Buddhism originated in India but from what I understand it's not very big in India and instead more popular in Eastern Asia in countries like Japan, Vietnam, China etc.

I know a person who is fairly expert on Dhamma and in early times practised well; meditating up to 10 hours per day. But today this person spends at least five hours per day doing physical rehabilitation due to an unfortunate injury. Yet this person is constantly harassed by a troll monk who insists this rehabilitating person become a monk. While this person spends 5 hours per day doing rehabilitation, this monk appears to spend 5 hours per day trolling the internet rather than practising meditation. For example, sometimes when this person wants to sit, their body must walk. Other times, when this person wants to walk, their body must sit. Sometimes they want to quietly breathe, but the body may cough (which would disturb other monks). What happens to the abusive monk whose actions can cause distress & trauma (to a similar fool)? Are there any suttas about what happens to evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe?

Should we believe we have no enlightenment whatsoever? I mean, acting like you're the Dalai Lama, famous sage or future Buddha may well come off as offensive and stupid. But if we authentically believe we are identical to a Buddha, just somewhat unrealised, is that as insane and arrogant? If you are going to answer "that's what you realise" then please provide a reference point.

> 22. Because the continuity of the aggregates is similar to the light of a lamp, therefore the very existence or non-existence of an end is > unreasonable. https://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.php/en/verses-from-the-center Is it because the action of the lamp is contained in light, so we cannot conceive of its end, and its end neither exists nor doesn't (same as a four sided triangle: it's a nonsense phrase). ---------- Before his dedication (30), Nagarjuna concludes > 29. And because all things are empty, about what and in whom do views such as that of permanence spring forth? Does that mean enlightenment is not a view, but the impossibility of a view about an end: rejecting the idea that things either end or do not. If an end is inconceivable then so is 'permanence', so the opposite of an end is not "permanence" but buddha-nature.

What is the best thing in life, according to a Buddha, excluding nirvana? I have no idea. As a goal, things to fill your life with. And why?

> When we speak of an individual having a property we nominalize the > predicate expressing the property we take to be constitutive and > ascribe the instantiating properties to the individual thus created. > There is, however, no deep ontological reason why we could not change > our view of what the constitutive and what the instantiating > properties are, and thereby describe the very same situation in terms > of different individuals and properties. But if we accept this picture > of ontology it is evident that we are not obliged to infer the > existence of a substratum or underlying individual from the existence > of a quality. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/ I take this to mean that the subject and predicate are reversible. So a round apple is both an apple that is round, and a round shape that is an apple. Does it mean then the relation of being "in" another thing is also symmetrical? If a patch of red is in my visual field, then my visual field is inside that red. 1. Surely an effect is in the action of a cause: then the action of a cause is in its effect. This sounds like 'no causation', and how I read Nagarjuna. 2. Whatever is essentially in the world can only end if the world does, because the world is also essentially in it. This seems to me to be the meaning of 'rebirth'. I *think* it's a mereological question, about parts and wholes: whether or not everything is - in reality - a part of everything else. > Concerning the antisymmetry postulate (18) [Two distinct things cannot be part of each other], the picture is even more complex. For one thing, some authors maintain that the relationship between an object and the stuff it is made of provides a perfectly ordinary counterexample of the antisymmetry of parthood... Sanford (1993: 222) refers to Borges's Aleph as a case in point: “I > saw the earth in the Aleph and in the earth the Aleph once more and > the earth in the Aleph …”. In this case, a plausible reply is simply > that fiction delivers no guidance to conceptual investigations: > conceivability may well be a guide to possibility, but literary > fantasy is by itself no evidence of conceivability (van Inwagen 1993: > 229). Perhaps the same could be said of Fazang's Jeweled Net of Indra, > in which each jewel has every other jewel as part (Jones 2012). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

I suddenly thought of a question... If one often feels unhappy, stress, uncontented, negativity, does it mean this person has bad karma? Is there a way to improve the situation so that the person can be calmer, and happy? TIA!

I am interested in learning about Buddhism. But I want to learn it from teachings of Buddha or other those texts which have not disinformed over the course of history. For example , if you read the book: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/History_Of_Hindu_Imperialism.html?id=51dWPgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y you will come to know how Hindu priestly caste ( Brahmins) were keen to do harm Buddhism as they were against equality. I think there is a possibility disinformation might have added in buddist texts in other regions of the world also. > So, can you please tell which text about buddhism contains least amount of disinformation and are best to learn about buddhism for a beginner? I shall be really thankful!

I have run into a mental trap about desire on the Buddhist path. I know desire is good if it is wholesome, ie say desire for enlightenment and etc. Yet what about a desire for the mastery of a skill such as being a musician or artist, and what about wanting in part that mastery for something as a career? The desire to make a enjoyable living seems ok but is it at odds especially if you want it because there is an aversion to other work that one finds disheartening and unfulfilling? Thank you.

