I've seen pictures online of young children dressed in monks robes in Buddhist countries. Does someone make the decision on behalf of the child that they will become a monk? Do they eat only one meal a day as adult monks do? Are very young monks also called Venerable Sir? Thanks for helping a western mind to understand this matter.

## Context ## First, let me frame my question by establishing a shared understanding of what I mean by "view." Throughout all forms of Buddhism as far as I know, the Four Noble Truths are considered essential Buddhadharma. Included in the 4th Truth is the Eightfold Path, which Bhikkhu Bodhi (in *Noble Eightfold Path*) describes as follows: >The eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are not steps to be followed in sequence, one after another. They can be more aptly described as components rather than as steps.... With a certain degree of progress all eight factors can be present simultaneously, each supporting the others. However, until that point is reached, some sequence in the unfolding of the path is inevitable. Right view has a very important role in that unfolding. One's very definition of "Noble" or "wisdom" reflects one's view, and in fact it seems that inquiry into and transformation of view is integral to how and where one travels as a sentient being. As Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in the same book: > Right view is the forerunner of the entire path, the guide for all the other factors. It enables us to understand our starting point, our destination, and the successive landmarks to pass as practice advances. To attempt to engage in the practice without a foundation of right view is to risk getting lost in the futility of undirected movement. Doing so might be compared to wanting to drive someplace without consulting a roadmap or listening to the suggestions of an experienced driver. One might get into the car and start to drive, but rather than approaching closer to one’s destination, one is more likely to move farther away from it. To arrive at the desired place one has to have some idea of its general direction and of the roads leading to it. Analogous considerations apply to the practice of the path, which takes place in a framework of understanding established by right view. Back in the full context of the Eightfold Path: among the three trainings, Right View and Right Intention make up the "training in the higher wisdom." This goes along with training in two other sets of Path elements. Bhikkhu Bodhi: > the moral discipline group [is] made up of right speech, right action, and right livelihood; [and] the concentration group [is] made up of right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration To give an example of the role of View from an Indo-Tibetan tradition, Sachen Kunga Nyingpo had a vision in which Manjushri taught : "If there is grasping, you do not have the View.” This same teaching includes 3 specific attachments to relinquish leading up to this: - If you are attached to this life, you are not a true spiritual practitioner. - If you are attached to samsara, you do not have renunciation. - If you are attached to your own self-interest, you have no bodhichitta. Therefore, as is true throughout the Indo-Tibetan traditions I've encountered, the Right View must include a perspective that looks across countless lifetimes as well as beyond samsara; and that takes consciousness as somehow more primary than the physical. The ontological assumptions behind both "matter" and "mind" can certainly be tested, but by framing this in terms of View I want to focus on how one's convictions about the relationship between the physical world and consciousness (whatever one's ontological stance about them) shapes the way one interprets and practices Dharma. Second, let me try to explicitly name my motivations in asking this question: I ask partly as someone born into an environment of unexamined scientific materialsm, who has found greater sanity and happiness extending beyond its bounds as I've inquired into my assumptions. I hope to uncover and test more such assumptions within myself by asking others about their views, and thereby to keep getting more sane and happy for the sake of my own good and that of all sentient beings. I also ask hoping to become more skillful when I encounter people who are both materialists and Buddhists. I've definitely gotten perturbed before (and probably will again) in reacting to materialist views that I consider unhelpful or already refuted. Beyond the afflictive emotion involved, it seems like such a critique on my part is "wrong speech" if it drives someone away from wanting to study and practice Buddhadharma. Given the interdependent and holistic nature of the Eightfold Path, how could wrong speech possibly help to advance right view or anything else? Further, given the immense range of skillful means employed by Buddhas in training beings, why should I assume that a materialist stance (especially given the dominant cultural assumptions of modern civilization) might not fall within one or more of these skillful means, at least as a provisional adaptation to social mores? With a more complete understanding, I can still speak my own truth but do so in more compassionate and constructive ways. ## Question ## Hoping I've now given enough context to avoid coming across as rude or provocative, I'll present my question: if as part of your view you find that what you call physical reality (e.g., "matter & energy") encompasses and underpins what you call mind (e.g., "the space of mental events that includes qualia, thoughts, images and feelings"), how do you: 1. Express this view in your own words; and 2. Carry this view (or not) into how you travel the Eightfold Path? In particular, what are its implications for how you train in ethical discipline and/or concentration?

