Ven. and good Buddha-[Parisatas](http://accesstoinsight.eu/en/dictionary/parisa) , A statement from a commercial Website [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26527/what-are-these-three-things-buddha-cannot-do) says: "Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe." Is that right, or wrong and how to understand such right? *(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)*

A common analogy about mindfulness I hear about is that the wisdom is like the sun. It is always shining there, but is frequently clouded. Your job is to avoid as much cloud as possible, and when there is no cloud left, you are enlightened. Where is this analogy first use? Is there a sutta for this? If not, and if you have heard about this too, can you name the source that you first knew it?

According to this page from BuddhaNet, it is mentioned that there are three things Buddha cannot do. They are not mentioned in there and I don't know how reliable the source is. > 20. The Buddha is omniscient but he is not omnipotent. He is capable of innumerable feats but there are three things he cannot do. Also, a > Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe. I just found this question discussed on Dhamma Wheel. However, most of the replies are opinion-based.

I find that the biggest block in my practice is the will to reach a good state. There's constantly an expectation from the experience to be good. I found that only by letting this go you can truly reach a good state, but its very hard to let this go. Countless sittings are wasted on this. How can I learn to let go of this need?

66. Modes of Production “What is it that is kamma-born, what cause-born, and what season-born? What is it that is none of these?” “All beings, O king are kamma-born. Fire, and all things growing out of seeds are cause-born. The earth, water and wind are season-born. Space and nibbàna exist independently of kamma, cause and season. Of nibbàna, O king, it cannot be said that it is perceptible by the five senses, but it is perceptible by the mind. The disciple whose mind is pure, and free from obstructions, can perceive nibbàna. http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/milinda.pdf

**WARNING: I don't hold the views put forward in Section B (by "the views put forward in Section B" I mean everything in Section B besides the sutta itself.) of this question anymore and I think that the views should not be held by anyone because of them being dangerous. It's dangerous to believe there are no bad consequences for one for doing some intentional bad(e.g. violent) action/s. It's much safer to believe there are severely bad consequences for one for doing any intentional bad(e.g. violent) action/s. I now believe that every intentional bad(e.g violent) action that one does does have bad consequences for one.** Section B: This has been perturbing me for a while. --I have noticed what looks like invalid logic in this sutta https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.129.than.html ( note 1: this is the conclusion I come to if I look at kamma and the the-fruit-of-kamma (vipaka) logically, if it isn't true then it seems kamma and the-fruit-of-kamma (vipaka) operates illogically or "randomly" or in an unknown way??? note 2: The paragraph below also only seems applicable if the event is onesided i.e an "innocent victim" is involved ) Seemingly the aggressors are supposedly in hell for their actions but weren't their actions (the aggressors) only because of their victims kamma from past lives (now their current fruit-of-kamma (vipaka)) and therefore the aggressors actions (the victims fruit-of-kamma (vipaka)) were seemingly unavoidable, so why would the aggressors be in hell?

In Buddhist countries, young or teenage boys, and sometime girls, sometimes (or often, depending on the country) become monks temporarily. Do any Buddhist children from other countries (e.g., Western countries) ever do this? Is there anywhere (e.g. a monastery) where this would happen?

i came across the teachings of Buddhadasa, he seemed to preach that rebirth is just a state of mind cycled throughout the days; greed, lust, peace, etc. That makes sense. But did he talk about what happen after break up of body or conventional death? Am i missing something? so if that is true, then eventually everyone will reach Nirvana at the end if we wait long enough (because according to him, there cant be cycles of state of mind if there is no rebirth)? Did he present new idea of of rebirth or I still have a lot more to read from Buddhadasa? I can't seem to find his ideas of literal rebirth. Thanks.

After attaining Nibbana, Buddha had realized that there is no self. However due to practical difficulties of communication, he had to use personal pronouns like 'I' , 'me' , 'myself' many times during conversation. My question is: whether Buddha ever thought about himself? Because if he thought about himself then he must have had a self. You can not think of yourself and simultaneously claim that there is no self. In the book, Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence , it is written how Buddha thought about himself. From p 181 : > After the repetition of these stanzas, Budha thought thus : " I have > attained the Budhaship ; I have overcome Mara ; all evil desire is > destroyed ; I am lord of the three worlds ; I will therefore remain > longer at this place, which has been to me so propitious." Thus > reflecting, he remained in a sitting posture upon the throne for the > space of seven days. It is clear from the above translation that Buddha had a self because his thoughts bore witness to the self and declare that "I have attained Budhaship". This proves that personal pronouns used by Buddha were not just used for convenience but were honestly projecting the reality that there is a self. In thoughts there was no necessity to fake self for sake of communication.

What is the position of Buddhism in regards to free will and Determinism? What would be the correct position of Buddhism and could you use an analogy to describe to me the correct view of Buddhism Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

