I read the following on the internet: > what ever deed opposing and harming the Noble truth. What exactly is the Noble Truth? How is the Noble Truth opposed & harmed?

There are two suttas, SN 46.26 about destruction of craving and SN 46.27 about the cessation of craving. I was thinking that destruction of craving is same as cessation of craving but the pali word for each of them is different(destruction of craving - taṇhakkhayāya ;cessation of craving -taṇhānirodhāya) . However I am not clear what difference does it make when we say cessation of craving instead of destruction of craving? In both the cases there should be cessation of suffering. My question is : What is the difference between destruction of craving and cessation of craving?

While meditating today, I realized that I am very very far away from attaining any kind of relief from suffering. In particular, I am referring to suffering from the endless/insatiable human condition of wanting something else/new. I kind of see how me wanting to feel better about this goes in opposition to the realistic view proposed by Buddishm, in which suffering must be accepted as a inherent part of life. Nevertheless, there is something still not clicking in my head, which makes me feel at constant unease. I saw this answer , in particular the part > Existence is dukkha is not a decree, it's a diagnosis, and you can smile that it's already been diagnosed, and there is a cure and **many people have already gotten cured.** but I can only think that getting "cured" may take decades and is only attainable by monks and people devoted solely to getting cured. How can I approach this situation? Thanks in advance. For context, I am new to meditation and Buddhism.

I read "Anatta and Rebirth " by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (let's call this explanation B) and I also read similar explanations by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu from this answer , this comment and this answer (let's call this explanation Y). First I need to make some definitions and assumptions, before asking my questions: 1. The birth and death of a moment in Y is equivalent to the birth and death of selfhood in B i.e. a moment of selfhood. 2. The definition of birth (jati) and existence (bhava) comes from SN 12.2 , while the definition of being (satta) comes from SN 5.10 . 3. Sammuti-marana or conventional death or conceptual death is equivalent to the event of physical death (according to this answer ). 4. "*At the moment of conceptual death, this process of momentary birth and death continues unimpeded unless one has experienced 'death by cutting off'*" in Y is what I will call "continuity of suffering beyond physical death" (that is, without rebirth). 5. The fact that the Buddha taught that there is no rebirth whatsoever is proven in the story of Bhikkhu Sati in MN 38 , where Sati describes his understanding of rebirth, "*it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another*" and consciousness as "*it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions*". This is a kind of self view associating consciousness and self. 6. The fact that the Buddha taught that suffering can continue beyond physical death is proven in many suttas: MN 4 ("*with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared*"), SN 15.3 (ocean of tears), SN 44.9 , Dhp 400 (last body), MN 57 , SN 42.3 , DN 2 , Dhp 153-154 and many more. 7. Explanation Y supports both #5 and #6 above. 8. Explanation B supports #5 above, but does not explicitly reject #6 above. 9. There are some Buddhists (sometimes describing themselves as Secular Buddhists) who reject rebirth and also reject continuity of suffering beyond physical death. They claim to reconcile Buddhism with science using explanation B, and say that any kind of continuity beyond physical death is superstition. 10. Those who support (Bhikkhu Sati's version of) rebirth are eternalists, while those who reject continuity of suffering beyond physical death are annihilationists according to DN 1 and SN 12.17 . Both are false views. Questions: 1. Am I right to say that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in "Anatta and Rebirth " (explanation B), while correctly rejecting rebirth, did not explicitly reject the continuity of suffering beyond physical death? 2. Are there any other sources, from speeches or writings of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, that prove that he had explicitly rejected the continuity of suffering beyond physical death? 3. Am I right to say that those who support (Bhikkhu Sati's version of) rebirth are eternalists, while those who reject continuity of suffering beyond physical death are annihilationists according to DN 1 and SN 12.17 ?

I read the following on the internet: > It all started by harming the Noble ones. How can Noble Ones be harmed? Does the Buddha's Noble Path lead to increased susceptibility to being harmed?

Does any Buddhist school teach about False (fake, hypocritical) Virtue (goodwill, goodness)? What it is, how common it is, how it differs from the true authentic virtue, perhaps its causes and its results - those kinds of things. Is virtue in Buddhism *objective*, so that we can speak about true authentic virtue as something definite and timeless, or is all virtue always necessarily subjective and partial? Or perhaps there are two kinds of virtue, mundane virtue - partial and subjective - and supramundane virtue of non-attachment and non-identification? If so, is there continuity and/or a single principle in common between both the worldly virtue and the supramundane virtue, so that we could simultaneously behave in line with both, or does behaving in line with supramundane virtue require going against or leaving behind the worldly virtue? Is the authentic virtue something we can side with, against both *the vice* and *the false virtue* or is it something that requires going beyond the dichotomy and accepting all virtues and vices (or rejecting all virtues and vices)? Basically, can we side with the Virtue&Truth in opposition to Vice&Hypocrisy, or is juxtaposing the two a wrong way to look at it, according to Buddhism? What do the Pali Canon, the commentaries, and the Mahayana texts and commentaries teach about all this, if anything?

