Shedding Tears in Amazement of the Dhamma I am posting this because I've yet to post a question. I should note that I respect Ajahn Maha Bua a lot. In fact, both of my teachers were students of his. However, Ajahn Maha Bua is the most controversial figure in Buddhism. Regardless if he were an arahant, I can definitively say he is an inspiration to me, and a superb teacher. Where would I be if not for Luangta? Thoughts?

I've seen this glossary entry in a couple of places: *Hīnayāna: “Inferior Vehicle,” a pejorative term, coined by a group who called themselves followers of the Mahāyāna, the “Great Vehicle,” to denote the path of practice of those who aimed at Arahantship, rather than full Buddhahood. Hīnayānists refused to recognize the later discourses, composed by the Mahāyānists, that claimed to contain teachings that the Buddha felt were too deep for his first generation of disciples, and which he thus **secretly entrusted to underground serpents**. The Theravāda school of today is a descendent of the Hīnayāna.* Does anyone know where this claim about the origin of Mahāyāna texts comes from?

What do you regard as noteworthy differences in the popular pali to english translations of the Sutta?

***I have noticed that a lot of Mahasi practitioners seem to reach sotopanna very quickly.*** What is the difference from other methods of Buddhist Meditation and the Mahasi Method, relative to the apparent speed of attainment in the Mahasi Method? **Maybe you think Mahasi style practice does not lead to these better results?** If so, who, what, where, when and why do you think this? I hope this is an appropriate question but if it's not, that's ok :) metta **PLEASE NOTE**: I have, "**doubts** about such quick progress in the Mahasi Tradition, not **pride**" It appears, many assumed something else. My mistake, I should have been clearer.

Consider these two texts: * https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.4.100-112.than.html the part that contains: > Mother & father, compassionate to their family, are called Brahma, first teachers, those worthy of gifts from their children. So the wise should pay them homage, honor with food & drink clothing & bedding anointing & bathing & washing their feet. Performing these services to their parents, the wise are praised right here and after death rejoice in heaven. * https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.031.than.html > But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father. What is are the appropriate ways to combine the meaning/purpose of these, considering that there is some potential to misunderstand the way these two guide us to treat our parents?

My partner has an active interest in Buddhism and I have been confused about his state of mind for two years. Kindly help us out. The past two years have been a depression time for my family and myself and I'm coping with it with the help of God and only God. This person has had loads of problems in his life. He stayed in a bad marriage for years before leaving. He had a high profile job which he quit and moved back to his home town. Just after moving back he was diagnosed with Non-Hogdkins lymphoma and underwent surgery and five rounds of chemotherapy. He has never been well since he has gone back home. We entered into a relationship nearly two years ago and I frequently seen his wrath, anger, jealousy and many more problems which I can only attribute to his traumatic history. He has never been able to get back into a job. He used to be interested in a vast array of things from photography to painting and since three years he finds nothing interesting. He has stopped talking with all his friends because he says that they "don't understand" him. He has pretty much locked himself in his house under the pretext that he has to "take care of his old parents". During his chemotherapy he told me he was suicidal which he vehemently denies now. I tried to help him as much as I could. I have approached one of his gurus for help. I tried getting to get him to see a Buddhist psychotherapist. He has refused help. The reason he refuses help is because he says he is on the verge of enlightenment and that normal therapists cannot do anything to help him. He says he frequently speaks to God but when I say I speak to God too he rejects it outright. He has weight issues because he binge eats when he is depressed. He keeps imagining he has liver diseases, coeliac disease or cancer relapse symptoms. Each time the tests come out negative and his doctors constantly tell him he will not have a relapse. He says he's conquered all fear and anger and negativity but I have seen first hand his massive anger issues. He has deep resentment against his parents and there has not been one day that he has not complained about them. He says he has deep anger issues against his father who he says was not good to his mother when he was in the womb or because of past life karma. He openly told his parents one day that they should not have even given birth to him. He says he feels love and compassion for everyone and then he made the statement "attachment is for idiots". My parents too have tried to support him. They have been nice to him until they lost their cool too about him just sitting at home being depressed and not doing anything about it. He then accused my father of abusing him and calling him names. My parents have yelled at him, yes but they are not the kind to ever call anyone names. He's had issues against my past relationships which caused a major rift between us for a major portion of the last two years. He got extremely jealous and even now he says he finds it difficult to be intimate with me because he has images of other men with me. He says the cancer has not affected him, his past relationship has not caused him trauma and it was meditation that guided him to not have mental issues. He frequently compares himself to other cancer patients and how their mental states were affected during their treatment. He almost gloats about it without seeing that he too is mentally unwell. Another day he said that the reason he pushes me away is because he has lost so many things in life - a marriage, a career, good health even though he worked hard for it that he is scared of losing this too. He says that being detached like this is his way of not feeling any more pain. Each time I try to help him he accuses me of being unkind to him and trying to change the way he is. Today he mentioned that he is worthless and when I asked him persistently to talk to God and tell God why he felt worthless he called the cops on me and tried to have me attested. He denies that he is depressed but every person I have spoken to tells me that he shows clear signs of depression. I have spoken to at least three therapists about him and even they agree that he is depressed. My questions are: 1. Is this behaviour justified for a person who is on the verge of enlightenment? 2. Does non attachment mean giving up things you love? 3. Is attachment for idiots? 4. It the fear of losing things you love the right reason for being non attached? 5. Does non attachment mean having a strong sense of detest for modern life like malls, the cinema etc? 6. Does non attachment mean you have to stop talking with your friends who are different from you?

