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...

Aside of Silas there is the matter of kamma which includes always the mind. What's the impact of acting "political correct" or "according to laws", Sila, while having unskilful intentions? Whould breaking Silas be possible when mind is skilful adjusted? May skilful acting look like unskilful? What's the impact of your surpressing a honest answer, well considered, here, while possible having unskilful thoughts an reasons to act so? Or simply guided by not knowing, ignorance? Of cause it could be that one is limited by circumstances or "forced" to "lie" to fulfill contracts, but what should then be actually given up, left behind? (It's of less support to answer in manners of ultimate, because even not possible, and does not help in getting started with basics and home tasks, but are purely speculations of defilements: excuses to act proper and to investigate one mind and intentions honest.)

My question is about the following passage (taken from the section on the five hindrances here ): > One who earnestly aspires to the unshakable deliverance of the mind > should, therefore, **select a definite "working-ground" of a direct and > practical import: a kammatthana[1] in its widest sense, on which the > structure of his entire life should be based.** Holding fast to that > "working-ground," never losing sight of it for long, even this alone > will be a considerable and encouraging progress in the control and > development of the mind, because in that way the directive and > purposive energies of mind will be strengthened considerably. **One who > has chosen the conquest of the five hindrances for a "working-ground"** > should examine which of the five are strongest in one's personal case. > Then one should carefully observe how, and on which occasions, they > usually appear. One should further know the positive forces within > one's own mind by which each of these hindrances can best be countered > and, finally, conquered; and one should also examine one's life for > any opportunity of developing these qualities which, in the following > pages, have been indicated under the headings of the spiritual > faculties (indriya), the factors of absorption (jhananga), and the > factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga). In some cases, subjects of > meditation have been added which will be helpful in overcoming the > respective hindrances. The bolded emphasis is mine. My question is, what is meant by making the "conquest of the five hindrances a working-ground"? Kammatthana is later defined as the subject of meditation (literally meaning "working-ground"). Instructions are given right after the assertion but I am confused as to how one might extend this into everyday life and not merely during meditation. Furthermore, meditation often has some other object of focus (namely, the breath, the movement of the abdomen etc.) does making the five hindrances the working-ground change this? More practically, if a thought arises which is unwholesome (not during a sit, but in everyday life, since it is stated above that we should make the "structure of [our] entire life" based on the working-ground) should we try to categorize the thought into one of the hindrances, then accept it merely as a thought, as part of a process which does not constitute our identity and then watch it impassively until it fades? Or how should we deal them?

For most people it's not readily discernible why sense pleasures are unsatisfactory. In general, a lot of people know intellectually that sense pleasures are impermanent, and that virtuous thinking & acting is what makes life fulfilling. Craving as a feeling, on the other hand, when investigated, is stressful because it disturbs the stillness of the mind. Okay, enough of rambling: From a Dhammic point of view the maxim "a little of what you fancy does you good" therefore doesn't hold true, does it? Since craving of any sort cannot permanently be ceased by means of giving into it (actually it usually grows stronger), one is advised to change one's attitudes towards it and, as best as one can, abstains from it. Am I comprehending this correctly? Thanks

From what I understand as far as the Theravadin tradition goes right view is seeing things as they are instead of through our own filters, conditioning, beliefs etc. So if I have some pain it is just pain and I don't need to see it as pleasant or unpleasant then buy into a narrative etc that might say for example 'I hate this pain, why me' the same can be said for joy 'I love feeling like this, I wish it wouldn't end'. That if we push things away and crave for things to stay then we are not accepting the reality of dukkha, anicca and anatta and we cause ourselves suffering. So when we sit in meditation and just notice the raw sensations and note hearing hearing, pain pain, numb numb, thinking thinking etc we are training our minds to not react to these things in our lives which can then lead to right thought and right action etc and we become more peaceful. So this is what I have practiced for over 7 years. I have noticed some changes but not a lot. It's very difficult to not react to things. Its also very difficult to find a balance so that one doesn't end up being a passive doormat. My life feels like an endless barrage of things that rub me the wrong way. I feel immense anxiety most days many times. If I see something happening in my world and I feel a reaction within such as anger stirring I'm wondering do I just note anger anger and then try not to lash out and react? If I have dark angry thoughts is it too late? Have I already entered into the territory of wrong view? Or is it good that I'm noticing then not reacting? Because I honestly can't see a future day when I don't feel ill will and anger at stuff and people. I so far have not been able to notice the sensation before the anger or whatever arises. It happens in a split second. Occurrence - Anger - Boom.

Can anyone please send me link to the pdf of line by line English translation of Tipitaka at least translation only.

