If there's no specific purpose in life, If we have to give meaning to life by ourselves, then why doing good and bad matters ?

From Thanissaro Bhikkhu (embedded time in the link) What I am specifically curious about is about the stopping of breathing in 4th jhana that he explains. For me personally, I have been able to experience weak rapture on command, what I know as a jhanic factor but I didn't even think i had experienced even the 1st Jhana. I have had some powerful absorption meditations before where I have stopped breathing, and like he said as the end of the question (it's a Q&A section) where people recognize they stopped breathing and kind of "ahhh" then jump out of it. So is that it, is that actually 4th jhana?, is the Bhikkhu incorrect?, is my experience incorrect (you cannot answer that of course) The way I originally learned the Jhanas were through Mahamudra tantra, where it is explained "the mediator stops breathing resembling a dead person" but I always assumed these meditations where I lost my ability to breathe and subsequently jump out of it were nowhere near even the first jhana, let alone the the stopping breathing like what was explained in Mahamudra teachings.I just thought it was just me having some sort of meditation issue, which of course are myriad and varied for all.

I am a complete beginner who was looking for a good Buddhist guide for meditation. I discovered the book "The Mind Illuminated" by Culadasa and I thought I had found the grail: the shape of the guide seemed perfect to me. It is simple and clear, based on the anapanasati, up to the jhanas, step by step. But I have just discovered the scandals surrounding Culadasa and now I totally doubt the quality of his teaching. I attach great importance to the morality of a teacher of these issues. Where do I go from here? What do you recommend? Is there another guide as good in its form made by a recognized teacher, without scandals? Thanks.

I have head psychedelic drugs described as a gateway that can lead people to Buddhism, and to very powerful meditation practice. I have also heard the drugs were frowned upon by ancient Buddhist teachings. What do you know about the ancient and modern Buddhist attitudes toward these drugs?

The post here specifically refers to introducing Buddhism to a child as well as meditation and recitals. I want to introduce concepts such as "clinging", "letting go", "intent", "self", "no-self" and the like. Being surrounded by children under the age of 4, I observe that certain behaviors are starting to take root e.g. clinging. If a particular toy is lost or not available, the child senses a deep loss which results in emotional and physical distress. The kids also identify with themselves with the things they are surrounded by e.g. friends, physical objects, etc

Buddha used to teach always follow middle path. Don't you think life is not middle . For example he slept for only 2 hours and many others story which is extreme in some sense.

In Buddhism having a rebirth is itself a origin of all the Dukhhas. Doesn't it imply that Buddhist laymen who are married should not have children to stop this cycle of rebirth. This leads to a more generic hypothetical question as to what happens if all people in the world stop having children? I would like to have the answer in the Buddhist perspective.

I came across this statement made by Ajahn Brahm: > After he became enlightened under the banyan tree, Mara came to him and said, ‘Okay, you’re enlightened, I admit it. Now don’t go teaching, it’s just too burdensome. Just enter parinibbana now, just disappear.’ The Buddha said, ‘No, I will not enter parinibbana. I will not leave this life until I have established the bhikkhu sangha, bhikkhuni sangha, laymen, and laywomen Buddhists: the four pillars of Buddhism.’ Forty-five years later, at the Capala Shrine, Mara came again and said, ‘You’ve done it! There are lots and lots of bhikkhunis enlightened, lots of bhikkhus enlightened, great laymen and laywomen Buddhists . . . so keep your promise,’ and [the Buddha] said, ‘Okay, in three months, I’ll enter parinibbana.’ What those two passages from the suttas demonstrate is that it was the Buddha’s mission; it was why he taught—to establish those four pillars of the sangha. I wonder what passages he's referring to? I understood the Buddha's immediately-post-enlightenment stance on teaching to have been a little more reluctant than this puts it, and ditto with his stance on an order of nuns.

