There is plenty of evidence in the Early Buddhist Texts common to both the major schools of Buddhism, that the Noble Eightfold Path was an accepted teaching, by the "Third" Buddhist Council at least, but it is only from the time of that Council that we have archeological evidence likely linking to this version of the Path. That is, by the likely supposition, that the 8 spoked wheel in Asokan pillars is representing this version of the Path, as the traditions hold. The eight spoked wheel has not been found in Earlier Buddhist art. Right View is known not to be Wisdom, from comparison of the Noble Eightfold Path with what can be called the Noble Tenfold Path, which differs only by having the extra two steps at the end: Right Insight and Right Liberation. Insight is known to be synonymous or at least directly related to Wisdom. Thus the 'Tenfold' Path fits perfectly the Three Trainings and one does not have to change the order either of the steps or the Three Trainings, as done by Bh. Dhammadinna [MN 44](https://suttacentral.net/mn44/) , which is followed by the commentator Bh. Buddhaghosa in his Visuddhimagga. The Three Trainings are accepted in both Mahayana and Theravada as a summary of the Path. The Noble Eightfold Path is only one of over 50 ways of presenting the Path in the Pali Early Buddhist Texts and there are only six others, which do not include the Training in Wisdom ([doc1](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pyv1FOOqmRhHil-FXT6ejuKlMUtSude-/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116204971514462608468&rtpof=true&sd=true) and [doc2](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acDIhERcjDfGYof2v45tqdXOipIh09_OYUfHwXWpVTY/edit?usp=sharing)) . The Buddha reportedly said he does not have a secret teaching, or the closed fist of a teacher ([DN16](https://suttacentral.net/dn16/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin#2.25.9)) and he only teaches what is necessary ([SN 56.31](https://suttacentral.net/sn56.31/)) . Therefore, the Three Trainings are all necessary and he would teach them to everyone. That is what we see in the other over 40 ways he taught the path, with all the Three Trainings, to lay people and mendicants (see links above). Therefore those 7 ways of presenting the Path, could not be from the Buddha. Early Buddhism, by the time of the 'Third' Council and still today in some Buddhist countries, only really teaches Ethics and Generosity as the practice of the layperson. We can see this was established by the 'Third' Council, as I have not found the Noble Eightfold Path, taught to any layperson in the Pali Early Buddhist Texts. Therefore it was taught to mendicants only, which supports the theory that the second and third training, had lost their relevance by the 'Third' council. Hoping for other clear evidence, not just closed minded claims or sectarian propaganda. Best wishes Joe

Is the Eightfold Path exclusive to Buddhism? Buddha taught the **Noble** Eightfold Path. The way I understand, the eightfold path is a generic path not exclusive to Buddhism. However, the Noble Eightfold Path is exclusive to Buddhism. I was trying to convince many [in Dhamma Wheel](https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=38202) of this without much support. I would like to know the opinion of this learned Buddhist community.

I came across this contemplation in [DN 22](https://suttacentral.net/dn22/en/sujato#5.3) : > It’s as if there were a bag with openings at both ends, filled with various kinds of grains, such as fine rice, wheat, mung beans, peas, sesame, and ordinary rice. And a person with clear eyes were to open it and examine the contents: ‘These grains are fine rice, these are wheat, these are mung beans, these are peas, these are sesame, and these are ordinary rice.' > > And so they meditate observing an aspect of the body internally … What kind of wholesome qualities on the 8-fold noble path does contemplating the bodies of people like sacks of different grains of rice and wheat inspire? Like sinews, muscle tissue, synovial fluid, neural tissue, skeleton. Contemplating this rotten body as a sack of grains in a linen bag, just like one the Buddha would have seen being carried around when he was a child 3000 years ago in India? Picture this, young Buddha seeing someone on the street by his palace, carrying a sack of rice for cooking a meal for him, and seeing the cooks in the kitchen? Thanks. sukhi hontu

I hope this finds you well and happy. Over the last 25 years I have been trying to apply the instructions from the Buddha on how to study his teaching to keep it pure, found in the Pali Early Buddhist Texts. In my documents linked below, I try to resolve glaring inconsistencies in the Pali text, from the perspective that the Buddha is the unexcelled teacher and does not need help from disciples to teach. You will need a google account to view them: My comparison of up to 54 possible variations in the gradual Path (the Fourth Noble Truth) found in the Pali Texts: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acDIhERcjDfGYof2v45tqdXOipIh09_OYUfHwXWpVTY/edit?usp=sharing My theory of early and late Buddhist Teachings (covering all Four Noble Truths): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CE8ycGuHdOBI96wzOiZt2Da1QWHclb2BCR-b1BwZEGs/edit?usp=sharing I'd be interested to hear of other similar work, because I'd like to associate and discuss with people who show at least the easiest to recognise Fruit of Stream Entry, taking the Buddha as their only teacher. That is, I'm seeking the Noble Community. Bhikkhu Sujato et al's 2014 study: Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf only wants to present the case, there is NO evidence of **major** doctrinal change in the EBTs. I'm not interested in people preaching or 'soap boxing' to me, the standard interpretations of doctrines, which I would call dogma. I was a Theravada monk for 20 years. So I am very familiar with them. This pushing of dogma is usually done in the style: 'this is the truth style'/'the Buddha taught this' etc. I'm interested in authentic discussion where people apply the training for his disciples ascribed to the Buddha of 'do not say this is the truth' but rather 'I believe this is the truth', called 'safeguarding the truth' MN 95 and is expressing one's view as one's view, as it really is. I understand this to be an insight practice and found it eradicates arrogance. The difference might better be understood by the difference in: 'the world is flat' - pushed by some organisations and 'I believe the world is flat' - someone expressing their belief realistically. I appreciate facts such as, the Noble Eightfold Path appears x times in the EBTs, but not quoting scripture to push the standard view, as my research shows there are likely many corrupted ideas in the EBTs. For me, agreement with the large body of consistent words of the Buddha, is a higher standard than the number of times an idea occurs. best wishes Joe

