I have read some early Buddhism sutras where the Buddha says birth doesn't make one noble, conduct does. Is there any sutra in Mahayana Buddhism that explicitly rejected "noble" status just by birth? Or at least rebuking casteism? I have found verses that conform to the caste based society like for example Lalitavistara Sutra that says Bodhisattvas are only born in upper two castes (Priest and Warriors). It does not say a person who rises to become a king, no, he should be from a "royal lineage" (caste). I have found no which eases the caste tension.

In the teaching of dependent origination, ignorance is presented as the initial condition from which the entire cycle of birth, suffering, and death unfolds. This raises a subtle but profound question: why is ignorance placed at the very beginning of this chain? Does this imply an absolute beginning in time, or is it pointing to a structural relationship in how suffering arises? In exploring this question, it may also be worth considering whether ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge, or if it refers to a deeper mis-perception of reality that underlies all conditioned experience. Clarification on how early Buddhist texts and later traditions understand this foundational role of ignorance would be appreciated.

I came across a gallery of Stupas from around the world and it made me wonder why some of them differ in shape considerably. Do they express different aspects of Buddhism or is the source of difference rather cultural/historical? I am aware that in Tibetan Buddhism there are 9 types of Stupas and they have a rather uniform shape. What I am interested in is why the ones found in, for example, Sri Lanka or India, have a much different shape and style.

Across early Buddhist and later scholastic sources, sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa refers to the awakening of an arahant/Buddha during life, while the five aggregates continue to function. Parinirvāṇa (or nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa) designates the complete cessation of the aggregates at death. However they raise several questions - If the liberated mind is already free of defilements at sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa, what exactly “continues” until parinirvāṇa? Is it- - merely biological life-supporting karma? - non-karmic causal processes of the aggregates? - a conventional designation with no metaphysical content? - or something else depending on doctrinal school? Furthermore, 1. What specific causal theory does each major tradition (Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka) use to explain why the aggregates continue to arise after sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa? 2. If the arahant produces no new karma, what prevents the aggregates from ceasing immediately at awakening? 3. Do any schools argue that the distinction between sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa and parinirvāṇa is ultimately conventional rather than reflecting two ontologically distinct states?

Finding resources to better understand the meaning of the 12 links of dependent origination has been challenging for me. The best resource I've been able to find to decipher the meaning thus far is this dharma talk. 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination In it, the first 9 links are described in a fashion that makes sense and rings true but the last 3 are still fuzzy to me. 1: ignorance the choice to ignore that which is uncomfortable (i.e The biological purpose of "pain" is to provide the sensory motor brain with feedback that its predictive model of the world is incorrect. It contains a wrong view about the world which leads to unskillful movements in the world. This wrong view should be investigated and replaced with a more skillful view which makes more skillful movements in the world possible. e.g. You burn your hand on the stove. Within this context, the choice to IGNORE the discomfort, to cling to views, gives rise to suffering. Suffering is the persistent pressure by the sensory motor brain to pay attention to the feedback and correct the wrong view in its sensory-motor predictive model of the world.) ignorance is the condition for 2: unwise intention is the condition for 3: unwise attention is the condition for 4: unwise mobilization of body and mind is the condition for 5: the 6 sense bases directed to receive and interpret sensory input (perhaps unwisely) is the condition for 6: contact the sensory experience. which may be interpreted unwisely is the condition for 7: feeling tone (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) is the condition for 8: craving (to pull towards or push away) is the condition for 9: clinging is the condition for 10: becoming is the condition for 11: birth is the condition for 12: old age and death The speaker suggests that “birth and becoming” refer to the creation of an identity associated with suffering and that “old age and death” is a synonym for suffering. This is too fuzzy for my liking and I desire a clearer and more precise understanding. I *think* this means The wrong view that “happiness depends upon the satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience”, when clung to, gives BIRTH to an identity whose mission is to attain that sensory experience by BECOMING the identity required to attain it. So “birth and becoming” kind of make sense to me, though I am still somewhat uncertain if this is the meaning the Buddha intended. “Old age and death” however does not make sense to me. If this is just a synonym for suffering, why didn't the Buddha just say “suffering”. My impression is that he chose his words very carefully.

I have been a Vipassana meditator since 2001 and had a very strong practice and very good concentration. Last 2-3 years I started feeling a physical violation of space and then hearing voices. What interacts with me is some kind of demon or demons that have started harming with negative gross vibrations of all kinds and use very harmful language. They also harm physically and hurt around the spine and different organs of the body and the nervous system- to get your energy -some kind of energy vampires. They harm continuously and never stop. It is impossible to meditate or do anything else. They seem to know how to connect to human mind and body and somehow gain control the nervous system. I asked a lot of people for help including meditators even teachers but so far havnt found anyone who knows about this or wants to help. I don’t even know where to get the help. No drugs or medicines have helped so far, even tried to get some mantra tantra help. I have also read and listened to Ratana and Atanatiya sutta. Written to monasteries..I cannot give metta or practice Vipassana at all because I am constantly under attack. I am not delusional and these are not illusions. Really looking for some help or inputs that refer to any success stories through monks or healers or Vipassana teachers. Someone who really knows about this well.

