Does anyone have a commentary, source, YT video of teachings or any sort of explanation of the actual method for meditations of the four immesurables (Brahmavihara) Either Mahayana or Theravada. I don't mean sutta sources, but actual explanation of the method of meditation practice. I did search the questions but could not find an adequate explanation I am seeking. Feel free to close the question and provide source if one had been provided in questions before. Though again I am looking for actual explanation of method, not just concept or translations of suttas.

What are some further references in relation to the awesome profundity of a Buddha? As opposed to one who has becoming enlightened from the teachings of a Buddha. ---- A Buddha is like a sun hard to describe. What are some references in the Suttas, and smaller books of the Khuddaka Nikāya in relation to the difference of a Tathagata compared to a disciple. > “I have heard this as a witness, **From the Buddha, Kinsman of the Sun**: The path leading to Nibbāna, That is where my mind delights. > > *AN 8.1, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, © Bhikkhu Bodhi, for study purposes only.* > **The domain of the Buddhas is an inconceivable matter that one should not try to conceive; one who tries to conceive it would reap either madness or frustration.** > > *AN 4.77, The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, © Bhikkhu Bodhi, for study purposes only.* > "Bhikkhus, for a faithful disciple who is intent on fathoming the Teacher’s Dispensation, it is natural that he conduct himself thus: **‘The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple; the Blessed One knows, I do not know.’** For a faithful disciple who is intent on fathoming the Teacher’s Dispensation, the Teacher’s Dispensation is nourishing and refreshing." > > *The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, © Bhikkhu Bodhi, for study purposes only.* Also of note is the many names and epithets of the Buddha . Noted discussions are here and here . *This is a very important topic, due to some thinking all enlightened beings are like the Buddha. Any further textural even commentarial clarification would be helpful.* **Itipso Bhagava formulation...** I guess is the common form through out the suttas. >“The Tathāgata has these ten Tathāgata’s powers, possessing which he claims the herd-leader’s place, roars his lion’s roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahmā. (MN 12) *The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, © Bhikkhu Bodhi, for study purposes only.*

What is the difference between Lord Buddha's Wisdom, and Venerable Sāriputta's wisdom? --- The distinction of the wisdom of a right hand disciple of a Buddha & a fully self awakened Buddha? *The understanding from the suttas, commentaries or 'believed to be' arahants.*

The doctrine of [pratītyasamutpāda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da) states that: > **all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other dharmas**: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". **The basic principle is that all things (dharmas, phenomena, principles) arise in dependence upon other things.** However, on the [Wikipedia page on Nirvana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)) , it is stated: > According to Dhammapala, **nibbana is an objective reality** which is the opposite of samsara. **Nibbana has its own nature (sabhava) which is unlike all conditioned phenomena.** From this, I'm curious to know the following inter-related ideas: a) Is all there is to reality these conditioned Dharma and if yes, where does Dhammapala's idea of nibbana fit into this if its a non-conditioned phenomena which an intrinsic essence/nature? b) In the view of Dhammapala, are all conditioned phenomena ultimately dependent on this Absolute and Objective Reality which has an intrinsic nature? Does nibbana originate anything itself or is it merely like a principle? Just as an idea, perhaps the doctrine of the Two Truths is related to this, with nibbana belonging or being identical to the Ultimate Truth.

Why are Concepts not Impermanent? I found the below explanation in another forum. Are they Permanent? or not both? > Conventional reality (sammuti sacca/ pannatti) is just a concept and > not real. Non-real dhammas don’t exist and therefore cannot be anicca > or dukkha. > > According to Abhdhamma: > > - dhamma = paramata + pannatti > - paramata = sankhata + asankhata > - sankhata = citta + cetasika + rupa > - asnkhata = nibbana > - dhamma = citta + cetasika + rupa + nibbana + pannatti > > All the dhammas are anatta. Anatta means devoid of > essence/self/ownership/hegemony. > > Only the sankhata (compounded) is anicca-dukkha. Nibbana and Pannatti > are anatta only. > > Nibbana is real but not compounded. Therefore not anicca-dukkha. > Pannatti is non-real. Therefore not anicca-dukkha. > **In Theravada, Concept is an object (unreal object).** It is not the > Concept-formation of our mind. Mind and mental factors that form a > concept do arise and cease, but not the Concept. > The conceptualizing in mind is the impermanent one, but not the > Conceptual-object of Conceptualizing-mind. **Pannatti is an object.** This > fake object is perceived by the impermanent mind. > The colors that the eye sees in a movie are real, but not the concept > of “movie”. What is fake is the Object pointed by the Idea of “movie”. > **What “Conceptualizing” points to, is the Concept.** It is a fake object > that “Conceptualizing” points to. > > **The pointer exists, but “what is pointed” doesn’t exist.** > > So Concepts are not considered as anicca or dukkha. Conventional Reality is not Impermanent! Introduction to the Ultimacy (International Institute of Theravada)

