I read the following on the internet: > Perhaps, we can infer from the above that the Dha**m**ma is easy to follow > for those who had little dust in their eyes, keen faculties (i.e. > intelligent), with good attributes (i.e. good habits), easy to teach > (i.e. respectful, eager to learn and diligent) and **seeing disgrace > (i.e. a strong sense of shame) & danger in the other world (i.e. fear > of ending up in a bad destination after death)**. This is one angle. In comparison to the above Thanissaro translation and in comparison to the idiosyncratic embellishments bracketed by the poster, the translation of Sujato is slightly different, saying: > And some of them lived **seeing the danger in the fault to do with the next world** (paralokavajjabhayadassāvine), while others did not. > > [Sujato's SN 6.1](https://suttacentral.net/sn6.1/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) The relevant Pali above is 'paralokavajjabhayadassāvine', which is in locative case. The locative case can mean 'in" but also can more broadly mean 'in relation/respect to'. Therefore, Thanissaro used the translation of "in" whereas Sujato used the translation of "to do with". > The locative denotes the circumstance or site in space (where) or time (when), a person is, or an action takes place; and can generally be rendered by ‘in, at, on, near, among, **in respect to**’. > > [Learn Pali Blog Spot](https://palistudies.blogspot.com/2018/06/palis-system-of-noun-cases.html) > The seventh case (sattamī = Skr. saptamī) or the loc. serves to denote the where, i.e., the scene of an action. But it is capable of expressing such nuances as are denoted by the English prepositions in, on, at, among, with, by, near, over or **about**. Moreover its employment is not restricted to actual space as normally understood by ‘where’, but extends into other spheres of thought (cp. SS §38.6) Consequently there are various uses of the loc. which can be classified as those denoting, for instance, the varying conceptions of time, of circumstance, of motive, (the nimitta-sattamī of local grammarians), of **relation**, the loc. absolute with its various subdivisions and so on. > > Here as well as in the above type (c.) the loc. is expressive of **relation**, i.e. the thing regarding which... > > [The Locative Case](https://ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Textual-Studies/Syntax-of-the-Cases/07-Locative.htm) Are there any Pali Suttas which explain the meaning of the term "the other world" ("paraloka") to help us clarify the text in SN 6.1 (which the poster on the internet took omniscient privilege to impute their own personal interpretation of)?

As far as I understand it, according to the theory of momentariness (*Kshana- Bhanga*, or *kṣaṇa*) the cause does not exist in the effect. A perishes before B arises. It arises from nothing. Even if we take the Zero energy universe model, shunyata is seen as emptiness of emptiness, and the Zero energy universe is more akin to Nirguna brahman than Shunyata. Nothing arises from nothing. My question is -- even if we say that the cause creates the effect, with what material does it do so? For example, if A gives rise to B, where did B come from? Is it the same substance/thing as A in a different form? If not, how did B arise from A? Even if A exists after or until B arises, how can a new B arise from A (unless B is A in a different form like water turning into vapor or unless A divides its substance/material into different parts)? Things cannot arise ex nihilo can they? If we assume that things are created anew, that is actually ex nihilo (and is also a problem that many Theists have with their God creating things from nothing). In actuality new things cannot be created, we see one root substance being transmutated into different components and forms but the root substance remains the same. Things cannot infinitely divide themselves. A cannot divide itself to become B, because the material would become infinitely smaller. No new materials are created. From what would they be created by? Actually new things in actuality cannot arise from existent things, let alone when such existent things have already perished before their effect arises, as in the case of khshana-bhanga. In nature we just see one substance being transmutated into different forms but the root substance remains the same. I think that materialism makes more sense than the theory of momentariness for this reason? The theory of atoms perishing and then giving birth to new atoms makes no sense. Even if Atoms didn't perish until new atoms were created, this would still be impossible as new things cannot arise substantially or materially as there is only transmutation/transformation in nature.in materialism that would be eternal subatomic components.