This is the mother who carries: Sankha, Chakra, and Gada. I am confused whether she is Mahalaxmi, Kamakhaya, Tripura Sundari, or some Buddhist Goddess.

Owen Flanagan in this podcast argued while Buddhism has an extremely well developed notion of compassion, it doesn't have a significant notion of justice. He contrasts this with ancient Greek philosophies which he states have a strong notion of justice and weak or absent notion of compassion. So is this correct? Does Buddhism really not have decent (or any) notion of justice. Can anyone perhaps provide examples of justice from the texts (Pali Canon, Mayahana etc..). Or is Owen right - no justice in Buddhism?

I am basically an Undergraduate student in India. Let me tell everyone that I made huge mistakes in my past. When my parents beat me, I also beat them. I never respected my parents and my teachers. Whenever my parents told me to touch the feet of the elders, I always used to get angry at my parents. Whenever my parents suggested me anything good, then I always used to get angry and many times I have even beaten my parents. I have never said "Thank You Sir" to my teachers when they helped me out with my Doubts. I always used to challenge my elders. Many times, I have even shouted at my grandparents. But now at the age of 21, I am able to understand my every mistakes which I already committed in the past. Now I want to rectify myselves. I really want to know that how can I rectify myselves ? How can I control my anger ?

In my quest to develop virtue, sometimes, I get distracted and entangled in thoughts. When I am in thoughts, virtuous conduct is halted. The reason why I get entangled in thoughts, is usually because of attachment. For example, attachment to what someone thinks about me. My head starts ruminating and I am not being mindful or diligent or metta in the present moment. One way to phrase this came to mind, inspired by a sutta describing enlightenment. To paraphrase the relevant part of the sutta: > Picking up the aggregates is a burden, laying them down is blissful Inspired by this, **when I become distracted, I think of it like this:** > **Instead of having practiced the eightfold path, I picked up the aggregates** **Since I still don't grasp enlightenment or anatta, I am unsure if this is a helpful application of that phrase.** What do you think?

Years ago I came across a Sanskrit term that described the exchange or interaction of a buddhist and art. I am desperate to remember that term. It described engaging with art work in the present moment as though the piece was alive in you and you were alive in the piece. The term defined a mutual exchange of presence. Can anyone help me with recalling this term?

I recently received a Impermanence Mala for Christmas. I have read The Heart of Buddha's teaching and I couldn't find anything in there. Thank you in advance for any information.

**Today I momentarily fell back to identifying with old thinking patterns, and as a result, old habits and sluggishness emerged.** It caused some trouble, mainly that I delayed departure to a casual meeting with my parents. I called and said as an explanation that I don't feel so good today, and the way I said it left open interpretation that I may call things off entirely. **But then, I remembered the virtue of diligence amongst others, and turned things around.** While I told my parents that "I didn't feel so good", to myself, now, **I think of it as me having "forgotten who I am, for a moment".** This was a phrase that came to me when I was being diligent and discarding of wrong thought again. **But since I still don't grasp anatta, I am unsure if this is a helpful phrase.** What do you think?

On several occasions I have encountered the term "red boddhicitta" in scholarly literature on Indian tantra, but am having trouble locating the Sanskrit term for this concept. I tried googling रक्त बोधिचित्त but nothing comes up; then again, I don't reckon google is indexing Sanskrit all that carefully. I'm not very familiar with the primary sources at the moment, but I gather there are Sanskrit texts that may mention red boddhicitta. I seem to recall one piece known as the Nectar Tantras but I couldn't find a text or translation of it.

Question

Are there any Sanskrit sources that explicitly used the term "red boddhicitta"? (any text from Indian tantra tradition would be sufficient)

In Yogācāra, the ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) is described as containing karmic seeds and functioning as the basis for the arising of the six manifest consciousnesses. However, since the ālaya-vijñāna persists from moment to moment and across lifetimes, it can appear to be an underlying metaphysical substrate. If all schools of Buddhism maintain the doctrine of anātman (non-self), then how is the ālaya-vijñāna not being reified into some kind of enduring essence? Is ālaya-vijñāna considered merely a provisional explanatory model that is ultimately eliminated or transformed upon awakening?

