It seems a commonly held notion that the actual written text of Buddhadharma were only recorded well after the life of the Buddha. However, this sutta seems to indicate that was not so: > "Take a mendicant who says: ‘Reverend, I have heard and learned this > in the presence of the Buddha: this is the teaching, this is the > training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither > approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should > carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re > included in the discourses and **found in the texts on monastic > training.** If they’re not included in the discourses and found in the > texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly > this is not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully > awakened Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by that mendicant.’ > And so you should reject it." > > AN 4.180 Isn't this prima facie evidence that contrary to this belief that actual teachings were written down and consulted during the life of the Buddha?

The Wikipedia entry on the 5th council says: > However, there were a number of other councils held in Ceylon and Thailand between the fourth and sixth ... What are these other councils? Where where they held? What was their significance?

What are the common/widespread wrong meanings that people associate with or assign to the word 'gratitude'? As we know, the society is made up largely of families, and those in turn are made of up relationships, which most commonly are underlied by sexuality, in turn often being related to guilt, as well as guilt based manipulations and control mechanisms. At the same time, we are inclined and even obliged to feel grateful towards our loved ones. So it is safe to assume that the obligation to be grateful and patterns of guilt (or other) based manipulations co-occur, and therefore can and probably tend to interact. And therefore it is also safe to assume that at least some part of the human species if suffering from views and actions rooted in a wrong understanding of gratitude. Now, gratitude being such an important pillar of Enlightened teaching, what are some common roots and symptoms of false Gratitude which we should mindfully observe and then root out?

This is from the Theravada Vinaya: > While he was staying by himself, the Buddha thought, “When I was > previously surrounded by people, I was not at ease because of those > monks at Kosambī who were quarreling, arguing, and creating legal > issues in the Sangha. But now that I’m alone, without a companion, I’m > happy and at ease because I’m apart from those monks at Kosambī.” > > Pli Tv Kd 10: Kosambakakkhandhaka How could the Buddha be thinking this way post enlightment? This seems related to this question. ---------- You can find the another account of the same thing in non-Vinaya canon here: > So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Kosambi, in > Ghosita’s Monastery. Now at that time Buddha lived crowded by monks, > nuns, laymen, and laywomen; by rulers and their ministers, and > teachers of other paths and their disciples. Crowded, he lived in > suffering and discomfort. Then he thought, “These days I live crowded > by monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen; by rulers and their ministers, > and teachers of other paths and their disciples. Crowded, I live in > suffering and discomfort. Why don’t I live alone, withdrawn from the > group?” > > Ud 4.5

Inspired by this answer... Is the specific formulation of Dependent Origination in the early buddhist texts an upaya and/or skillful means? If so, how approximate is it? Are there other conceptual elaborations that improve upon it? If it is an upaya, what is the purpose or motivation of teaching it originally thousands of years ago? Is it different today? Has our modern conception of physics and psychology led to the development of other upayas that may or may not share some of the motivation or benefits of the original? There are parts of the early buddhist texts that include teachings on the Four Primary Elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind. Was this an upaya? Has modern physics provided an update to this upaya that has the same benefits as a better conceptual elaboration of the underlying truth? If not, in what way is the original better? If you think the teaching on Four Primary Elements was an upaya or skillful means, but one that has been succeeded by a better modern version in physics and chemistry... do you think Dependent Origination is also something that could or should be updated... or one that even has been already been updated/replaced? To be clear I am not indicating that skillful means involve intended deception. Thanks!

What is a person (*puggala*) in Buddhism? What is the difference between a person (*puggala*) and other terms like self (*atta*) and sentient being (*satta*)? Is a person (*puggala*) reborn into future lives? How do we reconcile the concept of person (*puggala*) with "*sabbe dhamma anatta*" (all phenomena is not self)? There was an ancient Buddhist philosophical school called Pudgalavada which posited the existence of a person (*puggala*) based on SN 22.22 , who has continued existence, experiences the result of his kamma, gets reborn and finally becomes liberated etc. Other Buddhist schools apparently criticized this view for being too close to self or *atman* / *atta*. > “And what, bhikkhus, is the carrier of the burden? It should be said: > the person (*puggala*), this venerable one of such a name and clan. This is called > the carrier of the burden. > SN 22.22 > One person (*ekapuggala*) roaming and transmigrating for > an eon would amass a heap of bones the size > of this Mount Vepulla, if they were gathered together and not lost. > SN 15.10

