*Question is grammatically similar to this question but different in content.* Apparently, Equanimity is not indifference but a feeling in itself. According to the Note at the bottom of Potaliya Sutta. ; > MN 137 (passage § 179 in The Wings to Awakening) identifies **"equanimity based on multiplicity" as equanimity with regard to forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations**. It identifies "equanimity based on singleness" as the four formless attainments. In the context of this sutta, however, the Commentary defines **equanimity based on singleness as the fourth jhana**, and this interpretation seems correct. Toward the end of this passage, the equanimity based on singleness functions as the basis for the three knowledges, a function that is normally filled by the fourth jhana. As I understand, there is Equanimity with regards to sense bases and one generated through Jhnana. My question is, **How to Cultivate this Equanimity wrt multiplicity? Will the one wrt Jhnana get cultivated by itself**? The Indriya-Bhavana sutta mentions it as **peaceful and exquisite**, does developing that feeling in face of changing circumstances account to equanimity?

>There is the case where a monk is content with any old robe cloth at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old robe cloth at all. He does not, for the sake of robe cloth, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. **Not getting cloth, he is not agitated**. Getting cloth, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old robe cloth at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones. ~ > **Not getting almsfood, he is not agitated.** > > **Not getting lodging, he is not agitated.** AN 4.28 And the well-known simile of the Saw: >"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves. MN21

"Idea of reincarnation(rebirth) is due to craving for existence" I'd like to listen to your opinion about this.

I have seen people using the words *Pin* ("good deeds") interchangeably with *Kusal*; and *Paw* ("bad deeds") interchangeably with *Akusal*. But there are clear differences between them -- per my understanding: * *Pin* (Good deeds) - Actions done physically, verbally or with mind that has good karmas * *Kusal* - Anything that would lead you in the path to nirvana. (*Paw* (Bad deeds) and *Akusal* are the opposites of the above.) But I'm not sure about these definitions. I would like to know the exact meaning of these and how they are related to each other?

I am interested in knowing more about Buddhism especially the pursuit of happiness. Which book would you recommend me for introducing me to Buddhism philosophy on this subject?

I was raised in an area where the usual answer to the question of what Buddhism is was "I don't know, hippy stuff", and any religion outside Christianity was considered "the work of Satan". That said, in my adult life I have been drawn to Buddhist philosophies and concepts as I understand them, but I'm not really sure where to start in my study of the religion. I've read a couple "Intro to Buddhism" type books that were very interesting and enlightening. However I'm pretty fuzzy on what historical texts I should be looking to read when it comes to the actual teachings of the Buddha as pertains to all Buddhism (not specifically Mahayana or Theravada etc.). Basically I'm looking for some information on what writing(s) could be considered the "Bible" of Buddhism, but from what I understand there is no central text in that sense. I've found lists of sutras (and suttas? I'm not too clear on the difference), but they are extensive and not really catagorized or anything.

I have always wondered if insects belongs to the animal realm in Buddhism, and I have yet to read stories about rebirth as an insect, such as a butterfly, a mosquito, or a praying mantis.

The third visuddhi of the Satta Visuddhi is "ditthi visuddhi". But what is the exact meaning of it ?

Based on the quote below, it seemed that the Buddha did not allow his teachings to be translated to the royal or priestly language of Sanskrit, that was the liturgical language of Brahmanism, the language of classical literature and the language used by the royal court. The common people at the time did not speak Sanskrit in their daily conversations. They spoke various dialects of Prakrit. The Buddha wanted his teachings to be transmitted in the dialects of the common people. It appears that Pali, although not a genuinely spoken language of the past, seems to be a mix of various Prakrit dialects from Buddha's time, that underwent partial Sanskritization. It also makes sense to me that the Pali Canon was transmitted mostly by oral tradition and was written down only late in its history compared to Mahayana texts because Sanskrit was the main written language for a long time in northern India. This is similar to the role of Latin in European history. I also guess that the Chinese scholar monks who visited India, took with them the Sanskrit Mahayana texts back to China, instead of the Pali Canon, partly because the Sanskrit texts were committed to writing much earlier, while the Pali Canon was still transmitted mostly orally at the time. Question: If the Buddha did not want his teachings to be taught in Sanskrit, why and how did the Indian Mahayana texts (agamas, sutras, vinaya etc.) end up being in Sanskrit? According to the (Theravada) Vinaya from Cullavagga, fifth Khandaka, chapter 33 : > And so sitting those Bhikkhus spake to the Blessed One thus: > > 'At the present time, Lord, Bhikkhus, differing in name, differing in > lineage, differing in birth, differing in family, have gone forth > (from the world). These corrupt the word of the Buddhas by (repeating > it in) their own dialect. Let us, Lord, put the word of the Buddhas > into (Sanskrit) verse.' > > 'How can you, O foolish ones, speak thus, saying, "Let us, Lord, put > the word of the Buddhas into verse?" This will not conduce, O foolish > ones, either to the conversion of the unconverted, or to the increase > of the converted; but rather to those who have not been converted > being not converted, and to the turning back of those who have been > converted.' > > And when the Blessed One had rebuked those Bhikkhus, and had delivered > a religious discourse, he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said: > > **'You are not, O Bhikkhus, to put the word of the Buddhas into > (Sanskrit) verse. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata. I > allow you, O Bhikkhus, to learn the word of the Buddhas each in his > own dialect.'**

What if there is no rebirth but karma is not eradicated by the path? I think that would mean that the agent experiences the results of their actions even without rebirth. Am I right? At least if the buddha self is not just impermanent.