I've been meditating for about 4 months without (seemingly) getting somewhere up till about 2 weeks ago when something clicked for me after watching some interviews and talks from Gary Weber and thinking carefully about what was preventing me from really meditating. I became pretty obsessed with really seeing things clearly with the over two consecutive weekends with the "goal" of reaching the first samatha jhana (of which I already had a previous encounter). In the first weekend I really tried to calm down the whole day and medidate the most I could take. Reaching high concentration was easier that day but still not sufficient for full blown jhana. In the second weekend I began working on it more and reaching something like 60% there. The next day I tried to reach it again and failed because of the attachment to reach there. After learning about the practice that Gary Weber and Ramana Maharshi reccomend (who is thinking? Who is hearing? Etc..) I tried it and immidietly found it extremely potent, much more potent than regular vipassana. I soaked myself in this kind of meditation all remaining day until I got to sleep. After I fell asleep I had a visualization of me seeing thoughts come in and physically putting them on the shelf, one by one. Also focusing on the feeling of 'I' there. After about an hour of sleep, I suddenly found myself in the middle of switching pillows bu my whole perception completely changed. I noticed the following things: 1. The sense of an 'I' was gone. I continued to search for it but it was no longer there. 2. Experience seemed to flow one moment after another by itself without any intervention or will. Each moment kind of forces the next to nesserally, logically happen. 3. There was a sense of complete detachment, no will to be in this state nor to not be in it. There was just an analytic curiosity about what happens in the moment. I knew at that moment that there could not be any suffering. So I guess I had a glipse of how it is to be awakened. And what is called "the arising and passing away" or "dependent origination". But that's just empty language. Since then I find it much easier to slip into mindfulness, sense an attachment, automatically see the suffering in it and let it go. When mindfulness is present the world seems to be completely neutral and analytic. There's no suffering but no joy either. I can see the benefit of removing suffering, but I dont see the joy of this analytic neutral state. I think there's something I'm missing or failing to notice. What is the joy or bliss that supposedly arises by being mindful and present?

https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/07/what-does-pari-mukha-mean-exactly-in-16.html excerpt: Translation (from pali) I've chosen the literal translation of near-the-mouth. In Theravada Pali Vinaya, pari-mukha is used in the context of facial hair or chest hair being in front of you. But what does it actually mean? To have 'sati' established 'near the mouth', or 'in front of you'? Three logical possibilities 1) spatial coordinates only (in front of you, near mouth, face, chest) 2) figurative only, not a literal interpretation of spatial coordinates, like "focusing on task at hand" 3) both one and two (it's possible the Buddha meant both, just like if you're using a cel phone, you're literally and figuratively focusing on the task in your hand)

I was wondering, in the case of a beginner in meditation, **how much having eaten sugar might affect meditation quality?** Also, I wonder what else -- in terms of states altering the mind like tiredness or sexual arousal -- might affect meditation quality. **What are the things to avoid to preserve meditation quality?**

Breaking of five precept would generate bad consequences from the evil deeds or from being not able to keep the precepts itself? The so called breaking of the body of precepts? some traditions say that if one break the 5 precepts one observes, one will not only has to face the evil consequences of bad deeds, but has to suffer even more severe from breaking of the body of sila. He suffers doubles?

I understand and have understood what in Buddhism is linked to right effort, which involves aspiring to what is skillful and abandoning what is unskillful. Yet, I wonder: **How do practitioners proceed in terms of order or in terms of determining what to do next? How does one determine what is most important?** Thank you

I would be happy if someone could clear up a doubt for me. When Advaita talk about consciousness without boundaries it is said to be the "Self". It is described as combining being and knowing in one thing. This being and knowing divides itself in two, and becomes the knower (subject) and the known (object), which creates the duality. Now when the knower-and-the-known duality has been eradicated, it is said that what remains is this knowing-being self. Now I am confused because I heard that somewhere in the Canon the Buddha talked about the conciousness vinjana without boundaries that the Arahat have. Is he talking about the knowing-being self that the Advaita is talking about? And what exactly is this consciousness that the Buddha talks about: is it the same as knowing-being that Advaita talks about, when the duality of self and not-self has been removed? I read somewhere that Buddhism says that knowing-being is not true: because consciousness always consciousness-of-something, in other words it cannot be conscious-of-itself, and therefore consciousness-of-itself or knowing-being as one thing is not possible. Please clarify this for me so that I understand, thanks.

Althought as most not desired existence sometimes quoted, there seems to be less information about the cause why one gains the existence of an "not-perceiving-being", Unconscious beings (asaññasatta). [explained as "only body 'no' mind" often] What is the cause, what is the required tendency to gain a asaññasatta-existence, state? Which kind of training should one go after to gain this long lasting state (which causes one to become a "fortuitous-arising-ists" ([DN1](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.than_en.html)) , or a materialist, when falling from there) Maybe some experts or googlyanika (those living dependency of teacher google) here are willing to elaborate about the being and coming into being of such beings. *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertaining, but as a tiny emergency-question for a timely exit from this wheel nourishing on delusion)*

Buddhists advise against "me and mine" does that include times? Do Buddhists really talk about "my" future past and present? If so, what are the nature of those times? Specifically: will "my" present always be "my" past? ---------- I'm just asking because I'm trying to work out if there's any reason to believe that, if this will be "my" past, will "I" then exist in the future. ---------- It's often said that impermanence is the Buddha self. Could that be one answer: and why believe it?

As the title indicates, I'm not sure how to classify 'avijja' in Dependent Co-arising: Is it a volitional formation which produces a certain kind of vipaka, or is it a vipaka in itself? In Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Samyutta Nikaya,in the preface, there's a section dedicated to explain some words and their specific translations. In there, sankhara (as a nidana) is defined as one of the kammically active factors, alongside with ignorance and craving. Do you agree with this interpretation? Thanks in advance, and kind regards!

I've noticed that in many teachings, books etc it is emphasised that something enters a sense door, sensation arises,then vedana then thought proliferates and I can understand this so far as a sound or smell etc but what I notice in my practice a lot is not that. What I notice is that thought arises followed by sensation for example a thought of a lost loved one followed by sadness or a sexual thought followed by particular physical sensations. Can someone please explain this. what ive read must only be talking about one aspect right? I don't feel a sexual sensation then think about it. Its the opposite.