Continuing to try to understand Dependent Origination from my own reading of the suttas as well trying to grok the understanding of other skilled practitioners and I've come across an interesting debate. The second nidana of D.O. is commonly translated as 'volitional factors' or 'choices' as seen by this translation of SN 12.2: > And what are choices? There are three kinds of choices. Choices by way > of body, speech, and mind. These are called choices. However, I've detected that maybe not all skilled practitioners on this forum agree that this is an accurate translation? It has been suggested that the best means of figuring this out - as the Buddha instructed! - is to put it to empirical test in personal meditation practice. Marvelous suggestion and I'm hoping to conduct just such an experiment! However, I want to nail down the *actual disagreement* if there is one - I'm still not entirely sure there is - and to figure out how to setup the experiment to reveal the truth. First, I've seen alternative translations on this site which omit the *'volitional'* or *'choices'* connotation and use the alternative 'accumulated tendencies' to describe the Saṅkhāra. Is it agreed by Theravada that this is the proper translation? How about by Mahayana? I've found support for the proposition that not all Saṅkhāra is intentional from SN 12.38: > If you **don’t intend or plan, but still have underlying tendencies,** > this becomes a support for the continuation of consciousness. When > this support exists, consciousness becomes established. When > consciousness is established and grows, there is rebirth into a new > state of existence in the future. When there is rebirth into a new > state of existence in the future, future rebirth, old age, and death > come to be, as do sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. > That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. Second, what is the proper translation? ... assuming there is disagreement that 'accumulated tendencies' is the proper translation - even though it omits the connotation of choice. Could it simply be 'actions resulting from ignorance?' Third, is it proper to think of the labored breathing that comes from the arising of disturbing emotions as Saṅkhāra? It does seem to me to be non-volitional... Is this right? Fourth, is it an accumulated tendency? Perhaps some Saṅkhāra are accumulated habits that may involve some measure of choice and some are simply non-volitional and have nothing to do with 'accumulation' per se? The labored breathing or change in breathing that comes involuntarily from the arising of disturbing emotions... the fact of it itself does not seem to me to be accumulated? Perhaps the 'accumulation' refers to some aspect of it - the extent or intensity - that could very well be accumulated? Like some people might have a very slight ripple while others - because of accumulated tendencies - might hyperventilate? Fifth, it's been suggested that when one attains a certain proficiency in meditation the true definition of Saṅkhāra can be seen, but what level of proficiency is necessary to reveal the truth and in what form of meditation? What is the minimum level of competence necessary to verify this and the kind of type of meditation necessary? Visualizing the experiment... I imagine one must be able to calm the mind to a sufficient degree that one can witness the waves generated when a disturbing emotion arises in much the same way we are easily be able to notice the waves generated when a rock hits a still pond. The waves would be the Saṅkhāra (some action of breath or speech or mind?) and the question would be whether there was choice involved or if any aspect of the wave was a characteristic reinforced through accumulation? Help or ideas appreciated!

One may know, recognize or have ideas about the "fist [proper kind/season of giving](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.036.than_en.html) " which leads to a better and is trained by those devoted to the Gems, and probably like to share such. How can "giving to one arriving (new)" be very practical and in many situations be done? Mental, verbal (signs) and physical? At which point it might leave it's good and lead to increase bonds and debts? Feel invited to share for theoretical up to very self investigated ways of merits around it. *(Note: this question is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment here, but as a tiny door into another direction)*

I'm not very experienced in Buddhism but while reading some articles and few books about it I wonder about one key thing.. If I am not mistaken, the compassion with other species is one of the key pillar of Buddhism. It teaches us that everything is relative and feeling the compassion with others can help us from the anger and so on (perhaps it's very vague claim and I know there's much more to add but to keep this question brief..) I really do like the idea however **I'm "lost" when it comes to confrontation with laws of nature**. Biologically, the human is just an animal. Everyone is trying to survive. The stronger eats weaker (we see it in nature every day and every second - tigers, sharks..everyone just hunts for weaker in order to feed itself and survive). I mean - where is the compassion here? When I look around and think of the nature I can't help my self but - it's brutal. For example, what about an elephant stepping over the mouse without even realizing it just killed the poor mouse? Or bird mommy flying out of the nest to find some food for the young ones and getting caught by cat? The young birds will die brutally by hunger..and nature has millions such examples every day. Technically, the mouse will die because it wasn't strong/fast enough to escape. The same for those birds. That's how nature gets rid of the weaker ones. It's brutal. The morality and ethics teaches us to value the life while in fact the nature seems to possess no value for life. These days, we, the humans can simply call a pizza service and feed ourself. It is the science and technology allowing us to survive the harsh conditions. The development of our civilization. But the core is the same - the struggle for survival where the compassion doesn't really help much. How can I possess a compassion to someone who tries to kill/eat me? Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this question doesn't have any sense. But still - I'd like to ask you - does the Buddhism say anything on this topic?

I have noticed that while watching TV or trying to do work, my mind keeps getting caught up in the feeling of my breath, or the random noises around me. These are the exact things that I notice while meditating, and while meditating I allow myself to notice those things and observe myself noticing them. But, when I want to read a book I am finding that I am now noticing those things instead of reading the book, like I am going back to meditating without meaning to. I’m having a hard time getting into a flow state at work or while doing something enjoyable. It’s bothering me. I don’t want to stop meditating, but if this keeps happening then I will have to stop.

