This question is further to my last question on Nirvana and evolution, and considering the answer ... If we believe the Buddhist cosmology to be true and Nirvana as an *evolutionary* next step, then why is it that very few people actually tread the path to it? Considering the world religious demographics only 7% of worlds population follow Buddhism and of those who call themselves Buddhists maybe just 1% actually want or strive towards Nirvana. Is intense suffering an inevitable step to begin striving towards Nirvana? If Buddhist understanding of the human condition and psychology is true, why do only a limited few humans want or strive towards Nirvana? If Buddhist cosmology is true, why do humans not en masse go on the Buddhist path?

I'm looking for some help in finding a reference. It's from a contemporary writer -- probably in the last ten years -- not from anything ancient or canonical. The context is as follows. The word “Buddha” -- i.e. the title-cased version -- is typically used to refer to *The* Buddha, *Siddartha Gautama*. Also, but less frequently, it can refer to a relatively small bunch of others, such as *Maitreya*; any of the *Saptatathāgata*; and the like. By contrast, and contrary to popular opinion (although familiar to most of us here), the lower-cased version of the word, “buddha" actually applies to anyone who has attained a particular degree of awakening. Please excuse that very imprecise definition on my part, but for the purposes of my question the operative word there is simply the “anyone”. In other words, while only a few are acknowledged as being a *Buddha*, in theory anyone can (and perhaps gazillions already have) become a *buddha*. So to my reference. The writer was offering an explanation as to the difference between the two; i.e. what distinguishes the rare, named *Buddhas* from the relatively common, (lower-cased) *buddhas*. And he (I'm pretty sure it was a dude) said that one difference was the place of the *Buddha* as a major teacher of humanity. But in fact, the writer was more emphatic than that. If I'm remembering right, he was arguing that being a teacher of extreme significance was *The* defining characteristic that distinguishes a major *Buddha* from a mere *buddha*. One more clue. I have a strong hunch that the writer was Shinzen Young, but I have not been able to track down what I'm after. And, knowing how I've encountered most of Shinzen's stuff, that might be because I heard him say it, in a video presentation, rather than read it. Is this ringing any bells to anyone? A follow-up question. I don't know the extent to which Shinzen (or whomever it was) was expounding his own theory, versus merely explaining what is a well-established view. If it sounds like it was the latter, then just as useful to me would be a reference to any reliable source, ancient and canonical would then be ideal, that makes the same point; i.e. the point that *The* key characteristic distinguishing a *buddha* from a *Buddha* is that the latter teaches the world how to become the former.

In the Lotus Sutra, (Burton Watson translation) there is often mention of "the counterfeit law" being propigated for so-and-so number of small kalpas. I will give an exerpt below, but what exactly is this referring to? I don't know if this is helpful information, but it almost always is talked of in accordance to a prophesy. >"That buddha's life span will be twenty-four small kalpas, his Correct Law will endure in the world for fourty small kalpas, and his Counterfeit Law for fourty small kalpas."

I am trying to recall the formal/traditional way of offering help to a monk for the longevity of their ordination. Being a steward doesn't seem like it's the answer I'm looking for. I have both met a family that does this for a monk with travel, etc.. and remember reading something about it in 'Stillness Flowing'. Thanks!

Are there any body who achieved Nibbana currently (in the current world). If so give one or two names, please.

I have done 4 10-day vipassana retreats as taught by Goenkaji some 4-5 years back. As of now, from readings online and reading questions and answers on this BSE website I come to understand that vipassana does not mean 'body scanning' for sensations to eradicate samkharas but the word 'vipassana' means 'insight'. But as Goenkaji teaches it in the retreats he means (if I interpreat him correctly) by vipassana as the 'body scan' technique that he teaches. Are there any suttas which explain this technique or which tell that by body scan, insight or vipassana will arise? Is the technique also taught by Buddha somewhere?

