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.

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

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.

I was reading a book where author defined Mindfulness (sati) using these three analogies from different suttas: - > The Buddha compares mindfulness to a gatekeeper for a frontier fortress. [[Kimsuka Sutta]](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.204.than.html)
- > There’s another passage where the Buddha says that mindfulness is like a goad. Most of us have gotten away from animal husbandry and farming, and so we don’t even know what a goad is. It’s a long stick with a sharp point. You use it to poke your animals when they’re going the wrong direction, or if they’re standing still when they should be going. The implication here is that the ability to remember what’s skillful and what’s not, and to be able to give yourself a little push or a poke in the right direction: That’s what mindfulness does for you. > And sometimes it’s more than just a little poke. (May be he is referring to [Patoda Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.113.than.html) . But I'm not very sure because Buddha didn't mentioned Mindfulness in this Sutta. Please provide me correct sutta if there is.) - > There’s another passage where the Buddha says that when you see that something unskillful has arisen in your mind, then you act as if your hair were on fire. You do everything you can, as quickly as you can, to put it out. You’re relentless and mindful in being focused on putting out the fire, and nothing else. And other definitions which is written in Wikipedia: - > Mindfulness is the psychological process of purposely bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment without judgment. (Authour refers it as equanimity) But as I understand, I will only call Gate-keeper analogy as Mindfulness. And other analogies falls in the category of Right Effort and Right Resolve. If we look at [MN 117](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html#s1) : > "One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong resolve & for entering right resolve: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right resolve." Please correct me if I misunderstood this.

The Four Noble Truths include the Noble Eightfold Path which importantly includes “right view” as the first step on that path. However, it is said in Snp 4.5 that a Realized One does not hold any “views” nor declare any view foremost: > “Whoever should take to himself certain views, thinking them best, > supreme in the world, and hence he proclaims all others as low— by > this he does not become free from disputes.“ Is the “right view” as described in the Noble Eightfold Path the same kind of “view” that is described in Snp 4.5? If so, does this mean that a Realized One abandons the right view of the Noble Eightfold path?? If not, then what is a “view” as described in Snp 4.5 and how is it different from the “right view” of the Noble Eightfold path? It has been pointed out (quite astutely!) that the "right view" of the Noble Eightfold path can be divided into two. (MN 117) There is the right view with effluents and the right view without. Are either one of these, both, or neither the same type of "views" as described in Snp 4.5? Also, the Buddha often described things with the adjective “foremost”; does this mean those things so described were not “views” as meant in Snp 4.5?

*In this answer* it's said that the *Five Precepts* are not a form of gradual training. Are they are a gradual training? If not, why? Thank you for your time.

Currently, I work at home taking calls for tech support for a cable company. I work to help solve customers' issues as best as possible over the phone and send a technician if need be. The one thing I have been able to get past now is getting people onto the newest service available. The way that I see this being right livelihood is due to the fact that I am relieving suffering through poor cable services and possibly stress with paying too much (only sometimes is it paying more for the new service). I would like some thoughts on this as this has been running through my mind lately. No harm is being done through this job from what I can tell. Thanks in advance and Big Love!