I often find that in real life people I know are doing things in a "wrong" way. By this I not only mean profound things related to Dhamma, but also small everyday things. Because of these small things, which are most often due to a small gap in their understanding, they keep suffering in a worldly manner. Example clip I feel compassion for them and I feel that only if they could simply know the right thing their particular problem would go away and they will get some peace of mind. With this in mind (mostly) I try to gently tell them what the cause of the problem is... but I have found it unfortunately that 99% of them not only not act, but even not think about my words. It has caused me suffering, I'm not sure how... maybe because I'm not being taken seriously even though I'm telling something very important to them... anyways so I wanted to ask if what I am doing is incorrect, or maybe it is correct but it is impractical, or I'm doing something wrong somewhere? I feel like I should stop helping but then I think even if it makes me lesser in others' eyes, it is worth it if it helps them. Do you experience this situation in people surrounding you? How do you find a middle ground... like have you stopped helping thinking that they cannot comprehend at once deep insights? Any responses are appreciated. PS: Sorry, if my english is bad.

This question arises from [this previous post](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/29818/why-does-one-suffer-because-of-ignorance-if-ignorance-is-unintentional) . The questioner seems perplexed that a person should suffer for not knowing or possessing certain knowledge i.e. simply for being unaware. While there is an active component in desire (us wanting or craving) and aversion (us disliking or hating). However, ignorance is not something we can control or actively avoid. So, my question is there an active component in ignorance i.e. do we intentionally ignore and/or indulge in ignorance? Perhaps, by understanding this process better, we can also answer [this question on how to get rid of it](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49878/how-to-get-rid-of-ignorance) .

I'm specifically remembering a sutra where the Buddha turned away some youngsters because he said they weren't ready, or didn't have the proper attitude. I may be remembering completely incorrectly and getting this confused with something else, but it's in my memory nonetheless and wonder if it's at all accurate. Thanks!

My understanding is that the Buddha took many teachings and concepts already existing in his society and renewed them when needed, giving them a meaning in accord with his understanding. Is it correct? I guess he introduced new teachings and concepts as well. My question is: which one were already existing and which one are introduced by the Buddha? - 4 noble truths - 8 fold noble path - 5 khandha - 6 sense bases, 6 sense objects and 6 consciousnesses - 4 brahmavihārā - 4 right efforts - 4 jhāna - 5 precepts - 3 jewels - 4 gratitudes (parents, teachers, friends, all beings) - 4 kinds of nutriments - 7 factors of awakening - 6 paramitas - ānāpānassati - satipaṭṭhāna - nibbāna - saṃsāra - interdependent co-arising - anattā, dukkhā and anicca - sila, samadhi and prajna - rebirth and previous lives Please add to this list if something important is missing. In gratitude

Assuming that in a hypothetical multitude of so-called "enlightened masters", a future Buddha would actually arise and we were alive at that time, how would we be able to recognize him? The question could also be valid for acknowledging an Arahant or any enlightened person not necessarily a Samma Sambuddha, but would be much more interesting to answer it in the context of just before a new Sangha is formed, assuming a person declared that the Dhamma has been discovered again.

Bearing in mind that ignorance is in opposition to knowledge and the starting point for all the suffering, it seems still unbelievable that there were people contemporary to the Buddha that contradicted and refused his teaching. Considering that he was the culmination of human intellect and the embodiment of pure knowledge, how is it possible to be in such stubborn opposition with the truth?

I understand that the active seeking of sensual pleasure is not seen as good, but it's not clear to me whether it should be actively avoided. I was preparing some noodles to eat this morning and inside the pack was a sachet of flavouring. I pondered upon this for a moment; should I add it to the food? The following thoughts occurred in favour of adding the flavour: - I am eating the noodles for the purpose of feeding the body, not for the sensual pleasure. Why not add it? - Deliberately depriving oneself of the little sensual pleasure there is in a meal could be regarded as self-mortification. The following thoughts occurred in opposition of adding the flavour: - Does the very notion of considering this only highlight my craving of sensual pleasure? - Why should I feel compelled to add the flavouring for reasons other than nutritional value? I am interested in whether any Buddhist teachings directly address this sensual pleasure in such a situation, and more broadly whether sensual pleasures should be actively avoided in such a manner.

