As I went to worship at one of the most famous & sacred temples in Sri Lanka a Sikh person entered with his turban. As per the religious traditions we are not allowed to wear any head coverings while entering the temple & worshiping. When the particular person was asked to remove it he didn't & he worshiped with the turban saying it complies with the international laws. I see this disrespectful as, 1. It's a must for visitors entering the Sikh temples to wear a head cover. 2. Even the Kings have removed their crown when worshiping Lord Buddha. 3. As per the scripts many religious leaders who were there during the time of Lord Buddha has paid a lot of respect & has considered Lord Buddha superior. Can I please have your views regarding this. May the Noble Triple Gems bless you!

Did the Buddha tell us anything about reaching the end of the cosmos or time-travel through the means of experiencing all the Jhanas in meditation?

Emptiness seems to be very prevalent in Dhamma after Theravada. But I have seen that it still exists in Theravada, it has just been ignored compared to other teachings. Why is emptiness ignored so much in Theravada & can emptiness be harmonious alongside the teaching of no-self? If my question is not clear, please inform me. :) Metta to all!

Is this person describing the 3 marks of existence in the right way. What the Buddha showed was that the actual reality of “this world” is described by the three characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anatta: No matter how hard we try, we cannot maintain things to our satisfaction in the long term (anicca), thus we get distraught (dukkha), and thus we are not in control (anatta).

I've just seen Interstellar. And they say 1 year on the planet is equal to 7 years on earth. because it sounds familiar to the Buddhist text I used to read ,if they both refer to the same thing, how did the ancient people know it?

At what point does the discussion of others become wrong speech? "Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord." Being that I am not an arahat, I need to work through occurrences, sometimes my mind is not enough, so doing so with other people could be helpful. But to talk through some events by those committing wrong speech, wrong action - with those that one considers capable of adding something positive - necessitates their exposition as wrong speakers etc, so is certainly close to creating rifts. I understand that the above has right intention - no desire to spread rumours or damage others' opinion of others, but how to decide whether it is wrong speech? I suppose choosing a person that is not easily susceptible to jumping on disconcord, that differentiates between direct and indirect experience, and that aims to solve problems is a start, but is there anything from the texts?

I understand that compassion meditation uses in great part feeling and the generation of affect. I wonder: **Are there aspects of compassion only accessible through meditating on compassion analytically?** Thank you

I have been practicing Vipassana under the tradition of S.N Goenka for the last 2 and half year. When I scan my body and observe different sensations, I find that my mind is not clear and It's not like I'm sleeping but there is dullness of awareness. Some part of my mind is aware of the sensations but it's not clear and there is a thin layer of thoughts in between. It's like trying to see the sun(sensation) when there is thin layer of clouds(thoughts) in the sky. In other words the mind is scattered while doing Vipassana. I believe it's the sloth and torpor that is causing all this and Vitarka-Vicara faculty is not that much strong. I have read some suggestions for this like having the perception of light, walking meditation etc. but none of these are helping me out. I would be very grateful if someone could point out my mistakes and give some advise to overcome this.

In the Pali suttas, there are scores of suttas about Dependent Origination which take the classic form of the 12 links, the benchmark being SN 12.2. In the Digha Nikaya, there is the Maha-Nidana Sutta, called the 'Great Cause'. I find the name of the sutta strange since if it is 'great', why are there only 9 links instead of 12? While there are many suttas containing less than 12 links, it seems strange the Maha-Nidana Sutta omits the six sense spheres, which the Buddha described as one of his core teachings in AN 3.61 & are central to so many suttas on Dependent Origination (such as MN 18, MN 38, MN 148, etc). More importantly, the Maha-Nidana Sutta defines consciousness & nama-rupa differently to other suttas. In the Maha-Nidana Sutta, consciousness (which is only *mental cognition* in other suttas) is said to descend into the womb of a mother. Nama-rupa has a Brahmanistic meaning of 'naming-forms'. Also, 'birth' refers to the birth of different animals & creatures rather than the birth of "beings" or "satta". SN 23.2 refers to a "being" as a mind that is attached to the five aggregates as "self". It is doubtful birds & snakes conceive the five aggregates as "self" or generate "self-views" of "beings" (as described in SN 5.10). Are there any compelling reasons or grounds why Buddhists should accept the Maha-Nidana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya as the words of the Buddha?

I'm wondering whether to lament or complain bitterly about some situation contradicts right speech. Also, I'm wondering from the Buddhist view what the effect of venting is. Personally, I noticed venting from a low mood / discouraged mood seems to reinforce and worsen this low mood. Thank you

I can find the first 4 precepts explicitly listed in the 8fold Path- but not the 5th precept regarding intoxicants. Am I missing it in there somewhere? I am wondering if it was a later addition to the tradition.

I'm a Buddhist and I want to know who is a good monk. Tell me if I'm wrong but I think that monks - Do not request money/things - Follow the rules - Do not bless for to be rich... (Its passion) etc... But how do I explain to a non-buddhist how to recognise a good monk?

It is said that only the Buddha, a fully awakened one, knows everything. I'm not sure if there's a name for that wisdom. So the Buddha got that wisdom and used (all-knowing-wisdom) to see the eight noble paths and attained nirvana or is it the other way round?

