I can understand that within the social context of the historical Buddha, being homosexual or bisexual could have possibly been damaging to the Sangha's image as there is still a lot of gay/bisexual/transgender discrimination today. On Wikipedia, it said a pandaka is unable to attain enlightenment. It sounded like a pandaka might be someone who swings both ways to fulfill sexual desires but I am unclear. What about someone who has sexual relations with men but who is heterosexual? Possibly with the shedding of an identity view we lose our interpretation of ourselves as one way, but I don't know. I probably need to learn Pali.

The [Brahmana Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html) , for example, mentions "effluent": > So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended ... Or in [Adhimutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.16.01.than.html) , > One gone to the far shore without clinging without effluent his task completed, welcomes the ending of life, as if freed from a place of execution. This [Glossary](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#asava) gives a definition but I don't really understand it, > āsava: Mental effluent, pollutant, or fermentation. Four qualities — sensuality, views, becoming, and ignorance — that "flow out" of the mind and create the flood of the round of death and rebirth. There's a longer (perhaps easier to understand) article on Wikipedia: [Āsava](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asava) --- - What is "effluent" (do you have anything to add to the Glossary and Wikipedia definitions above)? - What is the difference (or connection) between "karma" and "effluent"? - Is there a specific practice for ending "effluents"? Are they an effect or a cause? - Three of these effluents (ignorance, becoming, and sensuality) are also listed as 'defilements' ... what kinds of 'views' are considered effluent? If this is too many questions, please feel free to answer just one or two.

> "And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering." > > -- Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, [MN 38](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html) There are many suttas in the canon where the Buddha admonishes monks, and the above is a notable example. The translations, at least to my eyes, come as particularly harsh: "worthless" (in Nanamoli/Bodhi, we read "misguided" instead of "worthless". I've also read "foolish" elsewhere) -- there was another reprimand from the Buddha, almost mean as I recall how I felt while reading it, but which I could not find again. I've constantly felt troubled with these passages. I also look with very suspicious eyes the dribbling with "The buddha was harsh for their own good" (unless, if it is the Buddha himself justifying his harsh words, not we trying to excuse him and spare the texts). I find it troubling specially in light of: - the very explicit *right speech* teachings, promoting the abandonment of harsh words. - the difficulty of reconcile harsh "formations" in a mind free of defilements. Are the other/older versions (say, chinese, pali and tibetan) of these passages evoking somewhat equivalent harsh emotions on a reader? Or is it a particularity of the english translations? (Or is it just me?) Otherwise, were these harsh reprimands ever discussed (in books, commentaries, etc)?

the typical translation of Mahaggataṃ citam is , exalted , or expanded mind? and in MN 127...two types of cetovimutti described. (1)mahaggatā cetovimutti (expanded freedom of mind) it related to area.. area of size, 1 treeor 2 or 3 tree or village, or kingdom , or earth and so on.. (2) appamāṇā cetovimutti? (limitless freedom of mind) it described by direction.

Nama, as in namarupa, the designation of 'feeling, perception, attention, intention & contact', why do they call these 'Nama'? Some clues or points to keep in mind; * intention (cetana) is kamma * six classes of intention are sankhara * sankhara fabricates the conditioned * contact has 6 sense media as cause * feeling, perception and sankhara are 'aggregates', are conjoined & are conjoined with 'consciousness' aggregate * 4 aggregates have objects * 3 aggregates always accompany consciousness * consciousness arises as one thing and ceases as another * same consciousness doesn't go from one life to another * consciousness is said to be inbetween two ends, 'form' on one end and 'name' on the other end * both 'the eye' and 'the form visible by the eye' are included under 'form [rupa]' * consciousness meeting rupa is a meeting of the three, is 'contact' * feeling is born of contact * feeling is requisite for craving * everything comes into being through attention * with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be * with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be * from sankhara as a requisite condition comes consciousness * sankhara has ignorance for cause * rupa isn't always generated as in arupajhana, formless perception attainment

In *Beacon of Certainty* (tr. Pettit), Mipham Rinpoche addresses key questions about how to practice based on Madhyamaka philosophy. The first question has to do with distinguishing absolute negation from implicative negation. - An affirming negative (or “implicative negation”) “expresses the absence of one predicate while implying some other.” (Pettit 109) In short, this is not a good way to conceive how *appearances* are empty of any true and inherent existence: because the implied *object* has to somehow stand apart and have some kind of inherent existence that is immune from further analysis. - A non-affirming negative (or “absolute negation”) “simply excludes something, without implying anything else.” (Pettit 109) This is a much more fruitful stance because it does not hold some kind of appearance as standing separate from emptiness; and therefore it can serve as a conceptual segue to meditative experience of the coalescence of emptiness and appearance. I think this distinction is a very powerful tool in overcoming the tendency to take appearances as concrete realities that somehow have emptiness within them; and to understand how appearance and emptiness coalesce. Is there a similar distinction within Theravadin buddhism? It seems like this would be a useful distinction when exploring the 3 Dharma seals, particularly that of not-self *(sabbe dhammā anattā*). But I've never encountered such an analysis when reading in the Pali Canon or Theravadin commentaries.

