Is this a grave mistake in DN22 translation? It appears both Ven. Thanissaro and Bhante Sujato have made a grave translation error [in DN22](https://suttacentral.net/dn22/en/sujato?layout=linebyline#1.7) . > “Mendicants, the four kinds of mindfulness meditation are the path to convergence. They are in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize extinguishment. > > “Ekāyano ayaṃ, bhikkhave, maggo sattānaṃ visuddhiyā, sokaparidevānaṃ samatikkamāya dukkhadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamāya ñāyassa adhigamāya nibbānassa sacchikiriyāya, yadidaṃ cattāro satipaṭṭhānā. Ven. Vijithananda explain this in a different way. "Attangamaya" means not "make to and end of pain and sadness" but taking them as not I, me, or mine.

In the Upanisa Sutta it is said: > So, mendicants: ignorance is the vital condition for choices. Choices are the vital condition for consciousness. Consciousness is the vital condition for name and form… I’m not sure I understand the meaning of “choices” here and how ignorance causes choices to arise. Does this mean *poor* choices, or does it mean any choices at all? Without ignorance would there be no choosing? Also does “choices are the vital condition for consciousness” mean something like, once a baby realizes they can choose what to do, they develop a sense of self and consciousness?

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

dhp 352 *A master is one who has let go of all craving and clinging to the world; who has seen the truth beyond forms, yet is possessed of **a profound knowledge of words**. Such a great being can be said to have finished the task.* [Sujato Translation, with pāḷi](https://suttacentral.net/dhp352/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=true&script=latin) : Rid of craving, free of grasping, Vītataṇho anādāno, expert in the interpretation of terms, ***Niruttipadakovido;*** knowing the correct Akkharānaṁ sannipātaṁ, structure and sequence of syllables, Jaññā pubbāparāni ca; they are said to be one who bears their final body, Sa ve “antimasārīro, one of great wisdom, a great person. Mahāpañño mahāpuriso”ti vuccati.

In Abhidharma (“abhi-” roughly means “meta-,” so Abhidharma can be understood as meta-dharma, or “one level above dharma”), there is a concept called kṣaṇabhaṅga, or “momentary decay.” It holds that all existence lasts only for a split second, and this includes human beings. A related term is ēkacitta, or “one unit of consciousness,” according to which consciousness arises in discrete units rather than as a continuous stream. Under this understanding, is it fair to say that each person dies and is reborn from one split second to the next?

Is it true that the Buddha will never be a woman? If so, why is this? To be specific, I am particularly asking whether or not the Buddha itself can be female. I am *not* asking whether a woman can become a Buddha in her future life.

Vietnamese sentence: Như nói có linh hồn người chết, nói có Phật tánh, có thế giới siêu hình là nói dối, vì đó là cảnh giới tưởng, cảnh giới không có thật. - AI version 1: For example, asserting the existence of souls after death, Buddha-nature, or supernatural realms is false speech because these belong to imaginary realms, which are not real. - AI version 2: For instance, asserting the existence of souls of the dead, Buddha-nature, or metaphysical worlds is lying, as these belong to the realm of imagination, an unreal realm. - Thu: For example, saying there is the spirit of the deceased, saying there is Buddha-nature and a metaphysical world is false speech / lying, because there are realms of imagination, realms that do not truly exist. - Loi: For example, saying that there are spirits of the deceased, that there is Buddha-nature, or that there are supernatural worlds is false speech, because these are imaginary realms that do not exist. - Nhan: For example, saying that there are spirits of the deceased, that there is Buddha-nature, or that there are metaphysical worlds is false speech, as these are imaginary realms that do not truly exist. - Lin Đa: For example, saying there are spirits of the deceased, saying there is Buddha-nature, saying there are metaphysical worlds is false speech, because these are imagined realms, realms that do not exist. As a native-English speaker, you read an English sentence and you can understand the meaning of it translated by Vietnamese people. Does that help you understand the same Vietnamese text? I mean the structure, grammar and other things. You can get the Buddhism terminology and C2 and it will help you practice and understand Buddhism easily. Thank you very much for your reading.