Is there a scientific consensus on meditation? I've seen it said that different parts of the brain are activated during meditation. Is that true for all experienced meditators, all forms of meditation, etc.? It has to do *something*, was originally my take on Buddhism -- at the time merely because it has historically *thrived*: it being pretty obvious that whatever it did was a 'good' thing.

Simple question: Is the Noble Eightfold Path a path of celibacy? *[Note that this isn't given for Sex, stacks, trade, exchange but for escape from this wheel]*

I was reading about Buddhism in Wiki and I just am not able to make out if celibacy is a must for Buddhists?

Most if not all Buddhists I know are vegetarian or vegan. Thinking about the precepts this is not surprising - one should abstain from killing. However is this universally true in all Buddhist traditions? Are there some Buddhist traditions that emphasize vegetarianism more than others? For instance I believe the Tibetans were originally pastoral farmers which wouldn't lend itself to vegetarianism naturally. So is Buddhist vegetarianism universal, specific to tradition or culture, or a lot more flexible than that?

The first precept goes something similar to > I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing. Now, I understand that, for instance, eating meat is allowed, but what about, for instance, killing vermin which might damage food or cause disease (such as mosquitos in places where malaria is common)? Is killing justifiable then?

An extension of this question posted earlier: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10465/how-not-to-kill-the-mouse-in-my-house Where does one draw the line for which forms of life are ok to destroy, and which ones are not? Is it just a calculation of causing the least suffering? A human has a more complex nervous system than a worm, so to reduce his suffering is paramount? I can think of many ways to spin the issue so that the human must allow himself to die, and ways to spin it so that killing living creatures is acceptable. Are there some general guidelines?

The answer to this question seems to depend on what school one talks about. So my question is about Mahayana Buddhism, more specifically Tibetan Madhyamaka Buddhist schools. I kind of wonder where the line is drawn between beings that are sentient and beings that are not. How about f.ex. corals, algae, amoeba, crill and living creatures like that. As far as I can understand (which is probably not very far) this has got to do with whether the being has consciousness/mind or not. Is that so? Maybe the question should be "what does it mean to say that a being is conscious or has a mind? Is there a generally accepted definition of what a sentient being is? Anywhere in the suttas the Buddha is talking about this?

And to whom does it arise? Also know as the Smile of the Arahant (hard to look On google) Asking for a friend. Pass this on wont you?

Is it true that sakadagami can have sex that is pure so between a wife and husband. how can one gain the attention of a wise man who intends to marry and upholds The Way of Noble Ones.

I use the definition of Three Doors posted here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6rrbl8/any_commentaries_on_the_three_doors_of_liberation/dl7h0e1/ To me, it looks like there is a connection: * Desire for existence in the realm of form * Desire for existence in the immaterial realms They are about the tension between being and non-being. In other words, existence or non existence of the self, and that pretty much is **Emptiness** of the self. * Conceit The conceit "I am... (this or that)". This looks related to **Signlessness** (there are no inherent attributes). * Restlessness Seems related to **Wishlessness**. * Ignorance This kind of encompasses everything. Of course, the Three Doors are related to the Three Characteristics too. * Emptiness -> no-self. * Signlessness -> impermanence. * Wishlessness -> unsatisfactoriness. I am understanding the fetters wrong and making up the relation or does this makes sense? I'm trying to understand them as good as I can.

I heard that Theravada presupposes HH Dalai Lama is not even reached initial bodhisattva enlightenment and that His existence is mocked. Is it not so?

In the same way that Mahayana is an afterthought. Does it matter that something comes second not first does that make it less valid? Chicken or the egg? Asking for a friend

And to whom does it arise? As spoken about by Dr. Berzin? Listen to Seven Point Mind Training by Study Buddhism on #SoundCloud https://soundcloud.com/studybuddhism/7-point-mind-training

I will try to fit that in a question so it will make sense in this forum: What are the resources a Buddhist can use during very hard times? Currently I'm working 12h a day under a lot of pressure, everybody is so stressed out, on their limits, that it is easy to see all kinds of bad things: Anger, gossip, divisible speech, blame game, fears... we are living a serious economic crisis and no one wants to lose their jobs, people are terrified, this is the background. Despite the hard times and the very long and stressful hours at work (that are killing my meditation practice) I'm trying, with not much success, to avoid bad kamma and protect my mind from this crazy situation, hoping it will pass next year. The problem is: I recognize I'm losing the battle, I'm being dragged by these things around me. So, what Buddhist tools can I use, assuming I will not have time for a decent meditation, assuming also the environment will not change and I cannot quit the job. Any advice?

This may seem like a question that is far too modern for an ancient tradition, but when I traveled in Thailand I learned that katoeys (male-to-female) are a legal gender in Thailand. What does Buddhism say about the folks who experience discomfort or distress because there is a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity? As it becomes less dangerous for transgender folks to change, I am finding out that several of my friends are transgender and I would like to know what Buddhism offers them.

I know that in the early days of Buddhism, it was for men only. To practice, you had to be a monk, and to be a monk, you had to be a man. Perhaps this reflects the attitudes of the time, but today, my experience of Buddhism has been as something that welcomes men and women equally, even when that's still in a segregated way. Historically, when did this change come about, and what first triggered it?