How can someone take rebirth with non-heterosexual inclinations? What specific karmic acts will lead to rebirth with this trait of non heterosexuality?

When researching stream-entry, I came across this fascinating statement ... > "The stream enterer ... has removed the saṅkhāras that force rebirth > in lower planes". SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_awakening#Stream-enterer I find this statement to be fascinating because the 4 stages of enlightenment are usually described as a function of "abandoning fetters (samyojanas)" rather than "removal of saṅkhāras". Does this statement have any reference in the suttas? i.e. Do the suttas actually make this connection between "removing saṅkhāras" and freedom from "rebirth in lower planes"? If so, do they hint at the nature of the "saṅkhāras" to be removed?

I am looking for Buddhist videos (by Buddhist monks preferably or lay teachers) that describe briefly (under 10 minutes) how Buddhists view consciousness. Most I find are either lectures an hour-long, very difficult to understand, or poetic/allegorical. I'm looking for videos like these. They are by Hindus explaining their view on consciousness briefly. Have you see something like these but Buddhist? https://youtu.be/aGhm8CVnwck https://youtu.be/9n6NvDpcwLM

I have one query. All the Sutra's ( lotus Sutra, heart Sutra) belongs to which Tripitaka (first second or third)?

A friend of mine was practicing zazen for many years. They started to get discourage with their practice and started to explore transcendental mediation. Now, they claim their progress with TM is far better in a matter of weeks when compared to zazen. I was wondering if there is an equivalent to TM in any of the Buddhist traditions? If so, what are the basics and framework of the parallel type of meditation?

Is the emptiness of final nirvana an illusion? ------------------------------------------- When we misplace a box with nothing at all inside we haven't really lost its contents. I am convinced, based on this, *nothingness is only really inside things that exist*. Meaning at final nirvana, the conventional self, which *really no longer consists of anything at all*, is *really composed of absolutely nothing*, must **exist and have no parts**. Final nirvana does still arise, but the Buddha continues to exist, so emptiness, partite lack of substance, is an illusion. I'd like a Buddhist wide quote with sound reasoning.

I have been lurking here for a long time, but I made an account just to ask this because I am very conflicted, and I think some of you here maybe able to help me like you have many times before without you knowing. I have the opportunity to join a company (it's in stealth so I can't say much) in a very senior leadership position on the business side. I have a coveted background for this because although I have built my career around business functions, I have several, admittedly very elitist degrees, including 2 masters degrees in hard sciences and engineering, direct research experience in a similar area while in academia (although I never engaged in / actively avoided animal experiments), and have a fancy resume when it comes to my career. The company is very promising and is founded by someone who also founded a very very well known company that has had massive success. It also has an A+ research team, and is backed by several well known billionaires, so it has the resources and potential to reduce the suffering of many people with serious unmet medical needs. On a personal level, I am still fairly young and this is a big opportunity for me that I never thought I would have at this point in my career, and I feel the work has meaning, which is something I struggled with in my previous and current role. But the fact that the company engages in and will continue to engage in animal experimentation for research, really brings an uneasy feeling in my chest that is hard to explain. Once again, I will be on the business side and will not being doing any direct research work ever, and that work will be done whether I join them or not, and I have the potential to help in maximizing the good that comes out of that work by helping more people benefit from the outcomes, but it still feels... wrong? I doubt there is something in there is anything directly relevant in the suttas, but can someone guide me here? I feel lost. p.s. after typing this I recognize that I want people to say this is ok and there's nothing wrong with it. Please don't do that if it's not what you believe.

