Often it is said that nibbana is unconditioned, but nibbana is definitely dependent on other conditions. Also, according to modern psychology nothing can be 'eliminated' (greed, hatred and delusion in this case). Once learned, never able to unlearn. A skill, therefore zu can become either more efficient or less efficient, so why is it in Religion that something can be absolutely eliminated, whereas psychology tells us differently?

Recently my behaviour changed a lot thanks to buddhism. I am no longer interested in watching movies, listening to music, and especially going out on parties and drinking alcohol. This is creating a huge gap with my friends. My interests don't match theirs anymore. I tried to speak about the reasons why I feel better now that I left all these trivial activities behind, but I lack eloquence and thus didn't convince anyone. With my girlfriend things are easier because I can communicate a lot better with her, but I can still see that she suffers when I don't want to participate with the same activities as her. Should I accept to do trivial stuff from time to time just to stay close to my friends and not cause them suffering ? Following the noble eightfold path should make me easier to live with, but I just cannot watch TV one hour every night with my girlfriend anymore, nor can I spend my entire week-end going out and get wasted with my friends anymore. People around me find me boring and pressure me to do stuff I don't like anymore. On the other and I feel great compassion toward my friends and really wish to help them. If I stop seeing them, it would only cause more suffering. How can I adjust so that I can follow the path and not alienate myself by refusing to drink alcohol and watch tv ?

It looks like according to [the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta] one aspect that is considered "self" by the Buddha is power or control. Why did he use the word "self" instead of just "complete control/power"? Was/is there more to it than just power/control? Was there anything more meant by the Buddha according to the suttas by the usage of the word "self"?

After facing death,I passed through a period of more than six months in delusion,fear and panic associated with shame.I was very much frightened and the experience was horrifying .After so many years my personality has completely changed,I don't know for better or for worse Although I have been occupying the Same body for 64 years.How to describe different stages and passing through different states In my mortal life? can it be termed as different rebirths(any kind of) for an ordinary man In Buddhist terms.May I add that Before twenty years I took a CANCER CAPSULE and went into deep and continuous sleep without interruption for 4/5 months, I woke up for one day and went into deep undisturbed and uninterrupted sleep for another three months. finally I woke up as a normal man.I could not come to a conclusion how to describe such experience.

*A little personal story ahead also sorry for the long post...* **Story:** Three years back my life was a disaster, I was as far away from Dhamma as possible, I was into the dark side of modern life. Drowned into money, greed, sex, addictions which inevitably rolled me into stress and depression, but I still had my job. At the time, I was reading one of the books by Thich Nhat Hanh and one evening as I left my office, I sat on a fountain-side watching all the people coming out of the high-rise buildings rushing to catch the tide back home. I had kind of epiphanies moment where I asked what am I doing with this? where is my life going? I felt that I definitely did not want to spend my life climbing the corporate ladder...it was like a terribly dreadful feeling I can't put into words... So very next day I quit my high paying job, in a few days moved out of the big city and into my parent's house. From there I started seriously reading Buddhism. In a years time, I was way over my addictions at least the alcohol was out. From there I did a couple of 10 day- vipassana retreats and also did a month-long retreat at a Zen monastery. At the end of last year, I was over my anti-depressants tablets and stopped going to a psychiatrist. This whole year I spent meditating in Zazen and Vipassana, I have finally to my satisfaction finished reading books. Now I have come to the point that I have known that the Theravada tradition is best suited to me and I am reading Ajahn Brahm's book on Jnanas the third time. **Question:** My life has been changed for better, I don't have a job for three years but I don't have any financial worries or family concerns. I have narrowed down to bare minimum needs and I can possibly live like this till I die. But now it seems I want to live in a better way, in the right way according to Dhamma. Instead of getting back to rat race I can live some other kind of way to make money, go find a girl (again), basically get into Samsara. Life seems to have gotten a new meaning if I choose to give it. It will be a repeat of the cycle, just better this time. **OR** I have made some good progress in meditation. If I continue with current focus for this coming year(2019) I am hoping to progress till a nimitta. Also, I have met a normal guy online who has attained Enlightenment, (from his words and actions he looks genuine) so following his example, Nirvana seems like an achievable goal within a human lifetime. **The problem is that the idea that if I get Nirvana I will not be reborn again seems discouraging.** Now life seems like worth living again, although I am very much well versed with suffering. So, in the end, my real question is how should I make a choice between Samsara(going back to make money and lay life) and Nirvana(single minded focus on meditation)?

