I'm looking for Suttas or other texts that describe the triple gem (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha), preferably for laypeople. I'm mostly interested in Theravada Suttas, but also Mahayana Sutras, newer books, or other materials. Grateful for help!

For what is my understanding of Buddhism, the Buddha teachings aim to solve the problem of suffering. The buddha said you don't have to have faith in him or his teachings that you will be liberated from suffering, but you are encouraged to try it yourself and experiment the results. At the same time, you might need several lives to obtain liberation, isn't this equivalent to an act of faith? From the perspective of a person who is approaching Buddhism for the first time, you ask them to put a lot of effort and time on something it is not verifiable. Kinda like christianity, if you behave according to the christian commandments you will go to heaven, I feel like they are the same concept. Also during my researches I have found in Buddhism teachings there are a lot of analogies that are quite charming, but if you think about it carefully they are not quite correct. The one I have met the most is the analogy between the Four noble Truth and a medical treatment. Regarding the treatment part in particular, I think a medical treatment is a very precise and deterministic series of steps. You follow the steps and you get a precise result in more or less precise period of time. The Noble Eightfold path instead, I find it very vague, a lot of concept are explained with "it can't be comprehended with concepts and logic". Doesn't this also require an act of faith? To people who are practicing Buddhism, have you done an act of faith when you approached Buddhism for the first time?

So I was reading about jhana and nimitta in a book by Pa-Auk tawya sayadaw here page 41 if anyone wants to read. Where I come across this: > To balance faith with wisdom, and concentration with effort, is > praised by the wise. If, for instance, faith is strong and wisdom is > weak, a person will develop faith in, and respect for objects without > use and essence. For instance, he will develop faith in, and reverence > for objects revered and respected by religions outside orthodox > Buddhism, such as guardian spirits or protective deities. **If, on the > other hand, wisdom is strong and faith is weak, a person can become > quite crafty. Without meditating, he will spend his time simply > passing judgements. This is as difficult to cure as to cure a diseas > caused by an overdose of medicine.** If faith and wisdom are balanced, > however, a person will have faith in objects he should have faith in: > the Triple Gem, kamma, and its effects. He will believe that if he > meditates in accordance with The Buddha's instructions, he will be > able to attain the pañibhàga-nimitta, and jhàna Now I do experience with the latter, too much wisdom, not enough faith. I did and must have had some faith at the beginning of my study into Buddhism, though at that time I still had faith (believed) in god (creation/christian god) but now I "know" things that I no longer have faith in, because I know and understand them I have conformation rather than faith. Even kind of complicated concepts like "faith in" karma, I no longer have faith in because I understand and can see first hand karma manifest through cause and effect. Even the Buddhas enlightenment I have "seen" so to speak as I have seen the fruits of the path so my faith in these things have waned or dissipated. There has not been any sort of scepticism about the actual Buddhas teachings for a long time, I at least intellectually understand even the most complex concepts. I remember hearing a sutta about Buddha asking a student if they have faith in the Buddha and the student replied "no I do no longer have faith in the Buddha", to which the other members of the sangha were shocked, but the meaning of the sutta was that this person had gone beyond faith and understood the dhamma so no longer had any faith in what the Buddha taught, as he had seen himself. I cannot remember if this is a mahayana or theravada sutta, and I think the student was an arhant, meaning after arthantship one no longer has faith. Still the question is before arthantship, as I myself am not an arthant. **So the questions are:** how do we then gain or renew faith in order to balance wisdom? Is there a point where faith is no longer able to manifest in ones mind before arhantship so there is no way to balance wisdom with faith? and if so, how would we [then] actually be able to balance wisdom without faith?

I may consider myself as a strong buddhist. But when I read about concept of quantum consciousness , it seems very realistic. And add to that, considering capabilities of current simple(chat GPT, etc) AI models, and considering how powerful an AI model(in DNA) would be powered by evolution through millions of years, it seems possible to believe ability to produce consciousness like behavior with 1) biological quantum consciousness and 2) AI model coded by DNA. So, my question is, what are the best **Buddhist answers** against this? Why may be these ideas of physically produced consciousness are wrong? In other words, what information we can gather from buddhist philosophy and buddhist teachings regarding origin of the consciousness?

