I wonder if the Anagarika period is always a pre-requisite to samanera & bhikkhu ordinations in this TFT tradition?

The thirty-six states (6 x 6 classes of contact) to which beings are attached are described in Salayatana-vibhanga Sutta ; I have made a caricature while reading each state as below, states 1, 2, 4 & 5 are easy to understand, however, I'm straggling to clearly identify the two type of equanimity and how they differ. Quoted below is the definition given for each equanimity states in the Sutta, but it’s not clear to me how the foolish deluded householder equanimity is any different from the other. How do these two people react to a given situation? I will give an example for the householder equanimity and If possible please try to use the same situation to represent the state of the renunciation equanimity and if possible beyond renunciation equanimity (atammayata) in which there is no act of intention, not even the intention underlying equanimity is said to be present. For example, a householder loses his beloved son or a wife he could reason and say ‘I know I was only in love with a mortal and what has happened is natural’ and he remains calm without suffering. This equanimity, I take it, doesn’t go beyond form. With a wide open eye as I caricatured his state, he looks into pain and pleasure even death with equanimity without reasoning beyond form. Let them change he is just looking. Many thanks. > "And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity > that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill, > untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results > of action & who is blind to danger — sees a form with the eye. > Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called > household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile > sensations, & ideas.) > > "And what are the six kinds of renunciation equanimity? The equanimity > that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, > their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as > it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, > stressful, subject to change: This equanimity goes beyond form, which > is why it is called renunciation equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, > smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.) > > "And what is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on > multiplicity? There is equanimity with regard to forms, equanimity > with regard to sounds...smells...tastes...tactile sensations [& ideas: > this word appears in one of the recensions]. This is equanimity coming > from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity. > > "And what is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on > singleness? There is equanimity dependent on the dimension of the > infinitude of space, equanimity dependent on the dimension of the > infinitude of consciousness... dependent on the dimension of > nothingness... dependent on the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception. This is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent > on singleness.

In Theravada, I know there is union in understanding that the Buddha taught two types of meditation: vipassana (insight) meditation and samatha (tranquility) meditation. However, I have come across various types of these meditation methods over the years, either with an emphasis on samatha meditation, vipassana meditation, or both, all filled with various interpretations. My question is the following: **Putting aside the modern methods of meditation taught by members of the later Sangha and their interpretations as well as going back to the Buddha and his early Sangha, what was it that the Buddha originally taught in regard to meditation (samatha and vipassana meditations) and what instructions did the Buddha give as to how one practices them?** *PLEASE REFERENCE THE TIPITAKA OR SOURCES STRICTLY USING THE TIPITAKA.* -Apannaka

What is the meaning of the word *atammayata*? Is it Pali or Sanskrit? I couldn't find it in any Pali-English dictionary. Where is it used and in what context? Please provide references from suttas and/or commentaries. From a Google search, I found various translations like "unconcoctability" or "non-identification" and one person suggested that it's a synonym for "not-self". Is that the case? How is *atammayata* different from not-self? In this question , it was translated as "renunciation equanimity". Why is *atammayata* important? I discovered it in this answer .

What is the difference between Nirvana with residue and non-abiding Nirvana? Both these states apply to a Buddha while still alive and come to an end when the physical life of a Buddha comes to an end.

After quite some time of daily meditation, I feel less like having a real separate, permanent self (specific details see below, but it's a general question), which, in my opinion, could be regarded as a step on the path to enlightenment. However, it also matches the criteria of a depersonalization disorder as defined by psychiatry more or less. I wonder whether that's an issue and how to approach it. As a distinguishing feature, one could think that it feels good and liberating in the case of enlightenment, but negatively speaking a source of suffering in the case of a disorder. As a non-enlightened being I don't always feel good, so it's not that clear, and I think there can be more serious doubt in moments or phases when one feels bad (e.g. due to unpleasant nyams in meditation). The feature of social functioning also doesn't seem clear to me, since one could argue, for example, that seeking solitude/retreat for meditation is a socially impaired behaviour, especially when I talk to people who are not familiar with Buddhism. I suppose talking about feelings of no-self sounds rather crazy – which isn't a problem in itself, but it might impair my ability to have a positive influence on their lives or in charitable organizations. So I wonder: - How would you distinguish between the (partial) feeling of non-self as a step towards enlightenment and a depersonalization disorder (or a similar mental disorder)? - (How, in which cases) would you speak openly about non-self-experiences with others? Some details about my personal experience if relevant: Instead of a permanent self, it feels more as if mental events rise and pass without being mine or controlled by "me“. I feel less like having permanent character traits. I don't feel very connected to my past or possible future - "my“ body feels like an arbitrary vessel of consciousness. In deep meditation I feel like an abstract, spacious awareness (which is peaceful, vivid and benevolent). While I'm not completely free of mental afflictions, I think attachment, desire, aversion, fear, and so on, are significantly weaker than before I started meditation and then in many other people (up to a point that others don't understand some of my behaviour). Meditation method: shamatha awareness of awareness according to Alan Wallace.