Is it possible for a person to gain liberation while simultaneously practicing unskillful means? Is it possible for a person to understand profound universal truths while simultaneously practicing unskillful means? Are skillful means in accordance with profound universal truths? Are profound universal truths in accordance with skillful means? An example of a skillful means is acknowledging the conventional truth of rebirth in cyclic existence. An example of a profound universal truth is that the Buddha was not to be regarded as a real and genuine fact as was taught to Anurādha. An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma. An example of a profound universal falsify is to understand the Buddha as a real and genuine fact. Another example of a profound universal falsity is to believe like Yamaka that, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.” Various traditions divide the above conventions into a dichotomy. The labels that are used and the understanding of that dichotomy is different from tradition to tradition. In Theravada, I have seen the dichotomy variously described as right views of two types including, without vs with effluents, definitive vs interpretable, supramundane vs mundane, and in commentarial literature ultimate vs conventional. In Mahayana, the dichotomy is labeled in similar ways but also absolute/ultimate/universal vs conventional/relative/dependent.

Did Gautama Buddha really intend to create a new religion? Was it because he was disillusioned with the prevalent religious practices, rituals and teachings of his time?

I have yet to read the entire Pali canon, but I've read a lot of it. It is a source I trust is fairly accurate. I'm still looking for an anecdote from the Buddha's life where he tells a non-believer to start believing in rebirth. Confining answers to the suttas, I'd appreciate pointers to any specific statements he made.

The Four Noble Truths include the Noble Eightfold Path which importantly includes “right view” as the first step on that path. However, it is said in Snp 4.5 that a Realized One does not hold any “views” nor declare any view foremost: > “Whoever should take to himself certain views, thinking them best, > supreme in the world, and hence he proclaims all others as low— by > this he does not become free from disputes.“ Is the “right view” as described in the Noble Eightfold Path the same kind of “view” that is described in Snp 4.5? If so, does this mean that a Realized One abandons the right view of the Noble Eightfold path?? If not, then what is a “view” as described in Snp 4.5 and how is it different from the “right view” of the Noble Eightfold path? It has been pointed out (quite astutely!) that the "right view" of the Noble Eightfold path can be divided into two. (MN 117) There is the right view with effluents and the right view without. Are either one of these, both, or neither the same type of "views" as described in Snp 4.5? Also, the Buddha often described things with the adjective “foremost”; does this mean those things so described were not “views” as meant in Snp 4.5?

I meditate for the purpose described by the Dalai Lama (in his book The Heart of Meditation: Discovering Innermost Awareness ): > To achieve a friendly attitude, a warm heart, respect for the rights > of others, and concern for their welfare, we must train the mind. The > essential objective of mental training is to cultivate an attitude of > compassion and calm After 30-60 minutes I am calm and aware, but seeing no further benefit in sitting longer. I don't buy the idea that the Buddha's teachings were only available to the select few who can achieve special meditative states. Are there any teachers or traditions that teach a path that does not rely on long meditations that last for hours? (The closest I know of is the Insight Meditation Society , and while they don't appear to emphasize jhanas, they do hold meditation retreats.)

I tend to write down when I meditate, and also note the length of the sessions. Observing my notes, I had the impression that when I sat for longer times (40m - 1h), I also was paradoxically more consistent. Is such a thing ever mentioned in Buddhism? Usually, in habit formation psychology, it is the easiest habits that develop the most. Could lengthening meditation sessions also establish greater consistency?

If no thing transmigrates, and nibbana is cessation, Is a perception of death - a perception of cessation, then akin to a perception of nibbana?

Is thinking that there are no good people / followers of five precepts in this world a wrong view? I read this in some where but I forgotten it. It is hard to see that kind of people other than Buddhist monks. This is a reason for some people to not to follow buddhism. Some times I feel the same way. Is this a wrong view? Do you meet real Buddhists in real life other than monks? I always try to remember that the metaphor of lotus pond. Kind regards.

