Further to my question about discussing Buddhism with children , I want to ask that, **at what age does one becomes capable of understanding Buddhism?** The very first time I came across Buddha and Buddhism was in my school textbook where I read the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold path. I must have been around 14 or 15 at that time and raised in a liberal Hindu family. But I still remember at that time, I thought to myself, 'this is so simple and has nothing to do with the all power full Hindu gods that I worshipped and adored'. I underrated the Buddha. Fast forward 20 years, after going through intense mental suffering, breakups, and craving and desires which never got fulfilled, and then starting contemplating about the whys, and spending time reading about religions and science and meditation, I now call myself a practicing Buddhist. **So at what age does one becomes capable to understand Buddhism**? Is going through suffering a necessary part of one's path? Does failing to have a romantic relationship act as a trigger to start contemplating about life and turn to religion? Does exposure to the absurdity of life somehow turns a person look inwards?

The Buddha said a gift given as an ornament for the mind will lead the giver to the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. So the benefit to the giver when done right is incomparably great, but what is the effect to the mind of the recipient?

“Siddhartha Gotama sat for one last time under the pipul tree with the adiṭṭhāna that he would not get up till he became realized. He battled the beautiful as well as the ugly and fearful illusions of Māra successfully that night and at the same time had very profound insights into Reality, the final one being that into paticcasamuppāda which destroyed the last vestiges of avijjā and Gotama became the Buddha, the Tathāgata, ‘Thus Gone’.” It was a momentous event! I want to understand this profound moment and, therefore, have some questions: 1. What happened to Gotama when he became the Buddha? Of course, as Buddhists we understand that there was no self at all to begin with, but that was not experientially realized till asmi māna, one of the last fetters, dissolved. So, Gotama did not realize nibbāna because that would mean that his ‘I-am-ness’, his māna, continued into nibbāna, which is unacceptable. Should we say instead that ‘there was realization’, an impersonal phenomenon, as the asmi-māna vanished? Could we say that this realization entailed an ontological shift from the puny, illusory self to the unconditioned Nibbāna? But then wouldn’t that still be some kind of eternalism? Or: 2. Did Gotama, the conditioned, illusory self ‘die’ at the time of his realization and the nāma- rūpa, that it once was, continued by the sheer force of its unspent past karma which on exhaustion then led to Parinibbāna of this psycho-physical being? Was the Buddha this nāma- rūpa that, metaphorically speaking, ‘translated’ the unconditioned Reality for puthujjana like us and made it possible for us to tread the path for its realization? But then what happened at Parinibbāna? What remained? Nothing? Doesn’t that sound like annihilationism? Or: 3. Did at Parinibbāna, with the extinguishing of the final vestiges of conditioned being, the Unconditioned shine in its brilliant, impersonal glory? Beyond Being and Non-being? Beyond anything that can ever be understood? Or would that be mere linguistic gymnastics? I want to understand what actually happened!

What is the difference between the scientific law of causality and the Buddhist law of conditionality (Paṭiccasamuppāda)? I am not convinced with the way Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi, for example, has drawn the distinction between the two. According to him, the scientific law of causality is linear with one cause giving rise to one effect which in turn becomes the cause of a second effect, so on and so forth. The law of conditionality on the other hand, he says, is a structural principle based on a complex interplay of various conditions wherein an effect arises due to an array of causes that interact with each other in a complicated fashion to give rise to an effect. Well, it is not that the scientific principle does not recognize that. It clearly does! What I have understood is that the law of conditionality is a much wider extension of the scientific principle of causality that is strictly applicable to material phenomena only. In addition to material realities, Paṭiccasamuppāda also deals with what may be referred to as metaphysical and ontological phenomena. The rules of science do not allow it to venture into these fields at all! What is the actual Buddhist position on this?

Are the Buddha's words the source of the Pali Canon? What evidence is there of the Pali Canon's origin? What do scholars say?

In western societies specially, children are encouraged to try their hand at different things so that they can find their interest, practice it, be good at it. In the process build character like learn how to be disciplined, punctual, diligent, organized, productive, learn from mistakes etc. Then the very act of finding an interest seems similar to how 'attachments' are described in Buddhism. Am I missing something?

Is there any kamma that will definitely cause the guilty to go to hell, except the five anantariya bad kammas?

