saying, "I cannot say unequivocally, why the millions had to suffer or whether karma came into play or not, but perhaps it is better to focus attention on the present and try to generate good karma here and now." I know Buddha said certain topics will only foster disputation and I felt like this is one of those that can only be speculation so I steered the conversation in another direction. What can you say in a better (or kinder) way to explain it to a non-Buddhist person who asks how the holocaust suffering can be justified and who expresses interest in knowing the Buddhist view about it?

Have any important Buddhists made any claim/s about Krishnamurti's teachings? Especially (caveat I know nothing about this) his claim that > "Tell them **there is *nothing* to understand**" Bold emphasis is mine . or > He claimed that the demand for enlightenment was the only thing > standing in the way of enlightenment itself, if enlightenment existed > at all.

I think I correctly assume this Buddhism site is (appropriately) open to many, if not all, forms of Buddhism(?) However, when folks say things like “Buddha said” I often wonder what to make of this. Are there recommended well-researched references materials (hopefully, with relatively little ax-to-grind) to help with appreciating the validity of such statements?

The topic is really the question. In Buddhism, which is regarded as more important, the right of an individual or the greater good? Perhaps there is no distinction made, I don't know. Or does it depend on the circumstances?

Did any Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Vietnamese Buddhists write about Buddhist logic in the tradition of Vasubandhu, Dignaga, and Dharmakirti? What were their contributions to logic and epistemology?

First text screenshot says **MLD. 131**. Where is that from? Second text screenshot says **M. 19**. Where is that from? Screenshots are taken from Ven. Dhammajivas book called *Mahasi Insight Meditation* .

If my memory is correct, Lord Buddha did a sermon for the long-distance people. It is mentioned that Lord Budha can do a sermon even for someone in another solar system. How is it possible? Because to travel sound to long-distance takes time(possibly years). Can someone give me an answer with references from Tripitaka?

What would Buddhists say in response to the statement by Plato in The Republic Book IV : > And are there not many other cases in which we observe that when a > man's desires violently prevail over his reason, he reviles himself, > and is angry at the violence within him, and that in this struggle, > which is like the struggle of factions in a State, his spirit is on > the side of his reason; > You remember that passion or spirit appeared at first sight to be a > kind of desire, but now we should say quite the contrary; for in the > conflict of the soul, spirit (passion) is arrayed on the side of the > rational principle (reason). I have some ideas but I would like some other opinions. I'm primarily interested in the second paragraph, and not so much regarding the concept of soul. Just to clear up my assumption, I equate reason to be the same as Buddhist concept of intellect. It seems true, but is it just morality? Even morality is reason no?

When seeking to refine my mental maps of the world in any domain of expertise to more precisely differentiate between similar terms, I have found a thesaurus to be an invaluable tool. The domain of expertise of the Buddha, namely the path from suffering to the end of suffering, is arguably of more importance than any other domain of expertise, and yet, I am not able to find a Pali thesaurus. Does this exist? Is anyone working on this?

I'm trying to follow Buddhist teachings but I generally don't like people so I don't feel like practising metta towards them. They just irritate me and I don't care if they suffer or not. I usually just want them to F off and leave me alone. How can I be Buddhist if I feel this way? I cannot force a warm fuzzy feeling of metta.

Looking up the word [samsara](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/samsara) , or the [Wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra_(Buddhism)) leads to the same definition you see most places: > The endless cycle of birth, existence and death. However, that is a lot of concept to pack into one word. How did they arrive at the word "samsara" to encapsulate such a complex concept? [Etymonline says](https://www.etymonline.com/word/samsara) : > "endless cycle of death and rebirth, transmigration of souls," 1886, from Sanskrit samsara "a wandering through," from sam-, prefix denoting completeness (from PIE root *sem- (1) "one; as one, together with"), + sr- "to run, glide" (from PIE verbal stem *ser- "to flow;" see serum). But I don't know how I feel about PIE yet, not sure how they arrive at these derivations. _Tangential question: it says 1886 is the latest definition, when does the word first get used?_ If I were to go with etymonline's derivation, of sem and serum, it is the "one flow" basically, being one with the flow, being tied to the flow. But I don't know if that is a correct interpretation. But the main question is, what do the components of the word mean. Is there any Buddhist text that elaborates on this concept and ties it back to the word more deeply? If so, what text is it and/or what do they generally say?

Stream entry feels like a milestone where some very significant things happen and the practitioner cannot slide backwards from it. Do Zen sutras describe the concept of stream entry by that or any other name?