When Asita muni had told to King Shuddhodhana that >" If he becomes a householder, he will become a universal monarch. But if he goes forth from the home to a homeless life, he will become a fully enlightened Buddha." Asita was sure that the child would not remain a householder. So when Asita was known all that, may we suppose him Buddha's teacher and if wasn't then who was Buddha's teacher.

This is basically a philosophical question, in the light of buddhist ethics. Suppose a buddhist person were in a situation in which he could stop the jewish holocaust, but the ONLY way he or she could do that is by killing hitler? Of course, i'm asking the abstract question here, namely: should a buddhist commit an act of violence if this act was the only way to prevent a much larger amount of suffering for many beings? How bad is it for this buddhist if he or she choses to commit such an act? my naive point of view in this situation is: it probably creates "bad karma" for the buddhist, it might take the buddhist farther away from enlightenment, but I would commit such an act because it makes other beings' lives better, and therefore, probably takes them closer to enlightenment. I'm asking this question because I'm trying to understand the yellow-jacket movement as well as some issues in my own country.

If Buddhists themselves cannot agree on which scriptural writings or traditions for practice are actually true statements from the Buddha, how can Buddhism as a system claim any truth? The above question raised due to there are many articles discussing, or discrediting the authenticity of some Sutras/Suttas and doctrines. Since the Buddha never written down his teachings himself, how does the Buddhist scriptures transmit from the Buddha to us according to historical documentation, text, or evidence? By saying "Buddhism as a system" I meant what is the original content of Buddhism through investigating the original scriptures' transmission history. In this way we can discern what teaching is included in the original content; and what is excluded even missing from the original content, i.e., outside the system.

I quote from AN 9.12 (trans. Sujato) below, with regards to stream entry. 1. What does "sattakkhattuparama" mean literally and non-literally? 2. What is the meaning of the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" in this quote? How does it relate to "sattakkhattuparama"? 3. Is the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" used in other suttas, without being connected to "sattakkhattuparama"? What does it mean there? What is the context there? 4. Can I say that "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" supports the interpretation of "sattakkhattuparama" as "seven lifetimes" or "seven rebirths"? > With the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths. > They will transmigrate at most seven times among gods and humans and > then make an end of suffering. > > So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattakkhattuparamo hoti, > sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā > dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

I know the question may seems a little trivial and superfluous, but rather than being interested in the itching itself, I'd like to know what to do when any kind of unpleasent feeling rises. I think itching is different from other unpleasent feelings, mainly because one can easily get rid of that feeling -at least temporarily- by scratching the zone (I mean, to scratch is an option when you have the means). What would an arahant do when itch arises? What do the suttas tell us to do in situations similar to this one? What do you do when itch arises (apart from recognizing the itch as not-self and impermanent, and the scratching as unsatisfying in the long term and impermanent as a solution)? Or am I overthinking the situation, and should I be aware of the feeling, seeing the three characteristic in it, and just scratch? I ask this because I remember reading some blog entry about a meditation retreat. The blogger wrote that when meditating, itching was a common feeling, but the hosts told her to let go of the craving for scratching and to not get personally identified with the itch. I understand these instructions and they seem totally reasonable. But she didn't tell about instructions in between meditation sessions other than following the five precepts. Basically, she didn't tell if she was supposed to not scratch even after sitting meditation. I hope you can see the point in my question, because it seems a little dumb in the surface. Thanks for your time! Have a nice day!