I have read that the Stream Enterer needs to develop all the 5 faculties order to become enlightened. One of these facilities is faith. It is also said that they are beyond skeptical doubt of the Buddha's teachings and know for themselves the way out of suffering as they have the right view. Since they have seen the Buddhas teaching for themselves then, why do they need to develop faith in it? You only would need to trust someones word if you cannot verify their claims for oneself. I understand then why a Putthujana would need faith. So I am wondering maybe a) I am wrong in my understanding of what Saddha means... if so what is it and how why do I need to cultivate it or b) I am wrong in my understanding of what a sotapanna is and he is still needing to verify certain things. Can some one affirm which of these two are right? Linked Discourses 48.56 6. The Boar’s Cave Grounded >“Mendicants, when a mendicant is grounded in one thing the five faculties become developed, well developed. What one thing? Diligence. And what is diligence? It’s when a mendicant looks after their mind when it comes to defilements and things that stimulate defilements. As they do so the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom are fully developed. That’s how when a mendicant is grounded in one thing the five faculties become developed, well developed.” Thanks

***How do we know attaining complete liberation from dukkha is possible?*** This is a question I’ve made to myself in multiple oportunities, especially after having explained the basics of (what I understand about) the Dhamma to people not acquainted with it. When in such circumstance, I interpret that thought (the question) not necessarily as doubt in the Dhamma, but as a question of “common-sense”. I have my own arguments that I’ve been buiding over the years about why I think attaining Nibbana is possible, but ultimately, it seems to be just a statement coming from faith and from the extension of a principle that until now has proven to be true, logical, compatible with evidence and useful (namely, the idea of the dukkha as a consequence of tanha, and that the diminishing of the presence of tanha leads to the diminishing of the presence of dukkha). But, what does assure us that such principle could be applied until the complete eradication of dukkha? It’s like thinking that just because the scientific method has shown itself to be useful in -apparently- understanding some aspects of reality (based on our ability to use the information gained through the application of the method to predict outcomes, to built technology to achieve some ends, and the ever growing power to keep understanding more and subtler aspects of nature), that would necessarily mean that understanding everything about reality is possible. Personally, I don't think that's the case, because I consider the possibility of reaching a point where our technology does not "expand" enough the power of our senses (i.e., we reach a practical limit of detection of events or presence of some entity or phenomenon), or that there could be stuff in Reality that do not interact with the things we can effectively interact (no matter how subtle or indirect the degree of interaction with such phenomena). Could it be the case that there is a physical, biological or spiritual (whatever that could mean) condition that could limit the application of the Buddhist method to the very end, just like what could happen with the application of the scientific method? Just in case, I don’t see any problem admitting to myself that faith in -what the suttas tell us about- the Buddha and in my own experience is what keeps driving me forward in this path. I think that science is not that different in this regard: through inductive reasoning, and assuming the reality of an external world, the possibility of knowledge of (at least) some parts of it, and the regularity of events, faith (or confidence in the reality of the assumptions) seems to be an useful principle when investigating nature. So, the question can be formulated as such: **what is the epistemic justification for having confidence on the possibility of complete eradication of dukkha? One can have confidence, but based, for instance, on [this definition of knowledge](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#WhatKnow) , how can we justify the belief about the possibility of Nibbana, beyond inductive reasoning and confidence?** I think this question could be particularly beneficial for putting to test the recurring idea of both Buddhism not contradicting knowledge gained (or possible to be eventually gained) through empirical means, and Buddhism as a “science of the mind”. I’d love to here your thoughts on this. **EDIT**: There's an ongoing discussion on this same question of *D&D-SuttaCentral*. There are very good answers and feedback in my opinion. If you're interested, [here you'll find the thread](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/how-do-we-know-attaining-complete-liberation-from-dukkha-is-possible/17357) . Kind regards!