When I search for the word "debt" on this site -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=debt -- many of the posts are from the same author -- including two recent ones: - https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/48450/254 > seek out for people teaching the Dhamma not training consuming fools and suggestions that they could escape the debts - https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/48452/254 The answer to the latter question puzzled me -- because I'm not sure what the difference is between a state welfare recipient thinking "I have a right", compared with an employed wage-earner's having the same kind of thought. --- What is Buddhist doctrine on that subject? The only reference that come immediately to my mind is the debt towards parents, which is so immense that it cannot be repaid, and which is acknowledged by the fact that monks are allowed to help care for their own parents in person. There are few references on [Access to Insight](https://accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?q=debt) : - [Ina Sutta: Debt (AN 6.45)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.045.than.html) sounds like it might be a parable or analogy -- i.e. that a monk who behaves badly suffers consequences like a layman who goes into debt - [The Lessons of Gratitude](https://accesstoinsight.org/ati/lib/authors/thanissaro/lessonsofgratitude.html) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu seems to say to repay your benefactors by becoming a better person - [Anana Sutta: Debtless (AN 4.62)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.062.than.html) says that "debtless" is one of the states that a house-holder can enjoy -- along with "having" and "using" wealth, and being "blameless" -- the debtless isn't the import bit in this sutta, which says it's next to nothing compared with being blameless - [Vasala Sutta: Discourse on Outcasts (Sn 1.7)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.07.piya.html) says that denying a debt is one of many examples of misbehaviour that would cause someone to be considered an outcaste Can you summarise Buddhist doctrine about debt? Should you try to be more conscious of debts? If not what should you try to be more conscious of? Part of this question is exemplified by this from Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay: > In other words, as the first passage shows, it's perfectly fine to appreciate the benefits you've received from rafts and other conveniences without feeling any need to repay them. You take care of them simply because that enables you to benefit from them more. The same holds true for difficult people and situations that have forced you to develop strength of character. You can appreciate that you've learned persistence from dealing with crabgrass in your lawn, or equanimity from dealing with unreasonable neighbors, without owing the crabgrass or neighbors any debt of gratitude. After all, they didn't kindly go out of their way to help you. And if you were to take them as models, you'd learn all the wrong lessons about kindness: that simply following your natural impulses — or, even worse, behaving unreasonably — is the way to be kind. > > Debts of gratitude apply only to parents, teachers, and other benefactors who have acted with your wellbeing in mind. They've gone out of their way to help you, and have taught you valuable lessons about kindness and empathy in the process. As a corollary, if the "raft" there might be an analogy of the Dhamma, what do you think of that? If people publish the Dhamma, after which find and use it, you may appreciate that -- is it something to feel "indebted" about, and if you don't feel properly indebted then are you like stealing it from its rightful owner (e.g. the Sangha), and/or is the person who published it some kind of thief?

I have heard about this before from a video teaching I watched before but I honestly cannot remember from who or where. The idea of the concept is that as one progresses upon the stages towards arhant Dukkha does not actually decrease and in fact can be seen or seems to increase. for eg a puttajanna is not concerned about death or freedom from the cycle of existence on a day to day bases where a Sotapanna is consistently concerned about these things that in fact a Sotapanna suffers more because of their more ultimate concerns, where I guess a putajanna is in a sort of blissful ignorance. Any direct from the Buddha or third party teachings on this concept would be welcome.

Would a civilization based on the teachings of Buddha ever had a need for military force? It is said in Metta Sutta that one who practices *metta* is free from dangers of fire, poison and weapons. Is the practice of *metta* enough to protect the citizens from any aggression?

In modern world it's often regarded as "poor" if asking questions. "What, you don't know?", others would fast lower others, yet forgeting that they have been given before as well. It is also the subtil fear to be obligated, fall into debt, that people "force" not to ask or on wrong places, wrong people and so the tendency goes in direction "steal" thinking not causing debts. The times of google and more or lesser anonymos exchange places make it even more common that people seek, if even, for places to gain, where they believe not to accumulate debts. It's not seldom, out of this, that "asking questions" is estimated as childish, the way "unwise" and "poor", "people of less skill" come to gain Dhamma. What do you think, is there an adult way that replaces questioning? Is asking questions, asking for things childish? (A maybe useful reflection that might make some parts understandable for answering the question: [Giving, taking and the "new" world - "Labour makes (you) free!?"](http://sangham.net/index.php/page,Arbeit-macht-frei.html)) *[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]*

In the United States, many people find it cringy and even offensive when someone says "I'm sorry," especially when he or she does it frequently. Did the Buddha or any Buddhist teachers have any guidance on this point?