When it seems inhumane, why is it practiced? I know Buddha didn't find. Wikipedia document says: > [Sky burial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial) (Tibetan: བྱ་གཏོར་, Wylie: bya gtor, lit. "bird-scattered" is a funeral practice in. which a human corpse is placed on a. mountaintop to decompose while exposed to. the elements or to be eaten by scavenging. animals, especially carrion birds. So are people still doing this kind of funeral practice? And what is meaning of it? Though the body is decomposed and exposed to the elements, this isn't seem a respectful way to do.

My person just came across [an answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/19948/11235) by Upasak Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena, mentioning: >Also there is a concept of Pin Potha, which is a journal of all good deeds done. And >It is an age old custom of the Sri Lankan Buddhists to maintain a record of One's meritorious activities. This record is named PIN POTHA or Merit Book. Since such is not only a perfect daily reflection means, fitting in the praised [Anussatis](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/index-subject_en.html#recollections) : Recollection of one's own virtues (silanussati), Recollection of one's own generosity (caganussati), Recollection of the own qualities equal the devas (devatanussati), but also as telling, reminding very sick and dying people on their good deeds as support, my person wonders whether this custom is still alive. Is such, keeping records of ones merits done, still practiced in Sri Lanka? And, since it can be used perfect also for the practice of sharing merits and the practice of rejoicing in merits, my person wonders if there are ideas how to make the basic practices more virtual, vital, knowing that modern people are hardly to motivate toward the basic practices. They might possible needs such as a "reputation system", possible implemented in other daily used software or online services. [Some "experiments" had been done to encourage the nearly death basic section, such as [Anumodana](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anumodana/) or mail-list, next to [a section in use](http://sangham.net/index.php/board,5.0.html) , to get some ideas.] *(Note that this is not given for use for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but for encouragement toward release and benefical undertakings toward such)*

What are the four wheels and nine doors mentioned in the sutta below? Why is it "born from a bog"? What is the meaning of the sutta? From the Four Wheels Sutta (Sutta Nipata 1.29) : > “Having four wheels and nine doors, > Filled up and bound with greed, > Born from a bog, O great hero! > How does one escape from it?” > > “Having cut the thong and the strap, > Having cut off evil desire and greed, > Having drawn out craving with its root: > Thus one escapes from it.”

In the Pali, nirujjhati (ni + rudh + ya) appears to be a verb for the noun "nirodha". > *nirujjhati* > >*ceases; dissolves; vanishes.* > >*to be broken up, to be dissolved, to be destroyed, to cease, die* Uparujjhati (upa + rudh + ya) appears similar in etymology, however differs in the prefix. > *uparujjhati* > > *stops or ceases* > > *to be stopped, broken, annihilated, destroyed* I have done some examination of the usage of these words in the Pali suttas and, for now, I think their meanings or usages are contextually different. How can these two words be linguistically distinguished?

Do enlightened people "know" what nirvana is like? Obviously, they can't express it to anyone else, so the question isn't super helpful. I just wondered whether nirvana is a thing that we can know as well as experience or taste. One response, one I don't (personally) want to hear about (at least without some in depth quotation) is that nirvana isn't "like" anything. And, of course, nirvana isn't similar to anything. I'm asking whether Buddhas of any sort "know" the qualities (e.g. bliss) of nirvana.

What is the orthodox position or the sutta's position about the knowledge of reality itself, beyond any intervention of subjective factors? In science, when we find evidence that proves some hypothesis, we cannot say that we've found the truth behind the studied phenomenon. We can only say that, until this point, the hypothesis works and it's useful to explain that phenomenon, and that, until refuted, we can use that hypothesis as a provisional working hypothesis, which is subject to eventual modification. In sum, science help us to find the most useful ideas to use in our lives. Does this apply to Dhamma as well? Evidence, (no matter how much evidence, whether theoretical or experiencial) is not enough to posit that the truth has been reached without any posible future refutation. Let me ask this with an example: We can say that the khandhas are not the self, but does that imply that there is not self at all? How can we reach that conclusion without any doubts? Isn't better to simply say that we cannot know, and that it shouldn't matter at all? After all, if something is beyond the realm of experience, we shouldn't be able to say anything about it. EDIT: a few more details... Is Buddhism concerned with ontology (how and what thinfs are by themselves, and not only how we humans perceive them), epistemology (the possiblity of knowing things about reality itself, objectively) or pragmatism (to use whatever seem to work for some specific end)? Is it concerned with all of them, some of them, or none of them? Pragmatism, for example, doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, and technology and scientific progress seem to be evidence for that. The problem lies in assuming that this -unknown- degree of certainty is somehow the same as the truth (or the expression of all possible definition or information about a phenomenon). If we arrive to the truth, how could we know? Because of a certain X amount of evidence? How much evidence is indication of reaching the truth? Or in other words, is enlightenment enough and definitive proof of having reached the truth about reality itself? Does it even matter if it works? After all, some physicist, in the 19th century, thought that there only a few stuff left to be known about reality, because apparently, there was no important evidence to suggest or indicate that the current theories and hypothesis were wrong nor incomplete. Thanks for your time and patience! Kind regards!