**... in letting her chose which kind she would like to be?** Valued Upasaka, Upasika, Dear seekers for the way to Awakening and Readers, Atma (polite addressing of the own person toward householders, where Atma dwells) has started the transcribtion and translation of a very seldom teaching in modern and western world in regard of the Maha Manala Sutta by Ven. K. Gunaratana Thera, still not finished. Most stories are taken from the Jataka, some references already found. In redard of "To Look After Feed And Take Care Of The Wife And Children Is Most Blissful/highest protection" it contains a story that goes this: >Sujata, the sister of Visakha Maha Upasika, married the son of Anata Pindika. She was not only wealthy but was also charming. In the home of Anata Pindika she became disagreeable to almost every member of the family and to the servants as well. She was very quarrelsome and had her own say mostly because of her conceit. > >One day Anata Pindika offered food to the Lord Buddha and his Bhikkhus and during the meal, she made a commotion in the household. The Lord Buddha,knowing the nature of the woman enquired about her dispute, which disrupted the peace of the home. The Lord Buddha then asked her, “There are seven classes of wives; have you any knowledge to which class you belong?” She replied that she did not know. The Lord Buddha said, “A wife not in any way agreeable but finding every chance to quarrel with her husband or members of his family, is a quarrelsome wife. A wife whose outlook in life is bent on squandering away the fortune of her husband in gambling or drinking, is a thievish wife, a wife who takes good advantage of the kindness of her husband, adopts a superior outlook in a manner so as to gain control over him in any matter concerning his family or his outside activities, is a domineering wife; but when a wife looks after her husband’s interest with tender care and devotion like a mother over her child, this kind of wife is a motherly one; again a wife who by nature is obedient and shy like a sister to a brothers belongs to a sisterly type; and a wife who shares in like manner the happiness of misfortune of her husband is at once a friendly one; finally a wife who lives in tolerance of the whims and dislikes of her husband and serves him faithfully throughout, is a servantly type. >In the light of the truth Sujata gained the realization of the fruits of the First Path (Sotapatti). >Continuing the sermon, the Lord Buddha remarked that among the first three classes of wives, their existence after death would be in a hellish state, suffering untold pain in the unconsuming fire or tortment. The remaining four classes of wives would enjoy even in their present lives, the store of happiness and after death, their existence would be in a continued state of bliss in the realm of heaven. 1. Does anybody know the reference in the Suttapitaka (thinking Atma came accross one time there)? 2. Does anybody know which Ven. K. Gunaratana Thera wrote this book and some infos, biography and picture of him? Maybe even contact possibility, if still alive? 3. If inspired and knowing also the references of other stories in the book, willing to research them, feel invited to take on this possibility. (If somebody feels inspired to help prove reading and/or translating further, one should feel welcome to take this possibility. Topic as well as sources can be found here: [Mangala Sutta Uannana - Ven. K. Gunaratana Thera(draft)](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,309.msg649.html#msg649) *(Note, this question and content is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commerzial use or other purpose of wordily gains.)*

The Yodhajiva Sutta tells the story of a warrior who thought that brave warriors who fought valiantly and died heroically on the battlefield, would go to warrior heavan. The Buddha disappointed him by saying: > When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already > seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be > struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not > exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus > striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the > body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those > slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior > strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & > slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with > the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of > devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two > destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or > the animal womb." What about judges who carry out their judicial duties correctly and pass the death sentence according to the law? Would these judges suffer the same fate as the warriors above, or not? And why? Is it right livelihood?

