In the Canki Sutta (MN95) the Buddha talks to a Brahmin youth called Kapathika, but addresses him as "Bharadvaja". Does this litterally mean "supporter of the cow pen"? What might a more poetic translation be?

When I'm sitting, I have a lot of trouble making it through all the touching points. One issue I'm thinking that I might be having is that maybe the progression of objects is incorrect: I do rising-falling-sitting-touching and then repeat for the entire hour that I sit. Maybe I am supposed to be doing: rising-falling-sitting and then rising-falling-touching and repeat those two progressions alternatively? Assuming the former is correct - is it ever permissible to, I'm weary about using the word but, ignore very subtle objects of awareness and continue noting through the progression? I just feel like I'm forcing it every time I make it to a touching point. I try to be as mindful as possible but it's hard to feel like I'm doing it correctly when I can't even make it to a touching point. feels like it's creating needless doubts. and maybe I'm just practicing incorrectly. Thanks in advance!

People who have done 10 Days of Vipassana Meditation retreat 5 to 100 times often say that from 5th day the Mind becomes very subtle & remains 24 * 7 like that. However when they're back to their families & life an average normal lifestyle. The Mind becomes similar to what it was before (in most cases, as per my experience). Is our Mind is similar to any other muscle of the body, The bodybuilders can come back in shape quicker than someone who has never achieved it before. If someone is doing the vipassana 1st time & someone else has a good experience. Would a 10 days vipassana a waste of time if not practiced after?

There are some teachings that go along the lines of: 'You are already enlightened. You just need to realize it. Actually there's no need for you to do anything. If you try to strive for enlightenment you just end up falling into the trap of dualism. Samsara, Nirvana, treat it all like a dream' On the other hand, there are teachings which are like this: 'Work hard to rid your mind from its negative qualities, ignorance, greed, delusion. Do this practice. Purify your mind. Abandon worldly attachment. Also please do this sadhana everyday if not you break your empowerment vows and fall into vajra hell' How to reconcile this dichotomy? Is asking this question even necessary? I am aware that asking this question is inherently dualistic, and that these views don't necessarily contradict because the first is an expression of the truth at the ultimate level, while the second is the conventional level. For someone whose mind isn't at the level to embody the first view, should I continue practicing? Or am I missing something entirely?

People from other sects may argue against Buddhism on the following grounds. I invite the community of BSE to explain by reasoning or analogy how cessation of existence, which is known as the Nibbana-principle, as it is explained in Buddhism, isn't a philosophical fallacy of "something turning into nothing" in order to refute those arguments. I call the idea of "something turning into nothing" a fallacy because it can be explained to contradict the law of conservation of energy or simply put; supposedly no existant thing known to a man is known to simply disappear without a trace and thus destroyed without being somehow transformed into some other state, in particular neither matter, nor energy or information can be deleted without a trace, afaik this has been experimentally established as a truth. If cessation of existence, an abandoning of all being with no fuel for a future is possible, then how is it logically acceptable? You are welcome to try showing how "something turning into nothing" is not a fallacy if you want to try that. Extra points if you substantiate your answer with EBTs. Put shortly the problem here is such that a person says; 'Buddha Gotama teaches annihilaton and it's impossible, it cannot happen that existant things can be annihilated.' It's a strawman argument.

Namaste to Buddha. How and where is Buddha now? Does he still teaching now? I am trying to understand Nibbana and where Buddha is now. What I understand is that Nibbana is a state rather than a location or place. This state has no physical body, no desire, no dukkha and no more incarnation. Many have mentioned this state appears as in empty space but I would think the "empty" is a meaning of Buddhism that is 100% free from dukkha . > Endless space is called in Atthasālini ajatākāsa, 'unentangled', i.e. > unobstructed or empty space. Why don't we realise space instead of Nibbana? In Quantum Physics, a state is a source of energy so it's quantifiable and appears as a particle wave. An energy cannot be null or void state too as the law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. Wave–particle duality Conclusion is can I say that Buddha is still teaching and around, appears as the supreme particle wave and possibly can be communicated via meditation? Any form of energy can be interfered/communicated/entangled with based on Physic theory ? > The universe encompasses everything that exists, according to our > current understanding: spacetime, forms of energy and the physical > laws that relate them, history, philosophy, mathematics and logic. > Buddhists refer to the Universe, both visible and invisible phenomena, > as the Dharma. The Origin of Meditation: Making Bonds with the Universe Anyone could verify my understanding above?

