**What is craving for fame in Buddhism?** I am aware that fame pertains to the eight worldly concerns and is detrimental. However I wonder: what *is* fame-seeking in Buddhism? I ask this because when I was younger I would fantasize greatly about fame, especially in link to a great theoretical realization. I still feel that way sometimes. I perceive fame in this case as attachment to a view mixed with self-valuing, but I mostly wonder if one should abandon this and how? How can one acquire equanimity towards this aspiration?

In the present context of the world, the chain of economics and happiness as I see it is, money is necessary to fulfill one's basic necessities (even if not luxuries), to earn money we need jobs, to make jobs we need to manufacture things, to sell things that have been manufactured, they have to be marketed and people have to be eventually 'desire' to buy these items and feel that they are happy to keep the chain alive. But because of this chain, for example the automobile industry, we have more cars on road, more pollution, more environmental and health issues and so on. So I was thinking if there is a better economic model which we can learn and devise from the teachings of the Buddha. Is there some other method we can adopt to reinvent this chain and relation between economics, happiness and consumerism? I do understand that real 'happiness' as taught by the Buddha and the happiness that one obtains by practising meditation is the way ahead to limit our desires and achieve a balance in the world. On these lines, I read something on 'Sufficiency Economics' briefly and felt it was a good topic. I wish to ask if anyone can provide references to any other topics or books that relate economics, consumerism and Buddhism that offer a practical solution to a really happy world.

There are many adaptations of a story about a brave little parrot (or other type of bird) who tries to put out a forest fire by dipping her feathers in a lake and shaking the drops over a raging forest fire. Does anyone know which number Jataka tale this originates from? Here is an example of the adapted tale. http://healingstory.org/the-brave-little-parrot/ Thank you.

So, I know prayer is a subject in Buddhism, but recently i started trying to learn about prayer in the Soto Zen tradition. I cant seem to find any posts that really help, or some that take me one way and another that takes me the complete other direction. I really just need some good solid place to start.

I've noticed in myself a tendency to pursue situations that cause a certain stress, in a somewhat compulsive way. This is a bit like people who are drawn to people who are bad for them. I have heard Thich Nhat Hanh saying teens drawn to spending all their time on computers feel empty inside. How are such "addictions" conceptualized in Buddhism? In other words, what would be the cause and nature of a behaviour that is bad for one, that depends on a kind of meaninglessness and self-sabotage? Lastly, what would remedy such internal afflictions? Are they forms of a kind of avoidance of suffering?

Can anyone advise on experiences of "kundalini" (energy rushing up the spine and out the crown of the head) during meditation? I have experienced this for years and am wondering if it has an understanding/meaning in the Theravada tradition. The energy has a physical effect (jolting the body) and a mental one (like temporarily cleaning out the conscious mind). Thank you greatly.

Is there a way where someone (could meditate and take up certain Buddhist practices without initiation into Buddhism? This is just a question to understand theory, not directed to be anything argumentative or offensive Thank you and Peace!

Here is a general meditation technique of Anapanasati where one concentrates on the breath. My question is during this meditation where should the eye turned. Should they look up , or straight normally or on nose tip ? Is there any recommendation in the tradition as to what should the eyes do?

What role if any does academic scholarship play in Buddhism? Should Buddhists be concerned with what scholars say, or can we safely ignore them? How should we resolve conflicts between tradition and academia? For specific conflicts I can cite some of my own work. See for example my discovery that karma and dependent arising are mutual contradictory: See Does Karma Break the Rules? and Sarvāstivāda Approach to the Problem of Action at a Temporal Distance . I have subsequently discovered that Nāgārjuna also thought so (MMK 17.1-6). Or my discover that all theories of karma are internally inconsistent : ; or the conflict between metaphysics and morality ; or the assertion made by Sean Carroll that no afterlife of any kind is possible (including rebirth).

I've seen variations on some of the last few chakras as white instead of violet or purple, so I'm wondering what are the official/original - from Sanskrit (?) - colors?

As far as I am aware, in Zazen the hands are folded in a mudra, a larger emphasis is placed on holding the specific posture, the eyes are held open, and attention is placed underneath the navel. But other than this the basic instructions seem to remain the same: concentrate on your breath, and when other thoughts arise direct attention back to the breath. In Theravada Buddhism a large emphasis is placed on the *jhanas*. Is Zazen also supposed to lead to states of absorption? What are the differences between the practices?

In the above sutta the Buddha said that one knows every step one is untertaking. Whether it's walking, sitting, standing, lying down, bending etc. Does this imply simply awareness of body sensations (since the sutta is titled kaya which translates as body)? How does this sutta then differ from Anapanasati Sutta?

I recall reading suttas wherein the Buddha references his past life, however I do not recall him mentioning that he was a prince. What is the source for this claim?

Say one has gravely fallen into slavehood by consuming 'free' and, almost unaware, is driven to steal and pull the Gems and it's heritage, into this evil bound. Almost unaware and deluded, he even thinks he does a good by following a Robin Hood like lane, trying to gain surface by pulling Sublime into his sink. What does good householder think: Which fruit, by acts grave wrong view (taking ungiven, cheating, hiding up, disregard...), following demand and 'my right' (given by Lord Mara, industy and his host), has he and those he encourage likewise, to expects, how ever 'naively good' he might justify his ways, even it directly warned? Liberation or long time even lower slave of Mara and his host? Sure, answer honest and in line with the teacher, after having reflected wise, might change ones ways, and one might not only seek for excuse old but change the way toward out. Yet those answers might be rare and less voted up, naturally, bound like-a-like.