According to SN 51.10 : > So at the Cāpāla Tree-shrine the Buddha, mindful and aware, > surrendered the life force. When he did so there was a great > earthquake, awe-inspiring and hair-raising, and thunder cracked the > sky. Then, understanding this matter, on that occasion the Buddha > expressed this heartfelt sentiment: > > “Comparing the incomparable with the creation of prolonged life, the > sage surrendered the life force. Happy inside, serene, he shattered > self-creation like a suit of armor.” Why did Buddha surrender his life three months in advance, or was it a foregone conclusion? Is perfection of concentration, the four bases of psychic power , mandatory to surrender it? What is required?

Pramana refers to sources of knowledge in Indian epistemology. The wikipedia article on Pramana states: > Buddhism holds two (perception, inference) are valid means ... to knowledge. This sutta supports Pratyakṣa or perception: > “And what, bhikkhus, is The All? The eye and forms, the ear and > sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and > tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called The > All. > > “If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I > shall make known another all’—that would be a mere empty boast on his > part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, > further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, > bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain.” > SN 35.23 Are there examples in the suttas where the Buddha, or his Arahant teacher disciples like Sariputta, used Anumāna or inference? Please provide them. Let's say, when you wake up from sleep and go outside your house to observe the ground to be wet everywhere, but it's currently not raining. So based on this observation, you can infer that it must have very recently rained. Is there any truth of the suttas that is not observed directly by perception but rather inferred from indirect evidence? Another example is evolution. We cannot observe that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. However, we can infer that indirectly from fossil evidence. This is obtaining knowledge from inference. There can be other examples, like how the ancients inferred that Earth must be spherical from the way shadows fell on the ground differently in different cities at the same time.

Two questions that may have an overlapping answer: - How and why the Buddha would praise simple living, the simple life of monastics? In which sutta (or vinaya texts)? - Are there any sutta in the Pali canon where the Buddha explains the advantages of a simple life (a life without too many material comforts)?

Owen Flanagan in this podcast argued while Buddhism has an extremely well developed notion of compassion, it doesn't have a significant notion of justice. He contrasts this with ancient Greek philosophies which he states have a strong notion of justice and weak or absent notion of compassion. So is this correct? Does Buddhism really not have decent (or any) notion of justice. Can anyone perhaps provide examples of justice from the texts (Pali Canon, Mayahana etc..). Or is Owen right - no justice in Buddhism?

I heard that “miccha dhamma” means homosexuality, especially in Sri Lanka, where the Tripitaka was written.

I can't use the _Path of Purification_ PDF version of AccessToInsight.org because ... 1. I want to restructure/retranslate Visuddhimagga into english. 2. I want to add the reference link in each word of Visuddhimagga to the source in tipitaka. 3. I want to make the link **directly** to the expected page of Visuddhimagga and make the highlight to the expected text when I answer or make an article. ... so I want the computerised text version, to publish in HTML format on the internet. It requires a very long time to do a new translation of it all, because English is not my native language -- and I require a very long time as well to translate pāli even in my native language -- and so I think it would be faster and more effective to restructure from another's version/translation. Therefore: 1. Is there a free (i.e. [libre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre) or [open](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source)) version of Visuddhimagga in a computerized text format? 2. Is there a computerised text version of the Budaedu's Visuddhimagga version ? Or can you tell me about obtaining permission (and the data) from a copyright holder? --- I'm principally looking for something like [a license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/) which allows: - Distribution and - Creating a derivative work ... and a corresponding text format which can be converted to e.g. HTML.

The sutta below states that eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are old kamma. Why are these called old kamma (*purāṇakammā*)? Is it because of rebirth? Or could there be other reasons? If rebirth is the only reason, then I feel that this explanation seems too simple. From SN 35.146 : > And what is old kamma? > > The eye is old kamma. It should be seen as produced by choices and > intentions, as something to be felt. > > The ear … nose … tongue … body … mind is old kamma. It should be seen > as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt. > > This is called old kamma. > > And what is new kamma? > > The deeds you currently perform by way of body, speech, and mind. > > This is called new kamma. (I replaced "action" with "kamma")

In saccapabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:

1. Jāti is "khandhānaṃ patubhāvo" and "āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho".
2. Khandhānaṃ patubhāvo included viññāṇa-khandha.
1. Viññāṇa-khandha is viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda.
2. Rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda is rūpa-khandha.
3. Nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda is vedanā-, saññā-, saṇkhāra-khandha (cetana, phassa, manasikāra; see: sammādiṭṭhisuttaṃ).
3. Those nāma- and rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda are piyarūpa/sātarūpa.
1. 60 piyarūpa/sātarūpa: 6 outer āyatana, 6 āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda, and 42 nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda (6 vedana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 saññā-khandha, 6x5 saṇkhāra-khandha [phassa-paṭiccasamuppāda, cetanā-paṭiccasamuppāda, vitakka, vicāra, taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda]).

So jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is viññāna-paṭiccasamuppāda. The difference is: Jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is 5 khandha. So jāti is a conclusion of viññāna, nāma+rūpa, āyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna and bhavā-paṭiccasamuppāda. But viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is an explanation of jhāti. So sacca-pabba is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa Is Jāti And Paṭisandhi", right?

Given what I assume was the predominant view of the time, I would not be surprised if there are many Suttas that deal explicitly with resurrection (as opposed to rebirth which seems to be a more recent word used to delineate the concept), but I am interested in finding out in which sutras did Buddha Shakyamuni deal explicitly with annihilationism (ucchedavāda) which, as I understand it, is the position of the dissolution of the self after death (of which materialism would be a subset). I am aware of the following Suttas: - Brahmajāla-sutta -- which covers a large array of positions of wrong arguments against annhilationism, but doesn't seem to go into too much detail on how it is a wrong view. - Alagaddūpama-sutta -- in which The Buddha instructs on how to defend his position from being confused with annihilationism. - Pālileyya-sutta -- not sure exactly how to interpret this, but it seems to be about assuaging the fear of annihilation. - Achela Kassapa-sutta -- where the Buddha states the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism. - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta -- where The Buddha separates his view from all conventional views. - Kalama Sutta -- where The Buddha explains the benefits of the path even if there is nothing after death. Are there any glaring misconceptions here? Are there any other Suttas dealing with this topic?

How do I interpret the term "realm" (*idha* ) in AN 10.63 ? It says one who has "seven rebirths at most" will conclude their path in "this realm". So, what is "this realm"? And what does this mean? Meanwhile "one who is extinguished between one life and the next" will conclude their path after "leaving this realm behind" (*idha vihāya *). What does this mean? > “Mendicants, all those who have come to a conclusion about me are > accomplished in view. Of those who are accomplished in view, five > conclude their path in this realm, and five conclude their path after > leaving this realm behind. > > Which five conclude their path in this realm? > > The one who has seven rebirths at most, the one who goes from family > to family, the one-seeder, the once returner, and the one who is > perfected in this very life. These five conclude their path in this > realm. > > Which five conclude their path after leaving this realm behind? > > The one who is extinguished between one life and the next, the one who > is extinguished upon landing, the one who is extinguished without > extra effort, the one who is extinguished with extra effort, and the > one who heads upstream, going to the Akaniṭṭha realm. These five > conclude their path after leaving this realm behind. > > All those who have come to a conclusion about me are accomplished in > view. Of those who are accomplished in view, these five conclude their > path in this realm, and these five conclude their path after leaving > this realm behind.” > AN 10.63 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

If I remember rightly the Buddha is quoted as saying something along the lines of: > Do not believe anything I say until you can prove it by yourself In what text(s) of the Buddhist cannon is this quoted?

Buddha as part of the noble eightfold path preached that killing any organism is an unskillful action which results in bad karma. He also preached that every buddhist monk's final aim should be nibbana. In the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, it's mentioned that one cause for earthquake is a monk attaining enlightenment. Earthquakes result in the killing of atleast few organisms. So that should mean a monk should not pursue enlightenment. How does a practicing buddhist monk address this apparent contradiction? Thanks.

Is kasina meditation and other such meditation techniques not found in the suttas (i.e. not taught by the Buddha) and only invented in the Visuddhimagga? Or does it have basis in the Pali suttas?