Some Brahmins say Buddha endorsed caste system in kannakathala sutta

Dependent Origin or Pratītyasamutpāda is defined as > It states that all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other > dharmas And then there are these 12 causes one after another, each depending on the next one starting from Aging or decay, and death (Jarāmaraṇa) which depends on Birth, Rebirth (Jāti) and so on, which **finally ends in Ignorance, nescience (Avidyā).** But notice Avidya seems to be not depending on anything. But as a rule all dharmas should be dependent on another dharma. How is this contradiction reconciled? Source

Background: As the title suggests, I had an episode of psychosis this year. With medication and meditation I quickly recovered, and am basically back to normal. The doctors expect that I can eventually go off the medication if things continue as they have (very well so far). Apparently this can happen to some people, and a good percentage never have a return of any symptoms, it's just something that can happen to a person, from which they recover. Now for my question: I am particularly wishing to some day take ordination, and I am attracted to the thai forest tradition. Their website specifically says that if you have had psychosis in the past you cannot ordain or even go as a novice, since it would be a burden if your psychosis reappeared. I understand this, but where am I to go, then? Is there any school which sticks closely to the buddha's teachings, with a focus on meditation and the path of purification, where I can some day ordain? Or will I just have to live the rest of my life as a householder?

So , if someone defeats death and ends birth...actually achieves nirvana. What is that like pragmatically? Of course you have that old saying about carrying water and chopping wood but what is the actual experience of reality like for someone who has done this?

I've found a similar question; https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9687/are-theravada-monks-allowed-to-stay-in-lay-peoples-house However it was asked by a woman and nobody answered otherwise. What i wonder is if there are any restrictions on living in the same house as a male lay disciple and relying on the lay person for alms and requisites? Thank you.

While even most teacher today are ex-monks (someone who rejected the refuge and went back to the lower life), isn't it clear that such a person has own problems with his faith? How could one nevertheless rely on such people often "patiseit" the Gems? My person wonders if there is any reliable story of an ex-monk having become a , by the Buddha, by the Sanga and good people, praised Dhamma teacher. Can any reference in the history, beside of the modern degenerated, be found that one leaves the Buddhas religion (bond) by dis-jointing/robing, the Savaka Sangha, takes on "a wordily mission" and made even some merits while doing so? (Not that there are also those going back to lower life but still wearing the clothers of the Arahats. And there are those never weared the robe but lived the holly life a while who went back to lower life for "missions of gains in the world".) *[This question is not for trade, exchange, stackes or what ever bonds to the world given, but for cleansing and liberation, receiving and serving it]*

I listened to the lotus sutra as an audiobook. There I heard that when one presses the palms together in respect for the lotus sutra, it means that one has paid already homage to myriads of Buddhas in the past. Does that mean if I do this I am eligible to become a Buddha?

I was wondering if the samadhi of Patanjali Yoga meant the same thing as the samadhi of Buddhism? A Buddhist friend told me that no, and that Buddhism had higher states after the nirvikalpa samadhi of yogis. But at the same time when I read the descriptions of the two they look similar to me and the samadhi of Buddhism is also the last stage of the Noble Eightfold Path.

As a Buddhist, I believe devotion to mothers is very important if we want to have a good life. Since I was child I followed my mother's instructions until I became an adult. This included getting married and having a child. Now that I'm an adult, I think I need to become more independent, and to make my own decisions, both for myself and my son. However, my mother is very upset and thinks I’m arrogant because I’m no longer follow her rules. Am I wrong if I create my own rules for my life? Am I a very bad daughter?

What are the 7 Purifications in laymans terms and how is this practiced in daily life?

From what I have seen observing Kagyu ceremonies, the 17th Karmapa (either of them, actually) is treated with great awe, respect and reverence. However in their daily rituals, Kagyu buddhists usually visualize the late 16th Karmapa. I assume this is the result of a certain prescription within Karma Kagyu but I was unable to find explanations of this on the Internet. So, why do Kagyu followers visualize the late instead of the current holders of the Karmapa office? Does this have to do with the status of the late living Buddha as opposed to the living living Buddha?

Whenever I want to meditate (down to Nirvana), it seems that the whole world wants to confront me to stop me. Does reality fight back when you want to meditate? Have other people encountered this? i assume you know how anxiety affects our focus, The world always seems to find a way to disrupt my focus.

