How did the practice of one in-training (*sekha*) differ so that he became one attained-to-view as opposed to one liberated-by-faith and vice versa? In MN 70 the Buddha describes them like so: > And what person is attained to view? It’s a person who doesn’t have > direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations that are > formless, transcending form. Nevertheless, having seen with wisdom, > some of their defilements have come to an end. And they have clearly > seen and clearly contemplated with wisdom the teaching and training > proclaimed by the Realized One. This person is called attained to > view. I say that this mendicant also still has work to do with > diligence. Why is that? Thinking: ‘Hopefully this venerable will > frequent appropriate lodgings, associate with good friends, and > control their faculties. Then they might realize the supreme > culmination of the spiritual path in this very life, and live having > achieved with their own insight the goal for which gentlemen rightly > go forth from the lay life to homelessness.’ Seeing this fruit of > diligence for this mendicant, I say that they still have work to do > with diligence. And what person is freed by faith? It’s a person who > doesn’t have direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations > that are formless, transcending form. Nevertheless, having seen with > wisdom, some of their defilements have come to an end. And their faith > is settled, rooted, and planted in the Realized One. This person is > called freed by faith. I say that this mendicant also still has work > to do with diligence. Why is that? Thinking: ‘Hopefully this venerable > will frequent appropriate lodgings, associate with good friends, and > control their faculties. Then they might realize the supreme > culmination of the spiritual path in this very life, and live having > achieved with their own insight the goal for which gentlemen rightly > go forth from the lay life to homelessness.’ Seeing this fruit of > diligence for this mendicant, I say that they still have work to do > with diligence.

The following sutta quote suggests that under the stated conditions, an Arahant should forcibly remain an unwanted burden or guest to a specific individual caretaker, even if sent away (or dismissed - according to Ven. Suddhaso's translation). Is this really the case? If that specific individual caretaker is unable to care for that Arahant any more due to personal circumstances e.g. due to financial reasons or family reasons or health reasons, what should he do? > Take another case of a mendicant who lives supported by an individual. > As they do so, their mindfulness becomes established, their mind > becomes immersed in samādhi, their defilements come to an end, and > they arrive at the supreme sanctuary. And the necessities of life that > a renunciate requires—robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and > supplies for the sick—are easy to come by. That mendicant should > reflect: ‘While living supported by this person, my mindfulness > becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come > by.’ That mendicant should follow that person for the rest of their > life. **They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away**.” > MN 17 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

How do I become a Saddhanussari or Dhammanussari and how do I know if I have attained it? I think that the question above is clear enough. Just to add I have read their descriptions in the Suttas but from them, the answer to these questions are still unclear. He describes them as such: MN 70 > And what person is a **follower of the teachings** (**dhammanussari**)? It’s a person who > doesn’t have direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations > that are formless, transcending form. Nevertheless, having seen with > wisdom, some of their defilements have come to an end. And they accept > the teachings proclaimed by the Realized One after considering them > with a degree of wisdom. And they have the following qualities: the > faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom. This > person is called a follower of the teachings. I say that this > mendicant also still has work to do with diligence. Why is that? > Thinking: ‘Hopefully this venerable will frequent appropriate > lodgings, associate with good friends, and control their faculties. > Then they might realize the supreme culmination of the spiritual path > in this very life, and live having achieved with their own insight the > goal for which gentlemen rightly go forth from the lay life to > homelessness.’ Seeing this fruit of diligence for this mendicant, I > say that they still have work to do with diligence. > >And what person is > a **follower by faith** (**saddhanussari**)? It’s a person who doesn’t have direct meditative > experience of the peaceful liberations that are formless, transcending > form. Nevertheless, having seen with wisdom, some of their defilements > have come to an end. And they have a degree of faith and love for the > Realized One. And they have the following qualities: the faculties of > faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom. This person is > called a follower by faith. I say that this mendicant also still has > work to do with diligence. Why is that? Thinking: ‘Hopefully this > venerable will frequent appropriate lodgings, associate with good > friends, and control their faculties. Then they might realize the > supreme culmination of the spiritual path in this very life, and live > having achieved with their own insight the goal for which gentlemen > rightly go forth from the lay life to homelessness.’ Seeing this fruit > of diligence for this mendicant, I say that they still have work to do > with diligence. How does one 'accept the teachings proclaimed by the Realized One after considering them with a degree of wisdom.'? Or 'have a degree of faith and love for the Realized One'? And how does one know that one has fulfilled this?

