I read the following on the internet: > Birth as a human is extremely rare the majority of humans most likely > came from hellish worlds, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts > prior to this human existence..... Is it true or false according to the Pali suttas?

Avidyā and moha which can be translated as confusion or ignorance are sources of suffering. The western term for the study of reality and knowledge is called "philosophy" which an be translated from the Greek as "the love of wisdom". Rāga is also a term for attachment which is another source of suffering that is to say Buddhism tells you not to attach yourself to material or mental objects (including Buddhism) otherwise you will suffer and won't attain enlightenment. If knowledge gives you a deeper understanding of reality and existence and makes you understand other beings and their need to escape suffering and knowledge makes you attain compassion, why would nature be so cruel to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation after reincarnation to make you step on the same stones again? Christian Gnostics believed that it's because this world is controlled by Satan and only holy knowledge can give you salvation. Is karma (which is a religious belief) the only answer Buddhism has to this matter?

I have personal problems with the metta practice. I would say may I/you be happy and I would go in this wish fulfilment mode. Imagining myself and others happy would create a jinni in the bottle attitude. It would become this deluded practice. 1. How can I wish people to be happy when I know this wish wont come true? 2. How can I wish people to be happy whithout going into this prayer mode? Can I use words like "I hope you be happy"? Or maybe I find joy" Is metta hoping? Or attitude of maybes?

A friend asked this mind-bending question on social media: > when you’re talking to yourself in your head (or out loud) do you refer to yourself as we, I, you, or they/she/he/other pronoun? This got me thinking that the difference between addressing myself as "I" and "you" seems trivial but really has some implications when it comes to ego, self, non-self and letting go. So I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on whether the Dhamma implies we should "talk to ourselves" in certain ways? E.g. Should I tell myself > I forgive that person, I will follow the eight-fold path, I will meditate for 20 minutes or > You forgive that person, you will follow the eight-fold path, you will meditate for 20 minutes Alternately, do you think we should really try to use the third-person for addressing ourselves? I know that some Buddhists like to say things like "the body" rather than "your body" or "my body", but it seems like saying "Jer will meditate for 20 minutes" is too weird, but if that's the answer you think is right I'm interested in your thinking too :) --- *Here's an example answer that shows what I am asking with this question, but I don't know if it's very wise or not, so obviously still looking for perspectives of others.* When I address myself in the first person, I implicitly emphasize my identity, and stay wrapped up in subjectivity. When I address myself in the second person, I confess that my consciousness is separate from my identity, I gain a more objective position in relation to my thoughts, feelings and experiences.

I want to know what the right age for a child to learn meditation, for example if I do anapana with a toddler, can it stop the development or it will help the child to stay into panya later. Vipassana courses starts from 8 year old, but that may be due to other reasons, but personally I think I can teach my daughter as soon as possible. At the time she is less than 3 months old, and she had started making sounds, I know it doesn't make any sense, but this is the age when infants start to learn and copy things right? I think if I act like I am breathing my daughter will stop copying me in coming months, so could doing anapana be good or bad for her?

I want to use meditation as a way to deeply concentrate, I always feel as if im in my head and it stops me from doing what I want to do and stops me from getting work done. I want to use meditation. I have been doing meditation, and I understand it a bit. But how can I achieve one pointed focus to help me stop being in my head and focus?

I am trying to see whether the presence of certain characters and stories in the Jataka tales can be taken as a proof for them (stories and characters) being known in that form in the time of the Buddha. So, the question is different from the other thread on this forum Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories? though related. I would assume that even the commentary portion of the Jatakas are based on some authentic source. Yet, is there a way to know by when these stories (the prose portion of the Jatakas) were added to Kuddaka Nikaya? Was it by the first council, or later? Does the author of the prose portion affirm that his commentary is based on an oral linage of the narration coming all the way from the Buddha? Since some of the characters in the Jataka tales (such as Dasaratha Jataka and Ghatapadita Jataka) are seen in non-Buddhist literature in India, and often developed into dramatic stories later, the scholars in India are divided in three ways: a) Independent folklore of the time inspired such stories in both the Buddhist and non-Buddhist sources. b) Buddhist sources, just like the Jain sources are re-interpreting stories from the epics that were already fully developed and existent, and using it to support their respective philosophies. (I would not like to take this position because the Buddhist versions of the stories are much less dramatic and have not taken an epic-like narration. I don't see any motivation for the Buddhists to make the story less attractive if a more dramatic version was already available.) c) The Buddhist Jataka tales and other unrelated stories would have inspired some others to later connect them together, modify the characters and develop grand epics such as Ramayana and Mahabharata. And, some characters were glorified later through they were ordinary characters in the Jataka tales. (Most people do not think in this line. However, I find this more justified. However, to prove this, it is important to know what is the general consensus within Buddhism and particularly Theravada regarding the date of origination the Jataka commentaries.

I was talking to someone about my morning routine, which includes meditation. They asked me why do I do it. I didn't know what to say. Finally I said "you should find out yourself" with a smile. I don't know how to answer this question. I don't want to explain, don't want to preach and don't want to come off like I'm hiding something by not explaining myself. And it's rude to not answer the question. I felt what I said was not the right way to respond. Suggestions?