There is still considerable amount of controversy regarding Lord Buddha's dating and the dating of incorporation of Zodiac signs of Mesha, Vrishaba etc into Indian and Asian culture. Their mentioning in ancient Buddhist scriptures may help in dating both the events. Are there any mentions of Aries, Taurus resembling Mesha and Vrishabha in ancient and classical Buddhist scriptures?

Many times I've heard of Budai (pictured below) being associated with Maitreya, the future Buddha. Why is this so and how widespread is this belief? Wikipedia lists a short verse uttered before Budai's death: >Maitreya, the true Maitreya has billions of incarnations. Often he is shown to people at the time; other times they do not recognize him. Is there more to this association or was the simple utterance of that verse so long ago the sole reason for believing that Budai was the bodhisatta?

What verse that has actually meaning and carries value is similar in both Buddhism and Christianity? This may be closed as to broad but I think it holds value to have a verse that crosses between such distinct and different religions.

I have been practicing seriously for a month now. I'm mindful a lot of the time but not 100% yet and whenever I'm not I start thinking about metaphysical questions or what could be after death or if it is nothing etc. How can I stop this? Or how to stop thinking about something in general when you don't want to? For some reason I can't be equanimous with metaphysical questions. They run through my head like there's no tomorrow and nothing more important than that. It's quite annoying. Would noting help?

A Hindu site by the name "Agniveer" has claimed that Buddha never rejected the Vedas. To substantiate their claim, they have quoted a few verses from the Sutta Nipata to show Buddha's respect for the Vedas: > In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that: > > Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati > Bhooripanjo. > > People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high > and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands > Dharma and does not waver. > > Sutta Nipat 503: > > Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema ……. > > One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative, > intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits. > > Sutta Nipat 1059: > > Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam…… > > One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic > Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly > things. > > Sutta Nipat 1060: > > Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja….. > > I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards > the world and becomes free from sins. > > Sutta Nipat 846: > > Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso…. > > One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by > hearsay and delusions. > > Sutta Nipat 458: > > Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi > > I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets > success. > > Now people who post these on internet say that Gautam Buddha didn't > opposed Vedas he opposed the evil practices done in name of Vedas like > animal sacrifice, caste system Now, personally I have found many of the site's claims and quotations unreliable. However, I would still like to verify these verses so could anybody tell me if these quotations are true or fabricated?

Buddha talks of becoming have a cause, is dependent on something other. Like Lamp's flame and light, shadow and real object, The sun and it's aura, object and mirage. The dependent origination generates the false 'I' which is nothing but the becoming. Then can one conclude the cessation of becoming is also carried out by reversal of dependent origination I.e Dependent Cessation? I think that's the way! Shadow can be ceased only when the real object is perceived, if not the shadow thinks it as real, even though it's unreal or non existing thing! Previously perceived snake was actually the rope, when the wisdom dawns upon. This shadow is false 'I', the illusion, the non-existant thing. But only when one sees it with eyes of wisdom! Can we say that? Some quotes of Saints have this testimony in common, √ Cure for Pain is in Pain!_ Rumi √ Samudayadhamma(origination) = nirodhadhamma(cessation)_ Buddha I believe the becoming and cessation are two opposite sides of the same coin! What do others have to say about this? Please don't bring here quotes of scriptures. Do we have here the seekers which can see with eyes of wisdom? I am asking them! Others please don't bother!

OK, religions just say: "be patient, trust god and never think revenge!" god takes your revenge or better you will see prize here or you will reach nirvana I mean big paradise prize in other world if you behave like jesus crist or prophet youself. I wonder if buddhism says the same things or something different? (please do not mention just trust karma or make yoga things here, cos I did not see any winner before in my life) I and my family are suffering about our bad life experiences that caused by some bad people. Moreover these are legal so we cant do anything other than enduring but that we did not deserve..

It seems that 'I' am between worlds. Sometimes the illusion is not there. Sometimes it seems that thoughts string together this sense of self. How can anatman be fully realised without this 'I' being recreated? The dictionary describes this as the self: a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action. How might this be true/untrue? How does the state of anatman begin to permanently remain without the magnetism of this self?