There were at least 22 universities according to this -- [Ancient Buddhist Universities in India](https://mu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2016-Ancient-Buddhist-University-in-India-compressed.pdf) by Dr. Sandesh Wagh, Mumbai University: > - In contrast to this with the rise of Buddhism in India, there arose many center's of learning which did not exist before. > - Buddhist monks could opt for a life of meditation in the forests, or a life of teaching, preaching, propagating the Dhamma as a result of these activities, seats of learning arose. > - These seats of monastic learning (Pirivenas) gradually developed and some of them became fullfledged universities. > > 22 Major Ancient Buddhist University > > - These organized institutions in the form of Monasteries, Viharas and Universities formed the spinal cord of the country. > - Well established regular educational institutions were founded during Buddhist period. > - Gradually big shrines and hermitages began to function as educational institutions. > - With the passage of time these places assumed the status of institutions imparting primary and higher education. > 1. Takshila Buddhist University > 2. Nalanda Buddhist University > 3. Vallabhi Buddhist University > 4. Vikramshila Buddhist University > 5. Teleadaka Buddhist University > 6. Odantapuri Buddhist University > 7. Sompura Buddhist University > 8. Jaggadala Buddhist University > 9. Phushpagiri Buddhist University > 10. Nagaarjunakonda Buddhist University > 11. Kashmir or Shardha Buddhist University > 1. Ujjain Buddhist University > 2. Nabadwip Buddhist University > 3. Tawang Buddhist University > 4. Shrangiri Buddhist University > 5. Samye Buddhist University > 6. PanditVihara Buddhist University > 7. Gunshila Buddhist Women University > 8. Kashi Buddhist University > 9. Kanchipuram Buddhist University > 10. Kururshetra Buddhist University > 11. Kanheri Rock-cut Buddhist University However were there any other universities outside India (the Indian subcontinent as we know it now), especially China, Korea, southeast Asia? There were lot of Scholars who travelled to and from India, do any of their travelogues mention any of these universities?

I've been a practitioner of Vipassana and Mahamudra for 2 years now. One thing quite bothering me is various explanations from different teachers on emptiness logically disturbing... Usually, it goes like this: > The flower before you seems real. Now get closer, you no longer see flower, but just leaves, stem. Even closer, you "see" atoms, electrons, etc. See? the flower is "empty" of inherent existence. The same goes for "self". Try search for the "self" in your thoughts, arm, leg, etc. and you would find nothing. Of course I could appreciate this mentally helps in someway in practice. But something falls short. First, it feels "outdated" to me, in a post-calculus world, that it denies the validity of an aggregate object, by pointing towards an infinitesimally small part of it. Zeno paradox? Secondly, the requirement of "look closer" (or farther) seem to assert the perceiver model. That logic (or its inverse) would seem to imply that, "in order for something A to be *truly existent*, that thing needs to be A in all perceivable cases". That A would then seem to be only possible as some kind of "totality", or awareness itself. So that felt like a semantics game then. I'm sure there're better ways to explain the Buddhist emptiness logic in a more modern compatible way. Please enlighten me.

Why does "not existing from its own side" make something a "conceptual construction"? I believe, from memory, the former phrase in quotes is Tibetan, but that all Buddhists think every empty thing is a "conceptual construction": but am unsure what that last phrase means, so don't know why anyone would believe it. Can you help?

Some background: I was born into a Buddhist family. I've always been intellectually interested in spiritual things like meditation and yoga, but I never really took it seriously until my early 20s, where I started a daily meditation practice. One day I decided to go for a Vipassana retreat where I accidentally/unintentionally attained first jhana. The experience was very transformative & made me want to learn more and go through all the jhanas. I am aware of the warnings about being attached to jhana. Since then I haven't been able to get jhana in my daily life, understandably; too short sits, too many distractions There's a part of me that really wants to become a monk or at least go for a longer retreat so I can reach the next jhana. The reason is that I really just want to figure out & experience for myself what is the next step. It's like reading a book for the first chapter, and then having the book taken away from you. You naturally want to find out what happens in chapter 2, 3, 4 and so on. My parents unsurprisingly don't want me to do this There's also a part of me that thinks: it's your karma to be a householder, forget the jhana, just be a good person & practice the precepts best you can. Abandon the thought of monkhood & solitary practice. Any advice? I'm asking on SE because I feel like some of you guys would have had similar experiences

Looking at the [Noble Eightfold Path](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path) led me to the [non-self](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81) : > that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon. But while I agree that _in the grand scheme of things_ there is no unchanging permanent self in anything, there is however a _temporary self_. Things come and go, and in between they create a self, even though that may be a delusion, it is still created. What does Buddhism have to say about that sort of direction of thinking? I understand the goal is to think about and realize the non-self, but I also think it is important in the game of reality to be aware of the fact that there are temporary constructs which engage and interact with each other.

