The three kinds of suffering as mentioned in SN45.165 : > [1] Suffering caused by pain, > [2] suffering caused by the formations > suffering due to change. Does the EBT (and elsewhere) suggest, or give examples of a mixture, or juxtaposition of the three types of dukkha? Sallatha Sutta: The Arrow might fit the bill, but where else?

Aside from the Agganna Sutta, are there other Buddhist texts that discuss how the world or the universe came into existence?

Not vinaya information like the 13 questions, but things like a householder who has children should not ordain, or one should only ordain after being able to maintain sila for X amount of time, or when one has weakened desire enough that longing for X sensory pleasure no longer causes a burden. I did see a user "sankha" mention in a question here some information on when is right to ordain, but no sources. > When you become dispassionate in continuing the lay life or when you get enough confidence that you can successfully fend off the temptations of lay life, it is worth considering ordination. I am interested on what the Buddha said on who should, who should not, when, when not, who cannot etc ordain.

The hindrance of vicikitsa,vicikicchā(Pali) is related to 'doubt in Buddha'. What a vague phrasing, right?If you can, I am looking for the sutta where Buddha describes the difficulty of teaching to those of diverse backgrounds.

What is the difference between Lord Buddha's Wisdom, and Venerable Sāriputta's wisdom? --- The distinction of the wisdom of a right hand disciple of a Buddha & a fully self awakened Buddha? *The understanding from the suttas, commentaries or 'believed to be' arahants.*

In relation to a creator god, was the Buddha an atheist, theist or agnostic? Please provide answers with quotes from Buddhist scriptures.

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.

How are goals used in Theravada Buddhism and Buddhist practice in general in a positive way. --- How do goals relate to the early teachings, and one's own practice in a positive way. ------ *Prior discussions on Buddhism Stack Exchange:* - Difference between Attachment and Goals - Does suffering motivate us to achieve our goals? - Is it possible to set goals for the future and be present at the same time? - Is Nirvana the goal, for Zen and Theravada? - Why does Buddhism seem to have more than one goal? - Should meditation be practiced without a goal? - Is Nirvana the goal for all Buddhist? - Is mindfulness the path or the goal? - How can someone integrate the Buddhist philosophy on life's purpose into daily life? - Ambitions - Are they Real or just an Illusion - Stopping Tanha or craving - Attachment to practice itself

Is there a short discourse that says something like 'the dhama is not for the discontented, but for the content'. I am pretty certain there is. Can you post it?

> "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.

There is a sutta AN or SN, I believe, I read months ago that discussed about a kingsman who wanted to give respect to the Buddha by bowing but couldn't because he would lose a good job, family, and reputation. He went to The Blessed One to pay respect but told him that, instead of bowing, when he rides on his horse and tips his hat, that is the sign that he is bowing to The Blessed One. He gives other like signs to hide the respect he wanted to give The Buddha by bowing. The Buddha's religious neighbors in town questioned The Buddha and were particular about the Blessed One's teachings and practice, and, thus, opposed anyone who followed The Buddha would be opposing the religious teachings of the land. The Buddha didn't complain. Like other suttas, there is a lot of repetition, but the main message is it doesn't matter how you do X action it's your intentions that count. I ask because in western culture bowing in respect to others isn't common. Shaking hands or eye to eye contact takes precedent. We may nod our heads when acknowledging a person equally (say walking pass each other) but not insofar out of hierarchy (spiritual, political, etc). To many it can be seen as an act of submission; but, in general, people usually "bow" to people closer to them than they would strangers. With that in mind, this sutta I can't find really caught my attention about The Buddha looking at intentions rather than requiring the practice of his teachings be congruent with the cultural norms in his day. -Specifically, I am looking for that particular sutta or one very close to it. Any of you familiar with this story?

From a book called *Pruning the Bodhi Tree* the author writes in the Suttanipata (oldest Pali discourses?) the following is replied by Sakyamuni: > Without ordinary perception (conception), without mistaken perception, > not without perception, and not with the extinction of perception - > one who practices in this way will extinguish form. A mistaken > consciousness of the world arises from conception. I was hoping to find it, but wasn't found. Any help?

I recall regarding a sutta awhile back of an encounter between Buddha and some wandering ascetic (not Bahiya). in that, the ascetic might have been too old or whatever, and buddha discourages him and explains **his** grief if things didn't work out. note: i don't recall if it was an ascetic or old, just that it was an encounter with non-sangha person. any arhat saying something similar would suffice.

