I am searching for a Zen monastery in India. My google search returns Vajrayana Tibetan monasteries. Please let me know if you know a Zen monastery in India.

One of the recurring themes in the teachings of the buddha is the noble eightfold path; the basis for achieving nibbana. Oftentimes the components of it are presented as their "wrong" counterparts, and usually a row of examples is provided for what some instances of those "wrong" counterparts are. I am specifically curious about what kind of practical basis (as many of the teachings have some) the instances of "wrong livelihood" might have, with regard to the historical context of when the teachings were formed. In DN.10. "Subhasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato" the following phrase can be found: **(emphasis mine)** > There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong livelihood. **This includes rites for propitiation, for granting wishes, for ghosts, for the earth, for rain, for property settlement, and for preparing and consecrating house sites, and rites involving rinsing and bathing, and oblations. It also includes administering emetics, purgatives, expectorants, and phlegmagogues; administering ear-oils, eye restoratives, nasal medicine, ointments, and counter-ointments; surgery with needle and scalpel, treating children, prescribing root medicines, and binding on herbs.** They refrain from such unworthy branches of knowledge, such wrong livelihood. … This pertains to their ethics. Some of these are easily explained, such as performing mystical rites for luck and blessing, but the examples of medical practice and administering "...nasal medicine, ointments..." leave me somewhat confused. What could be a historical reason for why these practices are considered "wrong livelihood", and more generally, what is the core traits that define "wrong livelihood"?

Almost every Buddhist I've met sincerely believes in non-existence of self or soul. Especially, the vipassana practitioners say that *scanning* the body and finding no atman or *self* in it is proof that self doesn't exist. But what about the practitioner himself who is scanning or performing the vipassana? Doesn't that imply that he himself is the soul? Also, I found today that [Buddha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions) himself stayed unanswered on this matter: > The Buddha states that it is unwise to be attached to both views of having and perceiving a self and views about not having a self. So, how can you argue that soul doesn't exist when Buddha himself didn't deny it (or accept it either)? Are there any branches of Buddhism that *believes* in existence of soul?

I read that atman is pure bliss I read that anatta is pure bliss >-Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day? > >-Is atman the same as anatta in anyway? If yes/no then why? > >-Is anatman the same as atta in anyway? If yes/no then why?

In relation to the question: "*Is there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation?*", I read the following quote from SN 36.5 on the internet: > A mendicant who sees pleasure as pain, one who has seen the pleasant as painful, who sees the pain in happiness, Yo sukhaṃ dukkhato adda, > > and suffering as a dart, the painful as a dart, views the painful feeling as a thorn, dukkhamaddakkhi sallato; > > and that peaceful, neutral feeling adukkhamasukhaṃ santaṃ, > > as impermanent, addakkhi naṃ aniccato. > > sees rightly; sa ve sammaddaso bhikkhu, > > they completely understand feelings. parijānāti vedanā; > > Completely understanding feelings, So vedanā pariññāya, > > they’re without defilements in this very life. diṭṭhe dhamme anāsavo; Not necessarily adhering to the literal translations above: 1. What is the meaning of the Pali in verse above from Datthabba Sutta? 2. Does the Datthabba Sutta support the idea: '*there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation*'? 3. How does the above verse in the Datthabba Sutta reconcile with the Pali verse: "*Nibbanam paramam sukham: Nibbana is the supreme happines*s"? 4. Are any of the translations above of the three Western monks accurate so to inspire faith in these ordained Westerners?

I recently attended a tea ceremony, and was reminded of how it is considered polite in Asia to handle everything with two hands. My first dharma teacher was from Hong Kong, and did this, but I notice it is not done or understood by most Western practicioners. I've been reading about Takuan , and got a copy of The Book Of Tea , and it's got me very interested in how ideas about the aesthetics of how we act and behave shape our minds. It seems like having a clear sense of how to move smoothly and stably helps cultivate positive qualities. Especially in regard to interacting with the altar, and moving in the dharma room, I feel it would be useful to have a better understanding of this. Does anyone have any guidance or suggested texts towards this?

