In modern days, 'de-personalization' is seen as negative and in some cases, a symptom of an emotional disorder. In Buddhism, seeing through no-self/identity view is the minimum criteria to attain the first level of enlightenment. These two concepts, seemingly similar; fundamentally, they could be different. Question: 1. Are these two the same or not? Shall they be separated or mutually embraced in our daily lives? 2. As a layman Buddhist, how can we approach this ?

Similarly to [pop psychology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_psychology) , do we have the same effect for Buddhism? I have a feeling that many people subscribing to Buddhism because it seems to explain psychological phenomena that they (unfortunately) can't explain. It is also said that the Buddha taught the disciples in three levels, and in level 1 the goal is just to help the students overcome their problems in life, so I think this level is indeed pop Buddhism. Therefore I think pop Buddhism is a version of pop psychology. I wonder if my understanding is correct.

I see that the goal of yoga/meditation is liberation from the karma and from the birth/death cycle. People say that it is the ultimate happiness forever. But wouldn't that be boring and monotonous if there is happiness forever?

In the pre-Buddhism Brahmanism philosophy, namarupa meant 'name-form' or 'naming-forms', as follows: > Nāmarūpa-vyākaraṇa (Sanskrit: नामरुपव्याकरण ), in Hindu philosophy, > refers to the process of evolution of differentiation into names and > forms i.e. to the unfolding of the primal state into the manifest > world prior to which unfolding there was nothing that existed; it > refers to the conditioned reality. > > The sage of the Chandogya Upanishad regarded the creation of the > universe as a huge chest/egg from a Primeval Being existing as the > undifferentiated whole, who alone existed without a second prior to > the commencement of the process of creation which was the beginning of > the differentiation of the undifferentiated. > > Namarupa-vyakarana - Wikipedia It appears most of the self-appointed famous Western scholars agree the Digha Nikaya was composed for propagation to & conversion of Brahmins. See this topic: Western scholars: Did the Buddha did not speak the Digha Nikaya?. It appears obviously DN 15 contains a description of 'namarupa' that conforms with the pre-existent Brahmanism, as follows: > This is the way to understand how from name-&-form as a requisite > condition comes contact... If the **permutations, signs, themes and > indicators by which there is a description** of name-group and > form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or > resistance-contact be discerned? DN 15 continues with the following verse, for which the Pali must be included so my question can be considered & answered: > Viññāṇañca hi, ānanda, mātukucchismiṃ na okkamissatha, api nu kho > nāmarūpaṃ mātukucchismiṃ samuccissathā”ti? > > If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would > name-and-form take shape in the womb?" > > Viññāṇañca hi, ānanda, mātukucchismiṃ okkamitvā vokkamissatha, api nu > kho nāmarūpaṃ itthattāya abhinibbattissathā”ti? > > "If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, > would name-and-form be produced for this world?" DN 15 continues with the following words: > This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression > and delineation.... To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when > delineating a self? My questions (which probably requires Pali knowledge that I personally do not have) are: 1. Which consciousness is entering into the mother's womb? 2. Is it the consciousness of a disembodied being or relinking consciousness floating in outer space seeking to be reincarnated? 3. Or is it the consciousness of the mother, so the dependent arising of the permutations, signs, themes and indicators that lead to her designating her embryo in her womb as "my baby" can occur?

Does Buddhism preach absolute non-violence? Or is there any instance where Buddha had thought that violence can become a necessity under certain situations?

Together they refer to one's mental processes as a whole. Separately, what are they and how are they different?

I have been trying to find a complete copy of William Hamilton's "Saints and Psychopaths" and although it seems to be distributed on the web in various places in electronic format, it also seems that every single electronic copy appears to be missing pages from the preface, specifically pages xiv and xv. If you know where I can get these missing pages I would be extremely grateful to hear from you. Unfortunately pretty much all of the hard copies available are prohibitively priced and I do not if there is a publishers for this book at present, in the book it appears to be "Dharma Audio Network Associates San Jacinto California 1995" and according to amazon the publisher is "Dana". I have attempted to source a complete copy from documents.mx, www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de, www.scribd.com, books.google.com & .co.uk, docsfiles.com, www.mediafire.com and various less reputable sites, but unfortunately to no avail. Any assistance in tracking these pages, if not the full publication would be greatly appreciated, I also believe that a complete online copy of this title would be of considerable benefit to the world-wide buddhist community.

