Is this a grave mistake in DN22 translation? It appears both Ven. Thanissaro and Bhante Sujato have made a grave translation error [in DN22](https://suttacentral.net/dn22/en/sujato?layout=linebyline#1.7) . > “Mendicants, the four kinds of mindfulness meditation are the path to convergence. They are in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize extinguishment. > > “Ekāyano ayaṃ, bhikkhave, maggo sattānaṃ visuddhiyā, sokaparidevānaṃ samatikkamāya dukkhadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamāya ñāyassa adhigamāya nibbānassa sacchikiriyāya, yadidaṃ cattāro satipaṭṭhānā. Ven. Vijithananda explain this in a different way. "Attangamaya" means not "make to and end of pain and sadness" but taking them as not I, me, or mine.

Is the Eightfold Path exclusive to Buddhism? Buddha taught the **Noble** Eightfold Path. The way I understand, the eightfold path is a generic path not exclusive to Buddhism. However, the Noble Eightfold Path is exclusive to Buddhism. I was trying to convince many [in Dhamma Wheel](https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=38202) of this without much support. I would like to know the opinion of this learned Buddhist community.

Why is consciousness not discussed as internal and external in the Dhathu-vibhanga sutta (MN 140)? > "And what is the space property? **The space property may be either internal or external.** What is the internal space property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space property & the external space property are simply space property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and makes the space property fade from the mind. > > "**There remains only consciousness: pure & bright.** What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure. When sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of pleasure.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of pleasure that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure — ceases, is stilled.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. When sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain — ceases, is stilled.' > > https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

As the title says, I am looking for sources from EBT or Theravada, from the actual words of the Buddha about the process of death. Including advice on what one should do when death is close. Assuming the person knows death is arriving imminently. (if that is a correct term)

dhp 352 *A master is one who has let go of all craving and clinging to the world; who has seen the truth beyond forms, yet is possessed of **a profound knowledge of words**. Such a great being can be said to have finished the task.* [Sujato Translation, with pāḷi](https://suttacentral.net/dhp352/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=true&script=latin) : Rid of craving, free of grasping, Vītataṇho anādāno, expert in the interpretation of terms, ***Niruttipadakovido;*** knowing the correct Akkharānaṁ sannipātaṁ, structure and sequence of syllables, Jaññā pubbāparāni ca; they are said to be one who bears their final body, Sa ve “antimasārīro, one of great wisdom, a great person. Mahāpañño mahāpuriso”ti vuccati.

In Abhidharma (“abhi-” roughly means “meta-,” so Abhidharma can be understood as meta-dharma, or “one level above dharma”), there is a concept called kṣaṇabhaṅga, or “momentary decay.” It holds that all existence lasts only for a split second, and this includes human beings. A related term is ēkacitta, or “one unit of consciousness,” according to which consciousness arises in discrete units rather than as a continuous stream. Under this understanding, is it fair to say that each person dies and is reborn from one split second to the next?

I find it difficult to assign a meaning to the word 'rebirth'. Here are some hints that rebirth might not be real: - Views regarding one's past and future existence are included in the "62 false beliefs" - Those views are ascribed to non-Buddhist ascetics - Views regarding the future of the Tathagata (after death) are in the 10 or 14 "unanswered questions" - The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth? - If rebirth happens that seems difficult to prove by personal experience; is it an article of faith, not something one can verify by direct experience? If so isn't that (faith instead of experience) unusual in Buddhist doctrine (isn't doctrine meant to be measurable against one's experience of the world)? Or if it is experience, what kind of experience (of other lives) is it, how are you supposed to know that so-called experience is not just a dream? - [This web site](http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm) (which seems to be Thai) says that rebirth is a "parable" for "simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha". It says that "Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person" and "This notion of the transmigration of the soul definitely does not exist in Buddhism." The end of that page suggest that people "lower themselves into hell" or "rise to the Enlightened state of the Buddha" *in this life*. I think I remember reading, sometime in the distant past, than when someone asked the Buddha about the afterlife, he replied "I'm not here to talk to you about the afterlife: I'm here to talk to you about *this* life." Is it OK to believe, is it OK to say that a belief in rebirth isn't important to Buddhism? Not a big part of the historical Buddha's teaching? That when he mentioned it at all, it was to say that it didn't exist ("anatta" and "anicca"), that he didn't expect to be doing it himself, and that it wasn't worth talking about? And/or is it a non-core part of Buddhism: something which some Buddhists believe and other Buddhists don't, a local/cultural viewpoint? The article [Two Main Schools of Buddhism](http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/59.htm) says, > The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows: > - Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher. - The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools. - The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. - The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the same in both schools. - Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world. - Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference. A belief in rebirth (even Karma) isn't especially on this list. I think I agree that the above are essential: that the historical Buddha talked about them, and that they're a necessary part of Buddhist belief. I agree that tales of rebirth and of other lives feature in some Buddhist literature, e.g. Mahayana literature seems to have the Buddha being reborn. I don't know a lot about Buddhism so, please, if you answer with a paraphrase of scripture, please include the name of the scripture you're quoting so that I could look it up.