Buddhism teaches that what is real is experience; seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking. From this perspective, is virtual reality, (video games, [Oculus Rift] [1] , and such) objectively less "real" than reality? One certainly sees, hears, feels and thinks in virtual reality. If material objects are not real; are digital images of them any less real? I suspect there is an objective answer to this from a Buddhist point of view and I'm interested in understanding it.

A long time ago I had a romantic relationship with a married woman, and later I regretted. How is this seen in Buddhism?

My question is basically as to what constitutes skillful and unskillful activity. I noticed I return to unskillful craving-related activities when I am idle. However, I cannot ascertain what is skillful in terms of activities. I would think the application of effort is important in terms of an activity, because I am often contemplating/analyzing ideas, but in a slightly lazy way. Concretely, is idleness bad? For example, I often take public transport, wherein I contemplate certain subjects. But, I often tell myself I should read in public transport instead. I think to me, some contemplative activity occurs when idle, but it is not focused, nor effortful. Can mere contemplation without much effort or focus be called meditation? Or is it simply wasting time? Thank you. EDIT: Also, I would think activity and industriousness generates energy in some sense. What states accompany idleness? (e.g. lethargy, fragmentation, etc.)

I live in a pleasant apartment complex and work as an Instructor. My job is cushy, which is good because I have health issues (and teach adults with health issues). But I watch workers mow the lawn at the apartment complex, re-shingle the roofs, etc. Other examples are food service workers and auto repair people with oil and sweat on them. I have worked on an assembly line for a while and the biggest problem for me was the intolerable loneliness. (It didn't do much for my feet, hands and back either.) I have cooked, cleaned, repaired cars and appliances and so on, but all in some moderation. I wonder about jobs where people do the same drudge work day after day? I know about the idea of Karma, but it has gone flat for me, because the idea of Reincarnation has also. Leaving those aside (except for people getting good or bad consequences of their recent choices) **what does Buddhism say about whether various work situations are more or less *Just / Fair* to the workers?** This is not about *Right Livelihood*, because I am addressing the circumstances that workers are put in - the external world - rather than them choosing their work - the personal realm. [Consider only legally allowed work: I am not trying to deal with crime here. Also, don't try to solve the problem, only explain the perspective on it, please.]

Is there a Buddhist term for a lack of self identity ? I don't (of course) mean a radical acceptance of the anatta doctrine, but whether the Buddha or any Buddhist scholar or writer, talks explicitly about being unable to take one's own personal identity seriously enough: even to the extent of becoming quite thirsty for one. Thank you for your compassion :-)

Can you gain stream entry by focusing on the links in dependent co-arising http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html . The buddha says this: "And what is the noble method that is rightly seen and rightly ferreted out by discernment? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones notices: When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that." In reference to dependent co-arising, but I wonder whether it's actually a method.

Recently I am fascinated by the accounts of Gautama Buddha and of Buddhism, after having read [The Story of Buddha](http://www.movemequotes.com/story-of-buddha/) within the book [The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28257707-the-subtle-art-of-not-giving-a-f-ck) by Mark Manson. I am led to want to ask this question as I am unsure whether this is an adaptation made original by Manson, further I wish to know the true original source of The Story of Buddha as it relates to Buddhism and without interpretation. Is anyone able to provide me with additional insight?

For our next meeting in the "interreligious dialogue" we members are asked to do a statement about the "mystics" in each ones religion. Now, "mystics" is itself a mysterious term, I looked via wikipedia at some sources, what exactly the term means - well, not much more than that there is something hidden that noone else can see/sense/know, derived from the greek root of the term saying "closing eyes, closing the mouth". (Which does not mean that the term was not used for many speculative or intimate concepts in many religious threads, be it in Brahmanism (later, around the Buddha's time with the Upanishads and even later many that threads which we subsume now under "Hinduism"), Judaism ("Kabbala"), even Christianism (especially in the medieval east-european religious scene), Gnosticism and also Islam (by "Sufism") and surely other religious stands which I cannot name all here, and that it does not have a very broad usage over the cultures.) For me, Buddhism (as I know it from the Tipitaka) has never been a matter with (systematically) "hidden" things/concepts (at least not prominently), so I tend to develop my statement towards something like *"mysticism (in this sense) has not been intended by the Buddha"* - and I remember vaguely that there is a sutta, where he explicitely says, *there is no "closed fist" in my teaching* or something very similar. (Of course, meditating towards the occurrence of Jhanas, the Jataka-stories, the Deva-worlds, the sutta about the Kalpas and the non-accesible "Beginning-of-all" deals with concepts which cannot be seen and need *closed eyes, closed mouth* and might be used as source for extended mysticism in folklore (I just recall the funny story of Maha-Mogallana, when he saw an otherwise invisible skeleton flying around and how this bizarre event made its way even into a discourse with the Buddha ...), but for me these are not so prominent as the teachings and guides for the analytic access to the relevant world) So, ***my question is*** : in which sutta did the Buddha speak (explicitely/citeable (!) ) about that his teaching has nothing closed/hidden in it (as I think to recall with the term "fist")? Addendum: I've put so much context around my question because it might as well be that there are (again explicitely/citeable) sayings which contrast this in a sensical way - of course when we meditate also we "close the eyes to look inside" and focus on the "inner world"...

