Can I ask you a question? I am a Buddhist and during the Eight Precepts Observance Day, am I not allowed to keep money, but after 24 hours, I can use money, but the money on The Eight Precepts Observance Day I am observing the Eight Precept must be transferred to my cousins or my spouse or my relatives? I mean how can I show that I keep the precept?

What are they? Where are they found in the literature? Are there any significant differences in them among the traditions?

I was wondering if for example an obsession or craving that someone has for attaining Nirvana would be considered something unwholesome. On one hand it seems to me like it would, since that person would be reinforcing the habit of craving, but on the other hand how else could they actually achieve the goal? Like for example how could they decide to become a monk and devote themselves fully to the practice etc. I don't think the Buddha would have left his palace if he wasn't motivated by *some* sort of craving, at least in the beginning.

I've become aware through sutta study that avijja (the fetter of ignorance) refers to ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. Is there a specific canonical sutta that says that avijja is ignorance of the anatta doctrine? I know inferentially if anatta is part of the Four Noble Truths, then that would follow, however sometimes the various connections are hard to hold in the mind at the same time. Thanks.

My mother and I come from a non-Buddhist culture/background/society/country/family. At one point when I had an opportunity to explain to her what Buddhism is, I was doing well (i.e. she was listening and accepting what I was saying) when I was explaining that Buddhism includes a non-fixed identity-view and explaining why a non-fixed identity view is skillful (e.g. because an attitude such as attachment to your job/profession might be unpleasant when you retire, and because people's abilities and health change with age). But then what I mentioned the first Noble Truth she seemed to object, saying "Sorry you think life is suffering/dissatisfaction, I don't agree: I like life, I think life is good." --- So - Do you ever try to explain Buddhism to someone who barely knows the first thing about it, and if so what is your strategy for how to explain it? - Do you explain 'dukkha' using the classic 'death/poverty/illness/old age', and/or is there a better way to explain the first noble Truth? - Are there any alternate way to introduce Buddhism which don't begin with the first Noble Truth? - Might it be better to explain what I think Buddhism might mean to me (why it appeals to me) personally? I fear that might make it less strange to her ("yes I see why you like it") but at the same time less acceptable ("but it isn't for me because I'm not like you"). - Should I understand that if that's her reaction it's because she's already doing a lot of things right (e.g. not spending her life feeling angry)?

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.

What does Buddhism say to do when a specific Buddhist teaching or example of a teaching, is in disagreement with lived experience? This is not about rejecting the whole way but maybe small parts based on lived experience not wants. (Example, Brother Phap says when we are strong we are more likely to hurt people and when suffering or hurt we are nice and sweet. In my experience, hurt people hurt people more so it seems false to me.) https://youtu.be/6P-NrCNUSJU

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?

This question is a sequel to my previous question about First Noble Truth. It seems that there is discord about the exact rendering of the word 'dukkha'. Sorry if I sound like a pedantic dou*h. I am just trying to understand it clearly. So the answer I received in this link and this link translates it as 'stress'. (I personally think it's wrong, but I am not any authority or scholar). The Wikipedia page for dukkha gives the following translations: "suffering", "unhappiness", "pain", "unsatisfactoriness" or "stress". So what's the exact meaning? I am asking because the exact rendering changes the meaning and its effectiveness as teaching a lot.

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.

So the Heart Sutra is one of the most popular sutra in Mahayana Buddhism, said to be the summary and heart of the Prajna Paramita Sutra. It was popularized by the famous monk Xuanzang. It was said that he chanted this sutra when he was lost in the Taklamakan Desert on the way from China to India. Apart from its terse nature and convenience for chanting. Why is this Heart Sutra so important to Mahayana Buddhism? Some people even describe the sutra as a kind of 'crazy wisdom' that seems to intentionally tear down all purposeful cultivation. http://www.lionsroar.com/the-heart-sutra-will-change-you-forever/ It was even jokingly described as the 'heart attack' sutra. > "Also, there is no truth of suffering, of the cause of suffering, of > the cessation of suffering or of the path. There is no wisdom, and > there is no attainment whatsoever" Why would this sutra be helpful or useful - when it basically denies the fundamental teachings of the Buddha on the Four Noble Truth? Presumably the message of the Heart Sutra was so troubling that Thich Nhat Hanh had to 're-translate' the sutra into something that fit in with his own conception of Buddhism: http://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/ What is the purpose of this sutra? Is it just sheerly for the shock factor? Maybe like a Zen Master whacking a student with a stick? I find other Prajna Paramita sutras such as the Diamond Sutra just as troubling. Note: I do enjoy some of the messages of Mahayana Sutras such as Amitabha Sutra and Universal Gate Chapter of the Lotus Sutra and is from a Chinese Mahayana Chan organization.

In SN68 Pihitasutta ; > Kenassu pihito loko, > kismiṁ loko patiṭṭhito; > Kenassu uḍḍito loko, > kenassu parivāritoti. > > Maccunā pihito loko, > dukkhe loko patiṭṭhito; > Taṇhāya uḍḍito loko, > jarāya parivāritoti. Translation : > By what is the world shut in? > On what is the world established? > By what is the world ensnared? > By what is it enveloped?” > > “The world is shut in by death; > The world is established on suffering; > The world is ensnared by craving; > It is enveloped by old age. What is meant by 'dukkhe loko patiṭṭhito'? **why is it said that *"The world is established on suffering?"*** ---- EDIT: The same is repeated in, SN67 Uḍḍitasutta which may be much clearer. > Kenassu uḍḍito loko, > kenassu parivārito; > Kenassu pihito loko, > kismiṁ loko patiṭṭhitoti. > > Taṇhāya uḍḍito loko, > jarāya parivārito; > Maccunā pihito loko, > dukkhe loko patiṭṭhitoti. Translation > By what is the world ensnared? > By what is it enveloped? > By what is the world shut in? > On what is the world established?” > > The world is ensnared by craving; > It is enveloped by old age; > The world is shut in by death; > The world is established on suffering.