Where can we find (Lost) ancient Indian text by Buddhist scholars which was Translated in other languages? A Lot of Ancient Indian Buddhist text(Which was lost over a period of time with decline of Buddhism in India.) was translated(Probably from Sanskrit and Pali), specially by Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Sri Lankan Scholars. Where can we find these texts(may be translated in English.)

1. Is the whole of reality what is being denied by some Buddhists? So, for as long as the sensation of pleasure or an atom or visual consciousness or apple is thought to belong to everything that exists, we are confused about them; and everyone is. If so: 2. can we add that everything absent from the whole of reality exists? I know you can literally couple the fire sermon (the Buddha goes nowhere after death) with the unanswered questions (does the Buddha exist after death, in unanswerable). But maybe they're saying that in his no longer existing in the world, he is beyond every concept except existence? So the question is unanswerable because of the assumption that he has somewhere to go.

Why does the Buddha ask the same question twice, and why does Subhuti answer it two different ways? In Diamond Sutra Chapter 13 > “Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be perceived by means of > his thirty-two physical characteristics?” > > “No, Most Honored One. The Buddha cannot be perceived by his > thirty-two physical characteristics. Why? Because the Buddha teaches > that they are not real but are merely called the thirty-two physical > characteristics.” but in Diamond Sutra Chapter 26 > “What do you think Subhuti? Is it possible to recognize the Buddha by > the 32 physical marks?” > > Subhuti replied, “Yes, Most Honored One, the Buddha may thus be > recognized.” Is there a difference between the 32 physical characteristics and the the 32 physical marks?

In AN 9.5, the Buddha said that whoever is endowed with the four powers has left behind the fear of embarrassment in assemblies. Is this the same as shyness? If not then did the Buddha ever say how to overcome shyness? >There are, monks, four powers. The power of wisdom, the power of energy, the power of an unblemished life and the power of benevolence....Now, monks, a noble disciple endowed with these four powers has left behind five fears: the fear for his livelihood, the fear of disrepute, the fear of embarrassment in assemblies, the fear of death and the fear of an unhappy future destiny. > >AN 9.5

I recently heard from an Indian Guru that Lord Buddha taught a meditation technique called Shoonya to his closest disciples. Is there any technique like that or resembling it which is mentioned in the Buddhist scripture? Related question ---------------------------- Edit: What was meant by close disciples was not that there was some kind of secrecy, but as Lord Buddha was a travelling monk, and this meditation technique takes time to teach, he could only teach it to the close disciples who were travelling with him.

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?

Meditation and cultivating awareness is the heart of Buddhism. You need meditation for attaining jhanas and also for doing Vipassana, metta bhavana... So as far as I've discovered, the only meditation that Lord Buddha taught was sitting and watching the breath. But nowadays many masters and mystic have very different techniques for different kind of people. Because not all people has the same temperament and cannot go into trance by just one single method. And as tathagata also had so many different disciples, did anapana worked for all of them and all of them attained jhanas, stillness of mind, etc. by practicing anapana alone or there was other meditation techniques, if so what are these techniques? P.s. I know about walking meditation, loving-kindness and other awareness meditations explained in satipatthana but they are not specifically techniques. What I'm looking for is the sitting meditation techniques when anapana does not work.

I am looking for the proper/correct spelling of the Buddhist Temple structure in Yangon, Myanmar. I have seen two names and I think they are both referencing the same place. The names are: Shwedagon Paya and Shwezigon Pagoda (I believe Paya and Pagoda can also be switched in the above two names) Are these name referring to the same Buddhist temple complex? I plan on visiting this site next year. Thank you. Namaste