>If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not. If he wants—in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not—cutting himself off from both, he remains equanimous, alert, & mindful. Or he may enter & remain in the beautiful liberation. > [SN 46.54](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn46/sn46.054.than.html) Could someone explain what all this loathsome and unloathsome business is?

Vesak Day is coming, some monastery offering a baby bathing during the event. What is the story behind about this? Is it appropriate?

As e.g. if somebody harms you, you don't feel because you know that the people is only harming this body, that is just a pile of cells, and the people is incapable to harm your mind. If yes, do have some teachings to contemplate the separation of mind and body, preferably some mindfulness technique?

> In the same way, my friend, purity in terms of virtue is simply for the sake of purity in terms of mind. Purity in terms of mind is simply for the sake of purity in terms of view. Purity in terms of view is simply for the sake of purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity. Purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision is simply for the sake of total Unbinding through lack of clinging. > [MN 24](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.024.than.html) Why is the purification of by overcoming doubt i.e purification leading to Stream Entry not already the doing the next two of the purifications subsequent to it? (excluding the purification leading to Nibāna without clinging). Why are those other two purifications needed before stream entry? Surely if one has purified any one of these three it would imply the the other two?

Since the Buddha said everything is impermanent (*anicca*) '*yan kinci samudaya dhammam sabban tam nirodha dhammam*' and ignorance (*avijja*) is something, won't it be the case that ignorance (*avijja*) will cease for everyone (ordinary folk (*puthujanas*) and those-in-training (*sekhas*) alike) eventually? The Buddha did say that ignorance (*avijja*) is impermanent (*anicca*) actually. >*jarāmaraṇaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ saṅkhataṃ paṭiccasamuppannaṃ khayadhammaṃ vayadhammaṃ virāgadhammaṃ nirodhadhammaṃ. jāti, bhikkhave, aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā. bhavo, bhikkhave, anicco saṅkhato paṭiccasamuppanno khayadhammo vayadhammo virāgadhammo nirodhadhammo. upādānaṃ bhikkhave…pe…. taṇhā, bhikkhave… vedanā, bhikkhave… phasso, bhikkhave… saḷāyatanaṃ, bhikkhave… nāmarūpaṃ, bhikkhave… viññāṇaṃ , bhikkhave… saṅkhārā, bhikkhave… avijjā, bhikkhave, aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā.* > >Ageing-&-death, bhikkhus, is impermanent, determined, dependently arisen, its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease. Birth, bhikkhus, is impermanent, determined, dependently arisen, its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease. Being, bhikkhus, is impermanent, determined, dependently arisen, its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease. Assuming, bhikkhus… Craving, bhikkhus… Feeling, bhikkhus… Pressure, bhikkhus… The six domains, bhikkhus… Name-&-matter, bhikkhus… Consciousness, bhikkhus… Determinations, bhikkhus… Ignorance, bhikkhus, is impermanent, determined, dependently arisen, its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease. > > paccayasuttaṃ (SN 12.20)

So correct me if im wrong samatha and vipassna are the goals of all forms of meditation. Anapanasati can be either for the goal of samatha or vipassana (or both). Vipassana is very cognitive, contemplative, and samatha is often the exact opposite, one pointed focus? Im curious how it works. How does it connect to doctrines of tanha and clinging? Is the samatha concentration lead to deep state of non-reactivity? Like this is how it leads to tremendous results (samatha anapanasati is the meditation used in psychotherapy as just pure stress reduction) . But despite it's results it's not sufficient for the Buddhist path because serious stages of enlightenment require real understanding and insight. And vipassana on the other hand from what i understand is for insight. it doesnt mean tranqulity and mental strenght cant come from it, in fact the true peace and strength does come from understanding eventually, but thats not the point. vipassana on death is generally not that happy go lucky an experience... So while insufficent samatha is a good powerful tool for overcoming barriers? If someone is consumed by hatred or anger or anxiety or impatience and they are too frenzied to really practice so it would be good to tranquilize them first? If I'm dealing with a lot of stress samatha would be the place to go? Tell me if everything I've described is correct. :) thanks

>Take another case of a mendicant who lives close by a jungle thicket. 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. But the necessities of life that a renunciate requires—robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick—are hard to come by. That mendicant should reflect: >‘While living close by this jungle thicket, my mindfulness becomes established … But the necessities of life are hard to come by. But I didn’t go forth from the lay life to homelessness for the sake of a robe, almsfood, lodgings, or medicines and supplies for the sick. Moreover, while living close by this jungle thicket, my mindfulness becomes established …’ After appraisal, that mendicant should stay in that jungle thicket; they shouldn’t leave. Take another case of a mendicant who lives close by a jungle thicket. Their mindfulness becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come by. That mendicant should reflect: ‘While living close by this jungle thicket, my mindfulness becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come by.’ **That mendicant should stay in that jungle thicket for the rest of their life; they shouldn’t leave.** > MN 17 Am I interpreting this correctly in saying that for an Arahant, it is forbidden for him to leave the place where he became enlightened? Also, if so, how large is the area around this spot, where one can go to without breaking this rule?

The Buddha in this sutta describes the gradual training of a Bhikkhu step by step. I have a difficulty understanding some of the steps in precise detail because of the statement at the end of most of the steps pescribed: 'Bhikkhus I inform you, I declare to you: you who seek the recluse status, do not fall short of the goal of recluseship while there is more to be done'. I am not sure how the step of purifying conduct and livelihood in the way he describes it does not the imply restraint of the senses from all the way up to the abandoning of the hinderances i.e how can one do it without doing the rest? Same with restraint of the senses until the abandoning of the hinderances and mindfulness and full awareness until the latter. So Why is it then that in these three steps one is not cultivating any of the other steps subsequent to it?

According to the Suttas, how do I practice Vipassana and how do practice samatha? Are these practices differentiated or not?

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?