What exactly is the anatomy of a Desire and why does it have such a potent effect on our psyche and life? Is it a ***thought*** of wanting something we don't have, but then we have so many thoughts about so many things? Is it a ***feeling*** of missing something or something being wrong in the present moment, but then we have so many other feelings? Is it a mental reaction, or ***perception*** of thought and feeling? Is it some mental energy illumined by ***consciousness***? Or is it will want? The Buddha went as far as saying, ***taṇhā*** ("craving, desire or attachment") is the cause of suffering. I want to understand what is this as a phenomenon?

Is it possible for a person to gain liberation while simultaneously practicing unskillful means? Is it possible for a person to understand profound universal truths while simultaneously practicing unskillful means? Are skillful means in accordance with profound universal truths? Are profound universal truths in accordance with skillful means? An example of a skillful means is acknowledging the conventional truth of rebirth in cyclic existence. An example of a profound universal truth is that the Buddha was not to be regarded as a real and genuine fact as was taught to Anurādha. An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma. An example of a profound universal falsify is to understand the Buddha as a real and genuine fact. Another example of a profound universal falsity is to believe like Yamaka that, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.” Various traditions divide the above conventions into a dichotomy. The labels that are used and the understanding of that dichotomy is different from tradition to tradition. In Theravada, I have seen the dichotomy variously described as right views of two types including, without vs with effluents, definitive vs interpretable, supramundane vs mundane, and in commentarial literature ultimate vs conventional. In Mahayana, the dichotomy is labeled in similar ways but also absolute/ultimate/universal vs conventional/relative/dependent.

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?

I completely understand the second noble truth which says > origin of dukkha, which arises or "comes together" with taṇhā > ("craving, desire or attachment") in plain English, > Desire is the cause of Sorrow. But if one has not renounced and not living as a monk one has needs to maintain the Samsaric existence. As a layperson, you need money for thousands of things, pay the bills, get the wood for the fire to cook, pay for children's education, etc etc. Now I understand that core desire like, "I want more money" will lead to suffering, but you need an intention to become prosperous as time passes, i.e. grow in the samsaric world along with a spiritual goal towards Nirvana. How can one grow without harboring desires? I understand that, the thoughts like, "I want a Ferrari" is a blatant desire, but I do want a decent car to drive few miles to my work. How is this basic necessity dealt with without desiring? How is this situation dealt with in the bounds of Dhamma? I am not talking about attachments to already possessed things, but working towards a prosperous living. After all, Nirvana or not, nobody wants to live in adversity.

This is suffering is one of the noble truths. But it is not clear what does "this" stands for ? Similarly in the statement "This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering." , it is not clear what does "this" stands for?

The sentences I want to check with you are: 1. Reducing suffering (or eliminating it) is the main goal. 2. The main reason we keep suffering is desire and aversion. 3. We can experience craving to any of the five aggregates (e.g. thoughts) and also to the situation in general (e.g. become a teacher or become enlightened). 4. We have tools to reduce desire and aversion (or promote this reduction in others). E.g. not-self, impermanence and dukkha. Jhana. 5. This tools (3 characteristics, jhana, etc.) are truthful (they are not white lies). 6. This tools lead to a "desinterest" (equanimity) that gives freedom. For example, by seeing pain as impermanent (as lasting briefly or nothing) then there is "desinterest" in it (equanimity to it), and as such there is a freedom to either experience it or not without suffering it. 7. Ultimately it's best to be equanimous even to becoming enlightened (a case of bhava-tanha?), the tools ("the raft" that is abandoned after crossing the river), no-thoughts (aversion to thoughts?), etc. That's it, feel free to make little corrections or flat out tell me there are big mistakes there. Thanks.

If I search for the 4 noble truths of Buddha on Google I get the following different translations of the first noble truth: 1. Life is suffering. 2. There is suffering in life. 3. Life is unsatisfactory. and from the Wikipedia 4. Dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence in the realm of samsara. Which one is the most accurate translation?

In reading about Zen I see encouragement to question "notions". Understand them as to some extent misrepresenting the things they represent. The map is not the territory. I'm not sure how to interpret that and I can think of a couple different meanings. Consider a statue like The Statue of Liberty. To some it represents a country with a history of slavery and Jim Crow laws and the statue is a lie. To others, it represents a land of opportunity, an escape from tyranny. To someone else, a statue is just a bunch of copper, the copper itself being made of atoms, the atoms made up of quarks. The statue has no "romantic" or "pessimistic" meaning. Does Buddhism make a distinction between the emotional notions like "freedom" and "tyranny" versus more material notions like "copper" and "atoms"? I could see the distinction mattering in terms of suffering. If you see a statue and it reminds you of unpleasant things, you suffer. If you just look at the statue and just see a bunch of copper, it won't make you suffer. If "All Emotions are pain", then even positive associations with the statue are a painful thing. Neutral associations like "The Statue is made of copper" seems to be of a different substance, a concept more directly "pointing at" what it refers to whereas the emotionally loaded notions in a since "point away". Are both kinds of notions the kinds of notions to be wary of? Even still, are there distinctions made between the two?