Is it true that most "enlightened" Buddhists attained this realization gradually? Or are there cases of sudden enlightenment? I ask because either this process is way more gradual than I can even detect, or else I'm not yet at the sudden point. Or perhaps I won't ever get to that point at all. I'm pretty new to all this - been meditating daily for about a year now, at first once a day for 20 minutes, then 30 minutes, and lately twice a day for 20 minutes each...I feel so clueless. And my mind continue to race all over the place when I'm sitting. :-)

I always thought that "Vajra Posture" and "Lotus Posture" were simply two names for the same thing. But recently somebody told me that Vajra Posture is for males and Lotus Posture for females, though without explaining any physical difference. Searching turns up mostly interchangeable usage, and a few instances that confirm the male/female difference, though without explanation -- for example https://goo.gl/fxIi2Y and https://goo.gl/U0KKb1 Anybody know the story? Is there a male vs female difference? If so, is it the same physical posture, differing only in the gender of the practitioner, or is there an actual physical difference? Does it vary by tradition? (I suspect the difference is mainly found in the Tibetan / Vajrayana tradition, where the vajra symbolizes a male genital organ and the lotus a female organ.) -------------------- Addendum 8/30/2015. I wonder if what's called "half lotus position" in yoga is lotus position in Buddhism. In other words, in Buddhism vajra position is both feet up on opposite thighs, lotus position is just one foot up with the other on the mat. Evidence for this comes from this web site -- http://www.himalayanart.org/pages/glossary.cfm -- which is associated with the Rubin Museum (http://rubinmuseum.org/) -- this entry: > Asana (Skt.): seated or standing postures of which there are a variety > of prescribed forms arising from iconographic descriptions found in > religious texts. The names of the postures differ between religious > traditions. For example the lotus posture in Hatha Yoga is called > vajra posture in Buddhism. The half yoga posture in Hatha Yoga is > called the lotus posture in Buddhism. A problem here is that the term "half yoga posture" is not a standard yoga term (according to a web search). But perhaps they meant "half lotus". Here, by the way, is a site showing both, using the names from yoga: lotus and half-lotus -- http://www.wildmind.org/posture/lotus . If my conjecture is correct, these are what's known in Buddhsim as vajra and lotus position respectively. Even if this is correct, however, it does not address the gender connection. Maybe that is just a Vajrayana (Tantric) convention -- male figures use the vajra position and female figures the lotus position. But even if so, I'm sure there is a story behind it.

**Is there a difference in practice between *approaching* positive states and *abandoning* negative states?** I have tried for a long time to abandon the negative, which in my case is not too severe (e.g. not drugs, nor physical violence, etc.), but seemingly the focus on abandoning seems less efficient than actually *approaching* constructive states, such as doing meditation or exercising. If one's problems are not too severe, should one prioritize *doing* virtuous behaviours (e.g. meditation) above trying to limit the negative? I had read in psychological texts that an attitude based on approach can be superior to one based on avoidance. **Is such a distinction made in Buddhism in any way?**

Can anyone help me identify this please? I can not find one the same, and would love a bit of history on him. Small buddha bought on eBay -- stated "possibly from China", he was not sure  I'm looking to try and age or authenticate my Buddha. This is on bottom -- again I can not find one the same, only full circle ones.  Any ideas? Any help appreciated greatly in my search of his history.

Namo Buddhaya! I had four questions pertaining to conduct & the Buddha: (I am Theravāda Buddhist) - How could the Buddha have been on this Earth as an Arahant if Arahants can only be reborn in a higher plane (A Heavenly plane) of existences as according to the 4 Stages of Enlightenment? - Is using items within the same familial household without permission (such as a pencil, laptop, or a clothing item from a brothers room) considered a breach of the 2nd Precept? - How is (with all respect) Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu able to be in the presence of a nun or the nun in his presence if it breaks the monastic rules? (For example (to name one of many): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkmLYAl1p7w ) "Sitting or lying down with a woman or women in a private, secluded place with no other man present is [an offense of Confession.]"(Summarized Paac. 44; BMC p.385) Source: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#alone - How do monks and nuns get their Tipitaka materials, monastic dwellings, and other worldly things while at the same time not being involved with any medium of exchange? Do they ask lay people to do so? Wouldn’t that be requesting for something, which I’m assuming is prohibited too in terms that they accept & don’t request for thing? Please help! Metta to all!!!

