Some Brahmans, strangely those learning Abhidhamma and give into meditation, draw excuses of deeds and weight of kamma from the Vinaya, arguing that a lesser transgression must be lighter kamma. Is such an idea legitimately or just another cherry-picking around to justify personal incapacities and giving favors? What's the different between "retaliation-justice" (in cases one likes to judge god-like) and the Vinaya, the difference between conduct-rules and kamma? Acting according certain community-rules or according the law of nature? *[Note: this is not given to give a stand, nor to trade, exchange or Buddh-ism, but for liberation, gaining rightly unbound.]*

Some suggested to take precepts not so serious, saying "The Buddhist teachings do not exist for you to create suffering for yourself." and approved kill by putting his happiness as more worthy then that of "lower". Do this "Buddhist teachings" have any thing to do with the Buddhas and that of wise? *[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism but for release and might be not welcome for those seeking for trade.]*

What is the duration of Jhana? How long the duration of each Jhana. For instance, what is the duration of the first Jhana? Say if I have first Jhana only for one minute, can I say that I was in the first Jhana?

I start with some quotes, to show how I got to two specific questions about Buddhism, then a question that is more philosophical and general. Batchelor's translation of Nagajuna's MMK : > I bow down to the most sublime of speakers, the completely awakened > one who taught contingency (no cessation, **no birth**, no > annihilation, no permanence, no coming, no going, no difference, no > identity) to ease fixations. Looking at the section on birth, 7.4 (I'm more or less choosing interesting parts at random to get to my particular point, below) > The birth of birth gives birth to the root birth alone. The root > birth also is that which gives birth to the birth of birth That seems like an infinite regress of births, suggesting birth is caused (7.19) > If another [thing] that has been born gives birth [to it], this would > be endless. If it is born without [another] which has been born [OR > if it is born without being born], everything would be born like that > [i.e. causelessly]. which may be why he concludes (7.34) > Like a dream, like a magician’s illusion, like a city of gandharvas, > likewise birth and likewise remaining, likewise perishing are taught. perhaps via support from 1.3 > The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on. If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist. birth is not an other thing, its essence is not in others, and in conjunction with the argument in 1.5 > Since something is born in dependence upon them, then they are known as “conditions”. As long as it is not born, why are they not > non-conditions? we're back to birth being an infinite regress, but the apparent way out, it being caused, makes no difference, because ***cause too is a birth*: birth is no birth.** My questions: ----------------- We can pile up adjectives as long as we want. The red of the rose is a red that is red, and so on. Whereas actions, verbs, take up time, and suggest an infinite number of tasks, births, need to occur for one to. 1. Is there, in Nagarjua's Sanskrit (different grammars teach different rules ), an adjective for the past tense of born? 2. Even if we do use an adjective for birth does this offer any problems? Does the meaning of "born" always involve an incomplete infinite regress of actions, or can that be avoided if it itself is not an action? I suspect that we can get out of the infinite regress only through the claim that the born thing *exists* to have such and such aspects. Am I right? ---------- Does my presentation of the idea that born things must exist because they are caused, unlike nirvana, makes sense to yogacarin theories of trisvabhava?

There are some very influential meditation masters of the 20th century such as Mahasi Sayadaw and S.N. Goenka who have many people today who follow their methods. Is it possible to summarize the methods particular to modern meditation masters (type of meditation, etc.) and provide links to their teachings? This might be helpful to those new to meditation or those looking to expand their understanding of the many styles of meditation available today. This is a community wiki and a work in progress. Please consider adding your knowledge to this post. Thank you!

Many people believe that their good or bad thoughts can materialize in the future. So some people try to be always in good mood and think positively. Others are not so happy and just try not to think about bad things too often to prevent them from happening. And finally there are large groups of people that pray to some god. Can thoughts of all these people materialize into a real events, creatures, things? At least sometimes?

Is it possible to have awareness without a self-sense? Does an awareness presuppose a self being aware no matter how refined or subtle that sense of self might be? Or to reframe the question slightly - can awareness be non-dual i.e. the being aware of the subject without the object. Many thanks as always

I have been calling myself a Buddhist for as long as I can remember, but I have never done it right. I notice that my mom would chant the mantras from the book, while usually I would just say anything while I pray. I am wondering... is there a right or respectful way of praying in Buddhism? Just out of curiosity. Thank you!