Definitions: - I want to emphasize the mind, the body doesn't ache, isn't sore, isn't itchy, nothing at all; that is the 'an lạc' of the body (bodily ease/well-being). - 'Thanh thản' (serenity) is when our mind doesn't ponder, isn't busy at all; that is 'thanh thản'. - 'Vô sự' (actionlessness/nothing-to-do) is doing nothing at all; the body also does nothing, and the mind also doesn't ponder, meaning it does nothing; that is 'vô sự'. It is normal, very normal like a normal person, yet doing nothing at all. That is: the head/mind doesn't work, and the hands and feet also don't work; that is 'vô sự'. As for the mind that doesn't ponder, doesn't worry about anything at all, that is 'thanh thản' (serenity). As for the body that doesn't ache, isn't sore, itchy, nothing at all, that is 'an lạc' (ease); it is normal. Just like right now, [if] our body has no aches or pains, that is the 'an lạc' of our body. That is the state right now; it's not anything strange or different. It is the normalcy of a normal human being. Therefore, once you recognize that normalcy, now you just need to use the method of Right Thinking (Như Lý Tác Ý), guide it [the mind]: > "A mind unshaken, serene, at ease, and free from involvement.” You just fear it [the mind] will move and ponder about this and that, so you remind it: ‘Mind immovable, serene, at ease, actionless,’ and then just sit relaxedly/idly like that. So, can I use "unshaken, serene, at ease, uninvolved" as a mindful reminder throughout my day to make my mind feel better?

I am a Buddhist and during the Eight Precepts Observance Day, am I not allowed to keep money, but after 24 hours, I can use money, but the money on Observance Day must be transferred to my cousins or my spouse or my relatives? I mean how can I show that I keep the precept, particularly with respect to Early Theravada?

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?

Among the many schools and traditions, what core teachings are shared by all Buddhists?

Both Theravāda and Mahāyāna accept a core early Buddhist canon, yet each tradition also relies on additional bodies of literature Theravāda on the commentaries (Aṭṭhakathā, Ṭīkā, and post-canonical works such as the Visuddhimagga) and Mahāyāna on sūtras not preserved in Pāli and often considered “later” by modern scholarship. On what doctrinal or hermeneutical grounds does each tradition justify the authority of its later textual strata? Are there explicit criteria within each tradition for discerning which later works are authoritative, semi-authoritative, or merely scholastic? How do traditional scholars within each school respond to the charge that the later texts introduce ideas not present in the early Nikāyas/Āgamas?

Several rules in the Buddhist Monastic Code depend on exact definitions of dawnrise (and noon). As an example, Pācittiya 37, which is the basis of the sixth precept, states: > Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it is to be confessed. Where the "wrong time" is between noon and dawnrise of the next day. Both noon and dawnrise seem to be defined by the position of the sun in the sky. However, in the far north, [polar night](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night) means that some places go months without dawn in the winter. What do monks do in this situation? Surely they don't go that long without eating.

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.

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**