What did the Buddha mean in AN 5.38. when he said: > “Mendicants, a faithful gentleman gets five benefits. What five? > The good persons in the world show compassion first to the faithful, not so much to the unfaithful. They first approach the > faithful, not so much the unfaithful. They first receive alms from > the faithful, not so much the unfaithful. They first teach Dhamma > to the faithful, not so much the unfaithful. **When their body breaks > up, after death, the faithful are reborn in a good place, a heavenly > realm.** A faithful gentleman gets these five benefits. Emphasis mine. I am trying to discern what this means with reference to the answers for the word upapajjati in this question which discussed the meaning of the word which is being translated here. Also, what did the Buddha mean when referring to the "break up of the body, after death" and has that been correctly translated?

From a Dhammic perpective of truthfulness: wouldn't, isn't following [science preaching](https://sangham.net/de/tipitaka/sut/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than#fn-1) totally based on blind faith with no personal prove? And isn't the non changing of the truth of suffering, the fact of being still dependend, not free, actually a proof that, althought putting it's advices into action, they hardly bring ever the actually desired effect? *[ Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, cyber-sex, unskilful entertainment of notions of identifications, or what ever world-binding trade but to get pregnant with the seed of release]*

I came across this section by chance, and read another question by a person with misanthropic feelings. I read all the answers because I feel the same as her. I've always been spiritual with an interest in Buddhism and Taoism, but it seems to slip away. I too suffered a lot because of others, but what really got me into this misanthropic state is the suffering of so many animals at the hands of humans. It saddens me so much and I begin hating people because of it. Not all people, just a lot. It also saddens me a lot to see children suffering but because they turn possibly into cruel people themselves. The plight of animals gets me more. I find them more special and innocent than people yet they have to suffer so much. A lot anyway. Now, the responses to that other persons question helped me realize some things, but I'm still struggling with the suffering of animals. Why can't they be spared if suffering is a tool to evolve? Studying psychology, biology, anthropology and neuroscience I can't help thinking that humans are acting based on chemical, biological or psychological reactions of the brain. There is no enlightenment, just another religious promise - like heaven, enlightenment or the 11 virgins - depending on the belief. I feel like I have no more answers, only confusion and questions, and i also feel like I've reached a point where I'm so fed up with the suffering of animals, children or good people. I'm so tired of it all. Not in a sense that i want to hurt those cruel people, but in a sense of wanting to leave it all behind. But if i did, then I wouldn't be around anymore to help loved ones or some of the animals. Emotionally I suffer because I can't make even a dent and physically because I work hard to help out as many as I can.

Like all religions, there are different branches, traditions, whatever you want to call them. Why would you choose one over the others? Do you think one is right and the others are wrong? Does one fit with your lifestyle? I can see being born into one you might not have a choice. If they are all the same thing at heart, why have the differences? What if you choose the wrong one?

I've never had any religion throughout my childhood and adolescence, and at the age of 18 I had my first contacts with buddhism; It seemed fascinating, and I kept reading about all the things I could find about it. Everything just seemed right, because I was truly convinced by this idea that the truth lies within, and I just saw the buddha as someone who had found it. It seemed to be the "no **trust-my-words** religion". Recently I bought a buddhism book. It was an interesting reading, but somethings were discussed that I haddn't seen with this emphasis: karma and rebirth in other worlds. The thing is that, after that, I became VERY skeptical when I learned that those things come from hinduism. It seems to be the religion that existed before buddhism, and it has karma, it has the samsara, the liberation (which is a little different), the worlds, the **gods**... And it's just seems as though the current culture at the time and location buddhism took place **influenced buddhism itself**, poisoning it with the same kind of dogmas other religions have - man-made dogmas, made up truths. In short, my problem is that following buddhism started to seem like following christianity, or islam - just another religion that it's followers think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Why is buddhism any different? It seemed right, now it feels overwhelming and almost crazy. I want to follow buddhism, but those hindu concepts make it become yet another trust-my-word religion. I'm seriously disappointed.