What is the message of this sutta? > At Sāvatthī. > > “Mendicants, there are these three scopes of language, terminology, > and descriptions. They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the > beginning. They’re not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible > ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them. What three? When form > has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, label, and > description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’. > > When feeling … > > perception … choices … > > consciousness has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, > label, and description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’. > > When form is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its designation, > label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘was’. > > When feeling … > > perception … choices … > > consciousness is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its > designation, label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or > ‘was’. > > When form has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, and > description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’. > > When feeling … > > perception … choices … > > consciousness has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, > and description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’. > > These are the three scopes of language, terminology, and descriptions. > They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re > not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and > brahmins don’t look down on them. Even those wanderers of the past, > Vassa and Bhañña of Ukkalā, who taught the doctrines of no-cause, > inaction, and nihilism, didn’t imagine that these three scopes of > language should be criticized or rejected. Why is that? For fear of > being blamed, criticized, and faulted.”

Does Asian countries has Buddhist law in their parliament/government? Is there thing like this? As we can see that Asian countries like Japan, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Mongolia, South-Korea, North-Korea, Hongkong. In these counties mostly people are Buddhist so I've to know if there is Buddhist law for parliament or government for Buddhist country. And if there what is it or what it'd be?

What's the different between [ku-sala](http://accesstoinsight.eu/en/dictionary/kusala) (good) and [a-ku-sala](http://accesstoinsight.eu/en/dictionary/kusala) (bad), in regard of what the Buddha taught? *(ku - bad, sala - cutting away, a - not)* What are good and bad actions by deeds, speech and mind, and what qualities defines them as such? `Here he grieves he grieves hereafter. In both worlds the wrong-doer grieves. He grieves, he's afflicted, seeing the corruption of his deeds.` `Here he rejoices he rejoices hereafter. In both worlds the merit-maker rejoices. He rejoices, is jubilant, seeing the purity of his deeds.` [Yamakavagga](http://www.zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.bpit_en.html#s-dhp-16) So good to now really good of how to distinguish and alltime worthy to ask, remember and tell for many's benefit, and the own. *(Note that this is not asked/given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to escape this wheel here)*

It's said that desire for gains as intention for one undertakings, beyond simply that for liberation from suffering, is a huge hindrance, obstacle. No, the Buddha also warned even Arahats, at least in regard of the accumulation of sakkara (honor, amassing honor, [Labāsakkara](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/sn/sn17/sn17.005.than_en.html)) , as being a cause that leads to unease. Now, what could, should one do, should avoid, that all kinds of such accumulations do not take place and do not endanger ones intention, aspiration, to bend from highest path and fruits, awakening? Which role does maccharia (stinginess of five kinds and one primare cause) plays here, and if related, what kind of practice would work against such? *(Note that this task is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainments but just to bind toward liberation)*

In ten Noble path the sequence is right knowledge and right release. (Samma Nana and samma vimutti) In SN 12.23 it says: Dispassion is a vital condition for freedom. virāgūpanisā vimutti, Freedom is a vital condition for the knowledge of ending. vimuttūpanisaṃ khayeñāṇaṃ. https://suttacentral.net/sn12.23/en/sujato

We all know the limits of a married person.We all know the definition of cheating in Buddhism. But Buddhism existed in a time Porn did not exist. So if a married person watch porn is it cheating?

I searched, but I couldn't find, where these "10 merits of life liberation" are included in the Tripitaka. Here you can find the "10 merits" I mentioned: [Why do Buddhists practise life liberation?](http://www.purifymind.com/SB51.htm) There is also a Pali verse I found about this, but it's not in English, and also I don't study Buddhism in English normally -- so'll be thankful if anyone can point out where it is in the tripitaka. I guess it may be in the **therapadana** part, according to that Pali verse -- I can't write it clearly in English letters as I found it only in Sinhala letters, but nearly it's like this: > abhayadanan dhatwana - jaththuno bhayajjite dasanisanse anubhomi - kammanuchchawike mama

The core of the Buddhist teachings are the four noble truths which talks about the existence of suffering. Other religions criticize Buddhism telling that this focusing on suffering makes the followers to be aware of the existence suffering and to feel more suffering instead of trying to enjoy the good things life can give us. One answer Buddhism gives to this review is that, yes suffering exists and we are in a suffering situation but the four noble truths continues and tells us that it's possible to stop suffering. On the other hand, suffering is stopped when enlightenment is achieved and yes, it is possible to stop suffering but also very unlikely even for monks and for an average person that would be even more difficult. Does it means Buddhism will make the average follower to feel more suffering?

