Path and fruition for the 4 stages of holy disciple are frequently mentioned. I understand that the fruition is the removal of the fetters and realization of the knowledge of that respective attainment (stream entry, once returner, non returner, arhatship ). The holy disciple knows that he is a stream entrant upon attainment of stream entry fruition.......he knows he is an arhat upon attainment of arhatship. But what is the attainment of path? How would one describe rightly the attainment of the path? What is the difference in an ordinary person, a faithful disciple who has not attained any path and the holy one who has attained any of the respective path? I would really appreciate actual words of the Buddha for this answer.

As I've heard, the "world" referred by Buddha (mentioned in the Loka Sutta and in Samyutta Nikaya - 4 -> LokaSamudaya Sutta) is the same as "Five Aggregates of Clinging" (Five-Updana-Skandas). That's why the world in one's mind is different than the other's world. It would be great if anyone can explain this further.

On what basis can a person who chooses to forgo enlightenment (arahant status) for any reason (for the supposed benefit of others, for example) be considered a Buddhist? If there is such a basis, can a person who intentionally retains a wrong view (seeing the body as self, for example) also be considered a Buddhist when they won't renounce such a view once corrected? Or a person who intentionally retains wrong action (stealing), saying that such action benefits others? I am mostly referring to the choice some people make to be a "bodhisattva" when they see that choice as intentionally putting off the efforts and strivings necessary to become enlightened because they would rather work "selflessly" for others' benefit. Where is the support for such a choice found within the Buddha's teachings?

From [Socratic questioning – Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning) : >Socratic questioning is a form of disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we do not know, to follow out logical consequences of thought or to control discussions. Socratic questioning is based on the foundation that thinking has structured logic, and allows underlying thoughts to be questioned. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, deep and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues or problems. > > Examples of Socratic questions that are used for students in educational settings: > >1. Getting students to clarify their thinking and explore the origin of their thinking e.g., 'Why do you say that?', 'Could you explain further?' > 2. Challenging students about assumptions e.g., 'Is this always the case?', 'Why do you think that this assumption holds here?' > 3. Providing evidence as a basis for arguments e.g., 'Why do you say that?', 'Is there reason to doubt this evidence?' > 4. Discovering alternative viewpoints and perspectives and conflicts between contentions e.g., 'What is the counter-argument?', 'Can/did anyone see this another way?' > 5. Exploring implications and consequences e.g., 'But if...happened, what else would result?', 'How does...affect...?' > 6. Questioning the question e.g., 'Why do you think that I asked that question?', 'Why was that question important?', 'Which of your questions turned out to be the most useful?' Does this sound familiar with any Buddhism teachings/suttas? In specific, I think this has the same idea with koans, but I'm not sure. My interest seems to be about zen and mahayana, however any schools are welcomed.

To most of the questions about Nibbana, the easiest answer is "Avijja ". - But what exactly this Avijja? Improper attention, ignorance? - What are we ignoring, and then what's the fact that we should not ignore or we should look in the world? - How can we uproot it? I know Avijja can be easily answered in few words (e.g. with definitions, or some other synonyms) -- but why I'm asking this question is, it says that uprooting Avijja is the path to Enlightenment. If we take an example: - If someone "ask how to be a mathematician?", an answer would be (I'm limiting the answer set in a way to explain the question), "you need to learn addition / subtraction, integration, differentiation, etc." - So what I'm asking is like "how to be enlightened?", an answer is "uproot the Avijja". - So now I'm asking "what is Avijja?" like "what is addition?". - I'm not expecting an answer like "the action or process of adding something to something else." Instead I'm expecting an answer like, how it is taught to us in elementary school (like using Abacus). Because for Buddhism most of us are like children -- if not we are Arhat by now. Please I just try to explain the answer with these stories, but not to offend anyone. With Metta, I'm expecting a detailed answer from the wise people in the community.