I read the following on the internet: > So beings are born into a sex due to their past actions and results. Which Pali suttas explain the above?

I read the following on the internet: > Questions must be about Buddhism – any school of Buddhism – usually > about doctrine or about practice; or perhaps about history, culture or > art. What are the criteria of a 'school' of Buddhism? Is [Dhamma Dhatu](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/dhamma-dhatu) a school of Buddhism?

When considering AN 9.5 says Dhamma is a "gift", is earning a secular living from Buddhism, such as teaching at a secular worldly university, immoral according to Buddhist Sutta & Vinaya principles?

What's the benefit (ānisaṁso) of renunciation? As in, for example, "*... he gave a progressive discourse, that is, a talk on giving, behaving, and heaven; he revealed the drawback, degradation, and defilement of sensuality and the benefit of renunciation...*". I would say it's less excitement, a more serene and settled heart, a clearer mind, a better, more refined satisfaction. What do you think?

I read the following on the internet: > Anicca means inconstancy - the aggregates are constantly changing and thus unreliable, making them stressful. Does anicca primarily mean inconstancy, i.e., the aggregates continue to exist but fluctuate, including getting 'reborn'? Or does anicca primarily mean the aggregates are subject to both change & dissolution? Please offer quotes from the Pali Suttas to support different interpretations.

I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views?

I've read a fair bit about the 7 factors of awakening but I'm really struggling with how I actually cultivate them. In particular dhamma vicaya or investigation of dhammas. Can somebody give me a practical real world example of this? Nothing I have read is really sinking in. I need it explained to me like a 5 year old. Thank you 🙏

What terms are equivalent to 'meaning' in Sanskrit, or Buddhist thought more generally? Especially in terms of, how to live a meaningful life, and what is considered meaningful in Buddhist philosophy. Thanks

I have heard the claim that Ajahn Tong deviated from the main point of Mahasi Sayadaw's meditation technique and he taught it as a concentration technique. I don't understand how that could be. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu isn't teaching concentration meditation and he is Ajahn Tong's student. Does anyone know why anyone would make this claim? As I understand, Ajahn Tong was pretty strict about not practicing just concentration meditation.

I've been trying to find some information on oratory practices in ancient times. Strangely, I am not finding much. What technique(s) were used? It's hard to imagine the Buddha raising his voice to address large crowds, but maybe I'm just projecting. Maybe he could really holler. Did they rely on echo, repeating at intervals, hand gestures, a loud person, etc.? > At one time the Blessed One was living near the city of Gayā, on > Gayāsīse, together with a thousand monks. There the Blessed One asked > the monks:

This may have been asked before, but I have not found any reference to it yet. What is the significance of sitting to one side? many scriptures describe meetings between the various monks and layman and royalty characterized by sitting to one side. what is the origin and reason of this custom? Is it still practiced?

I read the following on the internet: > what ever deed opposing and harming the Noble truth. What exactly is the Noble Truth? How is the Noble Truth opposed & harmed?