" ***To Forgive is the only way to forget*** " Is this one of the sayings of *Lord Buddha*. This quote is beautiful, but I couldn't find the source.

I know that the Buddha went to tusita heaven or tavatimsa heaven to teach the dharma or Abidhamma to his mother. Matreiya is in tusita heaven so did he ever come down to tavatimsa heaven to hear the dharma from the Buddha?

...if not, then who or what is governing these occurrences? In the Diamond Sutta (see excerpt below) Buddha mentions the previous Buddha as being called Dīpankara Buddha possibly existing around ten thousand years ago. Then came Gautama Buddha and the next Buddha to occur could be Maitreya Buddha. Buddha also mentions here that there have been 84,000 multi-million Buddhas. I have no resistance about the existence of these Buddhas especially since losing the perception of chronological time, but when I observe sentient forms, there is - for the most part - some kind of growth or expansion of some sort happening with no real, tangible or perceivable force behind it. With such a huge time span between the appearance of Buddhas it's perplexing to see this as either an evolutionary cosmological expansion of consciousness or... somebody somewhere sending in the forces in the same way that a declining school receives a new headmaster to try and rectify the mess. Is anything regarding this mentioned in any of the major Buddhist schools of thought? > "Furthermore, Subhuti, if a son or daughter of good family, while reciting and practicing this sutra, is disdained or slandered, his or her misdeeds committed in past lives, including those that could bring about an evil destiny, will be eradicated, and he or she will attain the fruit of the most fulfilled, awakened mind. Subhuti, in ancient times before I met **Buddha Dipankara**, I had made offerings to and had been attendant of all **84,000 multi-millions of Buddhas**. If someone is able to receive, recite, study, and practice this sutra in the last epoch, the happiness brought about by this virtuous act is hundreds of thousands times greater than that which I brought about in ancient times. In fact, such happiness cannot be conceived or compared with anything, even mathematically. Such happiness is immeasurable. Apparently, there are 'ages' that have been defined... > Degeneration > > Traditionally, this age [degeneration] is supposed to begin 2000 years > after Gautama Buddha's passing and last for "10,000 years". The first > two ages are the Age of Right Dharma > followed by the Age of Semblance Dharma. During this degenerate > third age, it is believed that people will be unable to attain > enlightenment through the word of Sakyamuni Buddha, and society will > become morally corrupt. In Buddhist thought, during the Age of Dharma > Decline the teachings of the Buddha will still be correct, but people > will no longer be capable of following them.

In researching Dependent Origination as described in SN 12.2 and using a basic Pali language guide (page 18), I found the following about each main Pali word: > **jarāmaraṇaṃ** singular from maraṇa neuter > > **jati** singular from jāti feminine > > **bhavo** singular from bhava masculine > > **upādānaṃ** singular from upādāna neuter > > **taṇhā** singular from taṇhā feminine > > **vedanā** singular from vedanā feminine > > **phasso** singular from phassa masculine > > **saḷāyatanaṃ** singular from saḷāyatana neuter > > **nāmarūpaṃ** singular from nāmarūpa neuter > > **viññāṇaṃ** singular from viññāṇa neuter > > **saṅkhārā** plural from saṅkhāra masculine > > **avijjā** singular from avijjā feminine The above seems to correlate with every translation I have read. Note: saḷāyatanaṃ may appear to be translated as plural but it appears singular because it includes 'six'. For example, all translations say: "*What is feeling [singular]?*" rather than "*What are feelings [plural]?*" > And what is feeling? Katamā ca, bhikkhave, vedanā? There are these six > classes of feeling. Chayime, bhikkhave, vedanākāyā— Feeling born of > contact through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. > cakkhusamphassajā vedanā, sotasamphassajā vedanā, ghānasamphassajā > vedanā, jivhāsamphassajā vedanā, kāyasamphassajā vedanā, > manosamphassajā vedanā. This is called feeling. Ayaṃ vuccati, > bhikkhave, vedanā. The saṅkhārā condition is described as follows: > And what are **saṅkhārā [plural]**? Katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā? > > There are three kinds of saṅkhārā. Tayome, bhikkhave, > saṅkhārā— body saṅkhāro [singular], speech saṅkhāro [singular] and mind saṅkhāro > [singular] kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro. Why is the Pali word 'saṅkhārā' in Dependent Origination plural where all other words are singular?