My husband’s parents are very abusive now and in the past. Recently they’ve started bringing me into the mix, and so my husband decided to cut them out of our lives. They still text me to curse our marriage and say awful things about both of us. I know that filial piety is very important, but what if it’s an abusive situation? Does Buddhism teach anything about this?

Carpe Diem or Memento Mori? Which of these two approaches did the Buddha recommend for your benefit?

I have read that the Stream Enterer needs to develop all the 5 faculties order to become enlightened. One of these facilities is faith. It is also said that they are beyond skeptical doubt of the Buddha's teachings and know for themselves the way out of suffering as they have the right view. Since they have seen the Buddhas teaching for themselves then, why do they need to develop faith in it? You only would need to trust someones word if you cannot verify their claims for oneself. I understand then why a Putthujana would need faith. So I am wondering maybe a) I am wrong in my understanding of what Saddha means... if so what is it and how why do I need to cultivate it or b) I am wrong in my understanding of what a sotapanna is and he is still needing to verify certain things. Can some one affirm which of these two are right? Linked Discourses 48.56 6. The Boar’s Cave Grounded >“Mendicants, when a mendicant is grounded in one thing the five faculties become developed, well developed. What one thing? Diligence. And what is diligence? It’s when a mendicant looks after their mind when it comes to defilements and things that stimulate defilements. As they do so the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom are fully developed. That’s how when a mendicant is grounded in one thing the five faculties become developed, well developed.” Thanks

By "conventional" I think those are the things created by human conventions, that are all imaginary. By "conditioned" I think those are things that came from another thing or things. Do these terms have the same meaning in the Buddha's teaching?

The word "blameless" is often used in suttas: https://www.google.com/search?q=blameless%20site%3Aaccesstoinsight.org [AN 4.62](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.062.than.html) suggests it's highly good: > Seeing clearly — the wise one — > he knows both sides: > that these are not worth one sixteenth-sixteenth > of the bliss of blamelessness. - Is there doctrine about it, or do people just already know and agree on what it means? - Is it given as an ideal for monks and for lay-people? - What is its opposite -- i.e. "blame" -- who does the blaming? - Is it to do with self-reproach? Or with blaming other people, ...? - Is it identical to "absence of remorse", which [AN 11.1](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html) explains is the purpose of skillful virtue? - What about "irresponsible" -- behaving badly, not accepting blame, even blaming others instead? - Does someone know correctly whether and when their life is blameless, or might they be self-deluded? - What about the Lokavipatti Sutta [AN 8.6](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html) -- does that say that "desirable things" (e.g. "blamelessness" in this context) shouldn't charm the mind, and its opposite shouldn't be resisted? Is blame and blamelessness just another of the worldly winds?

Looking at the [Lists of fetters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetter_(Buddhism)#Lists_of_fetters) I see "conceit" and "identity view" listed separately ... and the [four stages of enlightenment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment) say that identity view will be abandoned (in the first stage) before conceit (in the fourth stage). Wikipedia article about [Conceit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81na) includes, > There is conceit or pride when we consider ourselves important. How is it that "conceit" could continue after "identity view" has been abandoned?

How could one come, if any experiances and understanding, to the idea that one in Jhana isn't able to walk, not to speak of to listen and talk? Maybe there is a different between sitting, standing, walking, lying down? And what did the Sublime Buddha taught and tell about it? What would be the effect on Satipatthana is such ideas would be correct? Bond to sit, 7 days, weeks, month, years... or how would a living one quick react? And refined: would an on-house-holder be able to undertake a jhanic walk-about? Could a wanderer of other sects, say one on the Jakobs-path gain 'accidently' Jhana while developing the Brahma-Viharas?

