In Kd 6 , We come across the following:- > On one occasion a monk was possessed by a spirit. His teacher and > preceptor who were nursing him were not able to cure him. He then went > to a pigs’ slaughterhouse to eat raw meat and drink blood. As a > result, he became well. They told the Buddha. > > “For one who is possessed, I allow raw meat and raw blood.” I had never heard of this before. I only encountered it because a polemical blog quoted it in an attempt to criticize Buddhist scripture by highlighting passages that seem negative or problematic when taken at face value. Since their intent of quoting the above was obviously hostile I’d like to understand the background of these from those familiar with the Vinaya:- My questions are: 1. Is the translation accurate? Does the Pali genuinely say that the Buddha allowed raw meat and raw blood in such circumstances? 2. Is this passage considered authentic and canonical within mainstream Theravāda? 3. If both of the above are true, How is this interpreted by traditional Buddhists today? Is it taken literally, regarded as a narrowly defined medicinal or exceptional allowance, or understood in some other way? And if it is accepted, how is it justified within Buddhist ethics and discipline?

Vietnamese sentence: Như nói có linh hồn người chết, nói có Phật tánh, có thế giới siêu hình là nói dối, vì đó là cảnh giới tưởng, cảnh giới không có thật. AI version 1: For example, asserting the existence of souls after death, Buddha-nature, or supernatural realms is false speech because these belong to imaginary realms, which are not real. A.I version 2: For instance, asserting the existence of souls of the dead, Buddha-nature, or metaphysical worlds is lying, as these belong to the realm of imagination, an unreal realm. Thu: For example, saying there is the spirit of the deceased, saying there is Buddha-nature and a metaphysical world is false speech / lying, because there are realms of imagination, realms that do not truly exist. Loi: For example, saying that there are spirits of the deceased, that there is Buddha-nature, or that there are supernatural worlds is false speech, because these are imaginary realms that do not exist. Nhan: For example, saying that there are spirits of the deceased, that there is Buddha-nature, or that there are metaphysical worlds is false speech, as these are imaginary realms that do not truly exist. Lin Đa: For example, saying there are spirits of the deceased, saying there is Buddha-nature, saying there are metaphysical worlds is false speech, because these are imagined realms, realms that do not exist. As a native-English speaker, you read an English sentence and you can undertand the meaning of English sentence translated by Vietnamese people that helps you undersand the same Vietnamese text "Như nói có linh hồn người chết, nói có Phật tánh, có thế giới siêu hình là nói dối, vì đó là cảnh giới tưởng, cảnh giới không có thật"? I mean the structure, grammar and other things. You can get the Buddhism terminology and C2 and it will help you practice and understand Buddhism easily. Thank you very much for your reading.

Years ago I came across a Sanskrit term that described the exchange or interaction of a buddhist and art. I am desperate to remember that term. It described engaging with art work in the present moment as though the piece was alive in you and you were alive in the piece. The term defined a mutual exchange of presence. Can anyone help me with recalling this term?

Does the Buddha explain anywhere why the mind is capable to be unskillful and cause suffering for itself in the first place? Specifically, why do we become attached, and why do we crave things? Does the Buddha ever acknowledge that these mechanisms can be helpful? Does he ever describe our ability to become attached or to crave things as mere design errors? Or are these things just left unjudged and taken as axiomatic starting points, without ever trying to describe their origin or their larger place in the world?

What is the most important thing or idea about Buddhism? "The Buddha dealt with that which is most important", compared to the other spiritual traditions, according Rupert Sheldrake. So, what is most important in Buddhism?

Does the Buddha ever instruct us to meditate for the sake of meditation's immediate and temporary benefits? If we see meditation as a car for gaining insights and understanding, but also as a tool for improving our focus or mood or (non)reactivity - does the Buddha ever explicitly urge us to meditate for the latter effects?

What is the exact number of original jataka tales? If we look around we see Jataka tales, panchatantra, Esop's fables and many others are all mixed up. Where can I read original Jataka tales online?

Mahamaya is the birth mother of Siddhartha. After her death, after giving birth, she is said to have gone to the God Realm of the 33 where later she received teachings from the Buddha. She is also said to have grieved his parinirvana in a sutra I cannot find and visited him on earth at that time. Did she become an Arhat or attain other realizations after receiving teahings as was the case with other disciples of the Buddha?

What are the actual suttas in which the Buddha described how to meditate? A list of all such suttas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Ānanda, the earth rests on water, the water rests on air, and the air rests on space. When a great wind blows, the water is stirred, which in turn causes the earth to shake—resulting in an earthquake **Is that scientifically accurate regarding how the Earth is *structured*? And *cause* for earthquake**

Am I right that Gauthama Budda did not teach to worship the Hindu Gods? Did he teach not to worship them? Maybe my questions sound stupid to a Buddhist but I am practising Islam and do not know very much about Buddhism. Peace be with you, and thank you for you help.

