"Was Angulimāla, the bandit-turned-disciple of the Buddha, a historical figure or a purely symbolic character in Buddhist literature? What evidence supports either view?"

I recall reading the Buddhist scriptures say those who revile Noble Ones are reborn in hell. Does this also apply to an unenlightened (puthujjana) monk that reviles a Noble Layperson?

In this answer there is a quote from The Buddhist Monastic Code 1 - The Patimokkha Rules Translated and Explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, which reads in part > only when one is possessed by non-human beings In that book there are several references to being possessed by spirits or non-human beings, such as this from page 44. >State of mind. The bhikkhu must be in his right mind. Any statement he makes while insane, delirious with pain, or possessed by spirits does not count. My question is, **who or what is doing the possessing**? Is there a belief in Buddhism that some being (a hungry ghost or something else?) would actually take over the mind of a human? Is that type of cross realm interaction possible? How literally is possession by spirits to be understood? Thank you.

I read the following on the internet by a Pali translator & independent monk some use as their first choice go to reference or 'refuge': > In any case, this makes it clear why the Sutta says the gandhabba must > be present, while the Veda says Viśvāvasu must depart.... This is not > something new, or something that has been left unaddressed by cultures > in the past. Anxiety about potency and paternity is a fundamental > component, perhaps the single most important distinguishing feature, > of the male psyche, and forms the foundation of misogyny. Patriarchal > institutions like marriage traditionally aimed to subjugate women, > yes, but they also tried to temper the worst of men. In freeing women > from patriarchal suppression, it is crucial to find ways to address > this deeply irrational male anxiety. > >[On the gandhabba and male anxiety](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on-the-gandhabba-and-male-anxiety/30928) In Early Buddhism: 1. Is marriage a patriarchal institution? 2. Is marriage the patriarchal subjugation of women? 3. Is the above utterance read on the internet an example of the wrong view in MN 117 that there is no mother & no father? Please quote Early Buddhist texts for & against the above propositions.

I wouldn't have thought so in the 80's or the 90's, or maybe not so intensely. But nowadays, I frequently have to think: this person is behaving like this, like he or she is not human. And then, I had the theory that, if the world had 2 billion people before, and then 4 billion, 6 billion, and 8 billion now, where do the extra 6 billion souls come from? Do they have to come from the souls of insects, reptiles, rodents, and other animals? And then when I read the Six Paths in Buddhism , there are 6 paths of beings reincarnation: 1. God / Heaven path 2. Human 3. Demigod 4. Hell 5. Hungry spirits 6. Beasts The first 3 are Virtue paths, and the last 3 are Evil paths, and Demigod is into fighting, so they are sometimes considered to be the Evil path. So if the number of beings in each path is even, then it explains well: only 33% of people we see are the God / Heaven or Human path. The other 67% are Evil path. It could be the Hell path that would hurt people no matter what, the Hungry spirit path that are extremely selfish and always ponder how to take advantage of others, the Beast path who are apathetic to others and have sociopath personalities. Can the Six Paths correctly explain it?

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?

How do bodhisattvas, and those who would emulate them, respond to a tyrant or despot, e.g. a Hitler or Stalin? Are Buddhists / Bodhisattvas suggesting a "non-resistance to evil by violence" (Tolstoy) and some strange notion of absolute forgiveness, practically or otherwise? To have someone preach that we all forgive tyrants, as they may go for our throat, seems like a peculiar and sadistic form of madness.

For a good Buddhist , is to always avoid any cause that will create bad effect, as we can see clearly in the 4 noble truths for example. What is the Buddhist perspective during an hypotetic moment of tension , where antagonist religions that serve a demiurgic god for temporal power or maybe from a blind communist regime , will decide to manipulate and force pratictioners to not follow the Dharma anymore , closing monasteries , destroying sources , texts and deport and killing people in the name of an evil faith? (Look for example what the christians did in Europe in the last 1000 years or the muslim in the Kashmir region, chinese in Tibet and Jews in Palestine) Fight or get killed? I would like to have direct answers , not political nor mellifuous / hypocrite one.