I have only an informal understanding of Buddhism, so please excuse the informal language used in this question. My intent is to understand Buddhism better, and I welcome any answers or resources that will help me do that. Being present is focusing on the here and now, because that is all you ever have. Not striving to feel differently, just accepting and observing what is. It is my understanding that this mindset helps do away with the suffering that comes from an over fixation on striving. In other words dropping the expectation that if only this one aspect of life was different or you had a little bit more money you would be happy. Unless your circumstances are truly dire and your basic human needs are not being met, striving for a change in life is a recipe for always wanting more and not being satisfied. This seems to be consistent with the concept of hedonic adaptation . It is my understanding that part of accepting the present and non-striving is believing that every road has an end. Every career path chosen, every hobby taken up, every life decision made will ultimately come to an end in one way or another, and there you will be on the other side still only having the present moment. This is a deeply depressing mindset to me. Viewed through this lens, what is the point of doing anything? Why strive for an experience or accomplishment when it is fleetingly temporary? There seems to be some critical components missing from my understanding of these aspects of Buddhism. What am I missing?

OM or AUM is used in "OM MANI PADME HUM" and some other mantras. To my knowledge, OM is found only in Mahayana and Vajrayana schools. It's not found in Theravada. The 14th Dalai Lama explained the meaning of OM here: On the meaning of OM MANI PADME HUM . It's an extremely important and venerated word in Hinduism -- see "What is the significance of ॐ (Om/Aum)? " on Hinduism.SE. Is OM in Buddhism an imported religious term from Hinduism? Or like "namo " which means "salutations" or "adoration", does OM have an ordinary meaning and therefore not considered an imported religious term?

I found on google that 'om mani padme hum, mean that in dependence on the practice of a path which is an indivisible union of method and wisdom, you can transform your impure body, speech, and mind into the pure exalted body, speech, and mind of a Buddha..'. I want more about this.

This question may not appear as exactly Buddhist or related to Buddhism but considering a bigger picture of Buddhism as a religion I want to know the answer to this. We Buddhists consider 'Doubt' in the dhamma or the Buddha as one of the hindrances to meditation, so most of us who do sincere practise are totally convinced with the Buddhist ontology and overall framework. So if we are true then definitely, the Advaita Vedantists or Christians or Islamists have something which is wrong. But considering the average human intelligence of practitioners of other religions, they do not find any thing wrong, in turn, people are hundred percent sure of their religion or spiritual practice. In fact, up to the last century, we were ready to die and kill each other for our religious beliefs. I have met some school students who go on preaching faith in the bible on roads, keeping their arguments aside, their conviction was admirable. I come from a Hindu background and most of the Hindu practices are about pleasing gods so that they will give their blessings or favor or some or other material boon. There is still so much poverty around but nobody seems to question the religion at large which is a major part of their lives. So to sum up my question, how is it that everybody is cocksure or their own religion?

I have been following Buddhism and mindfulness for a while now. I have a 5 year old son and want to teach him to be sympathetic/empathetic and grateful but im struggle to reconcile some of the Buddhist ideals. In my understanding, Buddhism teaches that we should be thankful for exactly the things we have (not to desire more/less) but to trust in the unfolding of our life. This is easy to say since I was lucky enough to be born into a productive family and am living a mostly positive life, etc. But when I look at the less fortunate people, homeless, poor, addicted, etc., I struggle. To tell them to just trust the unfolding of their life or to see the silver lining in what they have seems insensitive or even wrong. Ive also taught my son to feel lucky that he is fortunate to have things like a home, toys, opportunity, etc., and usually compare his life to those who are less fortunate in order to make the point that he is lucky and that he should be sensitive to other's misfortune. I don't want to teach him that we are any better than they are, but I want him to understand the difference between his luck and others. Although I am not religious (deity), I find myself wanting to pray for those people as I feel like i was simply lucky to be born into a family with opportunity, money, education, etc., whereas they were not. I guess I am a determinist for a lack of a better word. I guess what im asking is what place does sympathy/empathy or even being grateful have in Buddhism when Buddhism teaches that you should accept life for what it is and not to desire more? I can see how that narrative would work for me because i have the things i want, but for people who aren't as fortunate, how do you reconcile that in theory? Even to be motivated to help others, comes down to wanting more for them but Buddhism teaches we shouldn't want more than what has been given to us... Im confused and having trouble reconciling my desire to be grateful, empathetic, help others, etc., when Buddhism says just sit still and accept life for what it is (rich, poor, good, evil, etc.).