Can anyone -- who knows chinese -- explain whether the interpretation of the cryptic formula in the Chinese agama parallel to MN 10 is the same as my interpretation? My interpretation is that "seeing body as body" means "seeing the body according to reality as it actually is" -- rather than how the Theravada commentary interprets it, i.e. "body in body" as meaning "you contemplate body in isolation of the 3 other frames of 4sp". Here is the chinese sarvastivada MA 98 || MN 10 (B. Analayo trans.) > “Now I, being the Tathāgata of the present, free from attachment and fully awakened, have attained unsurpassable and complete awakening by abandoning the five hindrances, which defile the mind and weaken wisdom, by dwelling with the mind well established in the four satipaṭṭhānas, and by cultivating the seven factors of awakening. > > “What are the four? [They are] the satipaṭṭhāna of contemplating the body as a body, in the same way [the satipaṭṭhāna] of contemplating feelings [as feelings], [the satipaṭṭhāna of contemplating] mind [as mind], and the satipaṭṭhāna of contemplating dharmas as dharmas. https://suttacentral.net/ma98/lzh/taisho >「云何為四？觀身 如身念處，如是觀覺、心、法如法念處。云何觀 身如身念處？比丘者，行則知行，住則知住，坐 則知坐，臥則知臥，眠則知眠，寤則知寤，眠 寤 則知眠寤。如是比丘觀內身如身，觀外 身如身，立念在身，有知有見，有明有達， 是謂比丘觀身如身。復次，比丘觀身如身， 比丘者，正知出入，善觀分別，屈伸低昂，儀 容庠序，善著僧伽梨及諸衣鉢，行住坐臥，眠 寤語默皆正知之。如是比丘觀內身如身， 觀外身如身，立念在身，有知有見，有明有 達，是謂比丘觀身如身。 For reference, this is how I translate and interpret the Pali 4sp formula: > Meaning of the cryptic 4sp🐘 formula > > He abides, continuously seeing the body as a body, [as it actually is, according to reality]... He abides, continuously seeing the experienced-sensations as experienced-sensations, [as it actually is, according to reality]... He abides, continuously seeing the mind as mind, [as it actually is, according to reality]... He abides, continuously seeing the ☸Dhamma as ☸Dhamma, [as it actually is, according to reality]... There's a fuller post explaining and justifying my interpretation is at http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-real-meaning-of-cryptic-formula-in.html

Is there any book or internet resource which has Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya Sūtra in Sanskrit and word to word English translation? I am not exactly looking for commentaries(though I don't mind commentaries accompanying word to word translations). The ones I found so far are only in English.

Let's say a person has a craving to eat a slice of cheesecake. This is obviously a sensual craving (*kama tanha*). The mental defilement (*kilesa*) to get a slice of cheesecake and eat it, is greed (*lobha*). However, eating a slice of cheesecake (that was not stolen) does not break any of the five precepts . It also does not violate Right Speech , Right Action and Right Livelihood , to the best of my understanding. Questions: 1. Are there any karmic consequences from the harmless consumption of a slice of cheesecake? And why? 2. Should lay people forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? And why? 3. Should monks forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? And why? 4. For questions #2 and/or #3 above, if your answer was "no" to forcibly suppressing all cravings, then I guess entertaining and fulfilling such a craving (to eat a slice of cheesecake) is ok. Is that so? 5. Are there any negative consequences with respect to forced suppression of all cravings (including harmless ones)?

I practice the Dhamma & I try hard to show loving-kindness, but I end up sometimes getting very mad at people or irritated. I try Metta meditation, but is there anything else I can do to try and calm the poison of anger? I don't want to be snappy or hateful at times, people just cause me to arise my anger at times. Metta & Appreciation!

Is interest in a topic/concept/thought, a form of craving? Must we rid ourselves of interest too? If so, how do we approach so many activities in daily life, that rely on interest? These activities include reading. How do you make an activity such as reading wholesome? How can it be made beneficial to the practice?