In recent years in "Western" culture, teachings derived from Buddhist practices have been increasingly common. These teachings are often of a secular nature and are about compassion, meditation and mindfulness. However, some of them expressly bring out teachings about dharma, dukha, metta, etc. Some of these teachers charge significant sums for retreats, which may have dozens or even hundreds of people attend. It's obvious that a lot of money is being made. While I don't begrudge someone making a living - even a comfortable one - in a few cases, I know that these teachers are living very well: driving expensive cars, living in the most expensive neighborhoods/suburbs of their cities, etc. Am I misunderstanding something, or does this go against the Buddha's teachings? Edit: For clarity's sake, let me elaborate on the type of teacher I'm discussing. I'm NOT referring a monastery charging a fee to cover operating costs for retreats, classes, etc. What I'm asking about are people who have best selling books, charge $100 for 1 day retreats with 100 people attending, and who have observable significant wealth in that they live in neighborhoods where the houses cost millions of dollars and drive cars that are a hundred thousand dollars or more.

Is there anyone knows and has experience in past life regression? How can I do to recall my past life memory? Thank you.

Last year, I applied for the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) Tech Visa in the UK. From the two criteria: "prove at least 2 innovations in tech" and "demonstrate how your engagement with the community helped advanced the sector", I picked the first one, because I don't spend much time socialising online, just doing my programming work. I did give link to my GitHub profile and showed my programming work. Still, the response that I got was negative and stated that "the applicant is expected to have the profile in the community" which I know is false, because it's not my criterion. This all happened because initially there were errors made by experts in their decision, and when I complained and applied for the review, the manager of the organisation that is supposed to provide fair reviews, hated me and wrote the review herself which is not based on any true facts. If you're interested, you can read the review yourself, but after each sentence please ask "why should I believe this, what are the objective facts that support statements". I'm a Senior Software Engineer, and I know that I didn't use frameworks in my work, instead I made dem frameworks myself. The manager just lied about me to the government because they're mental and there's no-one regulating this enterprise that issues reviews. In any way, I will sue the company for breaking the GPDR since my choice of criteria is my personal data and it was not processed according to my consent and that's settled. However, I also want to prove that telling me that > "Although early in his career, an applicant who wants to be considered as Exceptional Promise is expected to have a profile outside of his immediate employer. This is feasible even with limited experience." is limiting my opportunities on the religious grounds, such as that I'm a buddhist. This is in addition to the fact there was a clear choice between the two criteria, I picked the innovations, and was judged for the community profile because the manager without Computer Science education is not even in the position to evaluate my work (that's why there's no technical details in the review and the lies of my work not being innovative everywhere without any proof of that). Sorry for the long preamble, I just want you to understand the background to my frustration when I'm a professional developer, spend 10+ hours a day coding my software, and at the moment not really keen on engaging with the community because I want to finish my software to the extend that I'm happy with it to be presented to the world and because I'm naturally OK by myself and also don't really like the state of what the "community" is doing, with anyone calling themselves developers after taking an online course, whereas I'm a Software Engineer with a master's degree. I'm not a stuck up person it's just annoying how I showed a distinction in masters, a senior software engineering position by 25 yo, and none of these things even matter for the visa? For non-tech sections, people have to have at least a PhD to apply for the same visa, but apparently for the tech one, you can get it just with the community profile "feasible even with limited experience"! The tech bubble is pretty annoying, you can read more . The best way to express my attitude is with a quote > But recall that Nietzsche is not attempting to defend values for everybody to adopt. He wants to free higher people from living by the standards (of equality, modesty, mediocrity) of the ‘herd’. I think that Nietzsche is aligned with buddhism, and although he did attack it, it was only the part that is related to people becoming ascetics and thus denying their nature, which is exactly what Gautama Buddha was against iirc. To tell me I have to have a profile in the community is like punishing a kid in the kindergarten for "not playing with other kids". We're adults and I'm building my business and I had shown how I contributed over 60 packages to Open Source, which were dismissed as "not track record". The woman is clearly insane and I know that because I met her and she talked to me in such patronising tone that I knew she thinks I'm upset about not getting the visa for my work not being good enough, rather than because the experts make mistakes and the organisation didn't even ensure that the recommendation they return is correct. Back to the buddhism, this is the main theme I want to use: > SRAMANA, sramana. This is closely allied to the word shaman, and a > shaman is the holy man in a culture that is still hunting, it isn’t > settled, it isn’t agrarian. There is a very strong and important > difference between a shaman and a priest. A priest receives his > ordination from his superiors. He receives something from a tradition > which is handed down. > > A shaman doesn’t. He receives his enlightenment by going off into the > forest by himself to be completely alone. In other words, a shaman is > a man who has undergone solitariness. He has gone away into the forest > to find out who he really is, because it’s very difficult to find that > out while you’re with other people, and the reason is that other > people are busy all the time telling you who you are, in many many > ways, by the laws they impose on you, by the behavior ruts they set on > you, by the things they tell you, by the fact that they always call > you by your name, and by the fact that when you live among people you > have to be in a state of ceaseless chatter. > > But if you want to find out who you are before your father and mother > conceived you, who you really are, you almost have to go off by > yourself. You go into the forest, and stop talking, and even stop > thinking words, and be absolutely alone, and listen to the great > silences. **"Thusness" by Alan Watts** In buddhist lectures, I always hear about how society brainwashes you by giving you a name, setting the rules and standards that are there to ensure its (temporal) victory over time in trying to establish itself as permanent, but buddhists know that nothing is permanent. Therefore, I'm trying to extract the essence of the idea that a man, as an individual, does not owe society, he is free to live for himself and pursue his/her own goals. This is best reflected in Ayn Rand's philosophy, > “Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary. **The Fountainhead ** *Zen is concerned with what actually is rather than what we think or feel about what is.* What things are, is that my code works, gives result and solves problems. What others think or feel about it is the community profile which I don't care about. Can you please give me all possible quotes/parts of teaching that would prove that according to buddhism I don't owe society a community profile, I can work on my own and make significant contribution to the sector with just my development work (i.e., the criterion I chose for the visa), without having to prove anything to anyone with the profile. > “A leader is best > When people barely know he exists > Of a good leader, who talks little, > When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, > They will say, “We did this ourselves.” **Lao Tzu** I tried searching for "buddhism and society" topics, but all comes up vague. What I'm really looking for is anything that resembles Alan Watts's saying that a buddha is not the one who's been conditioned by the society and "community", but on contrary, the one who leaves it to find his/her own way. I know that working on my own on independent software is the way of dealing with suffering, therefore it's irrelevant if I have the profile or not. Gramercy.