Sometimes i am keeping some mental object in mind, free from anger or greed, and for a moment i feel piti and sukha over my entire body. Sometimes this piti and sukha keep with me for a long time. But even in first jhana i keep my mental object in mind, like blue kasina (whondering world all blue) or parts of body. Sometimes the piti and sukha leaves. I read that after the first jhana we need to abandon the vitakka and vicara. But how? I need to keep my focus in some mental object or just let the things go at their own pace, in my mind. How to i reinforce the upper jhanas if i need to abandon the mental objects? Ps: sometimes i feel piti and sukha, when concentrate into the kammathana, both in public and in my cave (bedroom).

My person thought it's possible good to count and remember the reaction of Dhammikas when "fellows" get in conflict. Not taking side, what are the useful supports in regard of conflicts in other single relations? While common fools, group-identifying, increase conflicts, how does a wise give helpful support for all? How do faithful householder, faithfull Brahmans, wise recluse, pull out nourishment of heat?

I was reading the wiki page about Akashic records and in 'See also' there is link to [Glossary of Buddhism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Buddhism), so it seems like it's connected. Therefore do you believe in akashic records or something similar where all events and our experiences are stored?

How is it that militant monks can justify waging war or violence? Is nonviolence not necessarily an absolute value for the Buddha? What scriptures are militant monks interpreting to justify war or violence? Are the militant monks making more or less suffering? Is it right to make more suffering than you have to? Do they have to? Is there groups that are a threat to Buddhists or the Buddha's teaching? >Do Buddhists have a country to defend? > >Do Buddhists have a religion to defend?

I am interested in knowing how buddhism diminished in India. 1 year back, I read this book: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/History_Of_Hindu_Imperialism.html?id=51dWPgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y But the author is not a historian. Can you tell me references by Historians about how Buddhism diminished from India?

I have a 108 bead mala (Rudraksh) which I use to chant a single mantra. I also have another bodhi seed mala which I use to chant a different mantra. I've always wondered what the difference was between a physical, 'authentic' mala versus using something like a digital counter. I get that there is some kind of tactile/memory related property to using a physical mala, but is it really significant? Is a mala simply just a tool to help one keep count, or is there more to it? I've heard explanations that the physical make of the mala actually matters, confers some kind of energetic benefit to the user, stores the power of the mantra depending on the material, so on and so forth. I ask because I recently saw an Asian electronics company release a set of 'smart prayer beads' which are a lot more portable than your traditional 108 bead mala and it got me thinking about whether the make of it really matters more than its ability to keep count.

I have recently been learning Pali, and have heard that Sanskrit is somewhat similar. With a decent knowledge of Pali, is it possible to read Nagarjuna, for instance, perhaps with just some of the basics of Sanskrit? Or would it be more or less unintelligible?

After finishing the last meal before attaining enlightenment, the Ascetic Gautama threw the golden bowl into the river and said: > "If I am to succeed in becoming a Buddha today, let this bowl go > upstream, but if not, let it go downstream." (source ) Gautama was not yet a Buddha and I don't think he had psychic powers to make the bowl go upstream. Even if he had the power, it seems he was not doing it by himself. Was Gautama expecting some divine being to answer his request? Did a Deva or god make the bowl go upstream? If not, how did the Golden Bowl go upstream?

I've read that Jainism is one of the oldest Indian traditions, that Buddhism somewhat derived from it and that at some time they rivaled (I'm not sure if this was a political thing). Can you explain what are the connections between this two in terms of philosophy and practice?

I'm a 16 year old girl and at a time in my life,I have been used to watch inappropriate things. When my parents found this out,my mom got me promised to her in front of Buddha to not to do it, and I promised her with pure intention of keeping it. Then by the time, when I just turned out to be a teenager I just got and urge and curiosity to see them and I watched them again. Is this even a promise, if it is a promise according to Buddhism then have I done a sin?