I understand craving involves a strong preoccupation component. I noticed that somehow, when I either use a dating site or anything similar, I often check whether I received a message or if anything happened. However, I noticed even when I'm *not* checking the site, there seems to be less virtuous activity, almost as if the preoccupation was unconscious. **Can this be explained by the nature of craving? Does craving tend to occupy space in the mind, even if not consciously aware?** I'm also wondering whether, if craving takes up mental space, it is because the mind takes time to create a craving and because the conscious element is just the surface. Thank you

Having read "...is an ethical duty to acquire knowledge in order to improve our understanding", my person thought to investigate the matter in frame of the Dhamma. Against this sentence stands the common public idea and advertising of "knowledge, info, is a common right". What does the Buddha say, right view accounts, in relation whether understanding is a "bring-duty, debt" ([Bringschuld](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bringschuld) , [Jura] *debt to be discharged at creditor's domicile, duty to inform the colleagues*) or a "gain duty, debt" ([Holschuld](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holschuld) , [JURA] *debt to be discharged at the domicile of the debtor /obligation to be performed at the place of business of the debtor*)? Does one with right view think "I have/would have a right for knowledge and understanding" or "I have/would have to make sacrifices to gain knowledge and understanding? Of course one can use google to help investigating. *[Of course not at all given for trade and exchange, but as means for liberation from this corrupt wheel]*

Namo Buddhaya! My neighbor is a hardcore Christian & is a very nice man, the only thing is that he goes outside every once & a while with a water gun & kills insects (and even shoots rabbits with the gun). He also really pushes his religion on others and expects people to be Christians, otherwise, they will suffer eternally in Hell. This makes me concerned about the amount of bad Kamma he may be accumulating from his actions, thoughts, & speech. I had 3 questions: - Is it skillful to not intervene in his acts of killing, knowing he will not understand? - What is an appropriate response to him asking if I "love Jesus only" or if I'm a "good Chrisitan"? - Should I not worry about un-deluding his mind to help him understand the Dhamma? Metta to all!

I would like to know the basis of Lotus sutra and it's relationship with the original teachings of Buddha mentioned in the Tipitaka. I would like to also know where Lotus Sutra contradicts with things mentioned in the Tipitaka. A detailed and referenced answer would be really appreciated.

I read that koan practice is meant to create doubt. But what happens when the koan has been passed? Does doubt end, or begin again, or get literally "shattered"? Does the practitioner experience a moment of hope?

While reading Bodhidharma's Two Entrances and Four Practices , I found Bodhidharma telling Arhats ain't enlightened. > Among Shakyamuni's ten greatest disciples, Ananda was foremost in learning. But he didn't know the Buddha. All he did was study and memorize. **Arhats don't know the Buddha. All they know are so many practices for realization, and they become trapped by cause and effect.** Such is a mortal's karma: no escape from birth and death. By doing the opposite of what he intended, such people blaspheme the Buddha. Killing them would not be wrong. The sutras say, "Since icchantikas45 are incapable of belief, killing them would be blameless, whereas people who believe reach the state of buddhahood." Is it true or I am wrongly understanding Bodhidharma? ---------- Note that Killing them won't be wrong is just a figure of speech. It isn't meant to be taken in literal sense.

'I will breathe in tranquilizing the bodily formation'; he trains thus: 'I will breathe out tranquilizing the bodily formation.'" ---Satipatthana (Bhiku Bodhi's translation) What is bodily formation? Does it mean tranquilizing the breath or the body?

I noticed that in my meditation on compassion, the beginning is consistently potent (i.e. tears, strong feeling) and the ending is usually less apt (i.e. body agitation, distraction). **Would the emotional intensity of such a meditation depend highly on *concentration*?** Or, perhaps, would some other aspect explain this, e.g. becoming saturated emotionally early in the meditation?

When a text (e.g. Abhidhamma) lists 'wholesome' mental factors, is it meant that these are also likely to produce positive karmic consequences, or that these are just beneficial in general? For example, in the Theravada tradition I read that *sati*, i.e. mindfulness, is a beautiful mental factor. In a discussion with the Dalai Lama, Matthieu Ricard explains how even a sniper may use mindfulness. So I am confused as to whether 'wholesome' and 'karmically positive' are synonymous or not. --- As well, from this answer I understand that karma refers specifically to the ethical intention. So, when their compassionate action which lacks wisdom produces detrimental effects, is a well-intended, compassionate person still nevertheless generating positive karma? This possibility seems to imply that developing a compassionate intention almost negates completely the possibility of unvirtuous karma. Thank you

A lot of people, especialy from the west, like to follow the Dhamma (Kamma laws, meditation, metta, etc.), however they worry about taking refuge, because taking refuge is seen as an official entry point in Buddhism, where your old religion should be abandoned, for Christians for example, they feel like if they take refuge they will be turning their backs on Jesus. So the questions are: Can a person follow the Buddha's teachings without taking refuge? Can someone attain enlightment without taking refuge?