> The point is that such moment by moment destruction is spontaneous > (ākasmika) and is the uncaused real nature of things, because it > cannot be an effect of any cause. The effect of such a cause, i.e., > the absence of the entity, would have to be a type of non-being > (abhāva), and non-being is unreal. > > A key underlying principle of the vināśitvānumāna is that negative > facts, such as absences, are not part of the ultimate furniture of the > world, but are just fictional conceptual constructions, as they are > devoid of causal powers. Equally, a fiction lacking causal powers is > not the effect of something else. While it is obviously impossible to > deny that hammers smash pots, the absence (abhāva) of the pot, i.e., > the non-existent pot, is not an effect, just as other non-existent > things (abhāva), like horns of rabbits, are not effects of anything > either. Hammers and the like are thus not actually causes of the pot's > absence but of it turning into potsherds. That idea is perhaps > defensible, in that arguably the mere absence of something—a purely > negative fact—might be less real and less efficacious than the > presence of other things. Nonetheless, the rest of the argument > looks to consist in a number of non-sequiturs going from that > difference in efficacy and reality between absences and presences to > the idea that perishing is somehow the real nature of things, that it > must be intrinsic to them, and that therefore things must perish > spontaneously moment after moment. Let's grant the Buddhist view that > the perishing of x is the real property of changing into a new thing, > and not just x becoming absent. If it is accepted that hammer blows do > change pots into potsherds, then why couldn't someone skeptical about > the Buddhist's arguments just take that as the model of how things > perish when they do? It does not follow from that model of perishing > that a pot could not endure for quite a while. Is it a non sequitur? If there are no absences then is nothing excluded from the causal context of an effect? If so, then couldn't we just conclude that causation is beyond conceptualization, so that any cause (the hammer) of e.g. destruction (the broken pot) is also not the cause, and the effect of destruction must be "the real nature of things", so invariant? Is that a good reconstruction of the argument, or have I misunderstood?

Did Buddha mean the term "being or existence" as used in everyday life or different from those such as co-arising with contact and feeling and attachment ? In case Buddha meant the latter I believe the meaning of "being or existence" is quite different from the ordinary meaning. "Being or existence" is not something staying for 30 or 80 years but reborn every moment you become craved on sensual phenomenon.

I have been practicing what I believe is insight meditation for over 5 or 6 years now in the Mahasi tradition but still very frequently I feel like I'm not doing it right or something. I suppose I thought that I would see some kind of change or have some insights but nothing much has changed and I can't say I've had any insights into the true nature of reality which is so often emphasised and mentioned. I've started to do body scans but I'm unsure if I'm doing it right. I sit for a while and notice the breath then I start at the top of my head and go down the body part by part ie crown of head, back of head, forehead, eyes, nose, lips, chin, neck etc. But I have difficulty with this. I'm unsure how to focus on a body part apart from trying to see it in my mind. I don't feel anything anywhere except for the air going through the nasal passages, sometimes the eyes flutter a bit, the abdomen rises and falls and the hands sometimes tingle or pulse. Everywhere else feels completely dead. Maybe I'm completely out of touch with my body and its sensations. I know they must be there but why can I not focus on them? Also sometimes I'll start at the head and then I realise I have wandered off for so long that the mediation is nearly over so I cannot even manage to scan the body at all! Please don't tell me to read the scriptures or find a teacher. The scriptures bore me. I'm not a religious person. They are just so repetitive and convoluted that I don't find them helpful. They send me to sleep, and trying to find a teacher is impossible. I have attended Sanghas regularly on occasions and nothing ever comes out of it. I don't know how to approach people and say can you please be my teacher. The people at the Sanghas didn't seem to be open to having students.

It is Tibetan mantra. In which traditon Om Ma Ni Pad Me Hum mantra is used Mahayana or Thervada? Or it is used in all three traditions, since this is Buddhism teaching?

I read the following article about the fullness of emptiness and this statement stuck out to me: > ...when we look at a sheet of paper, the sheet of paper is part of our > perception. Your mind is in here and mine is also, so we can say that > everything is in here in this sheet of paper. Now, the question is: prior to my perception of the paper, was it the same sheet of paper? Based on the article, my answer would be no. I would expound on that with the following thoughts: - prior to my perception of it, a paper exists that does not have my perception of it as an aggregate, **paper #1** - after my perception of the paper, a new paper came to exist consisting of all of the aggregates of **paper #1** plus my own perception, resulting in **paper #2** Conclusion: there are two distinct, co-existing pieces of paper. Thoughts?

There are the six types of consciousness (*viññāṇa*) based on MN 38 , namely those related to the six sense media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. In MN 49 , there was a "consciousness without surface" (*viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ*), which turned out to be a mistranslation, according to the answers of this question . The sutta was talking about Nibbana. So, are there any other types of consciousness (*viññāṇa*) in Theravada outside the six sense media consciousnesses? What about rebirth linking consciousness? Is that a type of consciousness outside the six sense media? I know in Mahayana, there are still two more types of consciousness according to this Wikipedia page . But this question is asking more from the Theravada perspective (including Abhidhamma).

Here's what I'm given to understand: The Abhidhamma manual classifies all possible mental states of a human being into - various different kinds of Chittas and Chetasikas. Here's what I want to know: - Are the mental states of (what is generally considered to be a) disorder, like say - Bipolar disorder, Autism etc. also considered and classified in this text? - Is there a way out of it? Is there anyway for someone who wants to help those in deeper suffering because of this. Meditation, medication, perspective, world view etc.

