This is one of my main concerns. What did Buddha actually mean by 'kalpa'? I know Buddha said that the Earth will die by fire, and then all beings will be born in the Abhasara loka. I think this may refer to the sun expanding in the next 5 billion years, meaning the Earth could remain suitable for life for around 5 to 8 billion years (totally). So, how does this apply to the calculation of a kalpa? Did Buddha use extraordinary examples to teach how long this time period is? If not, what about the extremely long year examples? What are the types of kalpas? I need a trustworthy answer because this is one of the main arguments in Buddhism.

In Dhammapada, verse 129, Buddha states: > All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. Taking this at face value, obviously however, not everyone fears death. People who had their amygdala removed or atrophied due to a disease do not have fear of death. Likewise, psychopaths seem to have no such fear. Many people do not tremble at violence at all, like psychopaths and military personnel. Then Buddha says that to not kill or cause another to kill, one should put themselves into another's shoes. But many people are incapable of this, like people with autism spectrum disorder. Taking all this into account and given that what Buddha says here seems to be wrong, how are we to understand this? (I believe this question would only apply to the Theravada Buddhists since AFAIK Mahayana does not acknowledge the Pali Cannon and therefore the Dhammapada, though of course, everyone is free to answer).

**Hello,** I understand that the six realms can be interpreted as states of the mind. But at the same time I believe in Yidam yoga, not only as symbolic but as a real emanation too - I have devotion. If the six realms are only symbolic then Buddhas / Siddhas cannot surpass the three times and cannot preform any miracles also; as I think they are both superstitions, so may be rebirth. At the same time nirvana may not be reachable by mantras as only a 8th level Bodhisattva can compose a mantra; and a lower level Bodhisattva in the 1st step is able see 100 lives before and after. I do believe in miracles, karma, nirvana, rebirth and "spirits" because of my experiences in life. I might be wrong, but shouldn't this make sense ? I mean Buddhism is very logical... What is considered a superstition from a Buddhist point of view ? **Thank you !**

I am curious about the idea of calling *sila* (all precepts and vows) as ethics. When did this translation appeared? Or who interpreted *sila* as ethics or something similar to ethics? This is not to say that it is incorrect or comprehensive, but ethics as a western category of thought has been used as an auxiliary concept to understand sila. Which scholar/s did this?

**The Vinegar Tasters** is a very interesting subject in Chinese art. It depicts Confucius, the Buddha and Laozi tasting vinegar. A common interpretation is the following: > Confucius is depicted with a sour face, because in confucionism life is "sour", that's why we need rules etc. The Buddha is depicted with a bitter face, because the Buddha saw life as full of suffering etc, while Laozi is depicted smiling, because the vinegar is sweet to him, because he understands "the perfect nature of vinegar". Despite the point of view of the Buddha (that life is full of *dukkha*), he understood that vinegar is vinegar, just as Laozi; and, knowing that, why would he have a bitter face? Is this depiction raising the image of Laozi and daoism and mistreating buddhism as pessimistic? Or is it more like a "Buddha sees the vinegar as it is" thing while Laozi sees it as sweet and thus "lying to himself"?

I had a discussion with one of my friend, who said, there's no such thing as physical reality, as per Lord Buddha. He quoted "The universe only exists inside this small body". As per my understanding, this is about how we understand the universe is different. But his idea is that there's no physical reality, all we are experiencing is a delusion. Any idea about this ?

I've been trying to understand the descriptions of each of the Jhānas in various Suttas, and I don't get what's meant by an element in some descriptions of the fourth Jhāna. For example: > When one has attained the fourth jhāna, in-and-out breathing has been totally stilled. – SN 36:11 It seems to me that that passage is saying that the breath literally stops, but this seems physiologically impossible. So perhaps the correct interpretation is that _volitional_ in-and-out breathing ceases? Or is the passage, perhaps, referring to the _perception_ of in-and-out breathing? I've even gone so far as to look up the words in Pāli, but this has only added to my confusion, since they seem to translate as literally the cessation of breath. Is this, perhaps, a shortcoming of our understanding of Pāli? If this is to be taken literally, what is the scientific basis for this phenomenon? Is it perhaps a perceptual phenomenon, where the meditator merely perceives the breath as having stopped? Or, if this is indeed an error in interpretation, then how is it to be interpreted? I should clarify that I'm not seeking to troll, or challenge the tradition. I myself am a lay disciple of the Dhamma. I'm prepared to accept an answer one way or the other, but I really want to have a solid understanding. Thanks.