Where do *hiri* and *ottappa* (shame and fear of wrongdoing) fit it, in: - The Four Noble Truths (4nt) - The Noble Eightfold Path (8aam) - The 37 Bodhipakkhiyādhammā (37bp) - The Seven Factors of Awakening (7sb) In AN 7.67 we see it working, protecting the fortress with outer road and moat (and the remaining 5 factors are 5 indriya, and Dhamma weapons): https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/06/an-767-frontier-fortress-sutta.html In [AN 7.65](https://suttacentral.net/an7.65/en/sujato) , it's a vital condition for sense restraint, which in turn is a vital condition for sila. > Hirīottappasutta > **Conscience and Prudence** > “Hirottappe, bhikkhave, asati hirottappavipannassa hatūpaniso hoti indriyasaṃvaro; “monks, when there is no conscience and prudence, one who lacks conscience and prudence has destroyed a vital condition for sense restraint. > indriyasaṃvare asati indriyasaṃvaravipannassa hatūpanisaṃ hoti sīlaṃ; When there is no sense restraint, one who lacks sense restraint has destroyed a vital condition for ethical conduct. There are probably other entry points where it's linked in (to the 7sb, 8aam, 37bp, 4nt)? Unlike the 4 brahmavihara formula, where each brahmavihara has the keyword "abyapajja", which is a direct link to Noble Eightfold Path -- i.e. Right Resolve -> abyapada-sankappo (non-ill-will resolve) -- I can't think of any such very direct explicit link (into 4nt and 8aam or 37bp) for hiri and ottappa. Anyone know for sure? (update to this question 6/25/2019) https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/06/new-uped-dictionary-entries-hiri.html I haven't yet done an exhaustive search (looking at every single occurrence of hiri and ottappa in the suttas), but I have looked at enough passages now to establish an STED (standard EBT definition) that occurs in several key passages. It looks like the strongest tie in with the 4nt, 8aam, 37bp, etc, would be under right effort and viriya, where hiri and ottappa have a strong explicit connection with the STED right effort formula of "papaka akusala dhamma" (evil unskillful Dharma[teachings & qualities]), and also the sutta where ottappa and ātāpi are shown working together (they both have tapa, austerity, strong heat of effort in that word), and we know atapi is a key word in the 4sp (satipatthana) formula that references right effort. Also several suttas, especially AN 4.169, have modified forms of 5bal and 5ind (bala and indriya) to incorporate hiri & ottappa. So those seem like the strongest explicit EBT tie ins that I can find so far. But I am keeping a comprehensive encyclopedia entry for hiri & ottappa in the link above, so please feel free to share sutta references (with sutta ref number in modern numbering system, no PTS page number) on this thread and I'll add to collection. Thanks to all who contributed.

I can see how generosity and gratitude are important as means to foster right resolve. But what if someone do good things sometimes due a sense of obligation, but also cause much harm to you? For example, this mother . Given that our resources and gains are limited, it is not much better to support the virtuous one rather than the unvirtuous? And in the case of supporting the unvirtuous and unwise, how this would not contradict others teachings like "do not associate with fools" and "give a gift in a proper time" ? (a unwise person would surely use a material gift unwisely causing harm for himself/herself and others).

I am trying generally to follow the Mahayana path, with a union of emptiness and compassion. However, I experience clear problems with compassion. These manifest as : 1) general detachment from people 2) spontaneous and stubborn judgments towards others 3) lack of altruistic motivation. I'm wondering how to tackle all these problems. I'm similarly wondering how best to develop compassion, or rather what prerequisites might allow greater feeling and furthering of compassion. Thank you.

According to this answer : > Nirvana is the ground layer ("dhatu") underneath them all. ... > > Nirvana is this most fundamental law (the formula, the rule, the > program) according to which the Universe develops. This comment also seems to support that idea: > ... the expression "the unmade is a foundation for phenomena" is > probably an agreeable thing to say given than it occurs in the pali > discourses "amatogadha" meaning deathless as foundation or deathless > as ground. There is also a reasonable way to defend it, which makes it > not a real point of controversy imo but a rather reasonable assumption > in that the pali wording is to be taken at facevalue and read > literally. This sounds very similar to Advaita which describes Brahman as the substratum or foundation of all phenomena, just as different kinds of pots and plates made of clay, all have clay as their foundation. Questions: 1. Does the notion "Nirvana is the ground layer" come from Mahayana? From which Mahayana subschool or text? 2. Does the Pali Canon support the notion that "Nirvana is the ground layer"? Does this relate to "amatogadha" some how? What's that? 3. The ground layer concept sounds similar to luminous mind . However, we know that Nirvana is unconditioned, while the luminous mind is conditioned. Does this "Nirvana is the ground layer" concept connect to the luminous mind in any way?