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?

I'm new to the concept of Buddhism, and am failing to understand perhaps something very basic. I understand that one is not expected to hold anything close or dear as it is impermanent and could change at any moment so how does one love another person? How does one become close to another person. As I understand it, a relationship would just consist of two people who aren't _that_ close to one another. "Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful" - this seems to suggest that you should build a wall around yourself and separate yourself from potentially wonderful feelings just because they could cause pain, and pain is bad. I think pain is a part of life; denying that pain, or ignoring it is not part of a healthy life. I think of this concept of Buddhism similar to "don't smell the flowers because you may prick yourself on a thorn" thus denying yourself of the delights found in the smell and also the growth / knowledge from the pain of the thorn prick. Both of which you can learn and grow from. Am I missing something here?

I've been wondering if it's possible to "progress" towards enlightenment if one has certain set of beliefs which may (or may not) be false (or illogical), but which do not generate conflict between expectations and experience. If we understand dukkha as the result of a dissonance between worldview and experience, one could a priori think that unfalsifiable theories may not generate such dissonances (and therefore, may not contribute to the perpetuation of the conditions of dukkha), because there's no experience that can disprove such notions. For example, if one says that "our true self is formless, without comprehensible features", how could this view be a hindrance in the path? After all, that belief does not seem to necessarily contradicts the essence of anattā, because no khandha can be considered that alleged "true self", and so, non-attachment to khandhas may also be the path to attain that "true self". Being more general: can someone attain Nibbana while still holding some false notions about self or reality? Kind regards!

The precept, > Uccasayana mahasayana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami in eight precepts suggests that one should abstain from high and luxurious beds and seats. How should one define which bed or seat is not high and which one is not luxurious? Can this precept be practiced at home?

The fifth precept most directly guides us to abstain from alcohol. Coffee is a stimulant and probably so is tea. Drinking either beverage affects our mental calm and makes us behave in ways that we would not do so without having drunk it. In this sense, drinking coffee and tea is not that different from drinking alcohol. Does drinking coffee or tea is considered against the fifth precept? In Asia, many people, including monks, drink tea. Does this indicate that drinking tea is at least not against the fifth precept?

In the Majjhima Nikaya, there are mentions of Bodhisattvas. For instance, *Bhayabherava Sutta* (4. Fear and Dread) says: > 3. "Before my enlightenment, while I was still ony an unenlightened Bodhisatta..." It is a sentence that is repeated throughout the MN. The *Acchariya-abbhuta Sutta* (123. Wonderful and Marvellous) also says: > "Mindfull and fully aware, Ananda, the Bodhisatta appeared in the Tusita heaven."
I have two questions: 1. Are there Bodhisattva practices in Theravada? (such as the cultivation of Bodhicitta and the six perfections presented in Mahayana traditions) 2. Since we find occurrences in the Pali Canon, why do we often hear that the notion of bodhisattva is a late notion?

Theravada monks are supposed to eat only one or two meals per day, only between dawn and noon. For the rest of the day, they can drink water or fruit juices. The exception to this rule is if they are temporarily ill. But what about monks who have Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) or other chronic diseases, who may need to eat regularly every 4 hours or so, till usual dinner time? Furthermore, people with GERD may not be able to consume acidic drinks (e.g. citrus fruit juices and tomato juice), especially on an empty stomach. Also, consider that according to this article , up to 28% of Americans and up to 26% of Europeans, may be suffering from GERD. So, theoretically, this could affect 1 out of 4 monks. How do they cope with this condition? Are they permanently exempted from this rule?

My question is mainly to monks and nuns in this group, but I welcome answers from others as well. If one were to give up eating solid food after the midday, as instructed by the Buddha to his Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni, what practical advice would you give such a person in order to avoid getting gastritis and stomach ulcers?

This is a questions that often comes up when I visit study groups, particularly when the subject of everyone practicing like a monk/nun comes up. Wouldn't monastics be allowed to farm-just enough for sustenance? It seems extreme that they would just starve because no one fed them. My understanding was that the food offering was mostly established for the lay people to have an opportunity to give and gain merit, but I may be wrong. Is there a canonical reference saying monastics can only eat if given food? What did they do before the order was fully established? What about forest monastics who go of for extended periods alone?