In the book *Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind*, I read the following statement: > This is the basic teaching of Buddhism. Pleasure is not different from difficulty. Good is not different from bad. Bad is good; good is bad. They are two sides of one coin. How does this make sense? Does this mean that every good action (for example trying to reduce suffering) is somehow also bad? Or at least destined to fail?

In Theravada tradition, after one becomes a monk. Does he still call his parents and relatives the same as before he ordains. Or does he call them like everybody else? Does he call his parents "mom" and "dad", his siblings "brother" and "sister",...?

I have seen many ways to address a bhikkhu, and I'm wondering about the proper way to address a bhikkhu, in writing?

Is greed over meat is more unwholesome compare to greed over non-meat dishes? Meat is non-living thing, greed is greed, they're the same. Many studies have shown that meat consumption involve in far greater number of killing compare to non-meat diet. More meat means more supply therefore more killing. So is it true greed over meat is more unwholesome?

A common belief is that, if one conducts himself "as best he can" (in the best ways he understands and knows), then would be a protection from -- or an excuse for -- wrong-doing. For example, "I answer with best effort and understanding..." Under the context of truth, the Dhamma, is this just a naive thought of foolish people? Or can such be rightly justified as something an Awakened would approve? *[Not at all given for trade or keep people caught in corruption]*

I have often heard that in many places in the *sutta*s where the Buddha says *Bhikkave*, (monks!), he really means to include the four *parisā* (assemblies), which includes lay male and lay female devotees. Therefore, it is said, that teaching applies to all. Where did this idea get legitimacy? Is there any mention in the canon itself? I can readily see why one would **wish** it were so (why would one ignore all the wisdom because it's not spoken directly to oneself) but that doesn't mean it **is** so. I'm also interested if this explanation is offered in Mahāyāna where the meaning of saṅgha itself is broader, as I understand. Also within Insight/Theravāda circles, is there a difference between the West and traditionally Buddhist countries like Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand in the reading of this word. Any historical insight into whether the West was influenced by the early arrival of Mahāyāna to its shores, for example. **Edit:** I am aware that it makes sense to view the teachings as applying to everybody. Please note that the question is more specific - **is there canonical support (in any canon) for this interpretation? Or some other historical information other than using our own logic.**

I am only a Lay practitioner of Buddhism. However, I recently read a view point of someone who had been at a Buddhist school for 8 years. And it was slightly worrying. He said a young person at th is school had had trouble learning and taking on information. She had asked some of the buddhist monks why she struggled. Now, as an educator his thought process was "The teaching type for you is wrong. Let's review how you learn, and try a different approach". However, the monks advised her she must of been an evil person who burned or destroyed books in a past life; in this life therefore, she was through karma destined to struggle so she could learn and develop for her past mistakes. Obviously, this was very stressful for the young person. I understand that the monks are far more informed in buddhism than I. And that obviously there may be more to the story. I also appreciate that they where seeking to offer a spiritual answer to her questions. But surely as a Buddhist one can look beyond a previous life? As none of us are certain beyond a shadow of a doubt what we done in a previous life. Instead of speculation, could we not instead say "what is done is done. Instead, this is how we combat this new situation"? In the given example, it would of saved the young person pain - she felt her - for lack of a better word 'soul' - was scarred and mared then and it would affect her ability to develop irretrievably. Surely better to have said "You may be struggling from some past transgression. But that's not you now. Instead, let's look at how we can help you now and bring you on"? Any input advice or guidance would be very greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I've read a question here on music, which caused me to ponder the relationship of *effortful, productive* behaviours and of *consummatory* behaviours. I wonder: **Are productive, beneficial behaviours such as spiritual practice, intellectual pursuits, or artistic endeavours benefitted by entertainment as music, films or games?** Or do such forms of entertainment detract from other more meaningful goals? I'm wondering because I surmise maybe entertainment produces positive emotions, which are positive in themselves. However, I am uncertain of my conclusion; **what is the Buddhist view on these topics?** **Are positive emotions only virtuous if accompanied by an underlying motivation towards a meaningful aim?** Thank you

Please recommend good place for Vipassana meditation for in 2017. Including - Availability of visa - it does not matter short 7-14 days or long (in months) Vipassana meditation course - If it is remote place better - It is not book fly and go vacation so manual work or queuing is ok - If it is a place that we need to ordain to be a monk before starting Vipassana meditation, I prefer.