From [Pratītyasamutpāda - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da#Twelve_Nidanas) : >dependent origination refers to nothing else but the process of mental conditioning as described by the twelve nidanas So to check if my understanding is correct, will dependent origination cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas? In my understanding, dependant origination is just an extended understanding of "condition". For example, if I say "plants need water, soil and light to grow", then water, soil and light are the originations. This doesn't seem to relate to the mental condition of the observer. So how do the two relate? And in general, how does one know that all dependent originations of a thing are "depleted"?

I have read in psychological studies that oxytocin and serotonin interact to produce social rewards . Serotonin has been postulated to relate to authentic pride (a positive kind of pride based on accomplishment). Oxytocin is a hormone linked with compassion. Therefore, it would seem natural that pride and compassion relate in some way. Even, I will say that when I meditated on compassion, imagery of altruistic pride naturally emerged. Recently, I'm in a more depressed state -- which may entail less serotonin -- and the pride imagery fails to occur as well as the reward. My question is: **is there any evidence of such an interaction between compassion and pride in Buddhism?** I feel naturally emptiness entails an interaction with compassion in the Mahayana, but I feel pride would be linked with desire and materiality. Authentic pride is based on accomplishment, not feeling superior to others (hubristic pride). **Does Buddhism have a place for such attachment?**

What Internet-based Sangha groups are out there? For the Plum Village tradition there is a list on [plumline.org](http://plumline.org/) Are there any other lists of online Sanghas you can share? Grateful for help and with kind regards, Tord

Upon reading this question, I wondered: would a person with great spiritual potential, without compassion, be more likely to cause great harm than an average person? Not intentionally, but say due to anger or hate; would this person be akin to a politician with great power who's actions can affect more? **Thus, would spiritual potent individuals' actions have greater consequences under the effect of negative states?**

**1. In Buddhism, does black magic, magic spell exist? If it is, what's our belief system should be when we are taught to treat all with loving kindness?** Often Black magic is not only concerned with negative, evil, demons, or bad things. Black magic spells and amulets can also be used for good, protection and as many other uses as there are human needs and desires. Thailand being the predominately a Buddhist country, but this tends to be mixed with older animistic beliefs and some of them also have a strong belief in powerful supernatural entities. Thailand is indeed one of the top tourist spot but some people also avoid going due to the fear of all these. I for one, love Thailand a lot and been there many times but often curious about all this and at times confused. I have read somewhere, some of the the top Monks in Thailand are that spiritually powerful to perform all these. **2. Supposingly all these exist, what's the odd of being the target apart from jealousy?Supposingly if you are very much enlightened and practice meditation vigorously, does this make you any less of being the target?** As some of the victims can be severely disturbed emotionally and in some cases it might even lead to death.

I've come across this term recently and have seen quite a few opinions and definitions. My understanding is that it is actually a hardcore Theravada movement that is in some ways a conservative backlash against watered down Buddhism in the West. Is this a correct assessment?

1 question: I just started learning about Buddhism and I read about the 3 marks of existence. When Buddhism speaks about impermanence does impermanence only refer to our experience (the 5 skhandas) or is outisde world phenomena included and considered impermanent. As I understood it impermanence is a key Buddhist principle. How does Buddhism describe time according to this impermanence doctrine and what is impermanence relationship and connection with time. I have seen a few answers here on a similar question/topic but not really this one so I hope I will get a few answers that can help me understand it. 2 question: Is a dependently arising cycle considered happening in a split second or how fast is it considered happening and what is its relationship and connection with time ??

I have been practicing meditation now for more than a year. I found that in recent months I go to a state where I am not bored, not happy, not dull, not tired but it is some state I find myself keeping it to myself. Really I couldn’t explain it fully. Did anyone go to a state like this ? Any explanation ?

