In this sutta (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html) , it is explained that the power of Gotama Buddha as a sammasambuddha cannot or should not be conjecture about; the underlying mechanisms of kamma are not available to be investigated either. However, also in the suttas it is emphazised that the teachings can be tested by ourselves through practice and investigation, being that the 'ehipassiko' ("come and see") aspect of the Dhamma. How can we conciliate those aspects of the Dhamma? We have teachers and bhikkhus teachings about rebirth, kamma, abhijjas, the nature of Buddhas and arahants, the nature of reality, and so on, but never reaching consensus about those themes. Even within the same schools, the teachings of those topics varies from teacher to teacher. It seems to me that Buddhism, at least in those topics, becomes a religion as the many others existent. Are we supposed to follow blindly this part of the Dhamma? Thanks for your time!

I'm not sure sure if this is opinion based or not but my question is. is it fair to judge Vedehika, poorly (and does the sutta really do this). It seems like she was pushed to the breaking point (malicioulsly) and is the lesson here that she is not really as good a person as was previously reported? After this account the sutta seems to switch from this perspective to the actions expectation of a bhikkhu and not a lay person.

I read in a sutta a few days ago (I can't remember the exactly where) that the question of rebirth after parinibbana is not a valid one, because there was no one to be reborn. But if anatta is valid not just for arahants, but for all conditioned phenomena as well, does that mean that rebirth is also not applicable for non-arahants either? Thanks for your time!

(Before asking my question, I'd like to make clear that all of my previous knowledge comes from sources other than the suttas). Is the buddhist doctrine of kamma a superstitious explanation for what is happening in the present? How do the suttas explain diseases, malformations, intelectual handicaps and random misfortunes? Is there such a thing as random misfortunes for the Buddha (as exposed in the suttas)? Or can all of my present circumstances be explained and attributed to "my" past deeds? I ask this because I read in lots of places that some teachers explain diseases as consequences of our own deeds, and I not sure of how much of that come from the suttas themselves. Another question, somehow related to the last one: As far as I know, the Theravada doctrine is not a non-dualistic one, and the suttas explicitly say that all conditioned phenomena are dukkha. But for other schools, is there such a thing as "bad" and "good" external circumstances? For those non-dualistic schools: do they accept that everything is dukkha? Or do they say that our minds are the ones interpreting things as good and bad, and as such, good and bad kamma is just and illusion? Thanks in advance for your time!

After reading the answers to this question I understand that keeping the object of meditation same, Samatha leads to calm and tranquility of mind and Vipassana leads to insight into nature of reality. If I focus on the breath or if my object of meditation is bearth while meditation, what is the exact technique for both Samatha and Vipassana. Sorry, the answers to question does not mention the technique or what exactly to do. Also google search results are showing up magazine articles. References to suttas appreciated. Thanks.

Near the end of the Samaññaphala Sutta it says this: >"The king is incapacitated. Had he not killed his father — that righteous man, that righteous king — the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye would have arisen to him as he sat in this very seat." DN 2 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html Now in the English language to my knowledge when one uses the word "would" it means something definite. By my understanding it seems that the Buddha according to this sutta is saying that if King Ajatasattu had fulfilled certain **conditions** such as having not committed such an offense + coming to the Buddha and inquiring etc. as he did in this sutta **then** the "dustless, stainless Dhamma eye" would have **definitely** arisen. So this particular statement seems entirely deterministic unless I am misunderstanding or translation is wrong. Was the King already a faith follower or wisdom follower?

How is this possible besides if one simply doesn't mind if others are suffering? But if one truly doesn't mind whether others are suffering or not isn't that a lack of compassion? Is one supposed to let go of compassion regarding others? Even if there is nothing that one can do to help the other being, even if one is doing one's best, wouldn't the desire to end all suffering for all sentient beings still be present and therefore suffering still existing in one before that goal has been achieved? I don't see how it is possible for a being to be compassionate and free of suffering while still knowing that others are suffering. Is it supernatural? Does it transcend reason?