I'm an older male, actually a grandfather, and a Western convert to Buddhism. I came to Buddhism through meditation and interest in 60's mysticism - Alan Watts, D T Suzuki and the like. I read many books and for many years maintained a regular daily sitting practice, which has rather fallen by the wayside of late. But I think the meditation side of Buddhism was very important to me, I'm naturally drawn to mysticism and feel I intuitively understand it, even though most people think it's just nonsense. I discovered a Pureland (Jodo Shinshu) sangha in my neighborhood about mid last year. I have gone to the service regularly since then. Actually the Venerable is very pleased to have a new convert as it seems to me converts are very few and far between. I very much like the Teacher and the aesthetics of the liturgy and ceremonies, albeit much is in Japanese (although some teachings are always given in English too.) It seems to me that if you accept this path, though, you basically give up Buddhism as a kind of D-I-Y path to enlightenment. Pureland is very critical of meditation, which is 'self-power' and doomed to fail - 'only one in a million' can follow the 'path of sages'. Basically part of the message is, don't do it. A recent dharma talk made an explicit point of this. The thing that drew me to Pureland is that I know I am not a virtuous sage, but just a flawed human with bad habits and problematical behaviours. I actually do believe there is a life beyond (and a life previous) and that I have allowed myself to become corrupted by the culture into which I've been born. But the obstacle I have with Jodo Shinshu is that in this sense it's very like the Christian religion that I thought I had left - it requires unswerving faith, but you will never know, this side of death, whether the Western paradise is a reality and not simply a cherished belief. It was exactly that which caused me to leave Christianity. One of the reasons I chose to study Buddhism in the first place was that one could arrive at a higher understanding through meditation, even though I have since found out I have an indelible tendency to sabotage my own aspirational goals. Accordingly, the notion that we're bombu, spiritually inept individuals who can never succeed under their own power, definitely rings true. So it's a bit of a quandary at this point. I have a small Buddhist altar which is my practice place, I have been endeavouring to practice with a Sōtō Zen type of attitude. I feel as though I should continue to make the effort to sit zazen. Not because I will succeed through it, but 'sitting just to sit', as I've always done. It's not so much a question, as the need to discuss some of this with other practitioners and get their perspectives.

Yesterday I spent some time studying one of the Vinayas and, completely honestly, I couldn't help but think that some of the rules were shockingly superstitious even by the standards of most of the world religions of the time. For example, rules that emphasize non-violence to such an extent that they forbid monks and nuns from slicing or peeling their own fruits and vegetables. The food, completely vegetarian, must be "slaughtered" by a lay donor before the monks are allowed to break it or bite it. I couldn't help but think that such rules actually harm the Sangha by preventing them from operating in present-day capitalistic societies, where self-sufficiency is highly respected and prized. (And, potentially unsanitary? Modern churches, by contrast, issue each congregant a separate cup and communion wafer, even though the disciples shared a single loaf and chalice.) Other parts of the vinaya were surprisingly in-tune with modern sensibilities of social justice and "Twitter feminism", such as the rule forbidding monks from teaching nuns without being first asked. #DontMansplainDharmma Or the rule that a monk must first ask permission of another monk (trigger warning) before reminding him or politely asking him about a possible rule violation. It made me wonder if there are modern monks and monastic orders that explicitly (and unapologetically) reject the obsolete parts of the vinaya while conscientiously obeying the beneficial parts. Granted, which parts are obsolete is open to interpretation. And secondly, I am aware that the text of the vinaya forbids monks from criticizing vinaya or requesting changes to it, especially for the cause of expediency or attracting new followers. The Buddha himself authored vinaya and expected it to be followed. Is it permissible for a Buddhist lay follower, one who has taken refuge and has chosen to follow the Eightfold Path without picking and choosing, to discuss certain aspects of the vinaya in a skeptical light, as I have just done? Or to describe certain texts as mythological or historical disciples as impure? I have not taken refuge in the Three Jewels and will not unless I can do so in total sincerity and a pure conscience.