The Abhidhamma Commentary says: - Anicca-characteristic is hidden due to "Non-contemplation of the **Rising and falling**." - Dukkha-characteristic is hidden due to "Shifting of the **Postures**." - Anatta-characteristic is hidden due to "Non-contemplation of the **Analysis of Different Elements**." Where does the causality fit in this? Which characteristic is (mainly) uncovered by the "Contemplation of Dependent-origination?" Obviously it uncovers all the three in some way. I'm here asking about it's main contribution.

The Mahāpadesa Sutta describes about the "Four Great Authorities (Mahāpadesas)" that a disciple should refer, if any one claims some new thing to be the word of the Budhha. > Mahāpadesa Sutta Summary: > > The Buddha tells the monks of the four mahāpadesā to be respected by > them. If a monks says he has a certain teaching direct from the Buddha > himself, his statement should be compared with the rest of the Vinaya > and Dhamma; if these do not agree, it should be rejected; if they do, > accepted. > > The same applies to that which is said to have been learnt from a > group of monks led by a Thera from a body of senior monks residing in > a certain place, or from a single senior monk, proficient in the > Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Mātikā. A.ii.167ff.; the sutta is > incorporated in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (D.ii.123ff). Apart from the above four great authorities, Theravadins use another four Authorities called "The Four Vinayas". What are they?

Where are the English Translations of Commentary? Have all of them translated in to English?

I found an explanation of Kalama Sutta in a website which is said to be from a Tipitaka teacher in Sri Lanka. Is Kalama Sutta only about Kilesas? > Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for Lobha-dosa-moha? > > The famous Sri Lankan lay Dhamma-preacher Saminda Ranasingha > (aathaapi.org ) insists on two points when he is explaining Kālāma > sutta. > > 1. Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for **Non-Buddhists** > 3. Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for **Lobha-dosa-moha** (and > Alobha-adosa-amoha) > > I’m here going to introduce the 2nd point of him, for seeing your > comments. > > > > Rest part of the sutta is also evaluated in the same way by him. > > So he insists that Kālāmā Sutta can not be applied for evaluating > other things mentioned in the Tipitaka. > > **If we consider the phrasing-style of the last paragraph in the above** > > ***“Iti kho, kālāmā, yaṃ taṃ avocumhā – … iti yaṃ taṃ vuttaṃ, idametaṃ > paṭicca vuttaṃ.*** > > ***So, as I said, kalamas – … Thus was it said. And in > reference to this was it said.*** > > This style can be seen in many Suttas in Anguttara nikaya and Majjima > nikaya where, > > 1. An “Uddesa (recitation passage)” is introduced first. > 2. Then it is questioned why was it mentioned. (in most cases) > 3. Then the Niddesa (explanation of the Uddesa) is menioned. > 4. At the end, it is concluded that the above Uddesa was mentioned for > Niddesa. > >Eg: Sakkapañhasutta, Araṇavibhaṅgasutta, Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta, Dutiyasaññāsutta, Paṭhamamahāpañhāsutta, Titthāyatanādisutta … etc. > > ***Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta:*** > >“‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbāni, > …’ti **– ayamuddeso saḷāyatanavibhaṅgassa.** “‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni > veditabbānī’ti **– iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ. Kiñcetaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ?** > ‘Cakkhāyatanaṃ sotāyatanaṃ ghānāyatanaṃ jivhāyatanaṃ kāyāyatanaṃ > manāyatanaṃ. Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbānī’ti **– iti yaṃ taṃ > vuttaṃ idametaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ.** > > “‘The six interior sense fields should be understood. …’ **This is the > recitation passage for the analysis of the six sense fields.** ‘The six > interior sense fields should be understood.’ **– That’s what I said, but > why did I say it?** There are the sense fields of the eye, ear, nose, > tongue, body, and mind. ‘The six interior sense fields should be > understood.’ **– That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.**

In Theravada, the Concepts are considered unreal ("person", "chariot" etc.). Then what about the "Concepts about Real" ("red", "perception")? Are they Concepts? or Real?