SN 12.51 says: > *Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the meritorious; if he > generates a demeritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on > to the demeritorious; if he generates an imperturbable volitional > formation, consciousness fares on to the imperturbable. But when a > bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance and aroused true knowledge, then, with > the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, he > does not generate a meritorious volitional formation, or a > demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional > formation. Since he does not generate or fashion volitional > formations, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, > he is not agitated. Not being agitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. > He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, > what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of > being.’* Why are meritorious formations rooted in ignorance? Also, since MN 117 says the Noble Eighfold Path and its Two Noble Fruits are "kusala", are meritorious formations "wholesome" or "skilful" ("kusala"? Or is there a difference between the words "meritorious" ("puññā") and "skilful" ("kusala")? > *So there are twenty on the side of the skillful, and twenty on the side of the unskillful.* > > *Iti kho, bhikkhave, vīsati kusalapakkhā, vīsati akusalapakkhā—* > > *MN 117*

This question is related to this one (and its comments) I made before: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30156/in-the-dependent-origination-formula-shouldnt-perception-precede-craving-inste According to the Khajjaniya Sutta, sañña is perception "because it perceives yellow... blue... red... white". So, it seems that it allows the mind to give a concept or label to whatever it's contacting and feeling. (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.079.than.html) To label and to recognize "such as such", one has to process enough contextual information to know that any object is that object and not other object. In the gestalt psychological theory of processing of stimuli, one identifies phenomena not because the perception of a single trait but rather the perception of a set of characteristics in a context. In between those perceived features, one may find even subjective labels, such as "good", "bad", "better", "worst", "beautiful", "ugly", etc. The nature of such concepts is that their criterion for definition is not at face value, but defined by every individual person. Those labels are ambiguous until specified by the speaker. But despite their subjective nature, they're may be included in a person's definitions of an object and its features. As an example, one might think that in the definition of an X race is the concept of inferiority in Y activity of life, such as intelectual learning. Understood under this perspective, subjective qualities may fall under the definition of perception (at least as understood in modern psychology). Is this also valid for Buddhism? Or do they have their own specific category? What is the perspective on this point in the myriad of traditions and sects? What do the suttas say? What is your personal opinion? Thank you in beforehand for your time and patience!

By far I have came across only Ajahn Brahms book which gives detailed instructions on entering Jhnanas. If I google for any other instruction manual I get this link . I don't doubt Ajahn Brahm at all but I havent read any reviews or blogs or internet postings of anyone who has entered Jhnanas through the instruction set of AB. The link seems to be talking on similar lines but different language. Is there a certified, peer reviewed instruction manual to entering Jnanas? Can you provide any other instruction manual link preferably if you have experienced it.

And how about followers of other non-Theravadin Buddhisms? Why? If they cannot, what is the last stage of enlightenment that they are able to achieve? Please refer to sources in your answers.

As I understand, there is an acknowledgement of the expected lifespan within the respective deva worlds, though this differs among traditions. I'm curious if there's any textual reference to devas' mortality. That is to say, can a deva's lifespan be cut short? I suspect that an asura or human with supernormal power could kill a deva (I believe there is reference to this in the vinaya regarding possession by yakshas). Is there any scriptural evidence to back this up? Many thanks.

*Added: I am asking this because I am not sure if anything I observe would be considered "self" according to the Buddha. I don't have this problem with craving or suffering because I can observe/experience craving and suffering and it seems quite clear that they can be and are defined as such.* It seems to me I am unable to determine whether there is, isn't, what is or what isn't "self" because I don't know what aspect/s of reality the word "self" is defined as corresponding to. I am wondering if it is possible to describe what aspect/s of reality the word "self" is defined as corresponding to. It looks like the Buddha may have defined the aggregates as "not-self" so if there is a "self" (What is a "self"?) then according to the Buddha it's definitely not the aggregates. In my opinion this cannot simply be a "view for practicality" because then the Buddha would be a liar in that case.