I think I am pretty well aware that the physical body is influenced by emotions (blushing is an example, or a nervous feeling in the abdoment due to axienty). I think I am also pretty well aware the emotions is a product of the mental processes. When I take something for granted I am not thankfull and that is reflected in my emotions and physical body. During meditation I can put my focus on something which I would not call the sensations of the physical, nor are it my emotions and it aren't also thoughts. But, it influences all 3. Thoughts become more positive, I feel happier, and my body starts tingling with pleasant sensations. I am reading about these different kinds of 'bodies'. The physical body, emotional body, lower/higher mental body, oversoul and spiritual body... I also read somewhere about the buddhic body. Now I am confused by all these different kinds of models/interpretations. I've never read anything about distinct energy bodies from a buddhism perspective. The terms look so a like that it almost should be, but I do not find a direct relationship on the web. Does Buddhism support the buddhic body perspective? Is there literature or teaching related to this, or any other conceptualiziation of energetic bodies.

I have been doing compassion meditation for a bit (about 13h of sitting meditation). I think perhaps I haven't meditated *enough* to see benefits, but I wonder: **When beginning, is it possible to *have* benefits, but not *see* them? In other words, that one's behaviour or attitude changes despite no conscious awareness of this?** Is sitting practice at the beginning less fruitful but still establishes the basis for (in this case) compassionate attitude?

I am trying to find a right description of the word Sankhara in dependent origination which includes Kaya Sankhara, Vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara. I have not been able to understand what they mean. Would you please help me understand what each of them mean. When it is said volitional activities from what I have read I think that means something that is done by intention and free will in the present moment (even if we are not aware that we are doing it with intention and free will) Now I have heard that they are kamma in what sense do they mean that they are kamma? I have also heard that they are product of our past actions so that contradicts the notion that they are actions one does with free will (volitional) beacuse they are a result of our past not an intentional action in the present done with free will. Where does Kaya Sankhara or breathing in and out come with all of this? How can that be intentional action in the present or as in the other theory the result of past kamma. Is vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara product of our past kamma or is it something that we we are doing with free will and volition in the present moment that can be stopped beacuse it is all free will? Does the past decide our present Sankharas or is it all done by free will and intention in the present and that would mean that it is in our control. You see I have many questions and I hope someone can clarify that for me. But the most important is to clearly understand what do Kaya Sankhara, Vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara really mean I have seen many different views and I am confused and therefor I would really want to know it to progress in my spiritual path.

I seem to have a lot of consideration for others in person, but on social media -- where non-verbal cues are lacking -- I react more easily with irritation and impatience. Since such communication was not existent in the Buddha's time, I wonder: **Are there Buddhist tips or remedies specifically linked with such online types of communication? Karmically speaking, would online communication be a lesser consequence than actual in person wrong speech?** Thank you

Call me an over-enthusiast but presently, the highest priority in my life is to achieve the object of Nirvana or moksha. By performing Vipassana, I want to achieve Nirvana and in this lifetime only. I'm prepared to do anything for it, even leave my current profession and staying as a monk if required. Trouble is, I just don't understand how exactly to go about meditation. I've read a few suttas but I just don't understand what to do while doing Vipassana meditation. In a 10-day Vipassana course I'd undergone, I'd done Anapana (breathfulness meditation) by keeping my mind on the entry and exit of breath at the nostrils. I've done this for several hours and I still do it sometimes. I also do mindfulness meditation sittings (by observing my thoughts impartially) for at least an hour in one sitting daily. Now, all these practices are great and take me into a calm and tranquil state of mind. But I don't seem to be getting anywhere towards my ultimate goal of Nirvana. Is there any way to know how long is it going to take me with this speed, or how do I increase the speed? Most importantly, **Is joining the sangha and practicing full-time monkhood the only way to achieve Nirvana?**

How would a monk or a Buddhist answer look like in dealing with injustices like murder, rape, torture? If we refer to Dhammapada 3, the victims get instructions how to deal with those misfortunes, but what about the perpetrators? Would a Buddha not support the actions of military forces -- who kill their opponents -- if their opponent's regime were involved in "wars of aggression" and mass murder of civilians, i.e. "crimes against humanity"? How would a PRACTICAL Budddhist response look like?

I read in Wikipedia and also in the suttas that refuge in Dhamma is "verified", as follows: > Svakkhato Bhagavata dhammo sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko > paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti. > > "Svakkhato" The Dhamma taught by the Blessed One is Excellent in the > beginning, Excellent in the middle and Excellent in the end - all of > Buddha's Discourses are consistent and teach the same truth. > "Sanditthika" Dhamma is self-evident and can be understood in this > life itself. "Akaliko" Dhamma, Noble Truths, can not be changed nor > can they be altered over time. "Ehipassiko" "come and see"; Buddha's > Dhamma is to be investigated. "Opanayika" Dhamma can only be > understood by oneself. "Paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti" Dhamma is for > the wise to understand and realize. _____________ > The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very > life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that > sensible people can know it for themselves. > > svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko > paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhīti. Can I believe in things I have not verified for myself but still be a Buddhist? Do the words "veditabbo viññūhīti" refer to direct experience? Or can it be merely fluency in theories?