Considering the definition of dhamma as given in this answer . What does it mean by '...arising and passing away of dhamma...'in the satipatthana sutta? Also, else where I read, 'all dhamma are also anicca' i.e. impermanent. Does the Buddha here mean that 'after few centuries the Buddha dhamma will be forgotten'? In what way does impermanence apply in regard to dhamma?

I've been practising mindfulness meditation for about three weeks now. I started with ten minute sessions but soon increased it to a half hour and then either a full hour or two haf hours with a five minute break. I felt that my practise was making me more peaceful, less angry, calmer and generally happier. I would achieve what access concentration quite easily and yesterday I felt an experience that I found rather similar to the descriptions of the Buddhist first jhana. Immediately after that experience, it seemed to me like my mind had almost, and very suddenly, let go of the progress that I had made and I suddenly returned to my former angry restless self. I am again suddenly consumed by angry thoughts about a trivial event that happened many months ago. I don't feel the peace that meditation used to bring anymore and today I really struggled even to finish a half hour sitting. I don't seem to be able to release distractions or thoughts anymore and can't stay with my object of meditation. What's going on? What do I have to do to restore my mindfulness?

We are always taught to have grit, show resilience and never to give up in difficult situations. In the lights of my knowledge in Buddhism, I think of these as a manifestation of strong attachment to objects and emotions. Am I right? Should these qualities be valued? What is the Buddhist viewpoint? Thanks!

I've read that the three Theravada countries Sri Lanka, Thailand and Myanmar all three have their own version of the Tripitaka. I've also read that in 1956 they held the Sixth Buddhist convention with the goal of creating one standard edition of the Tripitaka, called the Buddha Jayanti-edition. The Dutch version of the Wikipedia page on the Pali canon claims that > The Buddha Jayanti-Edition, however, was composed by the most distinguished monks of the three main Buddhist countries and is considered the most correct version (original wiki page [here](http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali-canon#Moderne_versies) , English translation [here](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPali-canon)) I was wondering if this is true. How do they know that the Buddha Jayanti-edition is the most correct version? What exactly are the differences between the 3 Tipitaka versions and how did the monks resolve them?

From [Incubation (psychology) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubation_(psychology)) : >Incubation is one of the four proposed stages of creativity, which are preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. Incubation is defined as, when attending to a different task, humans forget about the previous unsuccessful attempts and can engage with the task anew, often leading to finding the solution. Incubation is related to intuition and insight in that it is the unconscious part of a process whereby an intuition may become validated as an insight. Incubation substantially increases the odds of solving a problem, and benefits from long incubation periods with low cognitive workloads. I see that incubation is what essentially what Buddhism would call as "enlightenment": >The experience of leaving a problem for a period of time and then finding that the difficulty evaporates on returning to the problem, or, even more striking, that the solution "comes out of the blue" when thinking about something else, is widespread. Many guides to effective thinking and problem solving advise the reader to set problems aside for a time. However, incubation seems to be directly contradict with mindfulness (be here now), as [it can be essentially summed up](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubation) as: >the process of thinking about a problem subconsciously while being involved in other activities Is my understanding correct?

Does there exist such a sutta in which a brahmin pays a visit to the Buddha at his dwelling at Jeta's Grove with the sole intent to heckle, only to be met with silence and then brought to his senses when he asks, "Why aren't you delivering your sermon? I would like to hear it." The Buddha tells him that only anger and rage are in his mind and that if he can distance himself from all the anguish, hurt, and jealousy, he will deliver a sermon to him. The brahmin sees that the Buddha saw through him and repents. This is a story from the fourth book of the Korean version of the Saṃyutta Nikāya called 별역잡아함경. From what I gather, the suttas do not correspond one-for-one with the Saṃyutta Nikāya, and for the life of me, I cannot find the above story in any English version available online. Does such a story exist in the Saṃyutta Nikāya or anywhere else in the Pāli Canon, for that matter? Or is it only in the Korean edition for some reason? If it helps, the brahmin's name is 반려(返淚), but of course it's impossible to figure out what the original Pāli name is.

