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

Wikipedia's Kalpa(aeon) in Buddhism article says, > In another simple explanation, there are four different lengths of kalpas. A regular kalpa is approximately 16 million years long (16,798,000 years<a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKalpa_%2528aeon%2529%23Buddhism" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">[1] <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), and a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or about 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is roughly 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or around 1.28 trillion years. I just went through the Visuddhimagga, and could not find where or how that time in years is calculated. I was wondering how to calculate it. Please explain how it's calculated, with reference to scripture where Lord Buddha mentioned it, and/or where the calculation or the result of the calculation is described, perhaps in the Thripitaka or Visuddhimagga? --- <a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKalpa_%2528aeon%2529%23Buddhism" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">[1] <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> Wikipedia's reference is to a book: > Epstein, Ronald B.(2002). Buddhist Text Translation Society's Buddhism A to Z p. 204. Buddhist Text Translation Society. ISBN 0-88139-353-3, ISBN 978-0-88139-353-8. Perhaps that book may have a reference to where they found it, but I still haven't find that book.

*Sorry; part of this question is described in Chinese, as I cannot find their Pali or Sanskrit script; even if I can, I can't read them.* The Saddharmapundarika Sutra (法华经) quoted Buddha (Sakyamuni himself) once said about "Saddharma Vipralopa (末法)", the Ending Era in which Buddhism would become unpopular and weak (转复微末，谓末法时). Later commentary scripts claimed Buddha said "there is 500 years of correct Buddism, 1000 years of similar Buddhism and 3000 years of Ending Buddhism after my nirvana" (然佛所说，我灭度后，正法五百年，像法一千年，末法三千年). This saying is believed to be real but also there are different interpretation. Some source said Samyuktagama (杂阿含经) mentioned Ending Era (Saddharma Vipralopa) much earlier, but I didn't find. Based on the idea that Buddha said "500+1000 years after his nirvana, it is the Ending Era", the Mahayana Jingtu faction (净土宗) and 净土-influenced Tiantai faction (天台宗) thus believe we are now in the Ending Era of Buddhism, and developed a full system of getting liberated in this current era. These are, however, not accepted by Zen faction (禅宗), another major Mahayana faction in China. Zen believe the Ending Era is real but it is not that bad and the timetable is not referring to real time. > 末世众生愚痴钝根，不解如来三大阿僧祇秘密之说，遂言成佛尘劫未期，岂不疑误行人退菩提道。 I want to know, are these 3 creeds (below) also accepted in other factions of Buddhism, especially different factions of Theravada out of Sinosphere? Or, are these thoughts denied or left intentionally not to discuss? 1. There is an Ending Era of Buddhism after Buddha's nirvana. 2. The Ending Era is very bad, Buddhism becomes unpopular and wrong, and people are too stupid to get nirvana by themselves. 3. We are currently in this Ending Era. --------------- I think maybe some faction may deny the idea of Ending Era; for example, another translated book named "Ekottara Āgama (增壹阿含经)" said the Buddhism after Buddha will last forever and gain billions of believers. > 佛告阿难曰。我灭度之后。法当久存......东方弟子无数亿千。南方弟子无数亿千。是故。阿难。当建此意。我释迦文佛寿命极长。所以然者。肉身虽取灭度。法身存在。此是其义。当念奉行。 Maybe some of them is fake, wrong, or intepreted mistakenly. I don't know, and don't want to discuss which is correct and which is wrong, they are all ancient and said to be translated from India. My question is only, is there any other faction believe "it's the Ending Era now, the End is nigh!".

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.

I wonder if Mahayanabhikkhus can perform a Theravadin ordination and have the ordination be recognized as valid by the Theravadin bhikkhusangha without doing dalhikamma? What if the theravadins do a dalhikamma for a monk who took theravadin ordination performed by mahayana monks? Can he get full acceptance in the Theravada then? If not, can a dalhikamma be performed for the Mahayana monks as to make them eligible to perform Theravadin ordinations or must they re-ordain as Theravadins? Finally, can a monk be considered to have full ordination in both mahayana and theravada?