The verses in question are from Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā chapter 25 on an examination of nirvana. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19–20 न संसारस्य निर्वाणात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं na saṁsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ न निर्वाणस्य संसारात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं। १९ na nirvāṇasya saṁsārāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ| 19 निर्वाणस्य च या कोटिः।कोटिः। संसरणस्य च nirvāṇasya ca yā koṭiḥ koṭiḥ saṁsaraṇasya ca न तयोर् अन्तरं किंचित् सुसूक्ष्मम् अपि विद्यते। २० na tayor antaraṁ kiñcit susūkśmam api vidyate| 20

>You, the richest person in the world, have been laboring and struggling endlessly, not understanding that you already possess all that you seek. I saw this quote on Instagram and the caption accompanying this quote says it's from the Lotus Sutra. However, I couldn't find any analysis of it online. I had interpreted it as the person in question not knowing that he had already achieved nirvana, and is laboring and struggling endlessly to achieve it, but that didn't sit right with me. I also thought that it might've meant that he was working towards material goals, despite having all he needed to find happiness, but that seemed very hedonistic and contrary to Buddhist views to me. What does this quote mean?

I have often heard that in many places in the *sutta*s where the Buddha says *Bhikkave*, (monks!), he really means to include the four *parisā* (assemblies), which includes lay male and lay female devotees. Therefore, it is said, that teaching applies to all. Where did this idea get legitimacy? Is there any mention in the canon itself? I can readily see why one would **wish** it were so (why would one ignore all the wisdom because it's not spoken directly to oneself) but that doesn't mean it **is** so. I'm also interested if this explanation is offered in Mahāyāna where the meaning of saṅgha itself is broader, as I understand. Also within Insight/Theravāda circles, is there a difference between the West and traditionally Buddhist countries like Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand in the reading of this word. Any historical insight into whether the West was influenced by the early arrival of Mahāyāna to its shores, for example. **Edit:** I am aware that it makes sense to view the teachings as applying to everybody. Please note that the question is more specific - **is there canonical support (in any canon) for this interpretation? Or some other historical information other than using our own logic.**

Similarly to [pop psychology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_psychology) , do we have the same effect for Buddhism? I have a feeling that many people subscribing to Buddhism because it seems to explain psychological phenomena that they (unfortunately) can't explain. It is also said that the Buddha taught the disciples in three levels, and in level 1 the goal is just to help the students overcome their problems in life, so I think this level is indeed pop Buddhism. Therefore I think pop Buddhism is a version of pop psychology. I wonder if my understanding is correct.

From [Socratic questioning – Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning) : >Socratic questioning is a form of disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we do not know, to follow out logical consequences of thought or to control discussions. Socratic questioning is based on the foundation that thinking has structured logic, and allows underlying thoughts to be questioned. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, deep and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues or problems. > > Examples of Socratic questions that are used for students in educational settings: > >1. Getting students to clarify their thinking and explore the origin of their thinking e.g., 'Why do you say that?', 'Could you explain further?' > 2. Challenging students about assumptions e.g., 'Is this always the case?', 'Why do you think that this assumption holds here?' > 3. Providing evidence as a basis for arguments e.g., 'Why do you say that?', 'Is there reason to doubt this evidence?' > 4. Discovering alternative viewpoints and perspectives and conflicts between contentions e.g., 'What is the counter-argument?', 'Can/did anyone see this another way?' > 5. Exploring implications and consequences e.g., 'But if...happened, what else would result?', 'How does...affect...?' > 6. Questioning the question e.g., 'Why do you think that I asked that question?', 'Why was that question important?', 'Which of your questions turned out to be the most useful?' Does this sound familiar with any Buddhism teachings/suttas? In specific, I think this has the same idea with koans, but I'm not sure. My interest seems to be about zen and mahayana, however any schools are welcomed.