I heard "Nothing like anything" from many people. I think a lot over it and finally i got it like "Tyag se he mukti milte h" and i feel it with my self yes tyag se he mulki milte h but i could not get it remain with my self. Will you please give me a direction so that I could pertain it as remain and what is the the proper meaning of "nothing like anything" according to Buddism because I do not have much knowledge about Buddha teachings. Thanks in advance.

How does karma apply itself to an incarnation with a predisposition to aniexty who acts and reacts differently on no anti depressants , to the same incarnation who is not on mind control drugs.

I'm not an "official" Buddhist but I have accepted the idea that "calming my mind" is good -- by not getting emotional about little setbacks (to the degree I can). To some degree, I have accomplished this. As a result, I can keep my head while others are losing theirs. So far, so good. But God help me if I get convicted of a serious crime. Whether I'm remorseful or not (or whether I did it or not), the judge is likely to give me *extra* punishment if I don't show remorse. And I once met a friend of a friend with whom I similarly held my reactions in check. She later described me as being "an emotionless monster" as if I walk around the streets at night eating children and small animals. What can I do to keep people from thinking something's wrong with me just because I don't get wildly emotional at every little thing? *This question is not off-topic. Please don't edit it. Answers that don't directly answer the question as asked will be ignored (no XY-ing, please).*

Over my life I've realized that my behavior has always been set to the point of wanting attention and validation. A lot of times it's subtle, like the way I move or speak. But other times I find myself shouting out inappropriate jokes and sometimes making a fool of myself, kind of a comedian thing. And sure people laugh, but a lot of the time, I feel as though I'm not being honest to myself when I act in this way. And sometimes think back that "damn, that kind of was stupid." On the other hand, when I try to control myself (like being mindful) I become completely quiet and introverted. Almost like I got 2 extremes- silent and outlandish. Did the Buddha ever speak of anything regarding this? Thoughts?

What would a perfect book about Buddhism look like? Between translations of ancient texts... most of which are deep but rather obscure... and modern books by Theravada, Zen, and Vajrayana teachers... and even the books that try to distill Buddhist principles for non-Buddhist audience... -- **what would you like to see in a perfect book**? - Would it focus on accurately explaining and defining Buddhist concepts and technical terminology, step by step, form basic to advanced? - Would it stay away from the technical jargon and speak about our everyday problems and how we can better overcome them? - Would it re-tell the Buddha's personal story in a way that would illuminate the Teaching? - Would it take one topic (e.g. Anatta) and explore it in depth from all sides? - Would it focus on practice more than on theory? On daily life practice? Or on meditation? - Which particulars topics would you like to see in the book's Table of Contents. What is missing in the Buddhist books you have read, and what would you like to see improved in your ideal book?

Assuming students are unenlightened, how can students have the chance to evaluate qualifications and accept a person as their teacher? For example, recently there have been more sexual misconduct issues with famous teachers, such as Sogyal Rinpoche. Obviously, the students here were unable to evaluate the teacher. What is the method for students to evaluate qualifications and accept a person as their teacher? How can a person that knows very little of the Buddha's teaching evaluate if a person is a Buddha?

As i read text from canon. It seem like in the budda day jhana was a lot easier and highly recommended for the fold path. But now it seem like this rare thing only a handful of people can attain. If it was so easy how can we find the path to enter it without all the complication?