I heard that “miccha dhamma” means homosexuality, especially in Sri Lanka, where the Tripitaka was written.

In saccapabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:

1. Jāti is "khandhānaṃ patubhāvo" and "āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho".
2. Khandhānaṃ patubhāvo included viññāṇa-khandha.
1. Viññāṇa-khandha is viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda.
2. Rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda is rūpa-khandha.
3. Nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda is vedanā-, saññā-, saṇkhāra-khandha (cetana, phassa, manasikāra; see: sammādiṭṭhisuttaṃ).
3. Those nāma- and rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda are piyarūpa/sātarūpa.
1. 60 piyarūpa/sātarūpa: 6 outer āyatana, 6 āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda, and 42 nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda (6 vedana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 saññā-khandha, 6x5 saṇkhāra-khandha [phassa-paṭiccasamuppāda, cetanā-paṭiccasamuppāda, vitakka, vicāra, taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda]).

So jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is viññāna-paṭiccasamuppāda. The difference is: Jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is 5 khandha. So jāti is a conclusion of viññāna, nāma+rūpa, āyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna and bhavā-paṭiccasamuppāda. But viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is an explanation of jhāti. So sacca-pabba is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa Is Jāti And Paṭisandhi", right?

I have seen some people doubting the reliability of the Tripitaka. They say it is not the Buddha’s word, since it was written down about 400 years after his death. What historical evidence can prove the **level** of reliability of the Tripitaka?

We can give examples of how things can continue without any permanent entity, like fire burning wood. It is not the wood, the fire, the space, or the floor that is fixed — everything is changing. But how can anyone demonstrate how karma, habits, and memories follow us? Where are they stored, if they are stored at all? If they are stored, are they unchanging? Did the Buddha give examples of where these habits or karma “stay” and follow us? I don’t see any examples for this. Can anyone describe it? This is something most people struggle with, and people from other religions often question. If there isn’t any solid explanation or way to demonstrate it, then it seems to undermine the idea.

Considering the development of embryo technology, who does Buddhist Dharma consider as your mother and father: is it the biological parents, or the legal parents? The reason I ask this question is that killing your mother and father is a heinous kamma. One of the monks said that heinous kamma is applicable only for biological mother and the father (i.e. donors of the sperm and the egg). Is this so, and why?

I would like to know what is defined as "Patigha" (Skt. "Pratigha"), and how it varies from "Dosa" (Skt. "Dvesha"). Thank you.

Vietnamese sentences: Thánh tăng, Thánh ni và Thánh cư sĩ còn ăn thịt chúng sinh thì Thánh đó là Thánh gì? Câu hỏi này để tự quý vị suy ngẫm trả lời. English sentences: If Noble Monks, Noble Nuns, and Noble Lay Disciples still consume the flesh of sentient beings, then what kind of Noble person is that? This question is for you yourselves to reflect on and answer. Do you think this is a good translation for our international Buddhists.

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**

I’ve heard many people say that Buddhist texts refer to a flat Earth. Is it true that Buddhism considers the Earth to be flat? Please give an unbiased answer.

Some Buddhists refer to Vishnu as Vasavatti Māra Deva. Others say that Upulvan Deva is Vishnu, and some say **Varuna** Deva is Vishnu. So who exactly is Vishnu? Is he Māra or a Deva? In Hinduism, Vishnu is known as the one who holds the chakraudha (sudhssana chakra). Upulvan deva consider as protector of sri Lanka Buddhist people say sri Lankan misunderstood Vishnu as upulvan. Some say both are same deva. So who is Vishnu....

I have recently been looking into the systematic methods of mediation subjects taught in the Pa Auk tradition and wanted to know if the Thai Forest tradition has a similar systematic course of methods, or if the meditation practice is adapted depending on the student. I do know the tradition is a traditional teacher (preceptor) student relationship for anyone seriously thinking of taking ordination, from Angarika to full Bhikkhu. I cannot seem to find any information on any of the websites from the tradition on what definite meditation subjects are taught, in what order etc. Other than of course the websites having sources of teachings and I know the tradition is based upon the teachings of the Tipitaka. Compared to Pa Auk tradition which is based upon the Vissudhimagga. I suppose this is a question for anyone who studies with, lives within or has stayed as a guest for a certain amount of time within the monasteries within this tradition.

Is kasina meditation and other such meditation techniques not found in the suttas (i.e. not taught by the Buddha) and only invented in the Visuddhimagga? Or does it have basis in the Pali suttas?

Meditation is powerful karma. But if someone practices meditation daily and wishes for **physical pleasure in future lives,** will it bring that kind of pleasure? Or does meditation only lead to a purified mind and higher realms, but not physical results like those gained through physical dāna?

I always have this question in My mind. in Buddhism, when we share the merit of our good deeds with devas or deceased relatives, does it reduce the strength of our own karma? In other words, does sharing or transferring our merit mean that we lose or lessen the karmic fruits we would otherwise receive?

As far as I can remember, this stmt is at the beginning.

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?

I'm attempting to bring the Mahasi Sayadaw method of *labeling*, off the meditation cushion, and into my everyday actions. But I'm encountering a few difficulties and contradictions hindering the practice. I've noticed that when I'm doing intricate or engrossing things, such as conversing, studying, working, or playing a musical instrument, it becomes *impossible* to be mindful, or have any awareness (or 3rd-party objectivity) of what I'm doing. If I tried to say "playing", or "lifting index finger" while playing a complicated piano piece, I would lose my place. Or if I'm deep in study or work, entirely engrossed in a subject, I have to discard mindfulness or any 3rd-party objectivity, and just do the work. If I were to say "reading", or "working out the author's thoughts on covalent bonding", I would lose the track, or be forced to come to a dead stop. Indeed, mindfulness seems to *oppose* mastery in action, and I have to discard it anytime an engrossing or intricate action is required. Then inevitably I have to wait until I'm done with the activity, then restore mindfulness when my body and mind can be more stilled. Mahasi suggests that actions should be done in a slow, deliberate way, as though one were physically limited. But I can't see how one could do something as engrossing as playing music, learning a language, or studying molecular biology in this way.

How should a Buddhist respond to being bullied / bullying? Obviously there are many admonitions against bullying / related behavior in the suttas, but I'm looking for specific actions that should be taken in response to bullying. Some examples: - Being bullied at school by a stronger person. - Being harrassed at work by a coworker. - Being robbed / attacked in the street. - Dealing with racial/sexual/other forms of bigotry. - Dealing with neighborhood gang / police violence. - Dealing with colonialism / imperialism.

Why use a word thought by some to be offensive even if the meaning isn't meant to be offensive? There is no other word that can be used? Would using another word (or phrase) be compassionate towards those who might get offended by it's use even if the intent wasn't to offend or provoke? Is "Hinayana" so sacred, useful and descriptive that it must be used even when talking to an audience that likely has people in it who would be offended?

Can someone precisely explain what is actually happening (and why) on this movie? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A-9pxBANek