Does the relinquishing of views prohibit belief in the permanence of buddha nature? > I prostrate to Gautama, who, out of loving compassion, taught the > excellent Dharma in order to relinquish all views. The dedication to Nagarjuna'a MMK > In the opening of the Buddha nature book of Sbobogenzo, Dogen quotes > the following passage from the Nirvana Sutra: — H > Qnai no sbujo wa > kotogotoku bussbdoyusu; Nyorai v>ajdjuniibite benyaku arukoto natbi), > “All sentient beings without exception have the Buddha nature: > Tatbdgata (Buddha) is permanent with no change at all.”8 This well > expresses the fundamental standpoint of Mahayana Buddhism. In the > passage two important themes are emphasized: “All sentient beings have > the Buddha nature,” and “Tathagata abides forever without change.” > These two themes are inseparable from one another. Against this > traditional reading, Dogen dares to read as follows... Masao Abe, Dogen on Buddha Nature.

**Let's go through the logic first. The following statements are suppositions that must be chronologically accepted.** 1) Matter is neither created nor destroyed. 2) Matter is made up of atoms. 3) I am made up of atoms. 4) I am matter. 5) Therefore, I cannot be created nor destroyed. **Now here's the philosophical (or perhaps, ideological) part:** With respect to statements 3-5 above, what defines "I"? Am (or Is) "I" the atoms that compose my form or am (or is) "I" the identity that I have created for myself? If "I" am my atoms, then when "I" die, I will continue to exist because my atoms will, albeit in a different form - a different incarnation hence, *reincarnation*. If "I" am my identity, then when "I" die, I will cease to exist. I think the former highlights a type of belief common in eastern philosophy (we are the universe) whereas the latter is common is western philosophy (We live in the universe, or we observe the universe). Perhaps one's identity is linked with their atomic structure (i.e., the chemical processes of the brain)? Do you think my reasoning is sound? Edit: to make it clear, I am supporting the idea that if one believes that "I" is based on the existence of atoms, then reincarnation is in fact real.

How do Buddhists who believe in a non momentary conventional self during life account for karma without enlightenment? Specifically, what happens to "my" karma when I die, if I am not enlightened and my karma has not been exhausted? I'm not asking how to think of cause and result if the lack of self identity extends from moment to moment in this life, because then "my" karma would face a similar obstacle in this life (there being no personal identity from moment to moment means it cannot be "my" karma at all). Clearly most historical Buddhists believed that karma did not just exist in the suffering I cause others, but that what comes around goes around. So if my life does not, automatically without enlightenment, generate a new one, why doesn't "my" death cut off that cycle?

So e.g. kensho is usually thought of as beginning realisation in zazen, and is into our true nature as Buddhas. Does enlightenment in all teachings amount to a progressively deeper realisation that I am already enlightened, or is that only true in hongaku theory? Is it the case in any / all Theravada Buddhism, in Tibetan Buddhism, etc.? Not asking about gradual / sudden polarities, or about any other scheme to think about enlightenment, only whether **every single enlightenment we can have in Buddhism is *of our intrinsic enlightenment***. ---------- I seem to be attracted a lot of off topic answers about whether anyone say they themselves are enlightened. I have confirmed through google that the Buddha did say "I am to be enlightened", at least, and Huineng did say "I am enlightened". Also in Mahayana sutras he claims "The Tathgata... chants these words: I am the Tathagata (etc.)". Isn't the "conceit of I am" a specific thing, the idea that I will either exist forever or be annihilated, that I am the same from moment to moment, or that anything can truly belong to me until I am a Buddha? > Conceit is developed with regard to one's possessions when there is > misconception that they are enduring and permanent. The material qualities of eyes, ears, visible forms, are wrongly held to be permanent and consequently vanity is built round them.

Should a lay Buddhist teach the Dhamma in a dhamma centre? Can a lay person teach just as a monk does? If so, are there any differences (e.g., should they sit on a different level, should the audience pay respect in a different way, etc.)?