I found this book in a local bookstore and went online to research it. I could not find much reference to it. The author, George C. Adams Jr., purports to have been given a lost sutra of the Buddha, given on his deathbed, to Ananda. It looks like a work of complete fiction to me but was wondering if anyone has more information on it.

Buddhism stress on Celibacy at the same time insists on revoking everything that could not be proved by scientific method or rational thought . I am a graduate student of physics and I found that modern medical science or the proponents of medicine recommends controlled masturbation as a healthy way to relieve sexual desire or tension. I find it contradictory that what the medical practitioners found by scientific methods is completely against the view of masturbation in Buddhism and still Buddhism as far as I know advocates the scientific method be more fruitful than the intuitive way of reasoning. Is it contradictory?

Initially some of the writings of Ledi Sayadaw were considered to be controversial and they differed from the commentaries. What were the points that differed?

There are at least two possibilities, and no doubt many more besides. The first one turns around the Cartesian dictum, "Cogito ergo sum", "I think therefore I am". René Descartes got off to a brilliant start and then promptly took a wrong turn, completely missing the point of his inadvertent discovery. He turned right, taking the very 'doubt' that he took as evidence of his 'existence', making it the keystone of his entire intellectual edifice. Instead, he should have turned left and investigated it. So as to realise it's causal factors, thereby realising it's true nature, "... thus I am simply the result of that thought". The second possibility considers the two Grail Legend questions. "What does it mean?" and, "Whom does it serve?" The first investigates the object of attention. The second investigates the subject himself, using the same principles, in the same way, to find the same answer. One could also think of a teaching given to Carlos Castaneda, Don Juan's "second attention": though others might not agree.

I stumbled across this sutta yesterday (SN 48.58) with a dialogue between the Buddha and Sariputta, which has the following passage: > Considering what benefit, Sariputta, does a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed conduct himself in a way that shows supreme honor towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching? > > It is, venerable sir, considering as benefit the unsurpassed security from bondage that a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed conducts himself in a way that shows supreme honour towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching. So far, the question and answer seem a little curious. In the edition I have by Bhikku Bodhi, he added a note pointing out this was puzzling. But there is more. It continues: > And what, Sariputta, is the unsurpassed security from bondage that a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed considers as the benefit when he conducts himself in a way that shows supreme honour towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching? > > Here, venerable sir, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed develops the faculty of faith, which leads to peace, leads to enlightenment. He develops the faculty of energy [...] > > Good, good, Saripputa. [...] Now, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is, as far as I know, an arahant. Also, even if I were to doubt Bhikku Bodhi's translation, skimming through the pali version (with a dictionary, my pali knowledge is 0) indicated they are not talking about an ordinary bhikkhu ("who has work to be done"), but an arahant -- a *khīṇāsavo bhikkhu*. I tried googling for discussions around this text with no success. So my **question** is: Are there any clues that shed light into this confusion? The confusion of the Buddha approving Saripputa words (and that Saripputa himself would say them, though its not clear if he was already an Arahant himself at the time), which imply that an Arahant still seeks a state of being, devoted to the development of faculties and to reap assiciated benefits. While on a practical side this mostly concerns arahants (ie. if I'm to clear my doubts, I better become one), I'm also curious to know other (possibly notable) suttas that present problems (inconsistencies, etc).

I have heard that some teachers do not teach the Jhanas, others do. Yuttadhammo mentions the *great debate* about Jhanas. What is the controversy about? Whether they are useful towards realizing Nibbana/Nirvana? Is the debate relevant to all Buddhist traditions, only some, or are traditions split up in their views about Jhanas?