**QN 1:** What is connection between _thoughts_ and _habits_? **QN 2:** We (as a lay practitioner) are aware of our few habits like smoking but not all. _Example: Morning tea habit (feeling to have tea). Similarly checking mobile time to time, watching TV, doing prayers and other religious habits._ I was not aware of these habits from many years but now I'm aware of it. **Main QN:** Why is our mind always making new habits and gets trapped in habits? >Note: To clarify this question as it has been edited, you can check the original question asked by the user.

So according to Buddhism , the gods realm is part of the cycle of existence. What are the references of this , according to all buddhists canons?

In the introduction to Thich Nhat Hanh's Zen Keys, Philip Kapleau suggests there are times when one can or must rebel. > ... In this type of creativity ow intuitive wisdom and joy are naturally brought into play. > All this does not mean, of course, that attempts at bettering working conditions and making work more meaningful, such as we are witnessing today as a reaction against robot-like mechanization of the workplace, are worthless. But for a worker constantly to resent his work or his supeliors, for him to become sloppy and slothful in his working habits, for him to become embittered toward life-these attitudes do most harm to the worker himself and serve little to change his working conditions. When it's time to work one works, nothing held back; when it's time to make changes one makes changes; **when it's time to revolt one even revolts**. In Zen everything is in the doing, not in the contemplating. He doesn't elaborate. I found the line surprising. But Buddhists fight in Myanmar. Is it ever necessary to deviate from non violence?

There are two sentences found in Tripitaka. Do they mean, "the Divine one come to teach on earth"? Please forgive me, but it very close to Jesus's savings. As Jesus says, "I'm son of Lord, come for you, through his wish, to guide you to my Father"! These translations of mine is like this. I am native to language close to pali? 1. > tathāgato loke uppajjati arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathī satthā devamanussānaṃ buddho bhagavā. > [AN 4.160](https://suttacentral.net/an4.160/pli/ms) My translation: The Highly teacher appears on this world, the prefect holy, the one with Mighty Lord, perfect in wisdom and pure conduct,leading men to safe land, the charioteer of men and god to saddhamma from time immemorial, the Buddha, the Lord of cessation! 2. > Ye dhammā hetuppabhavā, Tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āha; > [Mahākhandhaka](https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd1/pli/ms) My translation: The causes which exist for suffering (birth, decay,old age, death,unwanted thing, separation of dear ones), to eliminate it, He have come! Please forgive me Masters here. But that question haunts me everyday! Also my intention isn't to oppose to Buddhist teachings as I think it's a best religion exist on earth ever! Pardon me!

I appreciate that various aspects of Nagarjuna's teachings are rejected by Theravadans but I'm wondering where the line is drawn. For some of his teachings I can see room for scepticism, but what about his central argument? Four questions... In his *Fundamental Verses* Nagarjuna demonstrates the absurdity of positive or extreme metaphysical positions. Do Theravadans accept this proof as valid and sound? Do they accept its result, which is the logical absurdity of extreme views? If they do accept this logical result, do they also accept the falsity of such views? If they do not accept N's argument, on what grounds do they not do so? EDIT: Perhaps I should have asked just this. Is it possible to endorse the logical result of Nagarjuna's argument in *Fundamental Wisdom* and remain a Theravadan?

According to this article by Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero: > Majjhima Nikaya 55 ..... The Buddha denied this, adding “Jivaka, I > say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: > when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been > specifically slaughtered for oneself) … I say that there are three > instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, heard, or > suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for > oneself).” And another quote from the same source: > Anguttara Nikaya 8.12 ..... This is one of the discourses which clearly > shows that the Buddha and his monks ate meat. Also, we see that meat > from an animal that is already dead when it is purchased is allowed to > be used, but not if the animal is alive. In summary from the above and various sources: - It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals - It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat - It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you - It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (already dead before you arrived at the market) My thought is that although the last case is not wrong due to an individual not being the direct cause of the killing of the specific animal, the individual is still contributing to the general demand that drives the meat market i.e. encouraging the supply of meat by butchers. If there is no demand, then there would be no supply. Unlike a tiger killing its prey, a butcher only slaughters the animal if there would be purchasers who would buy its meat. So, why is this not considered wrong by Buddhists? EDIT: Preferably, according to the Theravada tradition.

Consider the following situation *There are two people. One of them is enlightened. Other one is not. If I gave something to them equally without knowing anything about them, Are there any deference on that action?* Until today, I thought it depends only on giver's mind. But recently I heard it depend on the reciever's mind also. Ex: It is greater karma if the arms recieved immediately after end of a samadhi. If this is true, 1. Are there any other variables that Karma depend on ? (Other than giver's mind and reciever's mind) 2. Why did Lord Buddha preach "*Karma is the thought*" ? This is not only appiled to arms giving. Ex: Blaming an enlightened one vs non-enlightened one. Kind regards.