Throughout the Pali Canon you can find instances where the Buddha appears to engage in harsh speech that seems to be contrary to the noble eighfold path. There are several important points/possibilities to understand first: 1. It may just be the appearance of harsh speech, and not actually contrary to the path. 2. My understanding of harsh speech may be too gentle compared to what the Buddha intended, and rather the way he engages in what seems to be 'harsh speech' is the norm (or limit) of gentle speech. 3. The Suttas may be fabricated and inauthentic. 4. The Sutta in question may be authentic and the speech may be harsh, yet the Tathagata may be engaging in harsh speech because he knows the limits of all actions and cannot be reckoned by Karma. There are (at least) several Sutta instances of the Buddha engaging in what would seem to me to be harsh speech. These examples are not common and they are hard to find without re-reading sections of the Pali Canon. Here is one that I remember off the top of my head: > "Of whom do you know, foolish man, that I have taught to him the teaching in that manner? Did I not, foolish man, speak in many ways of those obstructive things that they are obstructions indeed, and that they necessarily obstruct him who pursues them? Sense desires, so I have said, bring little enjoyment, and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. Sense desires are like bare bones, have I said; they are like a lump of flesh... they are like a snake's head, have I said. They bring much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. But you, O foolish man, have misrepresented us by what you personally have wrongly grasped. You have undermined your own (future) and have created much demerit. This, foolish man, will bring you much harm and suffering for a long time." > >Then the Blessed One addressed the monks thus: "What do you think, O monks: has that monk Ari.t.tha, formerly of the vulture killers, produced any spark (of understanding) in this teaching and discipline?" — "How should that be, Lord? Certainly not, O Lord." > >After these words the monk Ari.t.tha, formerly of the vulture killers, sat silent, confused, with his shoulders drooping and his head bent, brooding and incapable of making a rejoinder. **The Discourse on the Snake Simile** Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22) To me the tone of the speech is an example of harsh speech. If I were to use this kind of speech in my day-to-day life I would consider myself not living up to the standard of Right Speech as per the Noble Eightfold Path. I understand, however, that the Buddha controls his speech masterfully. In that case, how did this sort of speech come to be? There is no clause in 'Right Speech' that allows us to engage in harsh speech for the greater good - for example rebuking a monk harshly. That being said, do not mistake this for casting doubt on the Buddha. I consider him a good example of what everyone should act like and his control of virtue, faculties, and activities is something everyone should strive for. Also, there are several more examples. I have read through chunks of the Pali Canon and there are other Suttas where the Buddha engages in speech I would again consider a violation of Right Speech (not that I have a perfect record of Right Speech). My question is why? Why not rebuke without harshness and adhere perfectly to gentleness?

Edit 2: It is really hard to find a corresponding word to 功德 in English... Maybe I should abandon using the Sanskrit word guṇa... And consider 功德 and guṇa as "**qualities that leads to better existence in samsara or liberation or buddhahood**". --- I am recently considering a question, and thus I found that I have difficulties understanding what is **guṇa/功德**. The question is: If a person is with firm good heart (which may even be renunciation or bodhicitta), but unknowingly serves and follows unjust masters, does one still generate **guṇa/功德**? That is, approaching better existence in samsara or even liberation or buddhahood? Note: I have known that: a person with deep firm **renunciation** will eventually go further and further on **liberation path** and finally attain **Arhat**; a person with deep firm **bodhicitta** will eventually go further and further on **bodhisattva path** and finally attain **Buddhahood**. But the question that I have difficulties with involves the concept of **guṇa/功德**. So I have spend days thinking about it but I still failed to reason out an answer. --- Edit 1: Here is the meaning of **guṇa/功德** from .

I'm well aware that there are many different types of Buddhism, so I'm looking for the fortune-cookie sized description of the various kinds of induction/process/rituals/ceremony involved for the lay follower.

I read the following (here) on the internet: > Not able to take on the Jīva (stand/robe of the Arahats, eg. right view, leaving home), what should/can a house/stand-maintainer expect to validate holy in his ways? The Pali suttas say: > And what, bhikkhus, are the fruits of the holy life? The fruit of > stream-entry, the fruit of once-returning, the fruit of nonreturning, > the fruit of arahantship. These are called the fruits of the holy > life. SN 45.39 The Pali suttas also refer to householders reaching stream-entry, once-returning & non-returning. Therefore, can a layperson/householder live the Holy Life (Brahmacariya) according to the Lord Buddha?