I meditate a few years now. Since 3 months circa 1h at 4 days a week. Sometimes I pause due to "worldly" obligations. Today I started again after a 2 weeks pause. I experience a better ability to "get into the flow". I often made the experience, that pausing meditation can "level up" the experience. Sorry for the possibly not appropriate words. I have to say, that between these meditation phases I learn Dharma like listening to Shantideva "Way of a Bodhisattva" or sth. else. And I do mostly Shamata. Do you experience sth. similar? Is there a statement of the Buddha about the value of pausing meditation?

> A soul from a previous generation is reincarnated in a later > generation into a specific set of circumstances which are tailored to > engineer a rectification of a previous sin Are there instances in Buddhist scripture or history where there is a confirmation of the above statement as being typical, or being the purpose, of reincarnation? Don't know if sin prefigures in Buddhist thought or has connections to reincarnation, but the source of the quote above is drawn from Judaism and Kabbalah's conceptualization of reincarnation, which they do relate to sin.

I lost my father when I was a kid. Can I be reborn with the same father? I didn't know him well, as I was very young, but from people's words, he was a great man, and I'm dying to know him, to love and to feel him, and I'm dying that he can't take me down the aisle and watch me grow. Can I be with him again and fulfill my dream? Growing up and not having a father has caused me to have tons of troubles and complexes. What was this punishment for? Sometimes I think God didn't like me and I was too cruel in my life.

SN 12.35 says: > “Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “Bhikkhu, whether one > says, ‘What now is aging-and-death, and for whom is there this > aging-and-death?’ or whether one says, ‘Aging-and-death is one thing, > the one for whom there is this aging-and-death is another’—both these > assertions are identical in meaning; they differ only in the phrasing. Why are the following two statements identical in meaning: 1. What now is aging-and-death, and for whom is there this aging-and-death?’ 2. ‘Aging-and-death is one thing, the one for whom there is this aging-and-death is another’

Mindfulness requires being non judgemental, but what should one do when the work requires judgement where a standard needs maintained? Is there a form of objective judgement that that can be used like non judgment? I realize it's rather paradoxical but it seems analogous to that an apriori standard could be met without judgement? Or perhaps I am crazy.

I am following a guy online who claims to be enlightened. Everything about him is fine and he seems genuine and all but for one reason that he says he has no recollection of his past lives. Is this possible? Also, on similar lines, if one gets enlightened will he have access to whatever information he wants. Not an all-knowing one, but just that which he needs or wills.

Some months back I had written a comment (*not able to find it atm*) to a post in BSE which resonated with the following explanation of Enlightenment by Osho, that ' *Enlightenment is consciousness conscious of itself* '. But it was not taken well. The following is taken from his book, The Last Testament. I am very much in tune with this particular explanation and my practice also more or less depends on this. I just want to know is this accepted by any branch of Buddhism, whether Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana. > First, watch your actions of the body. > > Second, watch your actions of the mind: thoughts, imaginations. > > Third, watch your actions of the heart: feelings, love, hate, moods, sadness, happiness. > And if you can succeed in watching all these three, and as your witnessing grows deeper and deeper, a moment comes that there is only witnessing but nothing to witness. > > The mind is empty, the heart is empty, the body is relaxed. **In that moment happens something like a quantum leap. Your whole witnessing jumps upon itself. It witnesses itself, because there is nothing else to witness. And this is the revolution which I call enlightenment, self-realization.** Or you can give it any name, but this is the ultimate experience of bliss. You cannot go beyond it. ****Please no personal attacks on Osho, I consider him as a genuine enlightened master.***

I have seen some suttas where the Buddha addressed Rahula. Are there suttas which explicitly state that Rahula was the Buddha's son, or does this come from the commentary?

Say one dwells somewhere, somehow, enjoys or feeds on certain hospitality, at which occasion, at which point, it would be proper to leave and no more return? So what's the time? Is time running out? Koan-cracks also welcome!

Based on a real situation, I have come across some people who claim to be Sotapanna and Sakadaagaami.. When i have gotten angry or upset about something they said or did, i was told i am committing Aarya Upavaada. This is nothing to do with Dhamma but personal issues such as relationships and finances. I am told if i get angry or upset with them, i am still committing Aarya Upavaada as the people involved are Aarya. With Sutta references, could someone tell me if this is indeed Aarya Upavaada and what actually constitutes Aarya Upavaada?

Would there be a conflict if I were to practice meditation from various schools? For instance mahasi insight meditation, Tibetan Samantha meditation, as long as the skills are kept separate?