This question could comprise of many examples but here I will choose one and only four aspects of this one example. The Abhidhamma says: > Rūpakkhandho anārammaṇo. 530.2Cattāro khandhā sārammaṇā. > 530.3**Viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ**. 530.4Cattāro khandhā no cittā. 530.5Tayo khandhā cetasikā. 530.6Dve khandhā acetasikā. 530.7Tayo khandhā > cittasampayuttā. 530.8Rūpakkhandho cittavippayutto. > 530.9Viññāṇakkhandho na vattabbo— 530.10“cittena sampayutto”tipi, “cittena vippayutto”tipi. 530.11**Tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā**. > 530.12Rūpakkhandho cittavisaṁsaṭṭho. 530.13Viññāṇakkhandho na vattabbo— 530.14“cittena saṁsaṭṭho”tipi, “cittena visaṁsaṭṭho”tipi. > 530.15Tayo khandhā cittasamuṭṭhānā. 530.16**Viññāṇakkhandho no cittasamuṭṭhāno**. 530.17Rūpakkhandho siyā cittasamuṭṭhāno, siyā no > cittasamuṭṭhāno. 530.18Tayo khandhā cittasahabhuno. > 530.19**Viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū**. 530.20Rūpakkhandho siyā cittasahabhū, siyā no cittasahabhū. 530.21Tayo khandhā > cittānuparivattino. 530.22**Viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti**. > 530.23Rūpakkhandho siyā cittānuparivatti, siyā no cittānuparivatti. 530.24Tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānā. 530.25Dve khandhā no cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānā. 530.26Tayo khandhā > cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānasahabhuno. 530.27Dve khandhā no > cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānasahabhuno. 530.28Tayo khandhā > cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānānuparivattino. 530.29Dve khandhā no > cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānānuparivattino. > > 531.1Viññāṇakkhandho ajjhattiko. 531.2Tayo khandhā bāhirā. 531.3Rūpakkhandho siyā ajjhattiko, siyā bāhiro. > > The aggregate of form has no object. Four aggregates have objects. **The > aggregate of consciousness is consciousness**. Four aggregates are not > consciousness. Three aggregates are volitional activities. Two > aggregates are not volitional activities. Three aggregates are > associated with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not associated > with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said > to be, associated with consciousness or not associated with > consciousness. **Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness**. The > aggregate of form is not conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate > of consciousness should not be said to be, conjoined with > consciousness or not conjoined with consciousness. Three aggregates > are generated by consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness is not > generated by consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes is > generated by consciousness; sometimes is not generated by > consciousness. Three aggregates are co-existent with consciousness. > **The aggregate of consciousness is not co-existent with consciousness**. > The aggregate of form sometimes is co-existent with consciousness; > sometimes is not co-existent with consciousness. Three aggregates > accompany consciousness. **The aggregate of consciousness does not accompany consciousness**. The aggregate of form sometimes accompanies > consciousness; sometimes does not accompany consciousness. Three > aggregates are conjoined with, generated by consciousness. Two > aggregates are not conjoined with, not generated by consciousness. > Three aggregates are conjoined with, generated by, co-existent with > consciousness. Two aggregates are not conjoined with, not generated > by, not co-existent with consciousness. Three aggregates are conjoined > with, generated by, accompany consciousness. Two aggregates are not > conjoined with, not generated by, do not accompany consciousness. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila If we ignore the literal translation, the above appears to say: 1. Consciousness aggregate is citta (viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ). 2. Three aggregates (feeling, perception and mental formations) are conjoined with citta (tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā). 3. Consciousness does not co-exist with citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū). 4. The aggregate of consciousness does not accompany citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti). Are there any suttas that support the above Abhidhamma and also are there any suttas that refute the above Abhidhamma?

Is it during deep meditation when the mind is completely stilled that one experiences anatta? Is the conviction in anatta gradual or abrupt? This question would be connected to the 4 stages of enlightenment, too. Regards

I am not entirely new to Buddhism, but I am new to it from a perspective of an academic path. I have an academic background in another field (Ph.d level) and where I live there is zero buddhists within a 100 miles of the theravada tradition which interest me both. I have begun a practice in insight and concentration meditation, but my skill is relatively weak. While I am building up my practice I wish to study the theoretical background of the Theravada system. I have access to many of the major treatises of the Pali canon, but since none of this is organized in a linear fashion it is quite a complicated matter to dig into these texts. Where should one begin, so far I pick up a book on the Noble eightfold path by Bikkhu Bodi, and its great but I am finding myself stopping frequently to look up many of the topics there in this little text alone. Is there anything straight forward, linear that deals with the theoretical topics for a beginner who wishes to expand into a higher level understanding? Thank You, jwe

I'm looking for a quote by Pema Chodron. In my memory, she's having a discussion with a Zen master, and the quote goes something like this; Pema: "what do you do when things fall apart?" Zen Master: "I stay" I seem to remember it being in her book When Things Fall Apart, but I searched it for the word 'stay' and I couldn't find this anywhere. Does anybody recognise where it comes from? Maybe it's from a video or an audio recording of an interview with her? Maybe it exists only in the recesses of my memory?