I read SN 55.24 (quoted below) and it says Sarakani became a stream enterer despite having an alcohol drinking habit, because he undertook the training before he died. What does the sutta really mean? Does it mean he gave up alcohol and undertook the training, then became a stream enterer? The sutta isn't very clear on whether Sarakani gave up alcohol. Did he give it up? Or not? > Now at that time Sarakāni the Sakyan had passed away. The Buddha > declared that he was a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the > underworld, bound for awakening. > > At that, several Sakyans came together complaining, grumbling, and > objecting, “It’s incredible, it’s amazing! Who can’t become a > stream-enterer these days? For the Buddha even declared Sarakāni to be > a stream-enterer after he passed away. Sarakāni was too weak for the > training; he used to drink alcohol.”

I am specifically interested in the attitude of Theravadan Buddhism toward homosexuality (if it has one at all.) I don't recall ever seeing any references to homosexuality in the suttas...I do recall seeing some non-normative sexual activity discussed in the Vinaya (or its commentary) but am not as familiar with the Vinaya. If anyone can speak to the Vinaya on this topic that would be helpful. It seems right to assume that homosexual activity would not be treated any differently than heterosexual activity, but the fact that I do not recall seeing it ever discussed, along with general cultural attitudes expressed (e.g., statements by the Buddha (as I recall) that there is nothing more attractive to a man than a woman and vice versa) makes me wonder if I am missing something. Also, if anyone has any contextual information about the culture in India at that time that would point to why there would be no discussion of homosexuality--e.g., it was absent--that would be helpful.

I've received empowerment for Seven Line Prayer & have been practicing it consistently ever since. Once in a while, a thought arises that I would like to practice other mantras for 'worldly situations', e.g. Green Tara when there is a situation of illness & disease Should I concentrate my efforts on a single practice? Or is it beneficial to 'spread out' my practices. My goals are stream-entry as a layperson

My two pet cats recently died in my rental house. Long story short, we sold our old home but we have no where to move yet so we rented a property while our new house is being built. Before I ask my questions I want to thank you guys for taking your time to reading this post 😊. **How can I ensure that my cat spirits go to heaven?** or **How can I bring their spirits to my new home?** I am scared that they will be alone since the current rental price isn't cheap and I am scared that they will wait for me in this house. I just want them to reach heaven. **Can animal spirits go to buddhist heaven?** I am a Theravada buddhist. Also , I am scared that there might be other spirits inside this house, I rarely don't believe in spirits but the rental house is kind of mystery itself. I am scared that those spirits might take my cat, I wish to buddha everyday that their spirits be safe and including hindu gods. **How can I make merits to my cats spirit?** **How can I know if they got the merit?** **How can I transfer the merit to them so they may reach heaven? Are animal spirits allowed to enter heaven?**

I've been training in spirituality for for about 8 years. I used to do formal meditation practice couple of times a day. Now I find that I kind of live my life more in a meditative way. I'm living a quiet life alone currently, not working at the moment and spending most of my time on spiritual and meditative practice, a bit like a monastic life in some ways. I've done reading on various different spiritual traditions, I'd say I've been inspired more by Zen and Taoism than anything else. I'm interested in advice from any spiritual background though really. Some days now I can feel The Way and I follow it, and I'm moving slowly and taking care of myself and I can feel my mind opening up to the world. On those days I feel peace and I know how to move forwards. Some days I'm having trouble letting go of attachment, and it's costing me a lot, of time suffering. For example at the moment, I've told some friends they can stay with me next weekend. I know really that this is not The Way. I take in too much of other people's energy at the moment and I need to be alone. I'm having incredible difficulty ringing them to discuss this, I have some powerful attachment which I can't let go of. It's been about four days that I've been full of internal conflict about this and I'm suffering a lot. I can't digest my food, sleep well or take care of myself properly because of how strong the fight inside of me is to not let go of this attachment. I've tried to talk about it with some people but they all just say, "well maybe it will be nice if your friends come", which hasn't been so helpful. When I try to sit with this inner conflict it's pretty unbearable. To make some progress, I commit to myself that I am going to discuss this with my friends. Then after making this commitment the conflict is bearable enough for me to sit with it for a bit, and I understand something new. Then when I have understood something new, I think 'oh I don't feel so bad now maybe it would be ok for them to come'. My conviction wanes, I don't call, and the cycle repeats. Does anyone have some advice on a spiritual dilemma such as this? I tell myself 'well just ring then', but I've not been able to yet.

