What was the caste of Sujātā, the woman who offered the Buddha a bowl of rice milk? I am trying to check a reference to her as a Brahman. She is described as a milkmaid, daughter of a landowner.

Can a married person who does not have children ordain if he has the consent of his parents? Does his wife has to give permission? How much contact should he keep with his wife after he ordains?

I was reading some books containing an anthology of Ajahn Chah's Dhamma Talks to both laymen and monks. In the introduction of one of those books, the translator indicated that AC used to translate 'anicca' as 'uncertainty', mainly because, to his eyes, "impermanence" seems too abstract wjen compared to the former translation; we can all relate to the experience of uncertainty, which one can say is the manifestation of impermanence in our daily lives. While I agree that 'uncertainty' is an specially useful translation, even more when considering the target audience (laymen, unacquainted with buddhist terminology), I'm confused about the accuracy of such rendering when trying to stick to the canonical teachings. What did the Buddha told about the relation between impermanence and uncertainty? If we're to believe the texts literally, there are multiple occasions when the Buddha was able to see into future of some individuals. Does that tell us that life may seem uncertain only most people, to those who don't possess such gifts and abilities, but that in the end, reality is "fixed" and already determined? Is reality and future events actually uncertain? Thanks in advance for your time and patience!

I meditate daily for 5- 10 minutes with Breathing meditation. So, far I have curbed my Porn addiction. But, finding it difficult to keep away from masturbation. I keep telling myself, that I am wasting my time, water and every potential. But still I find it hard to keep away from the compulsion. It may be because I read in a medical book, that masturbation was normal. But, every time after doing the deed; I'd feel guilty and depleted of energy. The compulsion is strongest whenever I go to have a wash. If it arises when I am alone, I can keep myself away - through by strenuous exercise or playing rock music on my piano. But, I re-lapse every time I go on to take my wash. Now, it's hardly like I could keep from washing myself. What is the best medicine that the greatest way would recommend me to do?

I remember a sutta which uses the word "nationalism" in reference to a taint to be removed. It was the last in a certain sequence of taints. I think i read it on access to insight. However, when i search for the word i can't find any such sutta in either dhamma talks or access to insight. Or anywhere else for that matter. Can someone \*ahem* enlighten me?

I'm not really expecting a short summary, but I'd be happy to get one. This is a 1600 page sutra in English (and cost over $100 on Amazon). It gets reference a lot in the Brahma Net Sutra and Huayan Buddhism. Given that, what is the best way to dig into this... is there a Cliff Notes version? And what is the Avatamsaka Sutra prescribing its readers to do?

Each morning, I meditate for 30 minutes. Within 45 minutes to an hour after, I commute to my university. For the first hour or two that I am at university after meditating, I feel almost overwhelmed by the intensity of external stimuli (car noise, sights, sometimes even internal thoughts and physical feelings). Conversely, on days that I do not meditate, I feel relatively stable and at ease walking onto campus. Does meditation increase sensitivity to these stimuli? If so, how, and what is the purpose of this with regard to meditation practice?

I have heard that all consciousness arise in hadaya vatthu rupa (blood inside the heart) except the five doors perceiving consciousness (Cakku vinnana, Sota vinnana, Ghana vinnana, Jeevha vinnana, Kaya vinnana). There are some research articles on the internet about the impact on the heart due to brain damage. So one can argue that the brain is merely an organ which supports the functionality of other organs and hadaya vatthu rupa is the place where consciousness originate. Another one can argue the other way around. So my questions are: 1. Where does the consciousness (cittas) originate inside the body? Is it in the brain or hadaya vatthu rupa? 2. Consciousness is nāma (not material/formless). Then how can we talk about a place of origination of it?

A while ago I heard said phrase being interpreted as a warning toward people who only have knowledge from a single source (a single book, the oneself's perspective, a single author, a single teacher, etc.). Buddhism touches a lot of topic today divided into individual sciences and knowledges of their own. That's why the Dhamma is usually classified as a philosophy, a psychology, a religion, and so on. But in Buddha's time and considering the purpose of the Dhamma, those bounderies where useless and alien to the practice itself. The Buddha used elements from all sorts of areas and knowledges in order to eradicate Dukkha and to reach the other shore. In modern times, we know a lot more about the working of the brain, about human physiology, about philosophy and science in general, about the development of religions and cultures, and about the world in general. With that in mind: should we fear the men of one book? Should the ones following the Dhamma know and study these other areas in order to contrast and prove the reality of the Buddha's words? Or is it enough with just reading Dhamma books? If you lean on that second field, do you trust that the Buddha was inerrant and/or that the authors of the Suttas had the Buddha's words transcribed verbatim? I'm not sure if this kind of questions are appropiated for this site. If not, just ignore it and close it. EDIT: What motivated this question is that strange vibe that arises when I read discussion where people base their answers and arguments only on suttas and Dhamma books. While that's OK, specially on academic sites, it's pretty weird to me that such an experiential and pragmatic thing as the Dhamma is, is a lot of times covered by a dogmatic and scholar aura, which puts in motion endless debates about the nature of consciousness, the place where kammic seeds are stored, the time it passes before rebirth and that sort of things. But I always end with this question in my head: are people telling about X thing because they have experienced themselves such phenomena, or because the suttas said so, or both? EDIT 2: Wow! Such good answers! I cannot pick one over another. For these cases, I'd love to choose more than one. Thanks for those well thought and well put idea! Thanks for your time and patience!