The first Precept is to abstain from Killing a "living being". Is there a consistent definition of Living Being that we should not kill to avoid violating the first Precept? I have heard of a definition such as a Living Being means they have the Five Aggregates, so that Plants / Germs do not count as they do not have all Five and cannot be reincarnated into.... etc. But I don't know if this definition is widely accepted in either Theravada or Mahayana. If this definition is accepted, how do we know what beings do not have all Five Aggregates? If not, is there any other definitions that we can use? Would also want to know if Clams, Oysters, Corals...etc... are considered as having all of the Five Aggregates too. Five Aggregates: 1. form (or matter or body) (rupa), 2. sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), 3. perceptions (samjna), 4. mental activity or formations (sankhara), and 5. consciousness (vijnana)

Does Viññāṇa generate Nāmarūpa in the sense that would make "uploading concsciousness" to a computer impossible? I was reading this question on philosophy.stack I'd suspect that it's impossible to *make sense* of momentary rebirth / causal continuity in terms of computer data. Wouldn't every Buddhist say that pots and trees are mental constructions, so that, even if granted concrete reality, as in the Sarvastavadin school, they don't exist from moment to moment? A chariot's axle, for them, does not generate visual consciousness, only colour and shape do that. And so the same for computers. But should the Buddhist claim it's not merely opaque but impossible, especially due to mind-body dualism? Does rebirth consciousness actually **form** the new body (and mind), in the 12 links of dependent origination? Because if it does, unless I've misunderstood 'consciousness', perhaps due to its coupling with 'rebirth', I don't see how anyone can claim that there is genuine continuity. As surely my consciousness does not **form** the physical body of a computer: it's already been designed etc..

Not only as a reminder today, on Māgha Pūjā, it is possible of interest to know more about "Buddhist" secound large Pūjā and it would be interesting to get known different traditional customs (of course not that what is found on wiki, which has "real" info) and one or another might share "first hand" information around it, in Sangha spheres. What are the customs, their reasons, their ways of putting them into deeds? May all use the lasting hours for their long time benefit and cleaning!

Recently, Bhikkhu Sujato wrote: > It is no coincidence that these elaborate texts are often addressed to > the brahmins, who were the self-proclaimed spiritual leaders of the > time. The brahmins were the custodians of the most sophisticated texts > in ancient India up to this time, the Vedic literature. It seems that > one aim of the Dīgha was to impress such learned men. > >The Long Discourses: Dhamma as literature and compilation There also this introduction on _Access to Insight_ (which cites Bhikkhu Bodhi and Joy Manné): > The "Long" Discourses (Pali digha = "long") consists of 34 suttas, > including the longest ones in the Canon. The subject matter of these > suttas ranges widely, from colorful folkloric accounts of the beings > inhabiting the deva worlds (DN 20) to down-to-earth practical > meditation instructions (DN 22), and everything in between. Recent > scholarship suggests that a distinguishing trait of the Digha Nikaya > may be that it was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract > converts to the new religion."1 > > 1. Bhikkhu Bodhi, Connected Discourses of the Buddha (Somerville, Mass.: Wisdom Publications, 2000), p.31, referring to Joy Manné's > "Categories of Sutta in the Pali Nikayas and Their Implications for > Our Appreciation of the Buddhist Teaching and Literature," Journal of > the Pali Text Society 15 (1990): 29-87. > >Sutta Pitaka The Basket of Suttas Is there evidence (such as contradictions with other suttas) suggesting the Buddha did not speak the Digha Nikaya? In there any evidence in the suttas where the Buddha said he would teach a different modified Dhamma ("propaganda") merely for the purpose of converting Brahmins & other outsiders? Is there any evidence in the suttas showing the Buddha was "flexible" in his teaching of Dhamma? Or do the suttas show the Buddha wished his teachings to remain consistent & clearly representative of what he taught?

The above mentioned technical terms are respectively translated as Craving for Becoming (something) & Craving for Non-Becoming/Getting Rid Off. Above said, how do we know that we're in Craving for Becoming (or not) whenever we're cultivating good? One of the limbs of the N8P, that is, 'bhavana', is about active cultivation. Where is the difference between the two? Similarly, if we do virtuous acts and reflect on those acts regularly, the perception of a 'virtuous person' increases as well, doesn't it? This too, then, is Bhava Tanha? Now with Vibhava Tanha: Suppose I am overweight and must lose weight immeditately; is the 'getting rid' of my body fat then considered vibhava tanha and at the same time 'bhava tanha' (becoming a skinny person)? Finally, when do we exactly know whether something is bhava tanha or kusala chanda? Is it primarily our motivation, i.e., in this case, for whom we're losing weight/what motivation causes us to lose weight, or is it something that we can't avoid at all, since 'identity birth(s)' ('I am this', 'I am not this') exists in everyone except in a fully enlightened being.