Who are the most knowledgeable Abhidhamma masters today? Where are the active Abhidhamma communities? - country - lineage - monastery - institute - teacher - group - website - forum

Are there any commentaries in the pali cannon on The Iddhipāda-Vibhaṅga Sutta -- An Analysis Of The Bases Of Power (SN 51:20). And in general, what are some sources for the commentaries, obviously in pali but also in english. (If only in pali, a preference to be able to locate and navigate without knowing much pali.)

In the Pali commentaries, there is a contradiction regarding the name of Thera Anuruddha's father. Somewhere he is said to be the son of Sukkodana, and somewhere of Amitodana. Both Sukkodana and Amitodana were Suddhodana's brother. So, in any case, Anuruddha was surely a cousin of the future Buddha. But his relation with Thera Ananda becomes controversial. Everywhere Ananda is said to be the son of Amitodana. So he might be either a cousin or a brother of Anuruddha. Most modern Western scholars seem to prefer the latter alternative albeit insisting that they were probably step-brothers from different mothers "as the texts do not refer to the two as brothers and imply that they grew up in different households." If that is the case, why not accept Anuruddha as the son of Sukkodana? Are there more weightage in the claim of Amitodana? Can someone answer with commentarial references?

What is the (commentary) source for Buddha's five-part daily schedule, as mentioned at The Buddha's Daily Routine (Buddhanet) and A Day in the Life of the Buddha (YouTube video, Bhikkhu Bodhi).

Today is a holiday, my friend post the dinner on the social media, I want to comment to celebrate their happy life. But I see the fish and beef in the pictures, I don't know how to comment, because in Buddhism there is banned to eat meat. They are not Buddhist scholars. They are not Buddhist at all.

This question refers to The Four Great References in Mahāpadesa Sutta (AN 4.180) . In each case, it ends with: > If they’re not included in the discourses and not found in the texts on > monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is > not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened > Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by ... > > If they are included in the discourses and found in the texts on > monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is > the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened > Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by ... So, why are there four great references and not one, if the criteria is the same for each of them? What is the difference between the four great references? Do they represent primacy or order of reliability? For e.g. is the first great reference more reliable than the second great reference?, is the second more reliable than the third? etc. If the answer to the previous question is Yes, then does this imply that the traditional commentaries to the suttas by the Sangha is more reliable than the interpretation of a single monk, as suggested by this comment ?

In saccapabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:

1. Jāti is "khandhānaṃ patubhāvo" and "āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho".
2. Khandhānaṃ patubhāvo included viññāṇa-khandha.
1. Viññāṇa-khandha is viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda.
2. Rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda is rūpa-khandha.
3. Nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda is vedanā-, saññā-, saṇkhāra-khandha (cetana, phassa, manasikāra; see: sammādiṭṭhisuttaṃ).
3. Those nāma- and rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda are piyarūpa/sātarūpa.
1. 60 piyarūpa/sātarūpa: 6 outer āyatana, 6 āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda, and 42 nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda (6 vedana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 saññā-khandha, 6x5 saṇkhāra-khandha [phassa-paṭiccasamuppāda, cetanā-paṭiccasamuppāda, vitakka, vicāra, taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda]).

So jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is viññāna-paṭiccasamuppāda. The difference is: Jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is 5 khandha. So jāti is a conclusion of viññāna, nāma+rūpa, āyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna and bhavā-paṭiccasamuppāda. But viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is an explanation of jhāti. So sacca-pabba is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa Is Jāti And Paṭisandhi", right?

Q: > 1) Can someone name the most important commentaries, sub-commentaries, > etc. I should read while reading the Tipitaka?