My understanding is that the Buddha is said to have "rediscovered an ancient path" which, presumably, formed the core of his teachings. Source: Gil Fronsdal’s Introduction to the Dhammapada. My question is: Why was it lost to begin with? And why is it that the teachings of the Buddha are so voluminous and contain so much redundancy? UPDATE: I am absolutely convinced that the Buddha's 8-fold path leading to the end of suffering does so by training the mind to respond to the pain of unskillful moves caused by unskillful predictions by (1) restraining the hindrances and (2) investigating with the intent of processing the feedback for insights to improve the predictive model of the sensory-motor brain so that more skillful predictions leading to more skillful moves will be made. Why does this lead to the end of suffering? Because although pain is inevitable, suffering is a choice. Specifically, suffering is the choice to cling to wrong views because doing so leads to the descent into the hell of uncertainty. As the world descends into chaos, those who cling to views will descend into chaos along with it because they are refusing to "see things as they actually are." In other words, clinging to "wrong views", views which do not correspond to the evidence of sensory experience, is unskillful. Accordingly, please offer only answers that do not violate the scientific method of inquiry. For example, claiming that a human being lived for 80,000 years without offering evidence to support this extraordinary claim is not desired.

In which text first time "Gautama leaving Yashodhara for searching truth" story is found to be written? This text was written how many years after death of Buddha?

According to Abhidhamma, following four conditions must be satisfied for the arising of eye-consciousness. 1. Eye-door should be good 2. Visible object must be present 3. Light must be present 4. Attention must be present So my question is, how do we perceive pitch-dark? Do we perceive pitch-dark with mind-consciousness?

Requesting sutta references mentioning "sacrifice" along with pali words commonly (and uncommonly) translated as "sacrifice" along with thoughts and commentary please

In the Pali commentaries, there is a contradiction regarding the name of Thera Anuruddha's father. Somewhere he is said to be the son of Sukkodana, and somewhere of Amitodana. Both Sukkodana and Amitodana were Suddhodana's brother. So, in any case, Anuruddha was surely a cousin of the future Buddha. But his relation with Thera Ananda becomes controversial. Everywhere Ananda is said to be the son of Amitodana. So he might be either a cousin or a brother of Anuruddha. Most modern Western scholars seem to prefer the latter alternative albeit insisting that they were probably step-brothers from different mothers "as the texts do not refer to the two as brothers and imply that they grew up in different households." If that is the case, why not accept Anuruddha as the son of Sukkodana? Are there more weightage in the claim of Amitodana? Can someone answer with commentarial references?

What is the (commentary) source for Buddha's five-part daily schedule, as mentioned at The Buddha's Daily Routine (Buddhanet) and A Day in the Life of the Buddha (YouTube video, Bhikkhu Bodhi).

**Purpose:** Find out the origin (reference) of this story. **Situation:** I got to know this Scorpion story from these websites. - Dare to the Motivation - The Nature of Things The summary of this story is like this. The scorpion stung the man but he saved the scorpion. Because even though to sting is the scorpion's nature, his nature to save won't change. **Problem:** Unfortunately, neither one have the reference to the story. It could be a fake story and I want to find out if it is a true Buddhism story or not. I sent messages to both of the administrators. But I got no replies. **Comment** Does anyone know the original book of this story? Thank you.

I am interested in Theravada Buddhism. **What are some concrete reasons as to why one should become a Buddhist?**

I am interested in vipassana meditation. **What are the different types of vipassana meditation?**

In this page's explanation of the six realms of existence the human realm is presented as below, it reads a bit off. Is it not possible, for example in the heavenly realm, to make a good choice and aim for liberation? aren't their Suttas that indicate the existence of liberated beings or of beings that are greatly cultivated and working their way for final realize in the heavenly realm? > Human Realm > > The human realm is the only one in which one’s choices (good or bad) > affect one’s future—in all the others, one is either being rewarded or > punished for one’s actions as a human being. One’s present human > condition (e.g., wealth, social status, and physical and psychological > qualities) is based on one’s past karma, but one’s present choices > also determine one’s future (in this life, or a future life). **As > conscious moral agents, human beings have agency that the beings in > other realms do not**; this clearly underscores the importance of moral > action and spiritual development. > > ...

