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

So I've been thinking about how in scripture, Buddha often refers to certain views as the "extremes". A famous example is the eternalists (eternal soul and afterlife) vs the annihilationists (no soul, no afterlife, pure materialists). The Buddha taught both of these as the two extremes and promotes a Middle Way. But is Buddha's own approach not a form of extermism? Consider the following: one extreme that I will call eliminationists (suffering is intrinsically bad and is to be completely eradicated - this is Buddha) vs masochists (suffering is to be sought out and maximized as much as humanly possible). The Middle Way here would be "We do not like suffering (though that does not make it bad or evil by itself), but it has important functions and is in some ways, simply inevitable as long as one is actively "alive" in any conceivable way, so we should seek to reasonably reduce unnecessary suffering as judged by us, but re-orienting the entire society for the sole goal of eliminating suffering can lead to other negatives and extreme behaviour". Why should we eliminate rather than lessen suffering? Isn't that one extreme (other being actively seeking out as much suffering as possible)? I can list many ways in which obsession with harm reduction can lead to a highly dysfunctional society and worsen conditions of many people. So why does the Buddha actively promote the Middle Way for other positions, but does not apply it for his own?

Sheng-yen was an important Taiwanese Buddhist, with I believe Rinzai and Soto tranmission. **When describing the Buddhist path, he says that the 10 faiths are reached only after extensive success with koans, and adds that this is equivalent to stream entry. All very reasonable. However, I think it shows relative humility, compared to zen, about Theravada Buddhism.** I also believe that the formless realms are essential for advance to the 10 abodes in the Tientai model of the "complete" teaching. So I wondered: - when, according to Sheng-yen then, does the practitioner realize non-attachment within the formless realms? - and is the stage of dry wisdom - form the Surangama Sutra - the same as the 5 grades in Tientai?

I have seen a lot of great buddhists who change their paths due to some kind of conditions. Recently, I also face a that kind of situation. When, I faced a dissapointment, I forgot all teachings that I have learnd. It got some time to understand the situation. It just a small one and I had knowledge to understand the situation. There may be some situations that out of my understandings. What can I do to have my destination enlightenment , confirmed ? Related question: What makes a monk to be a house holder ?

If some one is a anti-social person , there is no reason to get angry, to be jealous, to have conciet .... All those problems arise when people socialize. So, Is it necessary to be socialize ? 1. If it is, Why buddha said, go to a forest to meditate ? Get a free and quite time ? 2. If it isn't How do I recognize those thoughts ? (If we have no reason to get those feelings, we might think we haven't those thoughts) 3. Or should I not think about that ? (Being social or not being social is out of my control ?)

For those Buddhists who claim that some sentient beings are Icchantikas , do they mean that those sentient beings cannot make *any* form of progress along the Buddhist path? All I know is that, following tao-sheng, most Buddhists think that the Icchantika has buddha-nature, and that the term can also refer to Bodhisattvas, who postpone their Buhddhahood. What I'm especially interested in is whether an Icchantika can make progress toward arhatship, anything like that?

**Namo tassa bagavato arahanto samma sambuddhasa** (Sorry, I am not fluent) I go to a Catholic High School & I have a theology class that preaches only their truths & say it is the supreme truth above all & that if one does not believe so they will perish in the extreme notion of the eternal hell. I try my best to have no aversion toward other followings & I also take a genuine interest in them, but when it comes down to being metaphorically hit in the face with them every day, it can be hard to focus on my emotions toward other paths, as well as it can be hard for me to not get distorted by them & follow the Buddha's teachings. > What would one offer as advice to not sway from the Dhamma by distorted teaching while at > the same time not have hatred in general (due to their delusions & spreading of > so) towards other paths? Metta to all! :)

Path and fruition for the 4 stages of holy disciple are frequently mentioned. I understand that the fruition is the removal of the fetters and realization of the knowledge of that respective attainment (stream entry, once returner, non returner, arhatship ). The holy disciple knows that he is a stream entrant upon attainment of stream entry fruition.......he knows he is an arhat upon attainment of arhatship. But what is the attainment of path? How would one describe rightly the attainment of the path? What is the difference in an ordinary person, a faithful disciple who has not attained any path and the holy one who has attained any of the respective path? I would really appreciate actual words of the Buddha for this answer.

I have read about different types of paths for spiritual aspirants. Namely: > - Śrāvakayāna > - Pratyekabuddhayāna > - Bodhisattvayāna Of the first, Asanga states their faculties are limited: > "These people are described as having weak faculties [...]" Of the second, he states they have medium faculties: > "[T]hey are said to have medium faculties [...]" Finally, he describes the bodhisattva as with sharp faculties. In the Sutra on the Ten Levels , it says the *sravaka* will have practised: > [...] through fear of cyclic existence and without [great] compassion, [...] ---------- I know that this is mainly a Mahayanist view. Nevertheless, my questions are : **(1) Should I conclude from this that faculties can really be different between practitioners? That, some individuals have greater facility for the dharma, and that enlightenment is not always feasible in one lifetime?** **(2) Does this imply that following a Buddhist path doesn't always result in great compassion? Can one follow a Buddhist path while neglecting compassion, and end up lacking it in the end? Or, can compassion always be developed, even at some later point?**

How can we know what is mundane? Mundane life contains many components that superficially overlap with the Buddhist path: - religious belief - unusual experiences - changes to character - epiphanies - etc. Aside from taking a poll of monks or devout Buddhists, is there **a means to test** whether we have made any progress?

If the path leads to liberation then liberation should be conditioned and impermanent. But nirvana is beyond extremes so the path cannot lead to nirvana. How does it work then?

In what ways you advance on the path? - is it by lowering the hindrances ? or your ability to notice them ? you get a greater ability to not attach and let go ? im trying to understand in what ways we advance - i mean before becoming a sotapanna what do you improve throw meditation and if you answer for example : " you have less ill will your less angry" do you mean we lower the anger levels - if so how - did i remove existing anger "seeds" or did i improve my ability to notice and let go of anger - and if so is this an ability which builds up from meditaiton to meditation ? i would appreciate everything you can expand on the subject of advancing in the path