If I think of the *Noble Eightfold Path* for example, or even the *Abhidhamma* traditions, I feel mental factors are clearly *related,* but noted as separate. In sum, my question mainly is: **What conditions cause mental factors/qualities to aggregate, i.e. lead to the development of others, and what conditions cause them to remain separate? Is there a unique condition (e.g. a mental factor) that unites others in the mind?** In non-Buddhist sources, strong *pleasure* as in addiction seems to channel the mind towards doing but one thing, to exclude in a way causing shame. But positive emotions such as *joy* tend to broaden one's perspective and capacity of action. A researcher on this says : > But as the sun rises in the sky, things begin to change. Your blinders > around your face begin to open and your world quite literally expands. > You can see more. Your world is larger. > > Just as the warmth of sunlight opens flowers, the warmth of positivity > opens our minds and hearts. It changes our visual perspective at a > really basic level, along with our ability to see our common humanity > with others. **Can this be related to this question?** Thank you

**Thero, Bhadanta, and Venerable..** are words for addressing the old monks, abbots in pagodas and/or temples. I really do not know how they are ranked in Buddhist Sangha. Which title is the highest... and what else?

Recently, I found out there is a new branch of Buddhism called the *Navayana*. I read the article on Wikipedia but it did not say too much. What is *Navayana Buddhism* and what type of practices does it follow like meditations, sutras, or tantras? How does a *Navayana Buddhist* relate to Buddhist of different schools?

I remember reading about the characteristics of the or a Buddha, and one of them was “a Buddha is always focused on voidness.” Sadly I did not save the website and don’t remember where this was written. Now to the question. What are the mental characteristics of a Buddha? Can you give me a list? I don’t mean the nine qualities. It is a different list, a less common one. It should include the point I mentioned and be of mahayana origin.

Has Lord Buddha preached that we shouldn't believe our own minds? If he did, what is the meaning of that saying? **Update:** Are there any meaning other than *ignorence*, *Ilusion* ? Like Uncertainty of mind, changing mind ?

I am comparing translations to see how the Sinhala would work, and, granted I am using Google Translate on the Sinhala version, I would at least expect it to be generally somewhat reflective of what is being said. But it doesn't say what I am looking for. I am looking for this quote [here](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.3.04.than.html) or [here](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.14.01.than.html) : As a mountain of rock is unwavering, well-settled, so a monk whose delusion is ended doesn't quiver — just like a mountain. However what I find in the Sinhala version [here](https://www.thripitakaya.org/tipitakaya/Index/653?s=21249) or [here](https://www.thripitakaya.org/tipitakaya/Index/828?s=22245) is this: > "Just as a gal can stand steady, so the brain will not be a sin in the mind." Or > The stanza is so immovable that it does not become immovable. I am just picking pieces that appear close in the same area of text. Does one know if these translations in Sinhala are accurate? (And that it's just a _major_ Google translate issue). Does that quote exist somewhere in the Sinhala? I am trying to make do snippets of translation myself and am looking for a good example of interesting quotes. If one could paste the quote in Sinhala that would be amazing. Or is this just an example of a translator taking "poetic expression" to the extreme, and they just took a general quote like "යම්සේ ගල්පව්වෙක් අචල වැ මොනොවට පිහිටියේ ද, එසේ ම මහණ තෙම මොහය ක්ෂීණ වීමෙන් පව්වක් මෙන් ‍නො සැලේ.", which Google translates as "Even if a galvanist is immobile, the loss of his brain will not be a sin.", and they just made up a poetic metaphor to translate it into English?

I wonder what people, groups and projects one can support? Both monastic and lay fields are on topic.

The Raft Simile says, in part: > I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas. [[MN 22](https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html)] Why did Buddha use the 'Raft Simile'?

Does stock trading count as pursuing gain with gain mentioned as wrong view in MN117 ? Sure active stock trading is very destructive, especially nowadays it's like trading the weather, but does it count as pursuing gain with gain even for passive stock traders? Thanks a mil

Can someone guide me? Whenever I try to concentrate on Samma Ditthi, some obstacle generate within this body? It's like mirage of something real! Its like a whirlpool of mass of atoms. Help me!

having studied Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, I've seen that the differences between the two are almost non-existent. This video does a good job at fleshing out the Vedanta and Buddhist perspective and he himself seemingly states that the differences between the two are trivial at best. I'd be interested to hear some input from those more familiar with Buddhism.

I take it that an important claim of secular Buddhism is that the Buddha never actually taught literal rebirth. What happens during parinibbāna according to secular Buddhism? How is it different from any other death? If there is no difference, how do secular Buddhists explain the very existence of this term? Can any death be called parinibbāna?

I read the following on the internet: > I think your saying that "Nagarjuna that purports there are no things" > was an oversimplification or misrepresentation -- conversely the quote > or summary above isn't far from what you find in the suttas, e.g. the > Foam sutta (SN 22.95). It's kind of tangential to your answer, but > since you wrote "Nagarjuna purports there are no things" I thought > that was worth clarifying. – > > No I meant that Wikipedia's summary of Nagarjuna's seemed to me > similar to the doctrine of the Foam sutta. I doubt whether anyone > believes "there are no things" which is why I thought that phrase of > yours (i.e. "Nagarjuna that purports there are no things") was > mis-stating Nagarjuna's doctrine. Does the Foam Sutta (SN 22.95) say there are "no things" or, otherwise, discuss emptiness similar to Nagarjuna?