Is smoking tobacco acceptable in any school of Buddhism? I think it shouldn't be considered acceptable: - because of the fifth precept - because of the first precept (smoking is physically harmful, so trying to logically defend smoking is rationalizing suicide) - and because smoking is addictive. The reality of smoking, as I see it, include: - 400 chemicals poisoning your physical body - pictures of diseased lungs on cigarette packages in Canada - having a parent with emphysema spend the last ten years of life hooked to an oxygen tank - seeing someone die suddenly from a heart attack or complete heart failure - seeing someone go through chemotherapy with toxic chemicals to kill a cancer tumor and the hair loss and vomiting that comes with it - seeing people treated for cancer using radiation therapy that leaves behind second and third degree burns on the skin Also, I think this is not exactly "craving", but rather, "addiction". The power that is has on us is purely a physical addiction: it is not due to the intentions (volition) which the mind creates, it is due to a physical chemical controlling the brain. I find it amazing that Buddhists want to dance around the issue of addiction and their unwillingness to discuss addiction in modern terms. I challenge Buddhists to not hide from modern addiction problems using irrelevant Buddhist philosophy.

The Three Pure Land sutras contain descriptions of a beautiful and serene place with trees, ponds, and palaces all made of jewels and surrounded with heavenly music and fragrance. How is this Pure Land understood by followers of Pure Land schools? Is it thought of as a place one will literally go after this life or is it more of an inspiration or source of imagery for meditation? Or something else entirely? Thank you for helping me to understand this.

I don't think I've seen any talk about this on the Buddhism SE and I'm genuinely curious, since I've heard that Christianity takes a very dim view of the practice. Have any Buddhist texts or teachers made reference to witchcraft or religions that practice it, and if so, was it in a positive / neutral / negative light? *Please note: I'm not really asking whether answerers personally believe that magic / witchcraft exists, so I ask that you stick to the actual question when answering.*

The Buddha repeatedly said to avoid ignorant, immoral people as much as possible, but isn't this - at least a little - opposed to kindness? I associate kindness with being benevolent, caring & somewhat open. Am I missing here something? Thanks

I like to meditate sometimes just before bed. Invariably I end up drifting off into dream type states and ending the mediating early. Is it a waste of time to meditate when tired or conversely are there some particular benefits to doing it then? Many thanks as always

What is the difference between **view** (as in "right view" in the Noble Eightfold Path) and **perception** (as in the 3rd of the five Skandha's)? Grateful for help! Peace, Tord

Apologies for the term Hinayana but this question is borne out of those discussions . So - is Theravada Buddhism the only modern representative on Hinayana Buddhism or are there another current branches of Buddhism, no matter how minor, that could also be termed 'Hinayana'. Or in other words would Theravada be completely synonymous with 'currently existing Hinayana Buddhism'.

I have noticed the following translation in MN10: > And again, monks, a monk, when he is walking, comprehends, ‘I am walking’; or when he is standing still, comprehends, ‘I am standing still’; or when he is sitting down, comprehends, ‘I am sitting down’; or when he is lying down, comprehends, ‘I am lying down.’ So that however his body is disposed he comprehends that it is like that. > > https://suttacentral.net/mn10/en/horner I find this in all translations of Ven Sujato and Ven Thanissaro's translations as well. But when I checked the Sinhalese translations, I can't see this was translate as "i am".

I found a video about Leshan Giant Buddha and was watching it with my family. In that video some workers were cleaning the statue's head while walking on it (it is a giant statue) - and my family members were surprised that people walked on Buddha's head, because to them that looked disrespectful. I replied that it's not a real problem, because Buddha does not have attachment to respect and would not feel insulted. Was I wrong or is this correct? The Buddha would never cling to such concepts like respect and feel insulted, right?

I'm curious to know and understand more how would a Buddhist deal with wastage under the following circumstances : i)If it was an impulsive buy and you don't like the item after that and at the same time don't wanna keep it as it may took up the space available. Or would you rather just use it but you are obviously unhappy using it. ii)If it was something edible, e.g. you thought of trying out new food but realize later it doesn't suit your tastebud or worse, you find it hard to finish it. iii)Someone got you a gift but you may not like it or it's not something you want, would you keep it? By keeping it and not using it is equivalent to wastage or would you rather use it but deep down you wont't feel happy using it cos it's not something you want. The struggle or rather dilemma is you may just use it cos you don't wanna disappoint the person who gave you the gift but on the other hand, how do you even find peace and happiness doing something you may not like. I'm constantly at the crossroad of learning to be grateful for what i have for many of them out there may not be able to have what i have. But i can't find peace or even happiness if it causes great deal of pain for accepting something which i don't like or it's not something i wanted. I'm assuming Buddhism does not teach us to accept blindly even you can't. How do you even live a life like that? Feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks & sadhu sadhu sadhu...