I have some friends who are Christian that I can't avoid the subject with. We used to see each other very often for some events. Normally those are friends of friends. Examples of the unpleasant feedback I commonly receive include things like "Buddha is Satan", "Buddha is in hell" and "All Buddhist shall go to hell". There are many other examples and by - for example - searching YouTube, you'll find more than enough examples. I am looking for some efficient and effective response to avoid this unfruitful conversation and prevent more unpleasant conversation that won't benefit anyone. It's better to have a compassionate discussions instead. Below are some responses that I came up with: 1. Oh my God? So far Buddha didn't do me any harm me yet. I will be taking extra precautions for this. Thanks for the concern. 2. Oh my God? My understanding, based on personally hearing the story from both sides, is that roughly 80% of the teachings of Christianity have a counterpart in Buddhism which has a similar interpretation. How come Satan is teaching the same morals as God? 3. Oh my God? Where in the Bible is it written so? 4. I felt hurt that you say Buddha is Satan. In a few cases they will insist to talk on this and ignore my feeling. Not sure they feel righteous to say so on their side? 5. Oh my God. Can I excuse myself to wash room for some emergency? If talk again and go again. Post notes: Thanks guys, there is a chat discussion regarding this with another Christian. If you are interested, let me know and I will add you. I do respect Jesus and Buddha a lot and I hope there is no comment that leads to a battlefield. I will keep my sincere prayers for forgiveness from Jesus and others too if there is unpleasant feeling to others too due to this questions. Really sorry folks.

In my years of meditation practice, I have both experienced time contracting (appearing to pass at great speed) or dilating and seeming to come to a near standstill. I begin my meditation practice by relaxing and following the breath. As this settles, respiration becomes very slow. During this slowing of breath, the awareness of the heartbeat becomes more prominent, and it also appears to slow down to where the heart's contraction seems to occur in slow motion. I can feel/witness the contraction and sense (or imagine I am sensing) the opening and closing of heart valves. There is no striving or effort to do this, it is occurring along with the awareness of the rest of the body. What I find unusual and have not been able to explain is that I am wearing an iWatch during this to record my mediation, and it shows that during these super relaxed periods when I am consciousness and experiencing a slowing of time and heartbeat, the iWatch is measuring an increase in heart rate! The HRV can get rather wonky and large as well. This perception of space and time becoming distorted (I meditate mostly with eyes open) seems to occur more often the more I practice. After deep retreats, the phenomena can lead to strange occurrences around feeling or seeing future and past events as converging or simultaneously occurring. This recent article https://boingboing.net/2022/08/17/is-precognition-real.html aligns with what I have experienced about these time distortions. The characteristics and phenomena that enhance precognition seem to relate to deep meditative practice. What have you experienced in your practice around time and space distortion, and has this led to any precognition experiences, as mentioned in this article? What does the Buddhist philosophy in different traditions say about time itself? Does time exist? If so, how do we experientially know this? There appears just to be a never-ending change of state. Here and now seems always to be here and now, although how spacious that here and now "feels" does change.

Is it important to have a traditional understanding of Buddhism or is avoiding so called "heresies" enough to make sure you are not distorting, undermining etc., the dharma? Take the idea of an afterlife. > Religious and spiritual traditions throughout history have explained that death is not the end of life but that some part of us, perhaps all of us, somehow carries on. > Buddhism is no exception to this. It is undeniable that the historical Buddha accepted the idea of rebirth. He spoke of rebirth and frequently described, sometimes in considerable detail, how actions committed in this life determine the form of existence in a future world. He also spoke of enlightenment in terms of how many times one must be reborn before one will be freed from the cycle of birth and death. Although there are instances in his discourses (the Kalamasutta, for example) where he says that the practice of dharma is meaningful, whether you believe in a hereafter or not, the overwhelming mass of evidence does not suggest that he held an agnostic position himself. https://tricycle.org/magazine/rebirth-case-buddhist-agnosticism/ I personally believe that we do experience the karmic result of this life, and that the next life is impermanent, illusory, but for whatever reason (mostly that accounts of past lives don't convince me) I don't think anyone experiences full rebirth as a new life. This is not traditional Buddhism. But as far as I know it is still a form of Buddhism and not a heresy. This is not Ucchedavada or the Senika heresy, I think, despite seeming possibly like either. To an extent, it doesn't matter at all if you're not part of a church or pushing your idiosyncratic beliefs down anyone's throat, but is it dangerous, for you or anyone else?

In the Noble Eight Fold path, the practices which are said to be done often have a suffix of 'right' to them. My question is, on what basis is this 'right' found? Could a logical explanation be given?