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.

This is one of my main concerns. What did Buddha actually mean by 'kalpa'? I know Buddha said that the Earth will die by fire, and then all beings will be born in the Abhasara loka. I think this may refer to the sun expanding in the next 5 billion years, meaning the Earth could remain suitable for life for around 5 to 8 billion years (totally). So, how does this apply to the calculation of a kalpa? Did Buddha use extraordinary examples to teach how long this time period is? If not, what about the extremely long year examples? What are the types of kalpas? I need a trustworthy answer because this is one of the main arguments in Buddhism.

I read an account that Ananda went from the Deer Park to teach people, and taught a blacksmith to focus on the impurity of the body, and a washerwoman to count breaths, and they both became 'icchantikas'. Buddha told him to swap the teachings, and they both became arhats. I read it in passing, I think wjile researching the icchantika concept and I've been unable to relocate it. But I often think of the story, as illustrating the need for the right teaching for the specific person, and I'd love to be able to properly reference it.. Maybe I should search for keywords in an online Tipitaka..?

1. Was Pali the language spoken during the time of the Buddha, and would he have spoken this language? 2. Are the suttas contained in the Pali Canon verbatim what the Buddha said, or would things have been changed due to centuries of oral transmission?

Mahasi Sayadaw's approach isn't valid because it attempts to fill in the gaps with commentary from monastics that are supposed to be highly attained? Are there no gaps or vagueness in the Buddha's Tipitaka teachings? If there are gaps or vagueness withing the Buddha's Tipitaka scriptures, can an attempt to fill the gaps in the Buddha's teaching ever be done mindfully, with humility and respect? Also, if a spiritual teaching has gaps or is vague, can there be some kind of a good reason for it being that way?

We all know what happens if someone kill a parent but does the same apply to killing a foster parent

I bought the Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya and Anguttara Nikaya from Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations and was wondering how long it will take to read through these 4 Pitakas? I once read that it takes approx 2 years to read through the entire Sutta Pitaka (I don't have the 5th Pitaka the Kuddhaka Nikaya). Is that correct? Have a good day.

The Four Great Elements quite literally translate to Earth, Wind (Air), Fire, Water. It is often taught that these are really descriptions of first person experience, and the monikers are just analogies. These first person experiences are something like: 1. Earth - the felt sense of solidity 2. Water - the felt sense of "squishiness" or liquidity 3. Air - the felt sense of light motion in the body, and also wind on the skin, and sensations from breathing 4. Fire - the felt sense of temperature Is there any evidence in the Sutta Pitaka that this teaching is accurate? In other words, what Suttas seem to imply that when these terms were used, the above interpretation is what was had in mind. In contrast to the "first person experience" interpretation, one might just understand the appearance of these terms in the Sutta Pitaka as referring to material objects and reflecting the understanding of chemistry at the time.

Is there buddhajayanti sinhala translation of tipitaka for Kindle device? Pdf format is not good with kindle. Is there any other format of buddhajayanti sinhala tipitaka for kindle. Please let me know..

Indriyasaṁvara is part of [sīlakkhandha](https://suttacentral.net/define/s%C4%ABlakkhandha) . there you see this > Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā **na-nimittaggāhī** hoti > nānubyañjanaggāhī. whereas **animitta cetosamādhi** is part of highest samadhi. Thats why it is after th 8th Jhana. > sabbanimittānañca amanasikāro, animittāya ca dhātuyā manasikāro. so with this background, and for the sake of proper practice, Can someone help in knowing what is the difference between **not grasping** nimitta (na nimittaggāhī) and **signless**(animitaa) ?

Can you give a link to read teeka or sub commentaries..

Would most Theravada monks consider the Tipitaka infallible? For example, would most agree with these statements? >*All Scripture is... useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...* > >Modified from 1 Timothy 3:16 >*You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true... You know that nothing unjust or counterfeit is written in them.* > >Modified 1 Clement 45:2-3

In what sutta did the Buddha say: *"Don't let the moment pass you by"*? Thanks.

In many suttas, the Buddha affirms his omniscience about the past of all the beings. Why didn't the Buddha say something about his omniscience about the future of all the beings, in suttas?

First text screenshot says **MLD. 131**. Where is that from? Second text screenshot says **M. 19**. Where is that from? Screenshots are taken from Ven. Dhammajivas book called *Mahasi Insight Meditation* .

The following quote can be found at this link: > On the farmer's arrival the Buddha ordered that some food should be given him, and when the man was comforted and his mind was ready the Buddha preached a sermon, at the end of which the man became a Sotāpanna (DhA.iii.262-3). I'm interested in finding out what **"DhA.iii.262-3"** means. I looked up the Dhammapada Verse 262-263 and they are about something else entirely. Screenshot of these verses are attached. So where is the above story found in the Sutta Pitaka?

Anapanasati is a meditation technique attributed to Buddha himself and it is from Tripitaka. What other meditation techniques are present in Tripitaka and are attribited authoritatively to Buddha himself other than Anapanasati?