I originally wondered whether the Mahayana shunyata (emptiness) is same as the Theravada sankhara (conditioned and compounded phenomena). The problem here is that Mahayana shunyata says even Nibbana is empty, but Theravada's sankhara does not include Nibbana. So, this does not match. But after a lot of discussion here, I find that the Mahayana shunyata (emptiness) could be equivalent to the Theravada papanca (objectification-classification or reification), as found in MN 18 and Sutta Nipata 4.14 . And Sutta Nipata 4.14 states that the root of papanca is "I am the thinker". I could say that all papanca is empty of essence or substance. How somebody (who is not an ariya) imagines Nibbana to be, is the papanca of it in his mind. In that sense, the papanca of Nibbana is empty of essence or substance. How somebody (who is not an ariya) imagines a chair to be, is the papanca of it in his mind. In that sense, the papanca of a chair is empty of essence or substance. Even the papanca of papanca itself is empty of essence or substance. This corresponds to Mahayana shunyata's emptiness of emptiness. So, does it make sense to say that the Mahayana shunyata is same as the Theravada papanca? Thanissaro Bhikkhu's explanation of papañca in MN 18 : > **Translating papañca:** As one writer has noted, the word papañca has had > a wide variety of meanings in Indian thought, with only one constant: > in Buddhist philosophical discourse it carries negative connotations, > usually of falsification and distortion. The word itself is derived > from a root that means diffuseness, spreading, proliferating. The Pali > Commentaries define papañca as covering three types of thought: > craving, conceit, and views. They also note that it functions to slow > the mind down in its escape from samsara. Because its categories begin > with the objectifying thought, "I am the thinker," I have chosen to > render the word as "objectification," although some of the following > alternatives might be acceptable as well: self-reflexive thinking, > reification, proliferation, complication, elaboration, distortion. The > word offers some interesting parallels to the postmodern notion of > logocentric thinking, but it's important to note that the Buddha's > program of deconstructing this process differs sharply from that of > postmodern thought. From Sutta Nipata 4.14 : > "I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer, > about seclusion & the state of peace. > Seeing in what way is a monk unbound, > clinging to nothing in the world?" > "He should put an entire stop > to the root of objectification-classifications (papañca ): > 'I am the thinker.' > > **Commentary (Thanissaro):** > On objectification-classifications and their > role in leading to conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to > MN 18 . The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the root of > these classifications in that it reads into the immediate present a > set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being; thinker/thought; > identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate into mental and > physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this perception thus forms > a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one must learn to examine > these distinctions — which we all take for granted — to see that they > are simply assumptions that are not inherent in experience, and that > we would be better off to be able to drop them.

I am a software engineer. Is it shameful if I became a monk throwing away all the knowledge that I have accumulated all these years(more than a decade). In my previous years, I was amused by programming. But now, I have become dispassioned with everything about my work. I see my accumulation of ideas / knowledge as useless. I am extremely confused.

I want to quote my experience as - "True Understanding brings effortless transformation". In my experience I have found that whenever I understand something deeply (ohhh! Moment) it transforms that part of my behavior and thinking completely. If I don't understand something I am in a constant state of confusion and suffering. So my question is how I can penetrate deep into any topic to understand it profoundly? Does Buddha share any such techniques to sharpen my thinking abilities?

I was wondering what main stream Buddhism think of Jesus, was he a buddha? Can anyone tell me where Jesus fits into Buddhism?

I am particularly interested in the relation between Wishlessness and Love. As far as I understand Wishlessness means that there is no suffering or ignorance as such. I'm mainly guiding myself by this quote https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6rrbl8/any_commentaries_on_the_three_doors_of_liberation/dl7h0e1/ I feel like I get it, like there are no individuals existing as such, there is no suffering as such, but there is still (metta/compassion) the inclination to reducing suffering. But I feel like my words are not very precise. Even contradictory.