## As Observer Say I observe **systems** around me --- economics of suffering, arising of crime, even the [Dependent Origination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratītyasamutpāda) --- without craving to maintain, defend, modify, control or destroy the systems. I do have an **inquisitive** mind that intends (not craves) to observe, trace through and understand the systems. I'm a studious person. Am I free of craving? ## As Participant Say I act to reduce suffering according to my understanding of the above-mentioned systems. Can I say I **don't crave but do intend** to better the lives of my wards? That may sound strange, so let me explain my community service. The wards in my community service include elderly, criminals, intoxication substance users, and more. I explain the category of "elderly" because an irony within is more illustrative than straightforward categories like "criminals". Most elderly folks end up alone because of bad choices made when younger. Whether they were bad parents, abusive personalities, or sometimes merely (obsessively?) hardworking due to economic hardship, **their choices were made, and the various systems in life continue to process those choices**. The point of what we do in community service, shocking to many, is that **we don't aim to solve every problem**. We **merely reduce suffering**, and only in rare cases where opportunities present do we **reduce suffering to the point of its elimination**. Perhaps a quick detour into "*Harm Reduction*" can make this illustration more concrete. ## Harm Reduction vs Positive Alternative The [Harm Reduction Model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_reduction) could be applied to our work in community service, since we don't turn down anyone who is **not yet ready to take on solutions in life**. At the same time, our country's treasury is so well-managed that the country builds numerous "**Positive Alternatives**" (education, gainful livelihood, etc). (There is no such term as "*Positive Alternatives Model*", sorry for not giving you something to read on this!) It is easily observed that the *Harm Reduction Model* takes a whole lot less resources than the *Positive Alternatives Model*. It is a lot cheaper to distribute *clean needles to drug addicts* than it is to build *entire schools to facilitate gainful employment*. But I don't argue for one model versus the other; it all depends on how much resources we have on hand. Our specific work includes such "*harm reduction*" techniques as provision for social needs (regular visits, chats, counseling), provision for basic physical needs (rations), and so on. ## As Policy Maker The tricky part of all this **non-craving** is how policy makers are often admonished for spending on **lost causes**. Granted, a lot of community service work draws from volunteerism, so spending isn't that big an issue. Unfortunately, even the resource that is volunteerism is also finite (like any other resource in this material plane). Without going into academic discussions on how **Harm Reduction** gives respite from suffering such that there is a window of calm for rational behavior and real solutions, it is clear that **Harm Reduction** reduces (if not removes) suffering. ## Key questions Is a **non-discriminatory intention to alleviate suffering** an unwise action? (We do detain people with dangerous behavior, but we still spend effort and resources to serve even the most hardcore criminals.) (Suffering is indeed a good teacher, but I don't believe it is my duty to mete out suffering. The real world already has a system that dishes out suffering.) Can the intention to alleviate suffering be **volitional without craving**? It's actually difficult to explain why I even bother to alleviate suffering, rather than amass pleasure for myself. The closest I can explain is a Chinese proverb: 物尽其用, 人尽其才. Which brings me to the next key question. Is it wrong to **intend to build up our own faculties without craving to**? Will such intention to amass strength and capabilities be seen as attachment? The above questions come about because of my longstanding (internal?) debate between "*sitting all day long in meditative sessions*" and "*going out to do stuff*". Many temples I visit have large TV screens, in front of which many monks... well... sit in "meditative sessions" all day long; popular media plays on these TV screens. Even long-drawn proper lectures don't interest me (consider how speed reading has higher throughput than video for knowledge transfer). Because of my natural tendency towards "*love and service*", I've been accused of clinging and craving.

One of the benefits of the meditation practice that is widely talked about is becoming more wise. I am not sure if there is a universal definition of wisdom so I am trying to see what wisdom other practitioners here have "realized" during the course of their practice. How did you realize you were becoming more wise and what exactly is this wisdom if you are able to convey it in writing?

Try again. I have an idea for a comic book I would like to attempt. It is based in a contemporary setting and sort of outlines the principles of buddhism without actually comingout and saying so. What I am after is a good source of Buddha stories and what they mean. You know the sort of thing, Buddha said this or did that and what he was getting at. I had a book by Suzuki once that was full of them but I am sure there is a website whith some somewhere.

The Wikipedia page for "the 3 marks of existence" differentiates between "conditioned things" and "unconditioned things" like so: > The three marks are: > 1. sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras > (conditioned things) are impermanent" > 2. sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all > saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory" > 3. sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas > (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self" The Buddha said "I teach one thing and one thing only. Suffering and the end of suffering." Within that context: 1. What is the difference between a "conditioned thing" and an "unconditioned thing"? 2. How does that difference give meaning to the 3 marks? 3. How does this meaning point towards "the end of suffering"?