**Here is my main question #1** What is the difference between sutta defn. of Brahmacariya and 1) brahmin Brahmacariya predating Buddhism and 2) celibacy and chastity? defn.: celibacy the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations. What is the difference between celibacy and abstinence? Although many people use “celibacy” and “abstinence” interchangeably, there is a difference between the two terms. Abstinence usually refers to the decision not to have penetrative sex. ... Celibacy is a vow to remain abstinent over an extended period of time. defn.: chastity the state or practice of refraining from extramarital, or especially from all, sexual intercourse. What is an example of chastity? The definition of chastity is a quality held by someone pure, modest or celibate. A virgin is an example of chastity. Faithful married couples are examples of chastity. ... The boy's friends laughed at him when he took a chastity pledge and promised to not have sex. Note that ‘brahmacariya’ goes much farther than ordinary defn. of ‘chastity’ and ‘celibacy’ **Here is my main question #2** Not even having a thought of lust is the EBT definition of brahmacariya, avoiding sex and any kind of physical or mental sexual activity. Ordinary defintions of ‘celibacy’ and ‘chastity’ tend to use physical activity to determine status. EBT buddhism focuses on the mental causes that can preempt physical manifestations of lust, kāma 💘💃‍. (sutta refs?) I think there's a sutta (or two) in AN that answers both questions, where the Buddha criticizes Brahmans of his time not living up to brahmacariya. PED definition: : Brahmacariya (neuter) [brahma + cariya] a term (not in the strictly Buddhist sense) for observance of vows of holiness, particularly of chastity: good and moral living (brahmaṃ cariyaṃ brahmāṇaṃ vā cariyaṃ = brahmacariyaṃ Pj I 151); especially in Buddhist sense the moral life, holy life, religious life, as way to end suffering, Vin I 12, 19, renouncing the world, study of the Dhamma D I 84, 155; II 106; III 122f., 211; M I 77, 147, 193, 205, 426, 463, 492, 514; II 38; III 36, 116; S I 38, 43, 87, 105, 154, 209; II 24, 29, 120, 219, 278, 284 (°pariyosāna); III 83, 189; IV 51, 104, 110, 126, 136f., 163, 253, V 7f., 15f., 26f., 54f., 233, 262, 272, 352; A I 50, 168, 225; II 26, 44, 185; III 250, 346; IV 311; V 18, 71, 136; Snp 267, 274 (vas-uttama), 566, 655, 1128; Thag 1027, 1079; It 28, 48, 78, 111; Dhp 155, 156, 312; Ja III 396; IV 52; Pv II 913; Dhp-a IV 42 (vasuttamaṃ); Vibh-a 504. — brahmacariyaṃ vussati to live the religious life A I 115 (cf. °ṃ vusitaṃ in formula under Arahant II A); °assa kevalin wholly given up to a good life A I 162; °ṃ santānetuṃ to continue the good life A III 90; Dhp-a I 119; komāra° the religious training of a well-bred youth A III 224; Snp 289. — abrahmacariya unchastity, an immoral life, sinful living M I 514; D I 4; Snp 396; Pj I 26;

I am working on wearable tech for meditation. I need to conduct a market research survey for the same. I understand that I cannot conduct a survey on the BSE site. I want to ask that what are good Buddhist portals or other social sites of Buddhist meditation where I can conduct a survey on meditation.

I don't know how many Buddhists actually reckon with loneliness and the (very real) suffering associated with it. It seems to me that a lot of Buddhist teachings emphasize on the value of solitude and deem intimate/personal relationships to be unwholesome karma, which ought to be readily forsaken. So what should an aspiring Buddhist do if he/she feels perpetually alone, constantly challenged with the near-impossible task of building deep, trusting and long-lasting relationships that are emotionally nourishing and fulfilling? Should he/she simply forget about such worldly pursuits and learn to live the life of a recluse in a good forest monastery? Or try to do something about this somewhat-unbearable State of Being? If the latter, what can the Dharma teach us about forging human connections that are increasingly loving, kind and deeply meaningful? ----- # Some Afterthought: From the Samana Johnann's comment and some of the answers below, it does show that Buddhism tend not to view Loneliness as a *problem* per se. We *do* need friends (and Teachers!) to provide consistent spiritual support in each of our paths towards Enlightenment, though. (And people who are lonely often find it hard to express and/or address their need in this respect.) Also, it is natural for humans, as social beings, to yearn for social bonding and some level of intimacy. I know many seasoned Yogi(ni)s can attest to the fact that one can be perfectly equanimous being alone in a meditative state. But are we missing out on something?

In other words, did they exist first, and then Śākyamuni became a Buddha later on?

Is reiki practice (energy practice) harmful? Is it harmful to advancing in the path? I'm asking, not about getting a treatment, but about doing a course in it: and getting into this whole reiki thing and maybe treating others with it.

I have seen lot of paranormal activities videos about scientists who have done lot of research in spirit communication and are successful in doing so. Can this be done or possible? What are the ways this can be achieved according to Buddhism?