I have a question about Buddhism, which is similar to or modified from the Problem of Evil or the Problem of Suffering in western religion philosophy: If [ by definition from ordinary intuition ] the Buddha Sakyamuni really had achieved perfect altruistic "merit" or "abilities", then, contradictorily, why when the Buddha Sakyamuni was presenting in the world, the hell is NOT "empty"? --- there were still sentient beings in the situations, such as in the hell, that they cannot meet the Buddha Sakyamuni? Doesn't the NON-emptiness of the hell means there are still rooms yet for achieving perfect altruistic "merit" or "abilities"? Hello everyone. I am from Taiwan. Thank you in advance for everyone who may or does give any constructive/helping information. P.S. Actually I have flagged this my question post as "in need of moderator intervention". Explanation: (1) I was indeed surprised by myself that thoughts questioning the Buddha via the way of reductio ad absurdum came out in my mind (and also written in my question post). (2) I don't have confidence that such reductio ad absurdum is no misleading/misguiding to every kind/level of Buddhism learners.

Does Mahabrahma create the lives of those that join him in a new world? From wikipedia > During the Vivartakalpa, a deity from Abhassara plane is reborned in > the Mahabrahma plane, as many living beings forget about their past > life, this too happens with the Mahabrahma, and being unaware of the > above planes of existence, he felt alone. He longs for the presence of > others. After some times many other deities from the above planes were > also reborn in those brahma planes, as his ministers and > companions. Seeing this happens, he falsely believes himself to be > their creator and other deities believed the same. This belief, state > the Buddhist texts, is then shared by other deities. Eventually, > however one of the deity dies and is reborn as human, practicing > meditation,he got the power to remember his previous life. He > teaches what he remembers from his previous life in lower heaven, that > Mahabrahma is the Creator. It is this that leads to the human belief > in Creator, according to the Pali Canon. So, mahabrahamd does not create their sentience (which existed prior to this world cycle): but does he create their presence with him or their life? I'm asking because I'm unsure whether there is truly no omnipotence in Buddism.

What is it that experiences life from this particular body & mind that I have? i.e. why am I experiencing the world from my body instead of yours? I feel like an answer could be: because there isn't really any 'separate bodies' or selves & you just don't have the realization (Anatman) yet. Still, what causes the subjective 'self' to appear as a particular body experiencing life from its limited perspective, or is it all one giant reification error for someone who hasn't detached from egotic self yet? & then karma, the 12 links, mindstream identifies with this, attaches to this body, so on and so forth...

A friend of mine is a committed Buddhist, a teacher in a group that meets to discuss Buddhist teaching. He's explained many things about Buddhism to me. Recently, his father died after a long illness, and he is confident that his father has now gone on to another life that is as good or better than the one just finished. He comforted his Dad with this as he was dying. We walk together with some other friends, and I notice that when it comes to crossing roads, my Buddhist friend is more worried than any of them about oncoming cars - even when they are quite distant. So much so that I said to him: "If you are sure you'll come back in a better life, why are you so scared of dying?" He mumbled something about “No one wants to die”, but I wonder, is this a fair question to ask a Buddhist? I thought it was a reasonable challenge, but now I wonder if the idea of reincarnation helps us accept other people's deaths, but doesn't help us accept our own. A bit like the sweet lies we tell children to protect them from life's harsh realities. For myself, I remember years ago being terrified of dying, but now as a Christian I'm happy for God to take me home any day he wants - I know it's an upgrade. I'm happy to be challenged on this, and I challenge my Christian friends on this too, because it's good to remind each other how good will be God's presence. But is reincarnation like this for Buddhists? I'm sure reincarnation isn't taught as Santa-Claus-grade truth. Where plenty of people say Santa is real, but no one makes their roof strong enough to support 7 reindeer and fully-laden sleigh. But given that reincarnation is understood as real, is my friend just a bad example, with most Buddhists confident and comfortable about moving to their next life? Or is his fear of death fairly typical, with only the really enlightened Buddhists being comfortable about their own death? EDIT: To clarify a few things: * I'm not expecting a Buddhist or anyone else to be reckless or suicidal. The behaviour I saw was approaching paranoia. When coming to a road when walking together with 5-6 friends, the non-religious ones and I would cross when there was a suitable gap in the traffic. But then we would have to wait while our Buddhist friend waited for a much bigger gap. This occurred frequently. And when I say 'suitable gap', I mean about average for pedestrians in this city, where the Buddhist has lived all his life. * I'm not saying that this behaviour in a Buddhist invalidates Buddhism at all. Sometimes I see similar behaviour in Christians, and I will encourage them to take their faith seriously, that if their faith is real there is good stuff after they die, and perhaps remind them of the verse "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain". But when Atheists behave with this kind of fear I don't say anything, because that makes sense as they have no hope for anything after their death. * I wasn't trying to score a point on my friend or his faith, just encouraging him to live what he believed. I like it when friends challenge me if I act inconsistently, or out of pride or selfishness. It may hurt at the time, but it's an opportunity to grow. * Is this just one individual who is inconsistent about what he believes? There's many in every faith. (And who didn't like being challenged on it - again, nothing unusual there.) Or is this standard practice? Should I expect Buddhists to be just as fearful of death as Atheists, or a bit less fearful, or much less? Does belief in being reincarnated to a new life give some hope in the face of death or none?

Please forgive me, I know really little about buddhism. From what I heard, the Buddhist will try to find relief from suffering by meditation and trying to be selfless. But what about others that are suffering? Does the Buddhist value more attaining enlightenment for himself or helping others in need? Also what if others do not have the skills to practice to go towards enlightenment? Is the Buddhist concerned? I'd like to understand more the relationship between the Buddhist and the suffering of other people.

I have found the [himalayanart.org](https://www.himalayanart.org/items/34832) website, which has the kind of art I am looking for, things like religious paintings, mandalas, etc. Where are the most digitized high-res buddhist art records kept online?