what is the last orginal quote of buddha and what is the meaning of that quote ? I have read the story of Buddha that he passed away by someone posioning him

I often see this word online, especially in Sutras translated into English. Does the original Sutra written in Pali or Sanskrit mentioned it like this? The meaning of "Lord" as per wikipedia is I think quite a contradiction with Buddha: > Lord is an appellation for a person or deity who has authority, control, or power over others, acting like a master, a chief, or a ruler. In Wikipedia it mentioned that Gautama Buddha "is often called Lord Buddha". I believe it's a misconception? Compassion and Peacefulness are always the fundament of Buddhism -- if the "Lord" title can be changed to "Teacher", which is the truth and can make billions of people happy, then isn't that a good karma? The reason i am asking this is because "some" people of other religions may see this word and feel very discomforted. Compassion -> If words being changed from "Lord" to "Teacher", then many would rather practice instead worshipping. Many do not know who is Buddha, but claimed to be Buddhist like I did before. Many would go to temple to worship for more power, money, desiring higher quality of living, bigger house, etc which is contradictory with Buddhism teaching. It would make other non-Buddhists comfortable too. Post note base on comments: It sounds that base on the written statement, Buddha is *dhammassāmī* or lord of the dhamma but *bhante* "venerable sir" sound more decent or less offensive for others especially those non Buddhist (low EQ one). The first definition of wikipedia ... > "Lord is an appellation for a person or deity who has authority, control, or power over others, acting like a master, a chief, or a ruler" ... is wrong or inapplicable, because none of that wording matches, except "Buddha is a person". It contradicts with the 10 percepts of Buddhism -> Not to use false words and speech, or encourage others to do so. Wikipedia is impermanence and Buddhism is not bases on written truth -- can somebody who has higher knowledge/wisdom request them to change it? This is the first Sutra that lead me to Buddhism and it's one of the most common Sutra used in south China and South East Asia. 世尊 or bhagavā is commonly used. dhammassāmī or Lord is never been used. But 神(God in direct translation) is commonly used which lead to misconception. If you would ask me the 神(God) wording should be revised for Buddhism because the 神(God) in Buddhism is totally different from Christian/Muslim conception yet it's a very sensitive wording. http://www.drbachinese.org/online_reading_simplified/sutra_explanation/EarthStore/EarthStoreSutra.htm Let me know if I am also making any false words and speech, I am kinda learning here too.

Pardon my English .I was lucky enough to meet this man . This man is living Buddha . He is not a monk. Lives simple life. He is such a mystery. I'm in love with enlightened man. It's not recent ... it's been years and years... He never claimed that but it's absolutely obvious to me. He is extremely handsome intelligent and more , so much more. I can feel when he enters the room, there is so much heat or fire. He is shining and he makes everyone around him smile. He has big beautiful eyes they are so sharp it's like he can see through appearances . He is absolutely perfect. I think about him day and night all the time I cannot forget him. It's my attachment to pleasure or is this real love??? When i think of him i just melt. On the other hand i know he is not interested in me as a woman and will never be. And it drives me nuts. I feel stupid. What to do? I was planning to tell him that, but am so scared that i'll feel stupid. I suppose it's obvious on my face anyway. But it's been so long and the feeling gets stronger. I should move on i know it, but he is such a perfection... I have no word to describe this man . Just ''ahh''. How to let go?? or should i keep?

Following are the stages **Ajahn Brahm** mentions in his book **Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond**, to enter in to Jhana. 1. Present moment awareness 2. Silent present moment awareness 3. Silent present moment awareness on the breath 4. Fully sustained awareness on the breath 5. Fully sustained attention on beautiful breath 6. Experiencing the beautiful Nimmita 7. Jhana I am looking for sutta reference for the same. Additional question- do progression through all these stages compulsary to experiencing the Jhana? Specifically Pitisukha and Nimmitta. Can one dodge the stages and enter the meditative absorption of Jhana?

Is there a correlation between vedanta (non-dualism) and Dhamma? Are there references in the Pali-canon to vedanta?

This phrase '**I establish mindfulness in front of me**' appears many times in Suttas (https://suttacentral.net/an3.63/en/bodhi) . What does '**in front of me**' mean here. I can understand if it would have said within me as in mindful of body or breath. But its not clear to me, what '**infront of me mean**'

Buddha has encouraged the practisioners to abide in the four Brahmaviharas.(Metta, Karuna, Mudita and Upeksha) I have experience of Upeksha or Equianimity. After doing sitting meditation both Zazen and Anapana Sati my mind automatically enters into feeling of Equanimity albeit for small duration of 10-15 minutes, I feel calm and tranquil. However, when I feel Equanimity it seems like its impermenant, the mind changes after sometime. So how do I prolong this feeling of Equanimity?

I am reading Majjhima Nikaya from the translation by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. In this book, each sutta is divided into several numerical sections. Each section consists of one or a few paragraphs. Now Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in the Preface that the numerical sections were introduced by Ven. Nanamoli and are not found in the original Pali manuscripts. I wonder whether the paragraphs also are modern creations or are actually found in the Pali manuscripts. In the case of collections of verses like Dhammapada or Udana, it is easy to separate them in old palm-leaf manuscripts. But in case of prose treatises like Majjhima Nikaya or Digha Nikaya, how the paragraphs were separated traditionally?