I am new to buddhism and this is my first question here. I hope I can provide something of value and that I am clear in my phrasing. So I have recently started learning about the teachings of the buddha, principally through the book The Basic Teachings of the Buddha by Glenn Wallis. I have decided that there is value to the practice but have not figured out to what extent I want to apply it, but I'm leaning towards not becoming a monastic, instead continuing on my current path but with a buddhist mindset. Today, I decided to buy a tea kettle. This might sound ridiculous as a jumping off point but it made me consider my attraction to certain products rather than others. I really want a kettle that is well designed aesthetically and that has more advanced functions like temperature control, but it feels like this is a form of grasping of sensory pleasure. Both for the aesthetic appeal of the design itself and for the flavour of the tea it will be used to brew. At the same time I believe that beauty, and minimalism in particular, are worthwhile in some regard. I do not want to become an ascetic (I seem to be joined by the majority of buddhist practitioners in this), but ascetiscism seems like the logical conclusion which the denial of the value of beauty leads to. So what does my desire for a nice kettle say about me as a buddhist, and is it compatible with buddhas teachings? Edit: Thank you all for your thoughtful answers! I am hesitant to pick one answer as these types of questions rarely have a definitive one, but I'll accept the highest voted one to make the question answered.

In a previous question I asked whether the Theravada posits the selflessness of phenomena? Where the best answer I understood to essentially state that it does not. At least, it did sound like there was an important difference between the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena. That is, Theravada regards the self of persons as not truly existent while the self of phenomena may or may not be. Further, the latter is not deemed an important question. This is not in agreement with the Mahayana madhyamaka schools AFAIK who I think near uniformly disagree. > In my opinion, the Theravada view according to the Pali suttas imply > that: > > 1. The self (of persons) is not truly existent. > > 2. Whether non-self phenomena are truly existent from its own side or > not, is (probably) not important towards the path to the end of > suffering. (See the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, Parable of the > Simsapa Leaves and the Discourse on the Unconjecturables) However, in a comment to this recent answer it was asserted by the same that 'papanca' of objects is essentially equivalent to what the Mahayana schools call the selflessness of persons. I'm confused as this seems to be in tension with the previous. What is the solution or is it just my misunderstanding? Is there any crucial difference between the emptiness of persons and emptiness of objects where the former is to be regarded as definitely non-truly existent while the latter question is not important? Is there some Pali suttas which will illustrate this difference in emptiness between the two selves? Is the 'papanca' of the self of persons different from the 'papanca' of the self of phenomena? What am I missing? Isn't it the case that SN 22.95 is talking about this 'papanca' of phenomena? Doesn't it compare it to an illusion? If so, then on what basis is it concluded that whether phenomena are truly existent is immaterial in Theravada?

According to Wikipedia , in the Sutta Pitaka of the Pali canon there are 10.000 sutras. According to tradition, Ananda recited by heart all 10.000 sutras after the death of Gautama and they have been memoriesed and recited regularly by monks, for many centuries, before they were written down. So my questions is: how is it possible to memorise and recite regularly 10.000 sutras? Is it realistic to think it happened like that or is there another explanation about how the sutras have been transmitted and written down? I hope the question is clear. I’m asking this because if I try to image today’s monks memorise and recite 10.000 sutras it seems something out of reality. My guess is that only very few people would have the ability to do that. So I struggle to imagine how they could have done it for centuries. But maybe I am missing something and there is an explanation that I cannot see.

I just learned of the [Abhidharma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidharma) . What was their original or early language they were written in, and do they exist online in copy/pastable (non-PDF or image) format anywhere for free? Is [this](https://pitaka.lk/books/abhidharmaye-mulika-karunu/index.html#2) of any use? So far people have listed some Theravada Abhidhamma links. What about the other schools of Abhidharma? Sarvastivada is supposed to be the only other school that has preserved a complete set of Abhidhamma, also with 7 books like Theravada. What languages are the original Sarvasitvada Ab. available in? And are there English translations?

Are lives of people who have, by birth or design, large amounts of money, worth more to the Buddha, than the poor? I don't actually know enough about the history of Buddhism to answer that question!

When command the mind to does something it was done what had commanded. If thought about more happy today next moment less happy. After sitting meditation feel empty. Is it mindfulness?where is the meditation,according to visuddhimagga?