Should I see right practice as not self? The same question is phrased three times over, in different ways, below. As context, I am a householder that seeks to eliminate suffering. **Question from Buddhist point of view** I want to let go of everything but right practice. This allows me to see many things as not self, unphased. For example, feeling tired or aroused or discontent. These things are not part of right practice, so I am able to see them as not self and let them pass by. It then feels like a wave has passed by me, and fully knowing that the wave was not self, and fully footed in overcoming craving, I feel no need to look back at the wave. However, when thoughts of diligence come up, and of right speech, I am hesitant to see them as not self. I am afraid that if I see them as something that will just pass, something to be impassionate about, that I will then deviate from the right path. The concept of right path too, is something I am hesitant to see as not self. How to proceed? **Question with Christian example** In Christianity, there is the concept of the new man and the old man. Practitioners are said to never be able to hope to shake off the old man in them (until Jesus returns). Practitioners are told to strive continuously to *be* the new man. Is the Buddhist answer to let go of the new man too? **Question with concrete example** I have a thought about turning on the TV. The matters in that thought are not about giving up craving, not about mindfulness, not about being metta, so I give up the thought and don't look back at it. Then I have a thought about doing well at a new job. Usually I have doubtful thoughts about the new job. The thought of working hard at the job I see as related to diligence. I do not give up the thought and entertain it. Whereas the TV watcher is clearly not self - something that has arisen from a place that is not self - the thought of working hard at the job now feels like self. I am about the thought, the thought is about me. There is a self and the self is concerned with the thought. I don't feel it's possible to overcome the sense of self without giving up the thought, and giving up the thought I don't feel is possible without the giving up of diligence. If someone suggested that you could have not-self AND thought entertainment, I think I would brush that off as them not speaking from experience. Should I give up right diligence / right livelihood?

As i was told pinpotha is a traditional book used by sri lankan lay people. It is used to keep a track of all the good things they do. I made a digital version of pinpotha (epinpotha.lk ). Can someone explain me the real concept behind this.

Right Effort in the Noble 8 fold path has 4 components, the first being the prevention of the arising of unarisen unwholesome states. I've found in Bhikhu Bodhi's 'The noble eightfold path: Way to the end of suffering', a kind of general description of what is called 'sense restraint' as a tool one can use to prevent these states from arising. I find the book to be a great resource. However, I think that his description here does not give me enough detail to be able to implement it. Can someone suggest additional reading material that will give more detail and perhaps examples? Kind regards and much metta!

Since beginning insight practice over ten years ago I have practiced daily and attended many retreats. As a result I feel more peaceful and have gained an understanding and insight into the true nature of reality and I can see clearly the consequences of my actions etc and so I make better choices but it also feels like I have become more alone and less tolerant of people. I do metta practice and do not wish harm to anyone but I'm now painfully aware of the hatred, ignorance and delusion in the world and I don't like being around people because of it. So I am pretty much a recluse apart from when I see people on retreat and an online Sangha I attend. I feel very compassionate and loving towards animals to the extent that I try hard to not step on ants etc but humans I just don't feel the same way. I guess I see animals as more vulnerable and innocent whereas humans are capable of doing way better but they dont. Instead they just perpetuate greed and violence etc. Is this a normal part of the path or am I completely misguided?

Is being mindful of feelings in-and-of-themselves according to the triad of pleasant, unpleasant, neutral the Middle Way? Is is also auto-suggestion? Is it normalization of a distribution? Does it attempt to root out the extremes by placing us in the context of three categories? I really like the simplicity of Buddha’s model but what then about agony and ecstasy or rapture? I am happpy to do away with them, but I’m not sure how beyond lifestyle overhaul

Imagine following situation: A person who thinks of themself as a good person, meaning they are mostly nice to people and act and think almost always morally. Said person is diagnosed with an illness that has no cure and is inevitably going to kill them in, say, a year. How would a Buddhist explain this? I already know about the four noble truths as well as the noble eightfold path. Also I know that one could explain it with the concept of rebirth. But I'd like a more in-depth explanation and I'm interested if there are other ways of explaining it or if I am wrong with the information I already have.