Sometimes, gurus will perform empowerment ceremonies or give lung in-person (or more recently, online) to recite a certain mantra or practice a certain deity. Sometimes this comes with samaya vows. What exactly is empowerment & lung? It is said that reciting certain mantra without empowerment is ineffective, possibly even useless. It seems that empowerment 'activates' certain aspects in the practitioner that makes the mantra 'useful'. I've heard the analogy is driving a car without fuel & driving one with fuel to describe the difference between mantra without & with empowerment. What is it about the empowerment that makes the mantra useful? What is the mechanics of this, how does this happen?

Are the titles “lama” and “rinpoche”, referring to a Buddhist teacher or leader, titles that are granted? Or are they titles that someone can give themselves? Or both? By “granted” I mean they require someone to have some form of formal qualifications (as how US pastors are required to have a bachelors degree); religious training (similar to Catholic priests going to a seminary); or backing of a community (general consensus that this person is worthy of the title, regardless of whether they were formally trained or self-taught). By “give themselves” I mean, can they refer to a person who teaches and guides others how to practice forms of Buddhism, either formally or informally, but independently of an institution? Thanks.

I won't go into details, but I am dealing with horrible guilt and shame over cruel acts I have committed in the past. It feels like I am now come to terms with the significance of these actions, and seeing the ripening of this accumulated negative karma into a hellish mental state. I had previously compartmentalized what I did and not fully engaged with its reality, but a recent experience caused me to realize that I can't fool myself or cut off parts of myself. This is also in the context of developing my metta and other brahmaviharas, and better understanding how truly blameless and blissful these states are and how sick and painful it was to commit cruelty. I am willing to open and be accepting of my current suffering because it is the natural consequence of what I did. I also truly believe that I understand how incredibly foolish and unskillful I was in the past and am able to commit to restraining from that behavior in the future, and feel confident that I will be able to. I know that for lay Buddhists there is not the same emphasis on sin and confession as in Christianity, and that the most important thing is to accept responsibility and guilt for my past actions and their karmic repercussions, and to vow to act skillfully in the future. However, what I am struggling with is to know whether to confess to people close to me, or even just to my therapist, because it feels so painful and alienating to have done these things and essentially "gotten away with them." Nobody knows that I had this tendency in the past. It is not something that I would go to jail for now, and while I caused suffering I don't believe I caused any irreparable damage other than to my own heart. But if I told people close to me it would change the way that they see me, and in the process could cause more suffering to the people I love and who trust and depend on me. It sickens my heart to think of keeping this secret until my death, but it also sickens me to think of the destruction that I could cause by telling my loved ones. I would deeply appreciate any thoughts or guidance.

I read the following comment on the secular internet in relation to the closing paragraphs of DN 2, where a King or layperson made an admission of a moral transgression/sin to the Buddha: > Yes that confession is especially by and to monks -- "the discipline" > as you quoted it is the Vinaya. Does the Pali word "vinaya" in the suttas always refer to the Vinaya Piṭaka, i.e., the Pāṭimokkha rules made exclusively for monks & nuns?

I thought bhikkhus were to not to be involved with entertainment. Thank you in advance.

Are they same? What is the relation between kilesa and sankhara? Is it that, kilesa are tendency to build new sankhara? Which gets cleared first?

Is belief in karma due to eternalism completely useless? I do not know why those without self view believe in karma, but belief in karma is said to be useful, so does it matter if your metaphysics turns out to be mistaken? In which case, is eternalism a skilful means? More generally, I don't understand why lack of self view on paper, as an abstract belief you assent to, is very interesting or helpful. After-all, few people today believe in a soul, even a spirit.

Saṁyutta Nikāya (SN) 15.3 when translated by Ven. Sujato says: > Transmigration (samsara) has no known beginning. No first point is > found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by > ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time **you** have > undergone suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries. > This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, > and freed regarding all conditions. Why are suttas similar to the above in Chapter 15 of the SN not 'Eternalism'?

Bhikkhu Sujato's translation of SN 15.3: > As we understand the Buddha’s teaching, the flow of tears we’ve shed > while roaming and transmigrating is more than the water in the four > oceans. Where else in the suttas did the Buddha teach the above about "the flow of tears"? If the above is not taught elsewhere, does it conform with the Four Great Standards mentioned in DN 16?

Did the Buddha's teachings change over time during his life? In the Buddha's decades long work, did he change or redevelop his teachings? Which ones?