This is based on the comments below this answer . From this page , we find the commentary: > nirodha-samāpatti 'attainment of extinction' (S. XIV, 11), also called > saññā-vedayita-nirodha, 'extinction of feeling and perception', is the > temporary suspension of all consciousness and mental activity, > following immediately upon the semi-conscious state called 'sphere of > neither-perception-nor-non-perception' (s. jhāna, 8). And also this commentary : > According to the commentary, "seclusion" here stands for Unbinding. On > emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, and having had > contact with emptiness/the signless/the undirected, the mind inclines > naturally to a direct experience of Unbinding. On the other hand, the sutta states: > Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension > of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the > cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, > their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha spoke of > progressive cessation in a definitive sense.” > AN 9.61 My question is: Does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha refer to a super trance-like state beyond the 8th jhana in which the practitioner becomes completely unconscious without any mental activity (like what the commentary above suggests) with cessation of ALL perception and feeling? Or does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha refer to Nibbana-element with residue aka Unbinding-property with fuel remaining of Iti 44 (please see Ven. Thanissaro's footnotes), where the arahant is fully conscious with mental activity, but has cessation of only the clinging (or tainted) perception and feeling? This is related to the clinging aggregates of SN 22.48 . The quoted passage from AN 9.61 can be interpreted in both these ways. The commentary suggests that after the practitioner comes out of the super trance-like state then he stays with Nibbana-element with residue. But the latter interpretation suggests that beyond the 8 jhanas, there is no super trance-like state. Rather, after experiencing Nibbana, it's directly Nibbana-element with residue in any state with mental activity present. In short, does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha mean cessation of ALL perception and feeling, or cessation of the clinging-aggregates of perception and feeling? **Question: does nirodha samapatti refer to a super trance like state beyond 8th jhana OR does it refer to the state of arahantship (nibbana-element without residue i.e. without the clinging aggregates of perception and feeling)?**

The teaching of Buddha Kassapa in Snp 2.2 : > “Killing living beings, > hunting, cutting, binding, > theft, lying, fraud, deceptions, > useless recitations, > associating with the wives of others: > This is a raw stench, > not the eating of meat. > Snp 2.2 (and more similar statements in the whole text of the same sutta) From Buddha Kassapa's quote above, we see that eating meat by itself is not killing karma. However, it is popular opinion that eating meat is definitely killing karma because it indirectly causes the killing of animals. This was also Tissa's attack on Buddha Kassapa, a brahmin by birth. What is the correct understanding of the principle of karma in Buddhism, for this case of eating meat? Why does Snp 2.2 not consider eating meat to be killing karma?

*In this answer* it's said that the *Five Precepts* are not a form of gradual training. Are they are a gradual training? If not, why? Thank you for your time.

The doctrine of paṭicca-samuppāda, or dependent arising, forms one of the core teachings of the Buddha. The Theravāda commentarial text Nettipakaraṇa divides the applications of this doctrine into two major categories. The first category, ‘lokiya paṭicca-samuppāda’ is very well known, representing ‘worldly’ conditionality as a sequence of twelve nidānas. The second category, called ‘lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda’, creates a model of the process of liberation from the same lokiya paṭicca-samuppāda at the point of ‘jarā- maraṇa’, a term that is curiously replaced by ‘dukkha’, suffering. Applications of the second category are also referred to as the ‘Spiral Path’ after the coinage of Sangharakshita, the pre-eminent modern exponent of this aspect of Buddhist doctrine. I have some queries regarding this: The Upanisā Sutta that deals with lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda in detail, traces the chain of this transcendental conditionality step-by- step in a retrograde fashion from the ‘Destruction of the Cankers’ to ‘Faith’ and it is easy to understand how each such nidāna becomes the supporting condition of the next. However, I am unable to make out how ‘Suffering’ forms the supporting condition for ’Faith’ to arise. Could this be clarified? The second query is why is lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda also called the ‘Spiral Path’ by Bikśu Sangharakshita? Lastly, why is the nidāna of jarā- maraṇa replaced by the more general term dukkha in the concept of lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda?

Deep down, I know there is a core that wants to love everyone for who they are. No matter who they are to me, the world, no matter how terrible of a person they are, no matter how much they make me jealous. The only problem is, the stuff in the middle. I feel like I cannot move past things due to unclean closures to relationships and overall jealousy. I really want to wish everyone the best, but my intentions are tainted by negative emotions. How do we break through this terrible barrier that stops us from loving ourself and everyone else, and how do we unconditionally love everyone?

In Bhikkhu Nanamoli's **The Life of the Buddha** when describing the circumstances around his birth, Nanamoli writes > When the Bodhisatta had descended into his mother's womb, no thought > of man associated with the five strands of sensual desires came to her > at all, and she was inaccessible to any man with lustful mind. > > When the Bodhisatta had descended into his mother's womb, she at the > same time possessed the five strands of sensual desires; and being > endowed and furnished with them, she was gratified in them. I understand the first paragraph. And, I assume that by "the five strands of sensual desires" he's referring to the five kāmaguṇa in this answer . The first paragraph seems to be portraying that this was a *virgin* conception (or, if not *virgin*, then it was a pregnancy that did not arise through coitus). However, I don't understand what is actually being said in the second paragraph quoted. Is it merely saying that, in addition to the purity of her being just described, she was herself exceptionally comely? Another aspect of this that confuses me is what is meant by "she was gratified in them"?