What exactly is the "bodily knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth" or "insistence that this is the only truth" in the sutta below? Why is it a bodily knot or tie? Please provide examples. The Pali term is "*idaṁsaccābhiniveso kāyagantha*". SN 45.174 translated by Ven. Bodhi: > “Bhikkhus, there are these four knots. What four? The bodily knot of > covetousness, the bodily knot of ill will, the bodily knot of > distorted grasp of rules and vows, **the bodily knot of adherence to > dogmatic assertion of truth**. These are the four knots. > > This Noble > Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these four > knots, for the full understanding of them, for their utter > destruction, for their abandoning.” SN 45.174 translated by Ven. Sujato: > “Mendicants, there are these four ties. What four? The personal ties > to covetousness, ill will, misapprehension of precepts and > observances, and t**he insistence that this is the only truth**. These are > the four ties. > > The noble eightfold path should be developed for the direct knowledge, > complete understanding, finishing, and giving up of these four ties.”

I'm asking this question because I want to know if I'm misunderstanding or misinterpreting something. I hope I'm not offending anyone, I want to genuinely know how to interpret my experiences with the people I'll describe below. I live in a country where there is no significant Buddhist population. Neither in my country, nor in the neighboring countries I often travel to. However, when I occasionally happen across someone who practices Buddhism, I seem to notice very strong similarities between all of them. If we're in a group with many other people, it's always them who bring up the topic of spirituality. Or if I meet an acquaintance who is not so close as to engage in deep conversations, and we would just generally exchange some pleasantries, *"how are you? I'm fine, thanks"*, they instead start to instantly brag about how spiritually evolved and enlightened they are. No matter the topic, they sooner or later mention how enlightened they are. And quite often in a condescending tone, that they are a being of much higher level than I am. And no matter the topic, they keep inserting words not from the language we're speaking in, and if I ask what it means, the answer is either that they won't say because I wouldn't understand the true meaning, or that it's the word for "desire", or "thought", or "energy", or "wisdom" or "consequence" or any other common word, but as they say *"but it means so much more than that!"*. If I remember correctly, most of these examples I met said they practiced Zen Buddhism. (because they invariably start talking about how spiritual they are, someone sooner or later asks why they say it) What also happens almost every time, is that if we're talking about a non-religious topic, they still have a very strong opinion about everything, even if it's a technological topic in which I have experience and they don't. Then they still say the opposite of what I know to be true, and if I present my proof or argument, the answer is that their feelings tell them that they are right, or that they know it better because they are spiritually more evolved than I am, therefore they have a more open mind, or something similar. I know all this sounds very negative and judgmental, but it seems to cover basically all my experiences when I happened across a Buddhist. Maybe that behavior only sounds strange or impolite for me because that's not the way of thinking I'm used to in my culture? Or maybe they themselves gravely misunderstand what Buddhism is (or should be about), and only "practice" it because it sounds exotic for them? How representative are these people, anyway? **So, my question, summed up:** there are very few Buddhists in the culture where I live, but most of them seem to be constantly bragging about how much more superior and how much more enlightened they are. * do I misunderstand them? * or are they misunderstanding Buddhism?

Correct me if I am wrong. Siddharth went to Alara Kalama, who told him to focus on his breath in order to get rid of Feelings, (Buddha achieved Alara Kalama level in 2 months), Now he told his teacher that when he is in meditation, everything is fine but on coming to ordinary state, Negative & positive Feelings again came to him. Now Alara Kalama told him to go to uddaka rāmaputta, **What did Siddharth learn under uddaka rāmaputta ?** Above information is seen in an indian television show "**Buddha**" I wanna know what happened in real ?

I understand that vegetarianism goes with Buddhism. But what about leather? Leather car seats, leather handbags, leather this and leather that. Is there some sutra on the permission to have them, since animals need to be killed to make these products?

If a family member has been dishonest with me, and upon discussing the issue denies the lie, what is the best action?

Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only really hurting ourselves? At least in everyday senses of suffering. Perhaps not including sickness, old age, and death (these seem like counter examples). But when we suffer from everyday pangs of frustration, due to e.g. frustration with our visual appearance, or lack of wealth (these are just examples). Thanks for your contribution: looking for the limits of what is and is not our own fault.

Is there a comprehensive list of different types of Samadhi (in Pali, Sanskrit, English and/or otherwise) related to Buddhism?

Recently Ven. Thanissaro sacrified a lot of effort and time, to make certain Jain-ish approaches via the Buddhas better understandable. >[The Limits of Description : Not-self](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/uncollected/NotSelfRevisited.html) Revisited. A response to a critique of Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu’s essay, “[The Not-self Strategy](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/nobleandtrue_en.html#ch7)” (available in the essay collection, Noble & True). (Also available as [pdf format](https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/NotSelfRevisited171126.pdf)) Now, it would be maybe good to read Bhikkhu Bodhis previous critic. Does any one know if there is a non-commercial shared copy avaliable? And if, maybe possible to be quoted. Here is a reference to the critique, provided by Nyom Chris, the topic is about: > These reflections were sparked recently by reading a critique of an article I wrote in 1993, called “The Not-self Strategy.” ... The critique—“**Anattā as Strategy and Ontology**,” written by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi—was brought to my attention just over a month ago, even though it has apparently been around for some time.