> ‘‘**Sataṃ sahassānaṃ nirabbudānaṃ, Chattiṃsatīṃ pañca ca abbudāni;** Yamariyagarahī nirayaṃ upeti, Vācaṃ manañca paṇidhāya pāpakan’’ti. ~ Cited from: Paṭhamakhatasuttaṃ, Bhaṇḍagāmavagga, Catukkanipātapāḷi, Aṅguttaranikāya, Tipitaka. (English translation: Paṭhamakaṭasuttaṃ ) > ‘‘Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu vīsatikhāriko kosalako tilavāho. Tato puriso vassasatassa vassasatassa accayena ekamekaṃ tilaṃ uddhareyya; khippataraṃ kho so, bhikkhu, vīsatikhāriko kosalako tilavāho iminā upakkamena parikkhayaṃ pariyādānaṃ gaccheyya, na tveva eko abbudo nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, **vīsati abbudā nirayā, evameko nirabbudanirayo.** Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, **vīsati nirabbudā nirayā, evameko ababo nirayo.** Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, **vīsati ababā nirayā, evameko aṭaṭo nirayo.** Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, **vīsati aṭaṭā nirayā, evameko ahaho nirayo.** Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, **vīsati ahahā nirayā, evameko kumudo nirayo.** Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, **vīsati kumudā nirayā, evameko sogandhiko nirayo.** Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, **vīsati sogandhikā nirayā, evameko uppalanirayo.** Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, **vīsati uppalā nirayā, evameko puṇḍariko nirayo.** Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, **vīsati puṇḍarikā nirayā, evameko padumo nirayo.** Padume pana, bhikkhu, niraye kokāliko bhikkhu upapanno sāriputtamoggallānesu cittaṃ āghātetvā’’ti. ~ Cited from: Kokālikasuttaṃ, Brahmasaṃyuttaṃ, Sagāthāvagga, Saṃyuttanikāya, Tipitaka (English translation: Kokāliko II –– The Bhikkhu Kokālika II ) According to the above two texts which I have highlighted in bold, it seems there should be a counting system in Pali. Sometimes the lifespan of sentient beings in certain realms used as numbers. My questions are: 1. Are there any equivalent numbers which can be written in Hindu-Arabic numerals for numbers used in Pali (like **Abbuda, Nirabbuda, Paduma, ...**)? 2. If there is a different counting system in Pali other than I've mentioned, please explain. 2. What is the time period mentioned in **‘‘Sataṃ sahassānaṃ nirabbudānaṃ, Chattiṃsatīṃ pañca ca abbudāni"**

According to the Suttas, "idle speech" is one of the ten unwholesome actions which generate bad karma. I understand why the other nine unwholesome actions would generate bad karma, but I have a lot of questions about the Buddha's claim that idle speech does the same. First, let's take a look at some relevant suttas to determine what the Buddha meant by "idle speech". An oft-quoted passage, found in [DN 2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html) , suggests that practitioners should only talk about dharma-related topics and nothing else: > Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these — talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue. This passage, however, describes the behavior expected from buddhist *monastics*, not ordinary lay buddhists. So where do the suttas talk about idle speech for laypeople? One example is [MN 41](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.041.than.html) , in which the Buddha explains to a group of laypeople which actions lead to bad rebirths. About idle speech, the Buddha tells his audience the following: > He engages in idle chatter. He speaks out of season, speaks what isn't factual, what isn't in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya, words that are not worth treasuring. The words "what isn't in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya" seem to imply that just like monastics, lay followers should restrict their speech to topics related to the practice of buddhism. I have two issues with this idea. First, it's impractical. Laypeople lead social lives, and in [DN 31](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html) the Buddha himself talks about the importance of good friendships. It would be practically impossible to establish and reinforce social bonds without engaging in any conversations about worldly topics. Second, the reasons buddhist teachers usually give for avoiding idle speech are *practical* rather than *moral*. Teachers generally tell their followers that by engaging in idle speech, they are wasting their time and distracting themselves from the study and practice of the dharma. While these are undoubtedly good reasons to cut down on idle speech, it doesn't explain why idle speech creates bad karma. If distracting yourself from studying and practicing the dharma creates bad karma, why aren't other distracting activities included in the Buddha's list of unwholesome actions? Engaging in idle speech isn't inherently more distracting than other leisure activities, such as consuming entertainment (i'm aware that in DN 31, the Buddha discouraged his lay followers from attending public spectacles. However, the reason given for this rule is that frequenting public spectacles has negative consequences *in this life*, not that it generates bad karma). So how should I interpret the Buddha's teachings on idle speech for lay followers? I'd like to hear what prominent teachers have to say about this topic, but everyone's perspective will be appreciated as long as it's well substantiated. Thanks in advance for your answers!

And also need to know, where it includes in tipitaka..

There are at present time only two things which still give me emotional responses that I seemingly have no control over. The one that I will be dealing with in this question is my inability to stop getting frustrated with video games. So, while I do not expect that the Buddha had any remarks about how to treat your Jungler on League of Legends, I would be interested to hear any parallels in Buddhist philosophy as it pertains to the real world. So, I will word it in reality. When someone is doing something which I find disagreeable, and which negatively impacts me, how should I avoid falling into the trap of being angry at them for "sabotaging" me? More importantly, how do I avoid seeing it as sabotage, when surely they are doing what they think is right? How do I avoid being angry at false expectations? In Stoic philosophy, there is this notion of avoiding expectation—i.e., there is no reason to believe that what I wish to happen will happen, and that nothing is owed to me. Are there meditative practices which can assist with this? What does the Buddha say about these things? Or what does Buddhist philosophy have to say?

