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.

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")

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?

What is the "meditation on emptiness" in MN 121 ? What does "emptiness" refer to in this sutta? Also, what does "oneness dependent on the perception of ..." mean in this sutta? > “Indeed, Ānanda, you properly heard, learned, attended, and remembered > that. Now, as before, I usually practice the meditation on emptiness. > > Consider this stilt longhouse of Migāra’s mother. It’s empty of > elephants, cows, horses, and mares; of gold and money; and of > gatherings of men and women. There is only this that is not emptiness, > namely, the oneness dependent on the mendicant Saṅgha. In the same > way, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the village and the > perception of people—focuses on the oneness dependent on the > perception of wilderness. Their mind becomes eager, confident, > settled, and decided in that perception of wilderness. They > understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the perception of village > or the perception of people. There is only this modicum of stress, > namely the oneness dependent on the perception of wilderness.’ They > understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of > the village. It is empty of the perception of people. There is only > this that is not emptiness, namely the oneness dependent on the > perception of wilderness.’ And so they regard it as empty of what is > not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present. > That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure. > > ...... > > Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, > supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them > enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness. So, > Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the > pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’ That’s how you should train.”

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

As far as I can remember, this stmt is at the beginning.

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.

I read something on reddit that made me think that the author confuses between Nibbana (extinguishment, liberation) and saññāvedayitanirodha (cessation of perception and feeling), thinking that they refer to the same thing. I quoted some of the suttas below that led them to this view. Questions: 1. What is the difference between the two? 2. Are they the same? If they are the same, then when the Buddha returns to the normal waking and talking state, he would lose his Nibbana wouldn't he? 3. What is the difference between the bliss or pleasure of Nibbana in the waking and talking state, compared to the bliss or pleasure of saññāvedayitanirodha? Are they the same or completely different? 4. Is saññāvedayitanirodha needed for attaining arahantship? Can one attain arahantship without ever reaching it? 5. Is it possible that one could attain saññāvedayitanirodha, without attaining Nibbana? They used these sutta quotes to support their assumption that Nibbana and saññāvedayitanirodha are the same: > They understand: ‘There is this, there is what is worse than this, > there is what is better than this, and there is an escape beyond the > scope of perception.’ > MN 7 > When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend > Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it (Nibbana), > since nothing is felt?” > > “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely > what’s blissful about it. > AN 9.34 > “One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The > cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is > nibbāna.’ Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises > and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another > perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the > cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ On that occasion, friend, I was > percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’” > AN 10.7 > There are those who would say that this is the highest pleasure and > happiness that sentient beings experience. But I don’t grant them > that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure that is finer > than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when a mendicant, going > totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, > enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is > a pleasure that is finer than that. > MN 59

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

travellers - I was struck by the term maññassavā in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta. > They have four foundations, standing on which the streams of > identification don’t flow. And when the streams of identification > don’t flow, they’re called a sage at peace. yattha ṭhitaṃ maññassavā > nappavattanti, maññassave kho pana nappavattamāne muni santoti > vuccati. It is translated as "the currents of construing," by Ven. Thanissaro and as "the streams of identification," on suttacentral.net (Ven. Sujato?). There is an elaboration of maññassavā later in the sutta as, "These are all forms of identifying: ‘I am’, ‘I am this’, ‘I will be’" etc. > ‘Asmī’ti, bhikkhu, maññitametaṃ, ‘ayamahamasmī’ti maññitametaṃ, > ‘bhavissan’ti maññitametaṃ... a) First - I assume the term is made up of "(a form of) maññ/maññati + assavā"? [PTS PED] Maññita (nt.) [pp. of maññati] illusion, imagination M i.486. Nine maññitāni (the same list is applied to the phanditāni, the papañcitāni & sankhatāni) at Vbh 390: asmi, ayam aham asmi, bhavissaŋ, na bhavissaŋ, rūpī bhavissaŋ, arūpī bh., saññī bh., asaññī bh., nevasaññī -- nâsaññī -- bh. Assava (adj.) [ā + sunāti, śru] loyal D i.137; Sn 22, 23, 32; J iv.98; vi.49; Miln 254; an˚ inattentive, not docile DhA i.7. I only sort-of get how the compound is then understood as "streams of identification" (**does the 'streams' derive from 'asava'[ā + sru]? Flow?**)... b) Where is this term "coming from," doctrinally, that is? Is it commonly used in the texts, esp. in the suttas, as a form of "I-consciouness/construction?" Are there any commentarial and/or scholarly discussions on this process of "flow of construing/identification?" Thanks much in advance! ~ananda

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)

Is there any sutta in the Pali Canon which describes the supramundane view that Nibbana cannot be attained? I'm looking for a verse or quote from the Pali Canon which describes Nibbana as unattainable or unrelinquished based on the fact that is unconditioned. Ie, not from the ordinary conventional sense of attaining a possession or attainment of a goal, but rather from the supramundane where Nibbana is unconditioned. Does such a sutta, passage, or verse exist?

Is dedicating merit the same as transferring merit?! How do the 4 Immeasurables fit in (or do they?) And did the Buddha actually teach any of this? I know this is three questions, but they all seem connected to me.

1. Was Pali the language spoken during the time of the Buddha, and would he have spoken this language? 2. Are the suttas contained in the Pali Canon verbatim what the Buddha said, or would things have been changed due to centuries of oral transmission?

Does Patiloma-(reverse order) start at #1. With ignorance ceasing/ no Volitonal formations etc. Or, is it at #12. starting with cessation of Death, Birth ceases. etc. (I see both used). Thank you.