In the Tibetan tradition, and as far as I understand, the Mahayana in general, there’s a lot of emphasis on compassion for all sentient beings. Compassion for all sentient beings sounds great. But I sometimes wonder about this all-encompassing compassion in practice. An example: I was attending a two day meditation and reflection session this weekend. We did meditation on compassion for all sentient beings. The teacher did not get tired of underlining how importance of no exceptions. It all sounds very nice. At the end of the first day we were discussing meditation on the skhanda’s and I asked if we could repeat this the next morning. Teacher said yes, but forgot it. I asked if he could send me a mil with some info I needed. He said yes but forgot. This made me wonder. You know, compassion for all – aren’t your students included in “all”? Is it a risk that you may slip in to a state where you meditate very “big” and think about you compassion for all the universe(s), but forget “thy neighbor”? Does the Buddha address this directly anywhere? This tendency to be compassionate when you’re on the cushion but when the chips are down in real life it isn’t that much mindful compassion left?

Can anyone enlighten me as why I feels like my body is tilted around 30 degrees to the right during meditation? This happens around 10-15 minutes after I've started. I don't do any breathing technique, I just sit still.

I used to meditate before a few years.During meditation I used to focus my attention by imagining a candle flame in front of the eyes.Now, one of my friends suggested that a better way is to focus on the breath.Should I switch the method? i.e is the second method better than the first one.

I am looking for a Buddhist story from scriptures or otherwise real life, from any tradition, where a person is mentally abused, in a sense insulted, humiliated, looked down upon, etc who achieves Nirvana or Sotapanna or anything substantial towards the direction of Nirvana. I found the story of Milarepa which fits my need but Milarepa apparently took revenge using black magic and did not forgive his wrong-doers, later on, he understood the uselessness of what he did and he followed Dhamma and got enlightened. Another story is from the Akkosa sutta but that happened with the Buddha Himself post-Nirvana. I want something with good moral of forgiveness for others, for the perpetrators.

Does Sotapanna have the fear of death? Recently I spoke to a monk about Sotapanna. He said the best test to understand whether someone is Sotapanna is to see whether he has fear of death.

Another naive question... Further to e.g. [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26040/254) , which may be an overview of **what** Mahayana teaches about emptiness, my question is **why** does Mahayana teach that? I gather that the *purpose* of the anatta doctrine in the Pali canon is, at least partly if not wholly, to end suffering etc. -- e.g. [MN 22](https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato) : > It would make sense to grasp at a doctrine of self that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. *Taṃ, bhikkhave, attavādupādānaṃ upādiyetha, yaṃsa attavādupādānaṃ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā*. > But do you see any such doctrine of self? *Passatha no tumhe, bhikkhave, taṃ attavādupādānaṃ yaṃsa attavādupādānaṃ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā”ti?* > No, sir. *No hetaṃ, bhante.* > Good, mendicants! *Sādhu, bhikkhave.* > I also can’t see any such doctrine of self. *Ahampi kho taṃ, bhikkhave, attavādupādānaṃ na samanupassāmi yaṃsa attavādupādānaṃ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā.* What is the benefit if any of the emptiness doctrine? Does it have a "soteriological" purpose? How does that work, i.e. what is the mechanism by which the doctrine is beneficial? Or is it meant to be simply true, an observation or description of fact, without benefit?

What is the Pali or Sanskrit term for a breach of a precept? I have checked http://dictionary.tamilcube.com/pali-dictionary.aspx and found breach of morality defined as sīlabheda . Is there a broader or more inclusive term?

I find it very difficult. I get bored sometimes and other times simply struggle to stay focused on the breath and the body. Does my attention span improve over time? I'm ADHD so it's very difficult to keep thinking out. Is it ok to think?

Are any Buddhist holidays associated with gift giving? If so, which holidays and what types of gifts are customarily given?

>"Sanketa vacanam saccam - loka sammuti karanam Paramattha vacanam saccam - dhammanam tathalakkhanam" According to the above quote, all the words (cenventional truth) made by living beings using any language considered as truth because they are enacted by living beings. We use words to mention ultimate truth. For example when we say "Nibbana", the real dhamma or actual Nibbana exists but the word "Nibbana" has been enacted. The actual dhamma and the word used to refer it are two different things. The word may not contain the actual characteristics inherent to Nibbana. I suppose Shakyamuni Tatagata Lord Buddha used many words to explain ultimate truth (Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, Nibbana) because of this reason. So my question is: Does the word "Nibbana" (as well as the other words used to mention ultimate truth) belong to the conventional truth while only the actual dhamma belong to the ultimate truth?

I have been trying to analyse NDE stories from a meditator's point of view. The way people change after a NDE is, in some cases, similar to the changes a person goes through after meditating for a while (i. e. less materialist, more calm, serene, not affraid of dying, less attachment to the "I"...). It is a life changing experience just like meditation when taken seriously. In general NDE fits well in the Dhamma, showing for instance that the mind does not depend upon the body. Let's accept NDE as true for a while. What I don't get and want some help is: almost all NDE are nice and positive (similarly to going to heaven). In the Dhamma we usually hear that most people are reborn in the awful planes due to their kamma. Some monks even say people sometimes get a glimpse of their future realm of rebirth. That would suggest NDE should be bad and traumatic for most people, but it is not! I don't believe so many people are going to be reborn in heaven, based on the way people live and all ignorance and anger in the world. Also, most people after a NDE claim to have seen and talked to dead family members or even pets, would that imply necessarily that they were all in the hungry ghost realm? Or could they be devas, but keeping the same old shape?! I know fitting NDE 100% into the Dhamma may be impossible, but I appreciate any help!