I have read somewhere that Arhats (people who attained Nirvana) do not sleep like normal people do. Instead they just stay calm in a suitable position to give the rest required for the physical body, but their mind is always alert... Is this true?

Can a being be ignorant and depressed due to ignorance and commits suicide and is then reborn ignorant and depressed still and commits suicide again and again and so on indefinitely...? If so, is there any guarantee of it ever ending?

Dear Mighty friends and learned colleagues, I am a Scientist and have been a philosopher (I don't want to reveal my identity) so far. I have been a strong theist, raised up in an orthodox Hindu Background, with vedic training. So I read Vedas and other texts and always believed in God. Sometimes by convention and sometimes by experiential intuition. God was - unfortunately or fortunately - presented to me in a dogmatic manner. Top-Down. Here is God. Take it. Accept it. Believe it. I was OK with it, till it started to disturb me deep down. Firstly due to my heavy involvement with the foundations of sciences, I was caught in the method of science. So I can't believe in God and do my science at the same time. At one point one has to give up traveling in two boats. Buddhism offered solace at that point. I thought it's a logical religion. Totally banishing the dogmas and blind beliefs. But I found some paradoxes in it as well. Perhaps due to my ignorance. I will be grateful if someone throw some light and enlighten me here: **Buddhism's ontology posits a world which don't need a creator. That's fine. But how about the soul? What proof does Buddha have for soul? and What about reincarnation? What are the proofs for it?** What about the Maitri? or Metta? When you close your eyes and let your heart radiate, should we imagine a field (akin to quantum fields) that radiates outside your heart? What's the proof for this again? Also what about Karma? How can I reap bad when I sow bad? Where does this transaction take place? In ordinary space-time? Because attributing causality to action and reaction posited by Karma principle, is against the modern science whose fundamental elements are quantum particles. Where are this Good and Bad situated? What about Amitabha? So the issue is simple. In for pound. In for penny. If Buddhism doesn't accept anything by blind belief, then these elements should be dropped. Because there's no scientific/cognitive proofs of the aforementioned elements given our sensorimotor apparatus. Can someone enlighten me? Or suggest me some books? Any brief answers addressing these things will be greatly helpful. Your humble servant.

From a perspective to hindrances to meditation this may fall under remorse and regrets, but not very apt in that sense. Using Buddhist philosophy to get over and respond, how do you handle when someone tries to instil guilt in you, like trying to make you feel like you have done something wrong, you are a bad person, I am a victim, you are a perpetrator. How to respond to such a person? Sutta references are appreciated but otherwise, any workable answer adhering to keeping Buddhist precepts and practise is welcome.

I'm intrigued by this concept. Can a Buddhist marry a person from a faith who believe in a God that created the universe? I've got varying answers from Buddhists, some have advised that religion does not matter as it's personal, others have said it does. However I was also thinking as a marriage it 2 people, and then ramifications from that, be it extended family, children etc. Would it be recommended if the other partner's faith dictated that the Buddhist partner would not go to heaven and so creating a deep seated question of faith and tension between the 2 people. Also what would anyone learn from a couple who have disbanded their own faiths for mortal desires rather then an actual spiritual journey?

What is the Best , online Sanskrit-English dictionary. I want to do research on the early root meanings and usage of certain Buddhist words in early India. Say 5,000 years ago, or at least, 3,000 years ago.

When practicing mindfulness and labelling for example if I'm making my bed can I note "making bed" or of I'm driving note "driving" or is it meant to be more specific? Because a lot of the time I can't think what it is I'm doing. Seems to be too many things at once so I end up thinking too hard about what I'm doing kind of thing.

I met my family who has already died in my dream. He told me something bad about my partner. Should I believe him?

This might seem a silly question, but unfortunately I am extremely oversensitive to human noises. I don't mind meditation with the noise of traffic, or a thunderstorm, or the monotonous drone of a ventilator. But when I am trying to do za-zen in a dojo with other people and I hear other people breathing loudly through their noses, it drives me nuts and puts me in an extremely bad mood. Basically, I stop the meditation and just start thinking about my work or something, to stop noticing the noise. I know this is wrong, and somehow I should make the noise, the other person's breathing and my own irritation part of the meditation: observe my irritation and meanwhile keep getting back to my own respiration, but I wonder whether there is some advice, some trick, to make this easier. I know I am my own biggest enemy here, but it's a problem that keeps on occurring and it's hard for me to get out of this trap.

The Dokkaebi are legendary creatures present in Korean mythology. Notably described as having supernatural abilities used to interact with humans. They often play tricks on or help humans and are described to be "impish" or goblin-like. They possess an "awe-inspiring" or "fearful" appearance as well as the ownership of indescribably magical objects. Are there any parallels of creatures that fit these descriptions in Buddhism?