>You, the richest person in the world, have been laboring and struggling endlessly, not understanding that you already possess all that you seek. I saw this quote on Instagram and the caption accompanying this quote says it's from the Lotus Sutra. However, I couldn't find any analysis of it online. I had interpreted it as the person in question not knowing that he had already achieved nirvana, and is laboring and struggling endlessly to achieve it, but that didn't sit right with me. I also thought that it might've meant that he was working towards material goals, despite having all he needed to find happiness, but that seemed very hedonistic and contrary to Buddhist views to me. What does this quote mean?

When a person trains a muscle, there is a necessary recovery from training before one can train again. I'm wondering **if there's such a thing with meditation sessions?** If so, how much time between sessions is necessary or even desirable? Are there guidelines in Buddhism about the length of pauses to take and the amount of sessions possible in a day?

I apologize if this has an answer on this site or if this does not make any sense. I am wondering if being conscious alone is enough to attain nibbana? If not, why? I think conscious person will (always?) act in a way that will not cause sorrow to themselves (and others?). I just thought someone who is fully aware of their thoughts and actions will only work towards a joyful life. If someone does anything that leads to sorrow, I think it's only due to lack of consciousness of it's consequences. However, I am not sure if being conscious alone is enough to develop the wisdom required to attain nibbana. Can someone consciously do unwholesome deeds? I would like to clear this up. Any help is appreciated.

I have been practising tibetan buddhism for the past seven years and I am losing faith now and it hurts. I don't know what to do. Can someone advise?

I've been looking for a reference for the story of the conflict between Kosalan king Vidubhara and the Sakyans, that the Buddha tried to stop. There are several versions of this on the web, but none of them give any references. Is it canonical? Whether it's canonical or not, where does it come from?

Yesterday I spent some time studying one of the Vinayas and, completely honestly, I couldn't help but think that some of the rules were shockingly superstitious even by the standards of most of the world religions of the time. For example, rules that emphasize non-violence to such an extent that they forbid monks and nuns from slicing or peeling their own fruits and vegetables. The food, completely vegetarian, must be "slaughtered" by a lay donor before the monks are allowed to break it or bite it. I couldn't help but think that such rules actually harm the Sangha by preventing them from operating in present-day capitalistic societies, where self-sufficiency is highly respected and prized. (And, potentially unsanitary? Modern churches, by contrast, issue each congregant a separate cup and communion wafer, even though the disciples shared a single loaf and chalice.) Other parts of the vinaya were surprisingly in-tune with modern sensibilities of social justice and "Twitter feminism", such as the rule forbidding monks from teaching nuns without being first asked. #DontMansplainDharmma Or the rule that a monk must first ask permission of another monk (trigger warning) before reminding him or politely asking him about a possible rule violation. It made me wonder if there are modern monks and monastic orders that explicitly (and unapologetically) reject the obsolete parts of the vinaya while conscientiously obeying the beneficial parts. Granted, which parts are obsolete is open to interpretation. And secondly, I am aware that the text of the vinaya forbids monks from criticizing vinaya or requesting changes to it, especially for the cause of expediency or attracting new followers. The Buddha himself authored vinaya and expected it to be followed. Is it permissible for a Buddhist lay follower, one who has taken refuge and has chosen to follow the Eightfold Path without picking and choosing, to discuss certain aspects of the vinaya in a skeptical light, as I have just done? Or to describe certain texts as mythological or historical disciples as impure? I have not taken refuge in the Three Jewels and will not unless I can do so in total sincerity and a pure conscience.

When I practice *Anapana meditation*,I often get a feel that I tried to alter my breathing instead of observing natural breathing.So,how can I observe natural breath?What are the best tips for this?