I'm looking for sources from the 4 nikayas on where, and how to "attain" a defined place of rebirth. Examples I know of: - Heinous actions lead to definite hell realm rebirth - Reaching sotapanna stage is defined human or above rebirth (in a noble family) - Anagami, defined rebirth in pure realm (non returner) - Higher levels of jhana, defined pure realm rebirth (this may be incorrect?) - Attainment of 4 immeasurables, defined bhrama realm rebirth (brama-vihara) If there are any other sources anyone knows where the Buddha defined specific actions that lead to specific places of rebirth, this would be very helpful. I know Mahayana, specifically Tibetan sects have concocted some practice known as Tulka, where apparently a high level Bodhisattva can choose where to be reborn, but I find these claims dubious at best and the practices trying to define and find the person reborn as flawed divination! I would prefer actual Buddhas teachings on sources rather than unsubstantial claims.

Questions: 1. What is "feature of beauty" in MN 5? 2. Why does the type of person mentioned ("the person who doesn’t have a blemish but does not understand it"), focus on it? 3. And why does that cause them to become infected by lust? 4. Does beauty here refer to physical beauty or something else? 5. Is this *subhanimitta* the same as the *nimitta* for entering jhana? > Take the case of the person who doesn’t have a blemish but does not > understand it. You can expect that they will focus on the feature of > beauty, and because of that, lust will infect their mind. And they > will die with greed, hate, and delusion, blemished, with a corrupted > mind. > MN 5 With footnote from Ven. Sujato: > “Feature of beauty” is *subhanimitta*. In early Pali, *nimitta* is used > for a feature or quality of the mind that, when focused on, promotes > the growth of similar or related qualities. Thus focusing on beauty > fosters the desire for that beauty.

There is one specific Sutta in which the Buddha details the rebirth destination of a patriotic soldier who dies in battle for the sake of his country? Can someone please help me find it. Metta to all.

Is it possible to complete all paramitas without physically doing anything? If so, then how & where is it mentioned in tipitaka? In previous birth, while bowing down to dipankara, Gautama thought that if he wants he can destroy all dukkha just now and liberate.. how? Or these paramitas are for someone aspiring to be self enlightened only? If yes then sutta-refence.

The Four Great Elements quite literally translate to Earth, Wind (Air), Fire, Water. It is often taught that these are really descriptions of first person experience, and the monikers are just analogies. These first person experiences are something like: 1. Earth - the felt sense of solidity 2. Water - the felt sense of "squishiness" or liquidity 3. Air - the felt sense of light motion in the body, and also wind on the skin, and sensations from breathing 4. Fire - the felt sense of temperature Is there any evidence in the Sutta Pitaka that this teaching is accurate? In other words, what Suttas seem to imply that when these terms were used, the above interpretation is what was had in mind. In contrast to the "first person experience" interpretation, one might just understand the appearance of these terms in the Sutta Pitaka as referring to material objects and reflecting the understanding of chemistry at the time.

**Last question**:- "Bramchariyavas has started" -> "ब्रह्मचर्यवास शुरू हुआ"। Did this "occur" to anyone in past and the same has been mentioned in books? What are the surrounding indications for the same occurence? I am open to any religion for its discussion but if outside Buddhism then it must be accompanied with proper explanation of this statement, work left to be done, resolutions done to move further, path leading to this statement etc. This might have occurred with few other things like images/world etc. indicating few other things, that's fine but this statement is must, as it is, without any beginning and ending with word "started". I have read only,

"bramchariyavas has been completed, what needed to be done has been done"

.. this occurred to gotama after achieving enlightenment. References in bits & pieces are also welcome. Anger looking collections are also welcome.

In the Kakacupama Sutta, the Buddha says the following > "Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves." I always believe in the value of 'healthy anger' as a way of defending yourself and protecting your boundaries. Many times, abusers will keep abusing you and escalate if you remain unaffected. They see your lack of retaliation as a sign of weakness, or a signal to escalate the abuse. The only thing they respond to is consequence. Yet this teaching seems to imply that you should remain unaffected 'even if bandits were to carve you up savagely'. Shouldn't I demonstrate some aggression or anger to make the abuser back off, rather than allowing him to accrue even more negative karma by abusing me? Isn't it a lose-lose scenario to allow myself to be 'carved up savagely'? I know there is also the parable of the Buddha giving up his body to feed a starving tiger out of compassion in one of his past lives. I'm far from reaching the Buddha's level of compassion. This means I still suffer, even if a bit, from the abuser's words and actions. In such a situation, shouldn't I retaliate (skillfully)?