People sometimes qualify their statements, by adding the word, "conventionally" — and people distinguish between Conventional Truth (*Sammuti Sacca*) versus Ultimate Truth (*Paramattha Sacca*). 1. When (historically) does this distinction begin: if the distinction is made in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, is there also doctrine like that in the Sutta Pitaka (and if not, do we know *why* not)? [This Wikipedia section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine#Pali_Canon) says that the "two truths" distinction is *not* made in the suttas, though there are some "suttas of indirect meaning". 2. Is "ultimate" in some way better or more right than "conventional"? Or are they both mere views or descriptions of reality, more or less equal (like a left hand and a right hand) and it's important to select (perhaps, I guess, by using 'wisdom') whichever of the two may be the more appropriate? Is it OK to regard them both as "views" instead of as "truths"? Is there an important difference between e.g. *sacca*, *vacana*, *dhamma*, and *ditthi*? 3. If/when/after people have made a distinction between "conventional" and "ultimate", do people subsequently try to recombine these views? I'm thinking of the Zen-like aphorism, "after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water": is that something to do with "two truths"? Does it imply a continuation of or a return to the conventional? Or does it differ/vary a lot from school to school? I imagine these questions could be answered with a paragraph each; but please tell me if any of them need to be separate questions, to allow a longer or more detailed answer.

Questions in the title. What is the significance of this term and how it is used by the Buddha in the suttas?

I'm wondering if anything is known about the origin of this formulation, which is ostensibly a summary of the first noble truth: >"Life is suffering" Beyond whether this is a poor summary or translation: where did it come from? An English-language popularizer, maybe?

Can *kamma* and *sankharas* be considered as synonyms? And if not, which are the differences between both? Which is the relationship between them?

Are the words *Dhamma* and *Buddha Dhamma* synonyms? Or are there hidden differences between between both? Are these words used in different circumstances?

Are the terms "yoga" and "yogi" used in Buddhism? Are they in the Pali Canon? If yes, please quote them. Are they used in other traditions like Tibetan Buddhism? If they are used in Buddhism, then what do they mean in Buddhism? Is it different from its use in Hinduism?

I've noticed that we have a tag on the site for New Age Buddhism which has a couple of questions associated with it (one more now I've asked this!). What is New Age Buddhism though. Can anyone give a reasonable concise definition of it, maybe point to some links for more detail and give a few teachers that follow or expound this line of Buddhism. Does it have anything that uniquely differentiates it from other forms of Buddhism. Or it is a not genuine concept at all?

Looking up the word [samsara](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/samsara) , or the [Wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra_(Buddhism)) leads to the same definition you see most places: > The endless cycle of birth, existence and death. However, that is a lot of concept to pack into one word. How did they arrive at the word "samsara" to encapsulate such a complex concept? [Etymonline says](https://www.etymonline.com/word/samsara) : > "endless cycle of death and rebirth, transmigration of souls," 1886, from Sanskrit samsara "a wandering through," from sam-, prefix denoting completeness (from PIE root *sem- (1) "one; as one, together with"), + sr- "to run, glide" (from PIE verbal stem *ser- "to flow;" see serum). But I don't know how I feel about PIE yet, not sure how they arrive at these derivations. _Tangential question: it says 1886 is the latest definition, when does the word first get used?_ If I were to go with etymonline's derivation, of sem and serum, it is the "one flow" basically, being one with the flow, being tied to the flow. But I don't know if that is a correct interpretation. But the main question is, what do the components of the word mean. Is there any Buddhist text that elaborates on this concept and ties it back to the word more deeply? If so, what text is it and/or what do they generally say?

In AN 10.176 idle chatter is defined as > He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance > with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya. He speaks words worth > treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the > goal. Bearing this in mind - is right speech purely connected with the Dharma? Should one speak of the Dharma and nothing else? From my own perspective some idle chit chat which has the effect of putting someone at ease in a social situation is a kindness. Similarly chatting to the daughter about nothing in particular is building the bonds of caring and again feels like the right thing to do. However would both those actions be classified as idle chatter and would not be right speech? On a personal note I probably do talk too much so a bit less idle chatter would do me some good i think.

I recall reading a text where Buddha addressed a supposed monk saying "householder". If i recall correctly, the monk said that he wasn't a householder and Buddha explained the meaning of that. I am pretty sure it's in the pali canon and am looking for the text. Thanks

Is the following anyhow related to 'Papañca' in the apparent 'proliferation' as you understand it? > And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being 'I am,' there comes to be 'I am here,' there comes to be 'I am like this' ... 'I am otherwise' ... 'I am bad' ... 'I am good' ... 'I might be' ... 'I might be here' ... 'I might be like this' ... 'I might be otherwise' ... 'May I be' ... 'May I be here' ... 'May I be like this' ... 'May I be otherwise' ... 'I will be' ... 'I will be here' ... 'I will be like this' ... 'I will be otherwise.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal. Could you otherwise point out what is Papañca as you think of it?

I see some teachers express 'namarupam' as 'mentality & materiality' and want to hear what you have to say on this matter.

Are the titles “lama” and “rinpoche”, referring to a Buddhist teacher or leader, titles that are granted? Or are they titles that someone can give themselves? Or both? By “granted” I mean they require someone to have some form of formal qualifications (as how US pastors are required to have a bachelors degree); religious training (similar to Catholic priests going to a seminary); or backing of a community (general consensus that this person is worthy of the title, regardless of whether they were formally trained or self-taught). By “give themselves” I mean, can they refer to a person who teaches and guides others how to practice forms of Buddhism, either formally or informally, but independently of an institution? Thanks.

Looking up the [Pali bodhi](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bodhi#Pali) leads to [Sanskrit bodhi](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF#Sanskrit) , which says "perfect knowledge or wisdom", from Proto-Indo European "to be awake". Perfect wisdom and being awake are not the same thing from a layman's perspective, so they are hinting at some underlying unity. Is that present in the components of the word? What about parts of speech of the word, what is its part of speech and how is it composed? Also, it seems to be related to the word Buddha (b*dh*), but I am not sure. [Bod](https://www.shabdkosh.com/dictionary/english-sanskrit/bod/bod-meaning-in-sanskrit) seems to mean "body", and [hi](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF) , I dunno. I may be doing this wrong :)