I see that Buddhism is absolutely not nihilism, but I wonder what could go wrong if one misconstrue one with another. This is especially true with people with psychological issues, because they have to experience an amount of suffering more than normal when they are young. For example, for persons with [borderline personality disorder](https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Borderline-Personality-Disorder) , they constantly has these feelings: - Extremely fear of being abandoned - Unstable self-image In this example case, since Buddhism teaches that acknowledging everything is impermanent you won't be afraid of being abandoned. The unstable self-image also matches with the idea of anatman, therefore the idea of impermanence will have a strong impact to them. But in fact, this is just clinging on the idea of impermanence. Many people with psychological disorders knows that they are the trouble, so they want to limit relationships at all cost to protect the person involving them. To justify this behavior, they may use nihilism. But when it become a habit, it's really hard for professional therapists to help them, because they now have a reason to continue the behavior. I know you may not have much understanding on such cases, but I'm not asking about it either. I just want to know that if someone is misconstruing Buddhism with nihilism, then what suttas/teachings they contradict with. Note that my understanding on philosophy is not very concrete. It's possible that I should replace "nihilism" with "impermanencism".
Related: • [Is Buddhism Nihilistic?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/25409/13525) • [How to not slip into Nihilism from Vipassana?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8748/13525) • [Why is Buddhism not Nihilism?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/2245/13525) • [Is there a kind of consulting service in Buddhism?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31353/13525) • [When would a Buddhist want to attach?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31324/13525) • [Does Buddhism give methods to ask questions when you are proliferating?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31296/13525)

As part of my charity action I was going to donate to Against Malaria Foundation. But after reading that 100% of the money is going to buy long-lasting insecticidal nets for the prevention of malaria, I am not so sure if that conflicts with my buddhist practice. For those who don't know, insecticidal nets are mosquitoes nets that are sprayed with insecticide, which is said to be twice as effective as unsprayed nets. Against Malaria Foundation website: https://www.againstmalaria.com/ Wikipedia on Against Malaria Foundation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Malaria_Foundation > The Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) is a United Kingdom-based charity that provides long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) to populations at high risk of malaria, primarily in Africa. As of July 2016, the foundation has raised $86.6 million and distributed or committed to fund 19.3 million LLINs since its founding in 2004. Wikipedia on insecticide-treated nets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_net#Insecticide_treated_nets > Mosquito nets treated with insecticides—known as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) or bednets—were developed in the 1980s for malaria prevention. ITNs are estimated to be twice as effective as untreated nets, and offer greater than 70% protection compared with no net. These nets are dip-treated using a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide such as deltamethrin or permethrin which will double the protection over a non-treated net by killing and repelling mosquitoes.

Siddhartha by Herman Hesse is an excellent book and is written with the spirit of mystery and wonder that also permeates most Buddhist teachings. >! At the end of the book, Siddhartha has attained what appears to be Nirvana. He is sitting with his friend Govinda. >!

Govinda has spent the entirety of his adult life seeking Nirvana, and he is lamenting about this to Siddhartha; practically begging for some guidance and teaching. >!

Siddhartha, feeling great compassion for his friend's suffering, instructs him to kiss his [Siddhartha's] forehead. Govinda finds this odd, but is compelled by a great love of Siddhartha to accept. As he does this; he attains some kind of enlightenment - and though it's always seemed to me to be less 'significant' or permanent than what Siddhartha has attained - it is still a profound and magical moment of transformation. Does anyone know what Hesse intended us to derive from this sequence? Specifically, has he spoken upon this issue, or written about it? It's always been completely mysterious to me. I'm looking for something more solid than unverified speculation. I'm not opposed to opinions, but I'd like that any opinion be informed by some source - either Hesse, or another writing about Hesse's works.

I have heard a story in which a concubine of a certain Deva died while she was with him and other concubines of him in a park. She was born as a human in next life but she remembered who she was in her last life and so she wanted nothing but to return to her deva. So she lived a virtuous life and was born among the very bunch again. Her death has gone unnoticed and her deva asks her where she's been. Here she tells him about her human life and he is amazed by the short life of humans as they are still in the very same park enjoying it's beauty, remaining there since the last time she was a deva (A whole human life spent in a single visit to a park) I have often seen this story used as an anchor by monks to explain the length of life in higher realms saying >"It has only been a few days for them since the *Parinirvana* of Lord Buddha, so there is still thee purest of the teaching as there are ones who saw and listened to lord buddha there still among them. Also there are enlightened one's from that era still living and advising there." I can't help but think that no mater what no one will spend a human lifetime's length to have a walk in a park. ***Perhaps this is a time lapse that is here?*** I know this is not a place to play with science and buddhism. but i'm asking this to get an explanation as i've seen many people listen to this and delay their efforts limiting themselves to hording only good karma but no other efforts on much arduous sections of the path. >Before you downvote or delete this please consider the kind of good or harm that can come of this as this is an interpretation that has rallied too many people behind it (At least in my country). And i'm not asking for opinions either > >What can we make of this? > >**Is it a universal phenomenon like time lapse/ Einstein's reletivity?** > >**Or a misinterpretation?**