Is the conventional self "conventional" in the same way as dharmas are? So if the conventionality of dharmas means that they arise and disappear each moment, or that they don't exist from their own side, or that they leave no trace of themselves, or that they always have parts (etc., etc.) does the same apply to the conventional self? I understand that both lack "substance": but does that mean the same thing here? **I'm interested in anyone having said "no".**

What's the difference? I'm having difficulty thinking of any real neutral feelings I actually experience. For example, there's eating a food that is perceived as pleasant, and eating a food that is perceived as unpleasant. If your senses were unguarded, you would then experience respectively a pleasant or unpleasant feeling. But, when I eat something that is bland or that could not be considered pleasant or unpleasant, then even thinking back to when I didn't remain mindful and guarded, I can't remember ever feeling neutral about it. I didn't feel *anything* about it. I just ate it. Is it simply a matter of how I'm using and understanding the word "feeling" itself? Edit: It seems what I was getting hung up on was simply a translation/language/connotations issue. This page explains that it's somewhat different from the common way the word feeling is often used in English. Thank you for your responses.

Historically, Buddha rejected the validity of the Vedas, I suspect there might be some differences in the way scripture is treated in Buddhism and other religions, especially Theistic ones. For for example does Buddhism treat its scripture as the final Authority on the nature of reality? Is something considered true just for the reason that it is said in Scripture? Can scripture be argued with? Is it, in some sense, eternal?

I have read various mythological and histories about curse where it has destroyed kingdoms and kings. Does curse have that power? If so, how it can be explained in relation to karma? What is Buddhism's view on curse?

After right concentration, how does right view change? Do you become completely convinced by right view, or was that already the case? Is right view in some other sense more pervasive? Or is it just as it was, and all that's changed is you have a deeper insight (and if so in what way?)? I've tagged this Theravada, but only because its path is easier to break down into right view etc., so welcome an answer from any tradition.

I'm having a really hard time. Not just in my meditation practice, but in my life in general. I've established a habit of 20 minutes of meditation first thing in the morning, then another 15 minutes in the early afternoon. I also try to take mindful breaks, I regularly take mindful walks, and I will meditate when I need a break or I'm feeling very stressed. I started meditating probably 3 years ago, and my routine has been pretty strong for the past 2 years. I usually use headspace meditations, and sometimes I just meditate on my own in quiet. I've read a few books about meditation, zen, etc, but I've never gone to a meditation retreat or anything hardcore like that - and given my work and young kids, I don't consider that an option. I think I started meditating in a healthy way. I wasn't trying to solve any specific problems, I just wanted to be more mindful in my daily life. But I did think regular meditation would be a healthy habit to adopt, and that it would be a safeguard of sorts against other ills. However, I now find myself really frustrated because I've actually started to get more anxious, and I've barely slept for the past month. I've tried to mindfully just accept my anxiety, not fight it, and I think that's generally fine, but the insomnia is debilitating. There is no major life event that I can think of that's causing this, I don't understand it, but I'm very disappointed that my meditation practice hasn't helped more. I've tried to increase my meditation recently to see if it would help, but I just keep getting worse. I'm very frustrated and I can't help but think what's the point of spending all this time meditating? Could I be doing anything wrong? Has anyone had any similar experiences? Any advice?

Which of the seven fold reasons does this fall under? - The conventional self is not different to all its parts (is composed only of parts) but not the same as any part (does not depend on any part) This seems to get around the first two reasons, as well as being a reasonable description of my perceptual life; and, arguably, is a reason to think that the self cannot be destroyed (there is always another part to lose), given it lacks substance and cannot be annihilated. It seems to be completely coherent, so I can't imagine for a moment that no-one a Buddhist has ever argued with has conceived of the self this way. So, why is it wrong: and has any Buddhist claimed the conventional self is like this? ---------- Not just that every part has a part, but that every part is one part only.

From the Yuganaddha Sutta , there are four paths described: 1. Development of insight preceded by development of tranquility 2. Development of tranquility preceded by development of insight 3. Tranquility developed in tandem with insight 4. **Mind's restlessness concerning the Dhamma well under control** From my understanding, the first three are about vipassana (insight) and samatha (tranquility). Questions: 1. How does the fourth path work? Please elaborate on the fourth path. 2. How does one practise that? Please provide details. 3. Why is vipassana and samatha not required on the fourth path? > Ven. Ananda said: "Friends, whoever — monk or nun — declares the > attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of > one or another of four paths. Which four? > > "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by > tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the > path is born. ..... > > "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity > preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight, > the path is born. ..... > > "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in > tandem with insight. As he develops tranquillity in tandem with > insight, the path is born. ..... > > "**Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness > concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under > control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, > settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. In him the path is > born.** > > He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the > path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his > obsessions destroyed. > Yuganaddha Sutta