From Wikipedia on the Visuddhimagga and Siddhi: > Aṇimā: the ability to become smaller than the smallest, reducing one's > body to the size of an atom or even become invisible. > > Mahimā: the ability to become infinitely large, expanding one's body > to an infinitely large size. > > Laghimā: the ability to become weightless or lighter than air. > > Prāpti: the ability to instantaneously travel or be anywhere at will. > > Prākāmya: the ability to achieve or realize whatever one desires. > > Īśiṭva: the ability to control nature, individuals, organisms, etc. > Supremacy over nature and ability to force influence upon anyone. > > Vaśiṭva: the ability to control all material elements or natural > forces. > > Kāma-avasayitva (per Kṣemarāja and Vyasa): satisfaction, suppression > of desire, or (as Yatrakāmāvasāyitva) wishes coming true. - Is it possible for a modern Buddhist to believe in what sounds like fantasy or magical powers (Rddhi ) ? - Do any current day Buddhists practice these? - Are the eight classical Siddhis or Rddhi now rejected or reinterpreted ?

Sadly, Indo-Germanic languages aren't well transliterated following international standards (which are far from purposes, aside of productivity and cutting down to lowest). The romanization of Pali and Sanskrit romanization often follow a totally different standard -- it's good if Sri Lankan could follow more language conservation standards. Maybe someone likes to help with an alphabet list that gives Pali in Sri Lankan script -- a transliteration following the international standards for Pali-to-Roman and also international romanization of Sri Lanka script -- that western could also do an effort to have no hindrances. Be aware that SE-Asian isn't well supported by Google Translate, and so you can make much merits in Dhamma helping here personally to answer. There is a development by Brahman Vinodh: http://aksharamukha.appspot.com/converter Not sure how well it works for Sri Lankan script and Pali, since the Developer heads much toward Sanskrit and worldly standards -- I at least observe in other languages that it does not fail for Buddha-Dhamma yet -- but surely also happy to receive generosity for the good parts of the Undertaking. Not sure in how much Sri Lankan script deals well with special characters for loan words from Sanskrit and Pali aside the native language script. *[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange and stacks by for liberation from this bond]*

this is my first post I have researched what the buddhist sutra says about Homosexuality...I found Saddhama Smrty Uposttana sutra and Upasakasila sutra that said homosexuality is sexual misconduct and in the first sutra it even mention hell https://youtu.be/g7aikfMui2M So my question..I am not a homosexual but I am a hardcore fan of Kpop(korean music pop) since 7 years, and there is a lots of promotion and depiction of Homosexuality in concert, reality programs that are about the boy bands groups, that even fans create something called fan fiction and a lots of time it talks about sex and even rape among the boy bands..I dont read fanfiction because it's bad.. but I watch a boyband and they also do some homosexual acts..I have been turning blind eye but I was concerned what buddhism think about that..even there is a lots of fans who watch bl series(boy love aka homosexual story) such fans called Fujoshi( which is japanese words means spoiled girls, which they like to watch boy acts on boys) and I am also realized that I am also a fujoshi and I cant help was drown to watch such series( I didnt but felt like craving to watch it) and it's very popular in Buddhist countries..so I thought more buddhists should discuss this thing and its influence among the teenagers because the vast majority of fans are but I am adult..any way Should buddhist refrain from watching such media? I also wanted to know what Buddha think of celebrities and i know that in Talaputta sutta buddha said actors would go to hell( I am not sure if that also include singers) I am usually watch music videos and some shows by boy band i dont watch movies or series..but it appear like the buddha also think the one who watch entertainment is not good Any way...sorry for being long..i just need guidance regarding that..i am also follower of mahayana pureland buddhism but even pali sutta, i will still look to it Thanks

How is 'Chanda' (Intention) related to 'Tanha' (Desire) ? I often hear that Karma is determined by intention. I want to know how they are all related. What comes first? What gets abandoned in meditation and Nirvana? I know of a YouTuber who claims to have gotten Nirvana, but he said after some time he had to train himself to purposefully generate an intention to talk and explain things to other people. So did he also have a prior desire to help other people? How this three work for Enlightened people and seekers?

Do the Chinese Buddhists of all Chinese schools of Buddhism regard all people as potential Buddhas or just Buddhists? Do they believe that only the minds of Buddhists can come to enlightenment? What is the difference between their relationship to people whom they consider potential Buddhas from their relationship to ordinary people? Thanks everyone.