*I SUGGEST & REQUEST THAT YOU READ DN 10 (LINKED) BEFORE READING AND/OR ANSWERING THIS POST.* After contemplating DN 10 , several questions have arisen in me pertaining to the clarification of the sutta and the meditation practice. They are the following: 1. **When Venerable Ānanda talks about guarding the sense doors and not getting "caught up in the features and details" of sensual experience (the quote below), how does that translate into a meditation practice (in other words, what would one specifically do to do that in meditation)?** > ... > > “And how, student, does a mendicant guard the sense doors? When a mendicant sees a sight with their eyes, they don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of sight were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of desire and aversion would become overwhelming. For this reason, they practice restraint, protecting the faculty of sight, and achieving its restraint. When they hear a sound with their ears … When they smell an odor with their nose … When they taste a flavor with their tongue … When they feel a touch with their body … When they know a thought with their mind, they don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of mind were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of desire and aversion would become overwhelming. For this reason, they practice restraint, protecting the faculty of mind, and achieving its restraint. When they have this noble sense restraint, they experience an unsullied bliss inside themselves. That’s how a mendicant guards the sense doors." > > ... > > (DN 10 ) 2) **When reading the Satipatthana Sutta , I understand it says to "focus" or "discern" specific phrases and teachings and so too here in a way when Venerable Ānanda talks about having mindfulness and situational awareness (the quote below), but how does that translate into a meditation practice (in other words, what would one specifically do to do that in meditation)?** > ... > > "And how does a mendicant have mindfulness and situational awareness? It’s when a mendicant acts with situational awareness when going out and coming back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending the limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; when eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking, and keeping silent. That’s how a mendicant has mindfulness and situational awareness." > > ... > > (DN 10 ) 3. **Would guarding the sense doors and being mindful and situationally aware lead to the hindrances being given up as well as entering the jhanas per DN 10 ?** 4. **When Venerable Ānanda speaks in DN 10 about extending and projecting the mind toward knowledge and vision, the creation of a mind-made body, psychic power, clairaudience, comprehending the minds of others, recollection of past lives, knowledge of the death and rebirth of sentient beings, and knowledge of the ending of defilements, are these supposed to be standard experiences and potential powers that one should only be aware of in meditation when Venerable Ānanda says to extend and project the mind towards them, or is one supposed to do something other than only being aware of them?** 5. **Would the "spectrum of immersion" per DN 10 refer to the meditative methods to achieve samatha (tranquility), would the "spectrum of wisdom" per DN 10 refer to the meditative methods to achieve vipassana (wisdom), and in that, does DN 10 express that both methods are suppose to be used in partnership to attain freedom from suffering (for reference of samatha and vipassana: AN 2.30 )?** *PLEASE REFERENCE THE TIPITAKA OR SOURCES STRICTLY USING THE TIPITAKA IN YOUR ANSWERS.* -Apannaka

In Theravada, I know there is union in understanding that the Buddha taught two types of meditation: vipassana (insight) meditation and samatha (tranquility) meditation. However, I have come across various types of these meditation methods over the years, either with an emphasis on samatha meditation, vipassana meditation, or both, all filled with various interpretations. My question is the following: **Putting aside the modern methods of meditation taught by members of the later Sangha and their interpretations as well as going back to the Buddha and his early Sangha, what was it that the Buddha originally taught in regard to meditation (samatha and vipassana meditations) and what instructions did the Buddha give as to how one practices them?** *PLEASE REFERENCE THE TIPITAKA OR SOURCES STRICTLY USING THE TIPITAKA.* -Apannaka

Quote from Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125 Paṭhamamettāsutta: > Firstly, a person meditates spreading a heart full of love > [...] > > If they abide in that, are committed to it, and meditate on it often without losing it, when they die they’re reborn in the company of the gods of Brahmā’s Host. > The lifespan of the gods of Brahma’s Host is one eon. **An ordinary person stays there** until the lifespan of those gods is spent, **then they go to hell or the animal realm or the ghost realm**. But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life. This is the difference between an educated noble disciple and an uneducated ordinary person, that is, when there is a place of rebirth. Why would an ordinary person, a worlding (puthujjano), go to hell after a lot of metta? I cannot believe this. My first guess was that this is probably meant to be a possibility, meaning lots of metta will not 100% prevent descending to lower realms forever. However, as I cannot read Pali, I compared other translations to modern languages, but none of them suggests the possibility. Instead they all seem to agree (at least by their grammar) on this direct chain of results: (a lot of) Metta -> gods realm -> one of the lower realms for a householder, at least. Disciples are better off. Grammatically, I fail to see any room left for interpretation as a possibility. I must be misunderstanding something with this sutta. What is it? Wording, context, translatation, missing background? --- Thanks for the answers so far. I understand your interpretation and I sympathize with it. But it seems I missed some explanation. Please let me try to clarify my question: A puthujjano is one who has not overcome the ten fetters. If, with a lot of metta, such a person is reborn as deva in Brahma realm, then - according to my understanding of the words of this sutte - this person **will** be reborn to the lower realms. The text doesn't say the worldling "can go", or "could go", or "will go, if something else". The sutta, literally, states: "metta .. worldling ... brahma realm ... then hell". This is against my intuition, which is that a worldling, after lots of metta, can be reborn as deva but still end up in a lower realm later for some reasons, e.g. if only concentration is highly developed, or for other karmic reasons. But the sutta does not suggest this result as possibility, only, but as direct result. I would assume that the next rebirth could be elsewhere, too, if karma it favorable, if mindfulness, equanimity, whatever needed, have been developed. But the sutta does not mention any other factor, except: worldling (will go to hell) or disciple (will go to cessation). My question is about the words of this sutta. Why do they go against this intuition. Blind guesses: Is it a translation error? Is Pali lacking forms like subjunctive, so pure possibility can't be expressed? Is this sutta a later addition to the canon? Did I miss context?