One thing that seems fascinating about the rules of the monastic life, the rules of poverty and celibacy, and so forth, is that as strict as the rules are, it seems that compliance is voluntary. A monk could, at any moment, choose to disrobe and leave the order, and he would still be welcome to hear the Buddha and practice as a lay believer. It seems almost as if he is lauded for acknowledging his limitations rather than continuing to struggle without making progress, and continuing to eat the alms food in vain. I haven't yet read any sutras where a lapsed monk is told that he earned himself a rebirth in a bad destination. Am I mistaken? Does a lapsed monk earn bad karma from leaving the order, or from having mistakenly joined the monastic order? On the other hand, is it possible that he earns good karma and a good rebirth for having been in the Sangha? Suppose that his time in the Sangha makes him more wise, compassionate, forbearing as a lay person than he was previously. Suppose a recently divorced banker or stock broker resolves to join an established Therevadin order for exactly seven years. He will memorize the teaching and meticulously follow the rules during that time, after which he will return to his profession (and find a new wife). Is this permissible and beneficial, according to the Dhamma?

In many religions it is common to say: "Have faith in God" or Jesus or Allah... In Buddhism we believe in Kamma, meaning that what happens to us is due to our past actions and it is usually not (or never) influenced by an external being. (It can change from school to school, some may pray and ask for things) So if there is something I want, something I judge important, should I have faith that it will come true? Or should I just do what I think is right and forget about it? What is the best way for a Buddhist to act in this situation? PS: Please ignore the fact that I want something, I know this could be questioned in Buddhism as the wrong way to happiness, but that would be a different question :)

I read in Wikipedia and also in the suttas that refuge in Dhamma is "verified", as follows: > Svakkhato Bhagavata dhammo sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko > paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti. > > "Svakkhato" The Dhamma taught by the Blessed One is Excellent in the > beginning, Excellent in the middle and Excellent in the end - all of > Buddha's Discourses are consistent and teach the same truth. > "Sanditthika" Dhamma is self-evident and can be understood in this > life itself. "Akaliko" Dhamma, Noble Truths, can not be changed nor > can they be altered over time. "Ehipassiko" "come and see"; Buddha's > Dhamma is to be investigated. "Opanayika" Dhamma can only be > understood by oneself. "Paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti" Dhamma is for > the wise to understand and realize. _____________ > The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very > life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that > sensible people can know it for themselves. > > svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko > paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhīti. Can I believe in things I have not verified for myself but still be a Buddhist? Do the words "veditabbo viññūhīti" refer to direct experience? Or can it be merely fluency in theories?

I'm intrigued by this concept. Can a Buddhist marry a person from a faith who believe in a God that created the universe? I've got varying answers from Buddhists, some have advised that religion does not matter as it's personal, others have said it does. However I was also thinking as a marriage it 2 people, and then ramifications from that, be it extended family, children etc. Would it be recommended if the other partner's faith dictated that the Buddhist partner would not go to heaven and so creating a deep seated question of faith and tension between the 2 people. Also what would anyone learn from a couple who have disbanded their own faiths for mortal desires rather then an actual spiritual journey?

In *Upanisa Sutta* Suffering is noted as a supporting condition for faith, I have a faint idea of how this could be, but I have a hard time following it as I did all other supporting conditioned listed in a successive order. Could you please shade a light. Thanks a mil > Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not > lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for > faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply. Upanisa Sutta: Discourse on Supporting Conditions_translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi

Can people with poor mental health not just benefit from meditation, but realize its goals?

Ven. Members of the Sangha (of Bhikkhus), Ven. fellows, valued Upasaka and Upasika, dear readers and interesed, This question is intellectual and theoretical, or literary, but also/merely inviting self-reflection; but of course it can also be answered with words of the Buddha in "should-form" (in the later case, exchange "you" with "a serious follower of the Buddha, a person in general, to find peace", how ever you wish and feel obligated or loyal to). So, about loyalty, - In regard of what are you able to claim being loyal? - Whom are you loyal to? - How far goes your loyalty? - Where and how does it end? Also, finally: - What must one be loyal to, to find, to reach the highest aim all Buddha-following seekers are after? - What are you loyal and/or are you not loyal to, so that you have't found final peace already, or you highest desired goal? - What is an Arahat loyal to? Has loyality, then, an end (no more required)? Maybe you try to give a loyal answer. Much joy and inside in giving a benefical answer, at least for youself.