I read the following on the internet: > If having a little wisdom one would not see any different between > "staying right focused" and "watch closely", but the fool seeks to > accumulate knowledge just for gain and to pave his way downwardly. From the Pali suttas, the word "**anupassi**" is translated as follows: > On that occasion the monk remains **focused** on the body in & of > itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress > with reference to the world. Thanissaro > > on that occasion a bhikkhu abides **contemplating** the body as a body, > ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and > grief for the world. Bodhi > > That’s why at that time a mendicant is meditating by **observing** an > aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and > aversion for the world. Sujato > > a monk lives **contemplating** the body in the body, ardent, clearly > comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world, > covetousness and grief Nyanasatta Thera > > a bhikkhu lives **contemplating** the body in the body, ardent, clearly > comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome, in this > world, covetousness and grief... Soma Thera > > a monk fares along **contemplating** the body in the body, ardent, > clearly conscious (of it), mindful (of it) so as to control the > covetousness and dejection in the world... Horner > > that bhikkhu is considered one who lives **constantly contemplating** body > in bodies, strives to burn up defile­ments, comprehends readily, and > is mindful, in order to abandon all liking and disliking toward the > world... Buddhadasa > > in regard to the body a monk abides **contemplating** the body, diligent, > clearly knowing, and mindful, free from desires and discontent in > regard to the world. Analayo > > **Contemplates** the body in the body with effort, sampajañña and sati, > eradicating covetousness and distress with regard to the world... > Payutto > > These unpleasant feelings are dukkha-vedana and the contemplation of > these feeling is vedananupassana, **contemplation** of feeling... > Mahasi Sayadaw It appears, from the ten translators above, the American Geoffrey DeGraff (also named Bhikkhu Thanissaro) has uniquely translated "anupassi" as "focused". Questions: 1. Is Thanissaro's translation accurate? Is the English word "focused" synonymous with the other translations of "contemplating", "observing", "watching closely", etc? 2. Is there a possible downward path, misguidance &/or confusion in adhering & attaching to Thanissaro's translation? Why? 3. Is there a possible downward path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why? 4. Is there a possible upward & even Noble path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why?

I read the following on the internet: > If you truly understand the practice of generosity, then you'd never > have to look for outright expression of gratitude from the receivers. > The act does and will benefit you in this life and many future lives > to come. It's the donor who should express the gratitude for the > opportunity to build up his great kammic storehouse. Did the Buddha teach receivers to be ungrateful?

I find that a good number of believing Christians and Muslims think that Satan literally exists and is a very real actor in the real world. Is "Mara the Evil One, the Tempter" a rhetoric device in Buddhist tales -- a personification to enable the construction of a certain kind of parable? Or is "Mara" understood by contemporary Buddhists as an evil being who actually exists in the physical plane that we inhabit?

Is there a figure in Buddhism corresponding to the Christian notion of such? And what would that mean, practically?

If every bad event is because of karma, how can anyone ever murder an arhat? > Killing an Arhat (enlightened being) is one of the ānantarika-kamma actions.

What is good and bad according to Buddhism? Is there good and bad? What is it's cause? What defines good and bad? Why some people think "this same X is bad" and others think "this same X is good"? What's the cause of this difference in thinking "this same X is bad" and "this same X is good"? Are there any suttas talking about all this?

Is there any definition for 'Mara' in Buddhism? Islam has a concept called Shayṭān . They explain it as the devil inside a human (Islam explanation ). There is something like this in Christianity too. Does Mara represent the bad side of humans or is Mara understood differently in Buddhism?

I'm wondering if there were any such occasions, and what suttas/sutras this is recorded in. Also if the Buddha gave advice to otherwise evil people besides Angulimala or Devadatta, or possible connections to psychopathy or sociopathy.

I'm particularly interested in if there is any evidence in the sutras (or commentaries or anything old) that explains this peculiar list of transgressions (the Ānantarika-karma): 1. patricide 1. matricide 1. killing an arhat 1. injuring a Buddha 1. creating schism in the saṅgha. 1 & 2 & 3 are already against the first precept. 3 & 4 are hard to do even if you wanted to for lack of suitable arahats and Buddhas to kill or injure. I've come to suspect that this is just a formula for expressing that schism is *really* bad. But this formula appears in many places, often without much other reference to schism. (for example ordination,

Some of the western religions have evil spirits like devils and demons. Does the concept or belief in evil spirits occur in Buddhism?