Should I see right practice as not self? The same question is phrased three times over, in different ways, below. As context, I am a householder that seeks to eliminate suffering. **Question from Buddhist point of view** I want to let go of everything but right practice. This allows me to see many things as not self, unphased. For example, feeling tired or aroused or discontent. These things are not part of right practice, so I am able to see them as not self and let them pass by. It then feels like a wave has passed by me, and fully knowing that the wave was not self, and fully footed in overcoming craving, I feel no need to look back at the wave. However, when thoughts of diligence come up, and of right speech, I am hesitant to see them as not self. I am afraid that if I see them as something that will just pass, something to be impassionate about, that I will then deviate from the right path. The concept of right path too, is something I am hesitant to see as not self. How to proceed? **Question with Christian example** In Christianity, there is the concept of the new man and the old man. Practitioners are said to never be able to hope to shake off the old man in them (until Jesus returns). Practitioners are told to strive continuously to *be* the new man. Is the Buddhist answer to let go of the new man too? **Question with concrete example** I have a thought about turning on the TV. The matters in that thought are not about giving up craving, not about mindfulness, not about being metta, so I give up the thought and don't look back at it. Then I have a thought about doing well at a new job. Usually I have doubtful thoughts about the new job. The thought of working hard at the job I see as related to diligence. I do not give up the thought and entertain it. Whereas the TV watcher is clearly not self - something that has arisen from a place that is not self - the thought of working hard at the job now feels like self. I am about the thought, the thought is about me. There is a self and the self is concerned with the thought. I don't feel it's possible to overcome the sense of self without giving up the thought, and giving up the thought I don't feel is possible without the giving up of diligence. If someone suggested that you could have not-self AND thought entertainment, I think I would brush that off as them not speaking from experience. Should I give up right diligence / right livelihood?

I'm brand-new to meditation! I have just completed one week of daily vipassana meditation -- 10 minutes twice daily; once in the morning, once in the evening. I'm unfortunately experiencing extremely uncomfortable back pain from meditating, and would appreciate some advice on how to fix the problem: The Details: 1. I'm flexible enough for a comfortable half-lotus, but have been utilizing Burmese position, as it lets me breathe deeper. I also really like the visual symmetry it provides. 2. The pain is in my mid to lower back, slightly above my kidneys, and just below the back of my ribcage. 3. I've used video / photography to verify that my posture is good going into meditation. I know I sometimes slouch a little after a few moments, but I usually correct myself upon noticing any slouching. I currently sit on a folded pillow, and have ordered myself a zafu-style cushion. 5. The pain is typically minimal to absent during the meditation itself, but sets in around three-four hours afterwards and often lasts the remainder of the day. I wake up feeling pretty sore, but not in "pain." 4. I have poor posture during my non-meditative moments, though I am working on improving it. Still, I have never experienced back pain before; are my back-muscles just weak from adjusting to a new sitting-style? Any thoughts? Is this just a beginner's phase that I have to power through, or should I meditate in a chair for a few days to give my muscles a break? Maybe a different posture? Thicker cushion / no cushion? Alternatively, any ideas on how I might better diagnose the problem? Really appreciate your thoughts. Best, Ian

My mother and I come from a non-Buddhist culture/background/society/country/family. At one point when I had an opportunity to explain to her what Buddhism is, I was doing well (i.e. she was listening and accepting what I was saying) when I was explaining that Buddhism includes a non-fixed identity-view and explaining why a non-fixed identity view is skillful (e.g. because an attitude such as attachment to your job/profession might be unpleasant when you retire, and because people's abilities and health change with age). But then what I mentioned the first Noble Truth she seemed to object, saying "Sorry you think life is suffering/dissatisfaction, I don't agree: I like life, I think life is good." --- So - Do you ever try to explain Buddhism to someone who barely knows the first thing about it, and if so what is your strategy for how to explain it? - Do you explain 'dukkha' using the classic 'death/poverty/illness/old age', and/or is there a better way to explain the first noble Truth? - Are there any alternate way to introduce Buddhism which don't begin with the first Noble Truth? - Might it be better to explain what I think Buddhism might mean to me (why it appeals to me) personally? I fear that might make it less strange to her ("yes I see why you like it") but at the same time less acceptable ("but it isn't for me because I'm not like you"). - Should I understand that if that's her reaction it's because she's already doing a lot of things right (e.g. not spending her life feeling angry)?

Some people liken Buddhist principles to turning yourself into a sheep. Criticism of this nature is often made by libertarian types. Relinquishment of craving and attachment, and mindfulness, are especially criticized. The focus in such verbalizations by critics is on other people who may want to take advantage of such a 'sheep'. Phrases like "don't think" are brought into connotation with "do not question anything, follow the masses". Further, the giving up of attachment and craving part is likened to a loss of individuality. An example insult that captures both aspects of the critique, is that Buddhists want people to "eat ze bugs". It's imagined that globalist dictators desire for the population to eat bugs and be happy with that. A relinquishment of craving and attachment is seen as turning yourself into a perfectly subdued subject for such a would-be oppressor. Focus is also put on a lack of will to fight back. How should one respond to such arguments, if they were proposed seriously instead of in a mocking way?

I wonder if Buddhism has a concept or teaching surrounding what is happening in my personal practice right now. In my practice right now I want to reduce my focus on things that are certain. It's certain that I am typing on my phone right now, and breathing in. Then a idea pops up of something relating to the future, and I recognize the uncertainty around any theories surrounding the future. Earlier I came up with theories about craving and other things, and recognized the uncertainty of any such theories. I had many theories about how the mind works in the past but now I see the uncertainty in these theories. I try to synthesize insights based on what I learned from Buddhism but I'm uncertain of the theories in the end. Those mind theories I have are impermanent too, always changing and coming up with a new theory. But now the only certainty is my thumbs hitting my phone. Then a craving pops up and I'm led away from the certainty of breathing. Is there anything surrounding certainty or uncertainty in Buddhism being taught?