What's the difference between the five aggregates and the five clinging-aggregates? For e.g. is the aggregate of form referring to the physical body, but the clinging-aggregate of form is a tainted mental model of the physical body? From SN 22.48 (trans. Bodhi): > “And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates? Whatever kind of form > there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, > gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the > form aggregate. Whatever kind of feeling there is … this is called the > feeling aggregate. Whatever kind of perception there is … this is > called the perception aggregate. Whatever kind of volitional > formations there are … these are called the volitional formations > aggregate. Whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past, > future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or > superior, far or near: this is called the consciousness aggregate. > These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates. > > “And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates subject to clinging? > Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present … far > or near, that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the > form aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of feeling there is > … that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the feeling > aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of perception there is … > that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the perception > aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of volitional formations > there are … that are tainted, that can be clung to: these are called > the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind > of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal > or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, that > is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the consciousness > aggregate subject to clinging. These, bhikkhus, are called the five > aggregates subject to clinging.”

From the sutta below, why would form (and the other aggregates) not lead to affliction, if it were self? Why would it be the case that form (and the other aggregates) could be compelled to change according to will, if it were to be self?   > “Mendicants, form is not-self. > *“Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, anattā.* > > For if form were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could > compel form: > *Rūpañca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṁ rūpaṁ > ābādhāya saṁvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe:* > > ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ > *‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti.* > > But because form is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t > compel form: > *Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ anattā, tasmā rūpaṁ > ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe:* > > ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ > *‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti.* > > Feeling is not-self … > > Perception is not-self … > > Choices are not-self … > > Consciousness is not-self. For if consciousness were self, it wouldn’t > lead to affliction. And you could compel consciousness: ‘May my > consciousness be like this! May it not be like that!’ But because > consciousness is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t > compel consciousness: ‘May my consciousness be like this! May it not > be like that!’ > Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (SN 22.59)

I have a two-part question. One is related to personal practice and the other is scriptural or theoretical. I'll lay down a concise personal background for the sake of clarity. I am an irregular practitioner of Vipassana. I have finished 3 Vipassana retreats (Goenka tradition). I try to meditate for 2 hours a day most days. I also attempt walking and sleeping meditation as much as I can at times when I'm not formally meditating. **Question 1** It had been difficult for me to establish equanimity in body scanning since i was getting distracted too often. So I allowed myself to indulge in just doing anapana sati (samatha meditation). While I thought I was just doing anapana sati, I probably unconsciously was doing insight meditation too by using the nostrils as the object (I'm not sure if that's what it is, please correct me if I'm wrong). I would try to attain equanimity towards the sensations within my nostrils. My breath would increase pace when i would fail to get the sensation. I would then try to slow it down to natural pace which is super subtle, by attempting to be equanimous about the CURRENT sensations and eliminating all cravings. When i would succeed, the breathing would become too subtle, too short, too sharp and too fast to notice and yet I'd be effortlessly noticing it without affecting the pace of the breath. At this point I would experience the below mentioned state. I'm not sure if this state is the first jhana or not but it's the most significant experience I've had as of yet while formally meditating. It has following characteristics: 1. a feeling that breathing (the area of nostrils) is the handle through which the instrument of my whole body is being held with 2. a uniform sense of numbness throughout the body 3. a steady awareness of the non-uniform subtle sensations on the body yet simultaneously uniform and unbroken sense of equanimity towards all of the sensations 4. the feeling of "MY body" being retracted/sinking within the objective body as if the ME is far away from the surface of the body 5. a mild pleasure arising from the realization of the momentary freedom from surface sensations Note: I've experienced this state multiple times but usually when it occurs, i get taken by surprise and either get too excited about it or anxious about the possibility of it ending, in both cases it actually does end up terminating the state. **Q: Is this any of the rupa jhanas or am I just experiencing normal precursor stages before entering the first jhana?** **Question 2** I've been obsessively delving into Buddhist literature through various PDFs, forums such as this and meditation related subreddits as of late. I haven't formally studied the canon. So please forgive my ignorance. I read somewhere (I don't recall where) that if one progresses through the arupa Jhanas (Samadhi) without making any progress in the insight (Panna) then after death, the citta is reborn in the formless realm (arupa loka) and has to stay there for a long, long time until the pleasant sankharas run out after which one returns to the material realm whence one can continue the journey towards liberation through insight practice.   **Q: is it true that too much progress in Samadhi and little progress in Panna can lead to rebirth in arupa/deva/brahma loka which would actually delay the progress towards liberation? if it's true, then how farther would it be safe to progress in jhanas to secure rebirth in human realm so that one can keep working towards nibbana?**   Thank you for your patience! Much metta!

> "Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, > Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward." > AN 11.1 > It is natural that non-regret arises in a virtuous > person, one whose behavior is virtuous. > AN 10.2 What is the basis for defining skillful virtues, that would result in freedom from remorse? The Abrahamic religions depend on God to define what is right and wrong. The Buddhist suttas define skillful virtues based on "freedom from remorse". The precepts like killing, stealing, adultery and lying result in remorse. **Why do they result in remorse?** I've seen vague explanations based on laws of karma or kamma niyama (Dhp 127), natural laws or principles ("this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles") based on AN 3.136 or SN 12.20, the Golden Rule ("don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you") based on Ud 5.1, and linking to the three poisons. However, I have not seen suttas that definitively provide a cause for remorse. Please support with sutta references, as far as possible.