Point 8 of the [Noble Eightfold Path](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path) is "Right Concentration". According to Wikipedia and at least some of the (Theravada-leaning) books I have read, with Right Concentration the Buddha meant the first four Jhanas (Rupa Jhana). To what extent can one say that Right Concentration is the same as the Jhanas? * Does it depend on tradition? AFAIU the Mahayanas do not like to talk about the Jhanas so much, so they might feel such a statement to be too narrow. * Is there a Sutta which makes this connection clear?

Ok well I got the leather jacket years before I started to follow Buddhism. Would it be alright to still have the coat, or do I have to give it to a friend, or someone else?

A Wikipedia article about Sati uses the word "upassanā" > According to Grzegorz Polak, the four upassanā have been misunderstood by the developing Buddhist tradition, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(Buddhism) However, I could not find the word in Pali dictionary and a Google search did not explain the term. The term 'nupassana' however is found on Google but neither in Pali dictionar . There is upasana in Sanskrit. What is this term upassana or nupassana and where is it used?

It's clear right view is the foremost factor as without the right view one would not go for practicing the noble eightfold path at all. But when the rest is considered, is there a real sequence? My physical actions are generally good and my speech is fine but needs to be improved as I'm vulnerable to idle chatter. But controlling speech the action is difficult to me. But when I realize that idle chatter(rather idle communication, not just idle chatter alone) leads to more dukkha I am abstaining from it. It's kind of right concentration. Am I following the noble eight foldpath correctly in that scenario?

How to apply eight fold path to the wholesome act as meditation of three marks of existence (Pali: tilakkhaṇa) of all existence and beings, namely impermanence (aniccā), non-self (anattā) and unsatisfactoriness or suffering (dukkha)?

In the Noble Eight Fold path, the practices which are said to be done often have a suffix of 'right' to them. My question is, on what basis is this 'right' found? Could a logical explanation be given?

In AN 10.176 idle chatter is defined as > He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance > with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya. He speaks words worth > treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the > goal. Bearing this in mind - is right speech purely connected with the Dharma? Should one speak of the Dharma and nothing else? From my own perspective some idle chit chat which has the effect of putting someone at ease in a social situation is a kindness. Similarly chatting to the daughter about nothing in particular is building the bonds of caring and again feels like the right thing to do. However would both those actions be classified as idle chatter and would not be right speech? On a personal note I probably do talk too much so a bit less idle chatter would do me some good i think.

Question is in the title. I remember reading that statement in a Theravada Buddhist book or PDF file but now I can't seem to find it. Help would be much appreciated.

One of the recurring themes in the teachings of the buddha is the noble eightfold path; the basis for achieving nibbana. Oftentimes the components of it are presented as their "wrong" counterparts, and usually a row of examples is provided for what some instances of those "wrong" counterparts are. I am specifically curious about what kind of practical basis (as many of the teachings have some) the instances of "wrong livelihood" might have, with regard to the historical context of when the teachings were formed. In DN.10. "Subhasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato" the following phrase can be found: **(emphasis mine)** > There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong livelihood. **This includes rites for propitiation, for granting wishes, for ghosts, for the earth, for rain, for property settlement, and for preparing and consecrating house sites, and rites involving rinsing and bathing, and oblations. It also includes administering emetics, purgatives, expectorants, and phlegmagogues; administering ear-oils, eye restoratives, nasal medicine, ointments, and counter-ointments; surgery with needle and scalpel, treating children, prescribing root medicines, and binding on herbs.** They refrain from such unworthy branches of knowledge, such wrong livelihood. … This pertains to their ethics. Some of these are easily explained, such as performing mystical rites for luck and blessing, but the examples of medical practice and administering "...nasal medicine, ointments..." leave me somewhat confused. What could be a historical reason for why these practices are considered "wrong livelihood", and more generally, what is the core traits that define "wrong livelihood"?

I am new to buddhism and this is my first question here. I hope I can provide something of value and that I am clear in my phrasing. So I have recently started learning about the teachings of the buddha, principally through the book The Basic Teachings of the Buddha by Glenn Wallis. I have decided that there is value to the practice but have not figured out to what extent I want to apply it, but I'm leaning towards not becoming a monastic, instead continuing on my current path but with a buddhist mindset. Today, I decided to buy a tea kettle. This might sound ridiculous as a jumping off point but it made me consider my attraction to certain products rather than others. I really want a kettle that is well designed aesthetically and that has more advanced functions like temperature control, but it feels like this is a form of grasping of sensory pleasure. Both for the aesthetic appeal of the design itself and for the flavour of the tea it will be used to brew. At the same time I believe that beauty, and minimalism in particular, are worthwhile in some regard. I do not want to become an ascetic (I seem to be joined by the majority of buddhist practitioners in this), but ascetiscism seems like the logical conclusion which the denial of the value of beauty leads to. So what does my desire for a nice kettle say about me as a buddhist, and is it compatible with buddhas teachings? Edit: Thank you all for your thoughtful answers! I am hesitant to pick one answer as these types of questions rarely have a definitive one, but I'll accept the highest voted one to make the question answered.