I'd like to understand the Buddhist view of Dāna better. I've read the [Vaccha Sutta] [1] and it seems to say that gifts are best given to the most worthy. By comparison, in Christianity, the idea seems to be that one should do "for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" [source] [2] Am I understanding correctly that the Buddhist view and Christian view of giving are very different? Is there a general concern for the (unworthy) poor in Buddhism? Thank you for helping me to understand this.

There is a (are) person(s) here, who advocate the denying of "person is heir of his action", advocate no-self, for whom who has reached the path already (Sekha). In that case, do, and why, make Sekhas an effort toward good and liberating, if such would be the case? What would happen to a person who would throw away the boot before crossing or in the middle (if such even would be possible to develope grave wrong view for a Sekha) of the sea? It would be good if the "Noble Ones", "Emptinessdweller" and "Ahara-hats" here would elaburate their thesis of the use of kamma and self-denying for Sekhas and foremost worldlings since less Arahats might be in need for such tunings. *(Note: that is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but to make use to get out of the wheel of that)*

*(A nother possible pitfall for defilement. Take care that they do not rebell and cick you instead of them into it.)* Supposed someone asks you something. Given that you have the feeling to know for sure, you answer. The one asked receives it with joy, keeps it, carries it and might share it further. Later you find out that you have been wrong. What now? What's the impact on yours? What should you do now? What are the consequences of the previous deed and eventuall consequences of your current deeds, now when you found out? What to do to rest possible most at ease and secure, at the time of answer and at times things might be grow different, more clear? Not to speak of what to do in cases when answered without being really sure or a bad mind state (with greed, aversion or not-knowing connected). ___ *Supportive case samples:* Just to give a possible graspable case. One is asking you a secure way through the dangerous forest. You tell him what you think. Later you find out that this way leads through minefields. Maybe apply-able by replacing "intent to kill" with intent that one takes on ones understanding? (Thinking: "Who ever might come accross my answer, way he fall to that."): >from [BMC-Pārājika](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.ch04_en.html) > >The penalty, if an animal dies as a result, is a pācittiya; if a human being, a pārājika. In this case, the intention/perception of killing a living being is broad enough to include a human being, and so fulfills the relevant factors here. > >In discussing this last case, the Commentary notes that if one digs the pitfall but then renounces one's intention to cause death, one has to completely fill in the pitfall in such a way that it cannot cause injury — even to the extent of causing someone to stumble — if one wants to avoid the penalty coming from any injury the pitfall might cause. If the pitfall is only partially filled in and a person stumbles into it and later dies from his injuries, the bhikkhu incurs the full offense under this rule. The same judgment applies to any other attempt to kill not aimed at a particular victim. For instance, if a bhikkhu harboring this sort of general intention builds a trap but then changes his mind, he has to destroy the trap so thoroughly that it cannot be reassembled. Similarly, when a bhikkhu writes a passage describing the advantages of dying (see below) with the thought that anyone who reads it might decide to commit suicide, if he then changes his mind he has to destroy the writing so thoroughly that it cannot be pieced together. If, instead of writing the passage himself, he simply picks up a pre-existing written passage of this sort and then — with a similar intention — puts it in a place where it might be easily seen, he can avoid any penalty simply by returning the passage to the place where he found it. *[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]*

Often my person comes accross certain "*disclaimers*" in regard of the use of Dhamma-Practice, the medicine of the Buddha, his therapy, saying, like just read again [here in an answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/23114/12162) : >"The Buddha did not deal with this kind of suffering. Modern mindfulness centers have therapists who understand this kind of suffering." So coming from such kind of predication, my person would like to ask: - What is the fundation and/or the possible reason of such a claim? - What kind of suffering it should include? and - Where to find possible references in the teachings of the Buddha for such? - Are there any instances where either he or his disciples (with approve) encouraged to seek for diverent ways to cure certain suffering?

I am wondering a simple question: **In what conditions can we surf the internet mindfully? For what purposes is this possible or impossible?**

I noticed that upon watching Youtube videos, I seem to become sucked into merely watching stuff online. I almost 'forget' to do other things. Oddly, this doesn't happen while reading online, or creating something. **Can one directly relate this to lack of mindfulness? Is any such instance of 'forgetting' usually linked with mindfulness?** More so, **why might reading not generate this type of absorbed state?** Thank you