Sn 2.1 has been translated as follows: > Ye ariyasaccāni vibhāvayanti, Gambhīrapaññena sudesitāni; Kiñcāpi te > honti bhusaṃ pamattā, Na te **bhavaṃ** **aṭṭhamam** ** href="https://suttacentral.net/define/%C4%81diyati">ādiyanti**; > Idampi saṅghe ratanaṃ paṇītaṃ, Etena saccena suvatthi hotu > > Who clearly comprehend these Noble Truths well-taught by him of wisdom > fathomless, however heedless be they afterwards upon an **eighth (aṭṭhamam)** > **existence (bhavaṃ)** they’ll not **seize (ādiyanti)**. Yea, in the Saṅgha is this glorious gem: By virtue of this truth, may blessing be! (Mills) > > Those who have seen clearly the noble truths well-taught by the one of > deep discernment — regardless of what [later] might make them heedless > — will come to no **eighth state of becoming**. This, too, is an > exquisite treasure in the Sangha. By this truth may there be > well-being. (Thanissaro) > > Those who realized the Noble Truths well taught by him who is profound > in wisdom (the Buddha), even though they may be exceedingly heedless, > they will not **take an eighth existence** (in the realm of sense > spheres). This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of > the) truth may there be happiness. (Piyadassi) What is meant here by an "eighth grasping, seizing or taking up (ādiyati) of becoming/existence (bhava)"?

It is commonly known that the Buddha decided that asceticism does not lead to enlightenment, but less common is the reason why given. From Ajahn Brahm's book Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond , it appears as though the Buddha abandoned asceticism because eating well was necessary to pursue the jhānas and the Middle Way: > once the Bodhisatta realized that jhāna was the way to enlightenment > (MN 36,31), he immediately recognized that it was impractical to > attain jhāna with an emaciated body so began eating well. Where in MN 36 do we find this reasoning? Is there general agreement in Buddhism that this is indeed why the Buddha decided to give up asceticism?

A translation of SN 12.2 says: > *And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite > condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite > condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition > come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite > condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes > feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From > craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From > clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From > becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a > requisite condition, then aging & death, **sorrow, lamentation, pain, > distress & despair** come into play. Such is the origination of this > entire mass of stress & suffering.* The impression of the above text is - for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play - aging & death must occur. I have two questions: 1. If death must occur for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play; what is the cause for people having sorrow, grief & despair before death, i.e., in the present moment? 2. If death must occur for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play; is sorrow, grief & despair only experienced after death?

SN 12.66 says: > *The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this suffering has acquisition as its source, > acquisition as its origin; it is born and produced from acquisition. > When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is > no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be.* Why does SN 12.66 say aging-and-death has acquisition (upadhi) as its source? Why doesn't SN 22.66 say aging-and-death has cancer or heart disease as its source?

Is it possible that a meditator uses jhana practice and dry insight together? I mean: not combined in the same meditation session, but clearly in separate, distinct meditation sessions. Both meditation practices have their own benefits (and disadvantages), so I wonder if it wouldn't be favorable to use the strengths of both.

In the Bible a complex saga of the human experience is elaborated in a multitude of ways, and these nuances make the text hard to crack in a linear reading. However, there exists a very illuminating chapter (Sermon on the Mount) that provides a very well articulated elaboration on what could be considered the core Christian ethics. It ultimately grounds the metaphysical landscape or at least informs many passages (both before and after it) to be more easily interpretted. I am interested in learning if there are any similar passages that could be pointed out in the Buddhist texts. My entirety of exposure to Buddhist source text currently is the Zen sutra on the lotus flower, and this question is open to any sect.