In buddhism what is aarya dukkha? And what’s the reason for it? Dukkha is one of four noble truth. And as I heard it’s because of the impermanence. Can in permanence be the cause for the Dukkha? Is it true? Please provide practical situations when explaining. EDIT: According to some answers, the direct answer to this question is attachment (upadana). To be more specific my question is how attachment become the cause for the Noble Dukkha? Eg: If I like a car, its an attachment. And how does that become the cause for the Noble Dhukka. EDIT 2: According to the answer given by Brian, When attached, you find something desirable and you don't want to let it go; you want to keep it for yourself, permanently. But the thing is, conditioned phenomena are in constant change, and those things will not stay the same or with you forever. But imagine a prince, and a car he owns, It doesn't matter the conditioned phenomena (Saṅkhāra) he can maintain the car as it was. So what's the dukkha in that. Please note: I'm just trying to sharp my question by providing examples, if I'm doing any thing bad, please let me know, as I'm new to this.

Is dependent arising meant for us to understand the arising of suffering -- or is it also meant to describe how phenomena in the outside World arise dependent on other conditions (for instance how water and sun causes a flower to grow)? I think Nagarjuna says that dependent origination is not only showing how suffering arises, but also how phenomena in the World arises. He uses a sutra in the Pali Canon where the Buddha said that this World is dominated by a duality of existence and non existence, then he continued, "when one sees the origination and cessation of the World existence and non existence do not occur to one anymore". This seems to confirm what Nagarjuna said: that dependent origination is not only describing how suffering originates, but how phenomena in the World also originate -- isn't that so? --- I have another question also: how would you describe Theravada, Mahayana, Vajryana and Tibetan Buddhism -- are they non dual or not? Please describe to me the logic why you answered the way you did also.

All living beings (animals + humans) like something, and they don't like some another things? What is the reason for liking and disliking. Eg: Imagine there are two best friends let's call friend A and friend B. Friend A likes a lady call X (very pretty lady) meanwhile friend B doesn't like lady X. What's the reason according to the buddhism. To narrow down the question the point is though lady X is very pretty for friend A but not for friend B. Why is it?

The direct answer to this question is attachment (upadana). To be more specific my question is how attachment become the cause for the Noble Dukkha? Eg: If I like a car, its an attachment. And how does that become the cause for the Noble Dhukka

Leading on from this answer - in the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta it identifies wrong action in one's livelihood as 1. Scheming 2. Persuading 3. Hinting 4. Belittling 5. Pursuing gain with gain What is meant by pursuing gain with gain? It is a problem with the translation that makes it unclear or have I just missed an obvious interpretation?

In Zen the key practice is sitting meditation (Zazen or 座禅). Is monks' experience in Zazen like the LSD effect (i.e. "ego is dead")? Does Zazen give at least approximately some experience similar to LSD -- perhaps including, for example, "tears, laughter, and then everything becoming clear"? Are there any scientific experiments, books, interviews with scientists about this? I'm looking for, but can't find, any scientific information about it.

In the Visuddhimagga (but not in the suttas) and possibly other commentaries, we can find the triple round model, which can be used to explain dependent origination (*paticcasamuppada*) . The first round is called the round of defilement (*kilesa-vaṭṭa*) which includes ignorance (*avijjā*), craving (*tanha*) and clinging (*upādāna*). The second round is called the round of action (*kamma-vaṭṭa*) which includes mental formations (*saṅkhāra*) and becoming (*bhava*). The third round is called the round of results (*vipāka-vaṭṭa*) which includes consciousness (*viññāṇa*), name-form (*nāmarūpa*), sixfold sense base (*saḷāyatana*), contact (*phassa*) and feeling (*vedanā*). Sometimes, it also includes birth (*jāti*), death and the rest of suffering (*jarāmaraṇa*). The meaning of *vaṭṭa* according to wisdomlib is: > Vaṭṭa, 1 (adj. -nt.) (pp. of vṛt, Sk. vṛtta in meaning of “round” as > well as “happened, become” etc. The two meanings have become > differentiated in Pāli: vaṭṭa is not found in meaning of “happened. ” > All three Pāli meanings are specialized, just as the pres. vaṭṭati is > specialized in meaning “behoves”) 1. round, circular; (nt.) circle > PvA. 185 (āyata+); KhA 50 (°nāli). See cpd. °aṅguli.—2. (fig.) > “rolling on, ” the “round” of existences, cycle of transmigrations, > saṃsāra, evolution (=involution) (as forward or ascending circle of > existences, without implying a teleological idea, in contrast to > vivaṭṭa “rolling back” or devolution, i.e. a new (descending) cycle of > existence in a new aeon with inverted (vi-) motion, so to speak) Question 1: How can we use the triple round model to understand dependent origination, **especially within this lifetime**? What is the correct interpretation of the triple round model? Question 2: How can we understand the link from the triple round to the Wheel of Becoming (*bhavachakra*)? (statement below from here ): > So this Wheel of Becoming, having a triple round with these three > rounds, should be understood to spin, revolving again and > again, forever, for the conditions are not cut off as long as the > round of defilements is not cut off. Question 3: Is it true that ignorance is always the starting point to get the perpetual wheel-turning started? Perspectives from different traditions are welcomed.