I am a 25 years student who has hard time struggling with emotions of anger and revenge. I am taking therapy but I also have decided to become a Buddhist as it is a rational religion. I just wanted to ask what books in Buddhist philosophy will you suggest for understanding and coping emotions of anger and revenge? Thanks!

In "The Longer Advice to Rāhula" the following appears: >Muditaṁ, rāhula, bhāvanaṁ bhāvehi. >Muditañhi te, rāhula, bhāvanaṁ bhāvayato yā arati sā pahīyissati. Bhante Sujato translates this as >Meditate on rejoicing. >For when you meditate on rejoicing any discontent will be given up. Thanissaro Bhikkhu: > “Develop the meditation of empathetic joy. For when you are developing the meditation of empathetic joy, resentment will be abandoned. Bhikkhu Vagga: > "Rāhula, develop meditation on altruistic joy; for when you develop meditation on altruistic joy, any discontent will be abandoned. Can somebody please explain which terms correspond to which here, and how the translation is carried out? Thank you

my question is astronomical observations and results thereof when applied to humans largely differ from astrological influencing. What Buddhists unlike other religious groups should do to solve the problems?

When I talk of sankharas, I mean the pattern of the mind and the way in which the sanna recognizes an object. After prolonged Vipassana and remaining equanimous to the body sensations, Many of my thought patterns have changed and I can practically see a link there. But theoretically I am still unaware as to how remaining equanimous to body sensations has anything to do with the deepest habit patterns of the mind. Now my question is if one stops Vipassana meditation for a sufficient period of time. Is there a way for these sankharas to develop again?

If you do an ordinary job, say anything like a software engineer, or a waiter in a hotel or a farmer, anything, like a 9-5 job. Helping society in whichever peaceful means possible. Does it accumulate good karma? I understand it is a 'Right Livelihood' but does it fill the storehouse of good karma? I understand that 'karma' is dependent on the 'intention', but doing a job has no particular intention other than fulfilling your financial monthly obligations or getting the fodder for the fire to cook dinner. Do we have to be in a position to help millions, like the Dalai Lama or Ajahn Brahma, or just an ordinary guy doing ordinary routine **will also get one in higher realms**?

The bulk of my personality is made up of other people's beliefs about what is lacking. These core beliefs rise up like bubbles and when the attention is placed on them, they burst into a rather coarse type of emptiness. For decades and unbeknownst to me, I have laboured over this negative self-talk which takes on various permutations of not being enough. As I investigate further, it's clear where they came from: implicit messages from society, that no matter what you can do or what you have in material possessions, it is never enough. It's like a sinister melody playing in the background of human consciousness. It is a collective and implicit agreement stationed just beyond the boundaries of normal, every day awareness and generates a perpetual attitude of always becoming yet the suffering it causes goes unquestioned - no link is formed between the thoughts and the actions. There is so much to write about concerning these observations, but it would hurt my head if I continued mainly because I see a barrel of worms inside those karmic propensities. If I look at one person, I see only the manifold accumulation of past actions which determines their current behaviour, but they see an exclusive and individualized entity making unique and specialized decisions. They seem rather clown-like in that respect - their personality lost to the conditions of their circumstances. Then I turn towards myself, and see the same things ticking away, and so I smile and kick up one of my clown shoes. What else is left for me to do. The negative self-talk has little footing these days, but it's what I built my identity with. As humankind's defunct tutorial meanders off it takes with it those biological conditionings: eating food has the same neutrality as shoving a letter into a postbox and women's tits look like what they are: droopy skin with a pointy circle denoting some vague hint of conceptual sensuality. This leaves me thinking curiously about what actually drives me, what is my personality? The Buddha had a personality, for sure. In a sense I know the answer to this question, but I'd have to start writing a curious state of affairs because language seems to do it a disservice. Then, the karmic waves come rolling in, and I've lost all direction. They seem quite annoyed over in this region even throwing obscure items like the kitchen sink.