I’m interested in understanding the religious and devotional practices that may have been part of Siddhartha Gautama's life before he undertook his renunciate life and became the Buddha. Specifically: Are there any historical or textual references indicating that Siddhartha Gautama himself, or members of his immediate family (such as his father Suddhodana, mother Māyā etc), participated in worship of deities or followed any theistic religious practices prior to his renunciation? If so, which deities were venerated, and are there any specific suttas, commentaries, or canonical sources that mention this? Additionally, was deity worship a common practice within the socio-religious environment of Kapilavastu at that time? I’m looking for references from early Buddhist texts (Pāli Canon, Āgamas, or later commentarial traditions if relevant) or scholarly interpretations that shed light on this aspect.

Recently, I came across an intriguing opinion - Buddha did not believe in rebirth and that his views on the topic stem from some fake suttas. It sparked a thought in my mind that I believe strongly contradict this viewpoint. I wanted to share it with you, and also open it for counter arguments. The argument is structured as follows: if rebirth does not exist, we only live one life, and once we die, we cease to exist. Therefore, what motivation would a person have to renounce worldly attachments and endure the hardships of seeking enlightenment? One might argue that individuals pursue enlightenment to alleviate their suffering. However, it's worth noting that many people lead relatively comfortable lives, experiencing only brief periods of discomfort and ultimately facing death. In fact, those in higher social strata often enjoy luxurious lives and many find fulfillment in them. Given this context, there is no objective reason for them to even considering renouncing their comfortable existence in pursuit of enlightenment? Therefore, if there is no rebirth, enlightenment becomes optional - much like learning mathematics, whcih although is beautiful, is nonetheless optional. We could potentially choose to live our lives and simply "power through" until the end, and be done forever. Or even worse, kill self and be “at peace” forever. If that were a solution, Buddha (assuming he was smart and well intentioned) would have proposed pursuit of enlightenment only to people in bad mental/physical conditions - but he did it universally - which says that its not true. This reasoning is quite convincing to me. I would appreciate hearing any arguments towards non-existence of rebirth and significance of enlightenment assuming it. Your insights are very much appreciated.

Did the Buddha ever said something like this: > What the world sees as pleasure, it is suffering for me. What the world sees as suffering, it is pleasure for me. Or something similar in the meaning, in any canonical texts?

Is there any record of the longest period the historical Buddha stayed in meditation? I have heard rumors ranging from many days to many weeks. Also when? Prior to his first sermon or after?

In a number of the books I'm reading on Buddhism, and in a number of talks I've heard on the subject, I repeatedly encounter the idea that the Buddha "saw the Dhamma" or that he "witnessed Dhamma" or the like. Other times, I've heard/read that the Buddha "saw" beings dying and taking rebirth, or that he "saw" the reality of anicca, dukkha, anatta, and the Four Noble Truths, etc. I'm having difficulty understanding what this all means. Is this metaphorical sight? Is it literal sight, in the sense of a vision or dream? In terms of our own meditation practices, when we are told that we should "see" certain things, e.g. seeing a nimitta, should we expect something similar? Metaphorical "sight"? Literal sight? Something else entirely? Thanks!

What is the Buddhist view on crying? I don't remember hearing or reading about the Buddha ever crying. Is crying a consequence of "lack of understanding" of the ultimate reality?

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 am a Hindu and I believe that Vishnu incarnated as Buddha in beginning period of Kaliyug and purpose of his incarnation was to avoid sufferings caused in society by misinterpretation of vedas. So,he rejected vedas. > Mahabharat shanti parva Chapter 348 > > Then at the beginning of Kali Yuga he took refuge in the tree of the > king of brahmins He lived in **the house of the king of righteousness > in fear of Magadha He was dressed in brown clothes, shaved and had > white teeth. I, the Buddha, the son of Shuddhodana, shall bewitch men. > The Sudras are enjoyed among the pure when I have attained Buddhahood. > All men will be enlightened and covered with saffron.** At times of Mahabharat ,Krishna told that Dwarka will drown and he will return as Buddha in Kaliyug. ***What I want to ask :Are there any Buddhist sects or subsects that believe that Hindu scriptures particularly the Vedas were true in original form and got interpolated .So,they need to follow new message and reject Vedas so they require change to Buddhism or Vedas were divinely inspired but got misinterpreted /interpolated or lost original form or any similar belief of divine revelation in Vedas .***

I was wondering if for example an obsession or craving that someone has for attaining Nirvana would be considered something unwholesome. On one hand it seems to me like it would, since that person would be reinforcing the habit of craving, but on the other hand how else could they actually achieve the goal? Like for example how could they decide to become a monk and devote themselves fully to the practice etc. I don't think the Buddha would have left his palace if he wasn't motivated by *some* sort of craving, at least in the beginning.