MN 19 says: > And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued > with sensuality arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with > sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to > the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs > discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Nibbana.' While I gain the impression the macho blokey male Buddhist internet scene appears to have men hoping to score jhana or Nibbana, which they imagine is a higher form of pornographic sexual orgasm, in this respect, it seems MN 19 is clear when it says sensuality is harmful to "oneself", in that sensual & sexual thoughts hinder jhana & Nibbana. But why are sensual or sexual thoughts & intentions harmful to "others", as stated on MN 19?

In Vipassana meditation ,it is emphasized that one should not force the mind to concentrate on certain object or force anything to happen in particular.Its kind of letting things unfold and just watching them as they unfold .But for an untrained mind isn't watching by itself a kind of doing and if it shouldn't be a doing and is the natural state of restful alertness ,how can it be initiated without the mind feeling forced to do it.If one is driven by conditioning in a non doing state. Ardency as I understand is an important aspect of the practice ,but doing it on the razor's edge of not falling into forcing the mind,is tricky.What is the best way to initiate it so it becomes right mindfulness?.

Is it forbidden in Thailand and Buddhist religion for a Thai adult female living in the western world to perform consensual oral sex on someone?

In the Diamond Sutra Buddha said : > Subhuti, if a person collected treasures as high as 3,000 of the highest mountains, and gave them all to others, their merit would be less than what would accrue to another person who simply observed and studied this Sutra and, out of kindness, explained it to others. The latter person would accumulate hundreds of times the merit, hundreds of thousands of millions of times the merit. There is no conceivable comparison. I do not believe in charity because it doesn't cease suffering in a long term and it doesn't solve any fundamental problems in the human world. So I'd like to follow Buddha's words but of course I'm not skillful enough to do it myself. What do you think will be the best way to help the Dharma reach more people if you have spare $100 a month? Or $1,000? Or $100,000 at once?

As far as I understand (of course I may be wrong), every act done voluntarily is born from some specific kind of intentions, and according to the nature of that intention, the act can contribute to perpetuate dukkha or to its eradication. What happens when one acts without any amount of aversion nor passion, doing an action which in most cases is considered almost inseperable from evil intentions and almost objectively inmoral, let's say, consciously killing a child or raping somebody, while knowing the consequences? Can those acts actually be executed without any amount of evil intentions? Is that even possible? Thanks in advance for your time!

I've read that the Dalai Lama tends not to disclose his own spiritual experiences. Is it bad to disclose meditative or spiritual experiences as visions and such? Is there a difference between monks and lay practitioners in this respect? Again for monks and lay holders: what occurs if someone is lying or inauthentic about a spiritual experience? Also, how does one know if a spiritual experience is a genuine one? Thank you

Buddhists, from children to monks, chant the following homage to the Buddha: > *Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa* > >*Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa* > >*Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa* What does the term '*sammasambuddhasa*' mean?

As suggested in this answer , it is a good idea to investigate this further. What is wise reflection (yoniso manasikāra) and unwise reflection (ayoniso manasikāra)? Yoniso manasikāra is also translated as wise attention, appropriate attention. Why is yoniso manasikāra important? What is it used for? How does one practise it?