The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism By Bernard Faure p60 (I've not read this book) links it to linji ("the true man without affairs") Wiki says > In his later years Dōgen often severely criticized the Senika heresy > (sennigedo), which is the erroneous view that the mind abides while > the form perishes. According to this view, there is a bright spiritual > intelligence contained in our body that is the source of > self-understanding. When the body dies, the spiritual intelligence > alone does not perish but abides immutably. This view, Dōgen argues, > when "hearing of the doctrine of this very mind (itself is buddha), > takes it to mean that the discriminating knowledge of sentient beings > is itself the buddha" > > Dōgen (c. 1230-50) as cited in Masao Abe, Steven Heine (1992) A Study of Dōgen: His Philosophy and Religion. p. 158 > The Senika heresy here mentioned is a Buddhist believe in eternalism of the self. I'm interested, then, in whether it's only really a heresy in Soto Buddhism, and other traditions might find it useful. I think it may be a useful fiction, which is why I ask.

Buddhists talk about abstract and concrete things, particulars, parts and wholes, etc., and Theravada Buddhism is often I think thought of in terms of an analysis of parts, breaking things down into smaller components and the Buddhist 'dharma'. But do they talk about "insides" at all? I'm asking because surely everything with a beginning has an inside, but death, which must occur and so begin, can't have an inside in at least some senses, at least supposing that there is no after-life.

I know the Buddhism does not believes in the existence of personal god.But if it is the case that there is no personal God who is capable of interacting with his own creation,then who/how to determine(s) whether a person/creation has done/involved something which can be treated as bad/good aspects of *Karma* ? In Buddhism *Karma* refers to the actions driven by intention which manifested itself in physical, vocal or mental form which leads to future consequences(having a moral character).Also the cycle of rebirth determined by this *Karma*. If this decision is made at the end of one's life,who/how are these decision made by an impersonal force.How can these forces do anything?Doesn't it necessarily requires a 'personal being' to judge?And who is the final judge of a *Karma*?

I need to know;How many citta vithis are described there in *Abhidhamma* and what are they?(ie:chakkudwara citta vithi,manodwara citta vithi, etc..)

Have there been any Buddhist texts addressing geometry, calculation or abstract algebra? I recently read a composite biography of several mathematicians through history. While some had schizophrenia, few had serious mood disorders. Cardano was mentioned as a possibility. Proofs require a mindfulness of thought. There is also the stereotype of ivory tower nerds being emotionless or stoic. There seem to be therapeutic effects of learning mathematics or minds resistant to emotional pains are better at math than average. Buddhism has a lot to do with handling emotional pain. Has me wondering if mathematics might have been a point of interest. Numbers seem to be. Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Three Marks if Existence. On the other hand, a straight forward, linear, literal approach to understanding doesn't quite feel like Buddhism .

The motivation behind these two questions, is I suspect the Buddha emphasized some meditation practices above others for some reason or other. Obviously everything the Buddha taught would have useful applications at some stage, for some reason. But some practices have been touted as being especially useful for a particular purpose, such as metta to counter ill will. Anapana breath meditation, was the practice the Buddha engaged in on his personal retreats, he seemed to favor that above all else. The 7sb awakening factors, are the samadhi engine that takes in any Dharma (meditation practice) that sati-sambojjhanga (awakening factor) 'remembers' and feeds into the 7sb samadhi engine. The 4sp satipatthana are defined as 'samadhi nimittas', equivalent to the Dharma that sati remembers and feeds into 7sb, and as such, would cover every meditation subject. So what we're looking for, in these two questions, is whether the Buddha used certain key terms to designate a small number of meditation subjects as being exceptional, among so many meditation topics taught. Two questions: 1. how many meditations have the word 'sati' in there? I'm aware of 3: * Ānā-pāna-s-sati 16APS🌬️😤: in-breath (&) out-breath remembering, * maraṇa-s-sati 💀🧟: death remembering * kāya-gatā-sati 🏃‍: body-immersed-remembering They all have 'sati' in there name. I'm not including anu-s-sati practices (such as Buddha anu sati, Dhamma... Sangha....). And not including sati-(u)patthana. Am I missing any? I think those are the only 3. 2. what are all the practices that are touted to be of "great fruit, great benefit" (maha-p-phalā, mahā-nisaṃsā)? The 3 sati practices above are. the 4ip iddhi pada are. What else? I believe there are more.

I read the following on the internet: > I think that in Buddhism the word refers to elements of experience -- > and that the words represent subjective or perceived qualities of a > thing. For example, I don't know, ice might be hard and wet and > not-hot so it seems to be composed or (or is perceived as having) > those two elements. Does "dhatu" in Pali refer to "elements of experience"?