In quite a few depictions of the Buddha in artwork, he appears androgynous. Does this represent something significant in terms of a Buddhist message or ideal, or is this just an artistic style?

In MN:44 it is said, > Visākha, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are > identity. That is: form, feeling, perception, choices, and > consciousness. The Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are > identity.” If feelings are included in identity forming aggregates why 'thoughts' and 'memories' are not included. Afterall, what I think, like, what I feel, makes my self-identity. To quote Rene Decartus, **'I think therefore I am**'. Isn't the constant chattering of mind generate a sense of self. Also, memory of things I did have a powerful effect on sense of self. So, why not included them?

Subject refers, any short good answer here with an article supports? This is for in case somebody asks me this?

It happened to me during dinner, yesterday: I wanted to move a mosquito that was in my plate and accidentally killed it :( What's the appropriate thing to do in such cases? Is there any mantra to recite in order to have some benefit for the insect? I'm asking this because I read about a mantra to be recited "in front of your shoes" so that, in case of walking on top of an animal, then it would be "less bad". But probably I'm totally wrong :) In any case, I don't think my question is a duplicate of the guy who killed a mosquito on purpose because it was suffering. I killed it because my intention was to move it from my plate, but I didn't pay much attention and did it wrongly.

I was taught that studying and practices in Buddhism should not keep a mindset that a good deed action to expect a good return of credit points to be used afterlife. Anyone has article explaining more on this. These are my personal thought why should not have such a mindset 1. Buddhism is not a bank afterlife 2. That is a trading mindset which i believe contradict or mislead the rule of thumb of Buddhism 3. Should focus on why a good deed "cause and action" and how to do it better on the good deed?

If I have zero feelings won't I be a dead robot? And how would I have love and compassion for beings without feeling?

I've created an Anki deck (still WIP, link here: https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/414202630) , drawing on the translations available here in SuttaCentral (with direct links to those pages). My thinking is that using spaced-repetition might be a helpful way for beginners and intermediate practitioners to grasp the core Dhamma teachings, based on the Early Buddhist texts and extracts (excluding Abhidhamma, later Mahayana teachings, etc., but focusing on the common core across the different traditions.) Right now, I've just included the Four Truths and the Eightfold Path. This will gradually expand to include the rest of the 37 *bodhipakyadhamma*. I've also included the Chinese Agama counterparts (but without English translation, so maybe less helpful unless one is bilingual in both English and Traditional Chinese). My questions: 1. Do you think such a tool is helpful in learning and practicing the Dhamma? 2. Appreciate if you could try out the deck, and provide any feedback for improvement please! :) With much metta, PJ

I think the conventional, mundane, truth in Tendai is the claim that karma is an illusion, for a number of reasons, such as the identity of the perfect mundane truth with the Madhyamaka ultimate truth. Zhiyi -- importantly -- quotes Nagarjuna's Middle Treatise: > All things that arise through causes and conditions, I explain as > emptiness, Again, this is a conventional designation. Again, this is > the meaning of the Middle Way. ---------- I believe that in Tendai the conventional truth is just a different means of asserting the ultimate truth, that each of the three truths are both one truth, and different > although three [phrases], they are one [in meaning]; although one, > this is three; [they are] not mutually exclusive. means of verbally falsifying reality > The three types are all empty because they are beyond verbalization > and conceptualization. The three types are all conventional because > they merely exist as [provisional] verbal [con- structs]. The three > types are all the Middle, because they are identical to the true > aspects [of reality] ---------- So I wondered if the Buddhist law of cause and effect all there is to Buddhism -- and Buddhahood and reality -- according to Tendai, yet also an illusion. > Things are neither merely nominal, nor merely real Ziporyn, 2012, 60 Inescapable, but unreal.

This is focusing in on one specific aspect of what was asked here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1854/what-are-the-three-marks-of-existence I often hear "anatta" explained as being an expression of the non-existence of the self. However, various places add an adjective first. For example, I've heard it said that anatta refers to the non-existence of a "permanent" self, or a "material" self, or a "separate" self (or some combination of those and others). It seems clear to me that it cannot mean the non-existence of a self *per se*, because such a statement -- "There is no self" -- would be auto-refuting. So exactly what is meant by anatta?

What is the source of the cycle of life/death in the scripture , Does it have references in the Pali canon? Is the cycle itself introduced with Buddhism or came from other sources?

In the Seeds Sutta (SN 22.54) , we find there are five kinds of seeds, which can grow, when they are fertile, undamaged and securely planted on the ground with water to nourish them. Water is delight and lust, or in another translation, relishing and greed. Earth refers to the four stations of consciousness, or in another translation, four standing-spots of consciousness, i.e. form, feeling, perception and volitional formations. But what are the five kinds of seeds? This translation of the sutta says "Consciousness together with its nutriment should be seen as like the five kinds of seeds." What is consciousness together with its nutriment, that forms five kinds of seeds? What five? In other suttas (e.g. MN 148 ), there are six kinds of consciousness - related to the six senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind or intellect). But what are the five in this sutta formed by consciousness and its nutriment? And what is the nutriment for consciousness? In another translation, this is fuel.

Is the Mind [essentially] bound to ignorance "not-knowing" or free? If it is bound, then its essential nature of "non-knowing" cannot depart, and, therefore, liberation is not [possible, or] if the essential nature departed, the mind would cease to be a Mind, i,e. it can no longer not-know. If it is free, the meditation and other means enjoined for the sake of liberation are of no use.