My conclusion from tipitaka and commentaries:

Most of Tipitaka canons and commentaries, except Kathāvatthu the forth of abhidhamma, began before 1st saṅgāyanā, but catagorize at 1st saṅgāyanā (see: DN.Commentary.) But some tipitaka canons had done at 1st saṅgāyanā, some at 2nd, some at 3rd, and just vinaya-history in parivāra had done after 3rd saṅgāyanā (because vinaya have serious rule about the qualification of vinaya-successor, so list of vinaya-memorized successor's names were required, in parivāra, that began in upāli-thera school). What canons were done at 1st? Because of unanimous decision of 500 saṅgha at 1st saṇgayanā, that saṅgha must not add/cut/change any buddha's words off teaching. So this canons must done in 1st saṇgayanā: 1. Buddha's literal canons, that was learn & memorized by ānanda, upāli: - 7 vinaya-pitaka (except sattasatikakhandhaka in cullavagga), parivāra-content (except vinaya-history), 4 nikāya, buddha's literal canons in kuddaka-nikaya. 2. Sāriputta's literal canons, that was learn & author by sāriputta-mahāsāvaka and memorized by his students, who were in 1st saṇgayanā instead of sāriputta, who died before 1st saṇgāyanā. Buddha chose to support sāriputta as the best teacher (etadagga) like himself. So no one can change his speech, too. So his canons should had done in 1st saṇgayanā, too: - Sāriputta's literal sutta in 4 nikāya, sutanipāta, sāriputta-theragāthā, niddesa, paṭisambhidāmagga, sāriputta-apadāna, cariyāpitaka, 6 abhidhamma-pitaka, Mahāaṭṭhakathā (The great commentary). - In my opinion I think buddha-apadāna and many jātaka are memorized by sāriputta, too. Because of buddhavaṃsa's and cariyāpitaka's characters. And in nidāna of DN.Commentary. also have an conversation between ānanda (dīghabhāṇaka) and sāriputta's students (macchimabhāṇaka) at first saṇgāyana about the categorization of KN. & buddhavaṃsa & cariyapitaka that should include in suttanta or in abhidhamma. 3. The other sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech, that were memorized by some saṇgha in 1st saṇgāyanā: - Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were memorized by ānanda: Itivuttaka, The remaining speech in 4 nikāya. - Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were told by the owners: Some thera/therīgatha, Some thera/theri-apadāna. - Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were told by their students: Sāriputta-theragātha/therāpadāna, Moggallāna-theragātha/therāpadāna, etc. What canons were done at 2nd? 1. Some thera/therīgatha, Some thera/theri-apadāna (some thera died after 1st saṇgāyanā such as ānanda, kassapa, anuruddha, upāli, etc.) 2. Sattasatikakhandhaka in cullavagga and just sattasatikakhandhaka's commentary. (In my opinion arahanta, in 3rd saṇgāyanā, did not author 3rd saṇgayana history anymore because they realized that it will be over responsibility of future-generations-vinaya-memorizers). What canons were done at 3rd? 1. Kathāvatthu and just kathāvatthu's commentary. 2. Commentary about 3rd saṇgāyanā history. What canons were done after 3rd? 1. Vinaya-history in parivāra. 2. None-Pali commentaries' translation and extension (andhaka-aṭṭhakathā, kauanadī-aṭṭhakathā, pañcarī-aṭṭhakathā). 3. Visuddhimagga and Abhinava-aṭṭhakathā (the combination of commentaries. It is just old commentaries in new package. Buddhaghosa wrote that he never add/edit anything. He just remix fussy/duplicate texts and translate siṇhala commentaries to pali language). 4. Abhidhammatthasaṇgaha, abhidhammāvatara, and many conclusion-commentaries. Related Answer: - Beginner's Buddhist Course Syllabus By Ancient Pali Canon (Ganthadhura And Vipassanādhura) - Layers of pali literality already being in buddha-living-period.https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/21166/10100

I can't use the _Path of Purification_ PDF version of AccessToInsight.org because ... 1. I want to restructure/retranslate Visuddhimagga into english. 2. I want to add the reference link in each word of Visuddhimagga to the source in tipitaka. 3. I want to make the link **directly** to the expected page of Visuddhimagga and make the highlight to the expected text when I answer or make an article. ... so I want the computerised text version, to publish in HTML format on the internet. It requires a very long time to do a new translation of it all, because English is not my native language -- and I require a very long time as well to translate pāli even in my native language -- and so I think it would be faster and more effective to restructure from another's version/translation. Therefore: 1. Is there a free (i.e. [libre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre) or [open](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source)) version of Visuddhimagga in a computerized text format? 2. Is there a computerised text version of the Budaedu's Visuddhimagga version ? Or can you tell me about obtaining permission (and the data) from a copyright holder? --- I'm principally looking for something like [a license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/) which allows: - Distribution and - Creating a derivative work ... and a corresponding text format which can be converted to e.g. HTML.