I find that a good number of believing Christians and Muslims think that Satan literally exists and is a very real actor in the real world. Is "Mara the Evil One, the Tempter" a rhetoric device in Buddhist tales -- a personification to enable the construction of a certain kind of parable? Or is "Mara" understood by contemporary Buddhists as an evil being who actually exists in the physical plane that we inhabit?

Just a practical question on attachment to trifling material things. I struggle to put it in words but from my younger age, I have a habit of being angry when someone takes a minor item without asking. He/she could be my best friend but still, the feeling is there. I don't think it been stingy because been asked or not even asked I would give the same person or even a stranger x100 times the value of the item but when taken without my consent it is all a different matter. My question is how do I get read of it? A thinker once told me: if you claim to not-care for these things then when someone takes these items and you feel the anger go burn two more of the items to show that you're in control... this method did help me to quench the anger, but the character still lingers? Many Thanks.

I just wondered, is it bad karma at all to disagree with an arhat? I'm not saying I would, I just wondered, because killing one is phenomenally bad ! What about disagreeing with a Buddha?

Recently I'm discussing five elements of nature with an atheist he cleared our body is composition of 11 elements [Composition of the human body](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body) . These elements are enough different from those 5 elements. My reply to him : >"How we can say different, when those 11 elements are form of 5 elements and vice versa." His clarification is as follows: > Form ? These are 5 elements in which Buddha believed - > 1. Earth- Earth is just a planet that’s diameter is 8000 miles while our body’s diameter is barely 600 mm. We live on earth. How our body could be composed of a whole planet ? 2. Air- Air is a mixture of dust particles and gases such as- nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is dangerous to humans. Argon is also dangerous in close areas. The only real elements are nitrogen and oxygen. If we breathe dust particles, they will make negative impact on our cardiovascular health. 3. Aether- Aehter is what you look up AKA space. How our body could be composed of sky ? Our body has opposite energy of sky. 4. Fire- fire is just a result of atomic transitions of elements rather than an element itself. 5. Water- Water is constituted from Hydrogen and Oxygen so it is not an element either. > For qualifying the definition of an element, it must be the smallest substance which cannot be broken into more forms. The Buddha was contemporary of Aristotle so this speculation was very famous at that time. Both philosophers believed in same speculation. I am quoting the critics of Aristotelian physics- Modern scholars differ in their opinions of whether Aristotle's physics were sufficiently based on empirical observations to qualify as science, or else whether they were derived primarily from philosophical speculation and thus fail to satisfy the scientific method-[Aristotelian physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_physics) So how our body/soul is composition of five elements of nature? Is there have any sutta that explained? I'm assuming may there would have philosophical explanation.

When the life of a Sotapanna ends, let's say he/she reincarnates as a human. Does that mean, the reincarnated is capable of demonstrating the qualities of a Sotapanna since a very young age? Or, does it take years of practice (again) to regain Sotapanna qualities ? And how long roughly does it take ? And is there anyway to tell if a kid attained Sotapanna in his/her past life ?

My understanding is that, in order to hear the correct dhamma, one must hear it from somebody who displays the outward marks of humility, generosity and selflessness. Otherwise, one cannot be sure one is hearing the correct dhamma. Are there any Buddhist organizations or monastic orders that teach dhamma to lay believers, and do humanitarian work, either in poor countries, or for the general public where they are based? I'm thinking things like refugee resettlement, addiction treatment and recovery, fundraising for medical research or vaccination drives, tutoring special needs children, etc. Can you recommend/provide links for your "favorite" organization? And secondly, is there a "better" or different karma for donating to Buddhist humanitarian work conducted by celibate monks, vs donating to Buddhist humanitarian work conducted by lay followers? Is there a better or different karma for hearing the dhamma taught by celibate monks, vs hearing the dhamma taught by experienced and intelligent lay followers? (Having been raised an evangelical Protestant, I was taught to believe in the "priesthood of believers" and that, for example, bread for communion can be consecrated by any Christian, not by priests only.)