I wonder about the practicalities of being a foreign monk in Asia, especially Theravada-majority countries. In particular; About the Visa arrangements, can this at all be handled without much stress by one who doesn't use money? What about the rule of not driving a car or using vehicles, is this a rule that can be kept by one in such a predicament? Anything relevant is of interest.

Which are the best Thai amulets that can help to get my love back, and also help in my life, jobs, and career?

How did the character Montho from Ramayana make it into the name of the Thai letter ฑ (tho montho) of the Thai alphabet. Where is the relationship and in what year was this connection established?

In Theravada, we have established that eating meat does not break the first precept in many Buddhism SE questions (for example, this question and other questions linked in its comments). However, beyond not breaking the first precept, could vegetarianism be used as a practice of developing compassion (karuna) and being compassionate? Or does the practice of compassion require direct intention and direct action in allaying the sufferings of others, and indirect means are not relevant? Bhikkhu Khantipalo defined compassion (karuna) here as: > Compassion (karuna) is taking note of the sufferings of other beings > in the world. It overcomes callous indifference to the plight of > suffering beings, human or otherwise. Likewise, it must be reflected > in one's life by a willingness to go out of one's way to give aid > where possible, and to help those in distress. It has the advantage of > reducing one's selfishness by understanding others' sorrows. It is > Lord Buddha's medicine for cruelty, for how can one harm others when > one has seen how much they have to suffer already? It has also two > enemies: the "near" one is mere grief; while its "far" enemy is > cruelty.

Some websites show that it is ideal to get 1.5 m distance between the person and the *kasina* object. Is there any science behind the recommendation to get that specific distance?

No question that it isn't proper to let trades for world carry Dhamma, share Dhamma via market places, but what does one think in regard of receiving? Would Dhamma made avaliable by commerce take one out of this wheel? Could people, who are not willing in providing sphere out of faith fist, based on generosity, ever match even the base? Or will they simply stay bond where they wish to receive? *Question powered by...* grave defilements... 

Gautama Buddha is traditionally regarded as having a noble body with 32 signs of a Great Man and one of those signs are deep blue eyes. I came across many online discussions about Buddha's ethnicity where some stated that Buddha's family - Sakya - was from Scythian descent. I also met some Ukrainians claiming that Sakyas were precisely from the land that now belongs to Ukraine. Can someone answer the question providing *reliable* sources or evidence?

What is the difference between Sakkhya Ditthi and Attanuditthi? I have asked the same question at the Dhamma Wheel topic: [Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!](https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31361) --- In my opinion or view, SN 35.166 (Samyutta 34.16.11.(166)) says Sakkāya Ditthi - Self View is not the self view but it is taking this existence or five aggregate as pleasurable. > *34. 16. 11.* > > *(166) Sakkāya - Self View* > > *1. At one time the Blessed One lived in Jīvaka's mango orchard in Rajagaha.* > > *2. Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One, worshipped and sat on a side.* > > *3. Sitting on a side that monk said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, knowing how and seeing how does the self view get dispelled?”* > > *4-9. “Monk, by knowing and seeing unpleasantness, in the eye self view gets dispelled Monk, by knowing and seeing unpleasantness in > forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact and whatever feelings pleasant, > unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of eye-contact, > self view gets dispelled. Repeat for ear, nose, tongue, body, and > mind* > > *10. “Monk, knowing and seeing thus self view gets dispelled.”* In my view or opinion, taking: - Anicca (the impermanent) as Nicca (permanent) is wrong view ie: Micchaditthi - Dukkha (the unsatisfactory) as Adhukha (happiness) is Sakkayaditthi - Anatta (not-self) as Atta (self) is Attanuditthi.

I am doing Vajrasatva purification practice, and wonder whether this is a training in Ultimate Bodhicitta? As stated in the Scriptures related to Mind Training: one should first train in Ultimate Bodhicitta. So is purification through Vajrasatva Practice the kind of training to be used to get accustomed to the view of emptiness? Also, is it the best antidote for attachment? Many thanks!