Is 'impermanence' skillful means? Wikipedia's [definition of "Skillful means"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya) says: > The implication [of skillful means] is that even if a technique, view, etc., is not ultimately "true" in the highest sense, it may still be an expedient practice to perform or view to hold; i.e., it may bring the practitioner closer to the true realization in a similar way. And of [Impermanance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence) : > The doctrine asserts that all of conditioned existence, without > exception, is "transient, evanescent, inconstant". All temporal > things, whether material or mental, are compounded objects in a > continuous change of condition, subject to decline and destruction. I think that, for some Mahayana schools, everything is skillful means. So is the doctrine of impermanence "skillful means" too? I am looking for an answer which: - Says yes or no (and explains why) - References a sastra or sutra (if there is one) which claims or implies this answer - Preferably, also, explains what (if any) bearing that may have to understanding any other doctrine: such as anatta; voidness; or the buddha-nature.

I have been inquiring about the teachings including translations of scriptures with regards to 'Awareness that knows' here , here , here .. Specifically, in reference to the explanations given by most of the forest tradition, Ajahn's from Thailand and Translations by "Thanissaro Bhikkhu" who is also from the same tradition and has translated the bulk of pali cannon... It seems to me that the illustrations given by the forest tradition have a somewhat distinctive view about this, for example, In this talk Ajan Amaro said Liberation is possible because of the transcendent quality of awareness beyond the Five Skandhas. He said ...That which knows the five Skandhas is not intrinsically tied to the Five Skandhas. that which knows is not part of the five Skandhas / i.e. the five aggregates or heaps: *form (or material image, impression) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana).* Could you please expound or explain further, how is this Awareness lokuttara and beyond the Skandhas? Many thanks

What are the contain of the mind?Are emotions being mind contain or they are from of mind energy?how does mind differ from each other?how person being act differently.?

While I do have a personal and intimate belief in reincarnation, I really struggle with the Buddhist belief that we have innumerably many past lives. A monk I listened to explained that all the beings we meet everyday were once our parents in a specific past life, as well as our enemies. Honestly, i find this perspective quite hard to believe. It seems to me that if had so many past lives, we should have reached wisdom and Buddhahood at some point already. How (according to Buddhism) is it possible to have such an accumulation of experience, without reaching some degree of wisdom or enlightenment?

Has anyone ever in the history of Buddhism claimed that the phenomenal aspect of the storehouse consciousness is also permanent? I'm not asking if it's impermanent, but if it is also permanent. Usually the absolute aspect of the storehouse consciousness is said to be permanent > The revelation of the true meaning of the principle of Mahayana can be achieved by unfolding the doctrine that the principle of One Mind has two aspects. One is the aspect of Mind in terms of the Absolute (tathata; Suchness), and the other is the aspect of Mind in terms of phenomena (samsara; birth and death). Each of these two aspects embraces all states of existence. Why? Because these two aspects are mutually inclusive... Since it has been made clear that the essence of all things is empty, i.e., devoid of illusions, the true Mind is eternal, permanent, immutable, pure, and self-sufficient; therefore, it is called "nonempty" I hope so, and the storehouse consciousness of ordinary people also -- because I cannot see a reasonable way to believe it is just impermanent.

For purposes of this question I define “uncertainty” as a willingness to entertain doubt or acknowledge incomplete knowledge with regards to the truth of the matter about what one knows of a particular question of subject. And I define “the truth of the matter” as an objective fact about some aspect of reality which is independent of observer or context and is not contingent in any way. For a long while I have regarded myself as unusually capable or comfortable with uncertainty. Having a general willingness to see the gray in every question and to acknowledge my own incomplete knowledge. To see and entertain the viewpoints of others and to grant that my own viewpoint is not certain. A general comfortability with complexity that is above average. And this is something I prided myself in thinking of as beneficial. However, I recently realized that a lot of what I define as “uncertainty” presupposes an objective fact of the matter that is not contingent. And that it handcuffs me at times in that I can be of two, three, or more minds about something and unsure of the proper course to take. Moreover, it occurred to me that this is not compatible with the doctrine of emptiness which I understand quite clearly as saying that for every conception that I have... it is not undergirded by a genuine non-contingent fact of the matter. So with that... Is uncertainty as defined above incompatible with emptiness? If so, how? If so, what repercussions can be seen as occurring with this misunderstanding? What is an appropriate definition of uncertainty or one that is compatible with emptiness or how things really exist? If not, why not? Where is the error in my thinking? A question that might be related, but different is https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/35766/is-lack-of-doubt-a-form-of-self-cherishing