Below is from Ariyapariyesana Sutta > "Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search. > And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being > subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise > subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness... > death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is > likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement. > > "And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... > sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... > goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... > gold & silver **[<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.accesstoinsight.org%2Ftipitaka%2Fmn%2Fmn.026.than.html%23fn-2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">[2] <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>][2] ** are subject to aging... illness... death... > sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... > sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to > them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being > subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... > illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search. > > "And what is the noble search? There is the case where a person, > himself being subject to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeks > the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Himself being > subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing > the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, > seeks the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled, > unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. This is the noble search. When this is closely read, it seems the word Birth which is relevant to Buddha's noble search (and this comes in the first Noble Truth of Dukkha as well) is not about birth from a mother -- because if it is, then how come the gold & silver are there? Although [this footnote 2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html#fn-2) says ... > The Burmese, Sri Lankan, and PTS editions of the Canon exclude gold and silver from the list of objects subject to illness, death, and sorrow, apparently on the grounds that they themselves do not grow ill, die, or feel sorrow. ... however it's not excluded in Sri Lankan editions of the Canon, no it is not. And who can do such a change? Only Buddha or Arhat only can understand this totally, isn't it? And in the last paragraph, it's very clear that noble search is concluded to unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Is it unbinding from birth? Yes (because that's told). But birth of what? it's not the someone's birth is it? It should be birth of Yoke. And this yoke is generated on the mentioned objects (Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver) thinking they are worth or nice. Then what we should think: Birth is dukkha, or Yoke is dukkha? Because birth, ageing or death can be a pleasurable things for some people, while some other people suffer (Dukkha) on that (e.g. death of a terrorist is not a suffer, birth of a baby is not a suffer to his parents, ageing is not a suffer to 17 years old boy...) What do you think, am I mistaken on this? If so please explain why the gold & silver is there? And why Birth, Age, Death are treated as Dukkha?

Where can I find the English / Chinese translation of the Kalachakra Tantra? (not commentary) Thank you.