Can nirvana be called as some sort of directed evolution? Can a Buddha or Arahat be considered as an evolved being as compared to the rest?

At times when even Stream Entry seems implausible let alone Nirvana how does one deal with the fear of rebirth. Rebirth would mean over again; disappointment after disappointment and after horrendous ordeal of life coming to understand the Buddhas teaching and learning everything all over again. I have dealt with the five hindrances to meditation, but this fear of failure in this life has taken its place. Its not death but rebirth that I have developed aversion towards. How do I address this? How do I get equianimous towards this idea?

Out of the three marks of existance, '**dukkha**' or '**sufferring**' and '**annicca**' or '**impermenance**' are directly understood as a day-to-day experience as well as through the intellect. However '**anatta**' or '**no-self**' is neither a normal day-to-day experience nor can it be intellectually understood. I know that in the first Jhana, '**anatta**' is a direct experience, but for those who have not yet reached the state of Jhana how can one cultivate the perception of '**anatta**' such that it helps to move towards Jhana? How can one be mindful of '**anatta**' off the cushion?

It's quite easy to see the changing behaviour of the things we see, hear and feel. 1. Appearence between a child and an old man. 2. Good smell and bad smell 3. Having a wound and not Those things are quite easy to see. But it is hard to see the changing behaviour of mind and thoughts. I'm aware of 1. I may angry now. But I will be grateful in next five minutes. (Changing thoughts). (But I'm also getting repitative thoughts) 2. I have different prespective than in my childhood. 3. Knowledge that I have is changing. 4. If cut down the body into pieces, we can not find any "I" 5. I and I in the previous life shoud be totaly different (Can see this clearly if I was an animal.) Even thoughts are changing, It feels like source of it remains unchanged. How to understand this clearly? What are the practises that I should do? What meditation practises help to understand this?

Apart from watching dhamma talks, reading dhamma books and watching dhamma related youtube videos, and apart from telling yourselves that ' there is dukkha in life and you have to free yourself from the cycle of birth and death', how can one motivate oneself by making Nirvana as the top priority of one's life? I mean how can I change the narrative of the perspective of the story of my own life and humanity at large so that Nirvana is all that remains. How to strive single pointedly towards Nirvana and make all other undertakings of day to day life as secondary?

How do the different groups/sects of Buddhism view attaining enlightenment and living a common life? In other words, do they think it is possible to be a common person and achieve enlightenment? Even for someone who has a family, friends and coworkers that aren't Buddhists?

Possibly the greatest thing in the world that makes my blood boil and my mind to become enraged in Cultural Marxist and SJW offendedness, anger and uncontrollable rage is seeing individuals drinking tea, water or anything else while giving a lecture; be it a secular lecture or dhamma talk. To see someone set up their drink glass or other drinking receptacle simply to give a 30 minute lecture then start to slurp and gulp during the lecture sets my mind on fire as my mind forms the view this is the height of rudeness to the audience and arrogance, elitism and an utter total lack of discipline and self control on behalf of the speaker. As I write this question, my mind is, right now, in this moment, spontaneously born (opapātikā) into Sīlabbata-Parāmāsa-Hell. When Bhikkhu Buddhadasa was alive and a very old man, often on the verge of death, I observed him giving dhamma talks for 90 minutes to 2 hours and he never drink anything. During one series of talks over a number days, when it was reputed his death was imminent, he occasionally lost consciousness (when the translator was speaking) and had to be woken up (and he would continue to the dhamma talk right where he left off). Anyway, after taking a breath or two to calm down, my question is, does the Vinaya forbid drinking while giving or listening to dhamma talks? For example, I recall the Vinaya says things like listeners of dhamma talks should not wear hats, etc. Thanks

Nirvana is the goal of the Buddhist path. The literal meaning of the term is "blowing out" or "quenching". Nirvana is the ultimate spiritual goal in Buddhism. What Does It Feel Like to Be in Nirvana?