The suttas were as far as I heard transmitted orally, and it was only several hundred years later that the teachings were put on to paper. Now my questions: i) Do you believe in every sutta? For example: That a person suddenly attained sottapanna or arahantship? Notice: It doesn't matter whether it happened or not because it has not real implications on me, but it's as always this easy and unrealistic kind of thinking that people often employ ii) Couldn't it be the case that there are also many 'later alterations' to fit the dhamma to one's own/to culture's liking? iii) Connected to question i): How do you interpret devas? And how do you verify 'post-morten' rebirth? Isn't it in contradiction of anatta? Didn't the Buddha teach that the Dhamma can be experienced in the here and now? Why do the 4NT (and N8P) not mention rebirth? iv) Most people do not translate suttas by their own. They take the words from scholars and monks, which often copy from each other. Is this the critical thinking that Buddhists often speak of?

In the paticcasamuppada's formulation of the twelve nidanas, vedana precedes tanha. As far as I currently understand, vedana is just the physiological and psychological -and involuntary- response (felt as a pleasent, unpleasent or neutral sensation) to an specific stimulus. Vedana by itself shouldn't be an enough condition to give rise to tanha, because there's no necessarily an evaluation (sañña) of that feeling that could lead to the rise of a preference (like, dislike or neither-like-nor-dislike), and consequently, to the rise of tanha. If read in this fashion, shouldn't be sañña placed between vedana and tanha? Thanks in beforehand.

I read the following words on the internet: > *A person ends making Kamma when he becomes an Arahant. The Vipaka of his Kamma continues until he attains Parinibbana.* These words appear to say it was a personal act of kamma of a person that resulted in life or the five aggregates to come into being; similar to how the Bible describes an act of God that lead to the creation of the physical world, life & the social world. Why were we physically born? Was it our personal kamma? Did we personally choose this? If so, how did this self or person who makes a choice come into being before there was kamma? Does kamma create the self (person)? Or does self (the person) create kamma? Did the Buddha teach it cannot be determined whether the chicken comes before the egg or the egg comes before the chicken? Is this why many Buddhists are vegetarians?

Do music help? Why sometimes it feels equal to meditation in terms of achieving bliss (may be for short span of period) Or music is just an another time wasting thing? Text with links and pictorials in your answer are the most welcome. All are welcome. Thanks

AN 6.63 says the Noble Eightfold Path ends kamma, as follows: > *And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is > the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right > view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, > right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of > practice leading to the cessation of kamma* > > *AN 6.63* MN 117 says "kamma" is something with effluents and results in acquisitions (of "self"), as follows: > *And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, > what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad > actions...* The term "acquisitions" ("upadhi") is described in MN 26 as follows: > *Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject > to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.* SN 12.66 describes "acquisitions" as follows: > *Acquisition has craving as its source, craving as its origin; it is born and produced from craving. When there is craving, acquisition > comes to be; when there is no craving, acquisition does not come to > be.* In the Angulimala Sutta, before attaining arahantship, Angulimala (the former mass murderer) was pardoned by King Pasenadi Kosala after learning Angulimala was rendered harmless by the Buddha. If he chose to, King Pasenadi Kosala could have had Angulimala executed for his former crimes. King Pasenadi Kosala obviously possessed this power of volition; to execute criminals. However, after attaining Arahantship (which includes the ending of the effluents and all self-views), Angulimala was stoned by certain people who knew of Angulimala's past murderous deeds, after which Angulimala declared the following: > *Who once was heedless, but later is not, brightens the world like the moon set free from a cloud.* > > *His evil-done deed is replaced with skillfulness: he brightens the world like the moon set free from a cloud.* > > *Having done the type of kamma that would lead to many bad destinations, touched by the fruit of kamma, unindebted, I eat > my food.* > > *The three knowledges have been attained; the Buddha's bidding, > done.* Did Angulimala's attainment of arahantship end "kamma"? Or was it the stones thrown by unforgiving people that ended the kamma of Angulimala? If the later, are these stones thrown by unforgiving people more powerful in extinguishing kamma & suffering than the Noble Eightfold Path?

Tirokudda Kanda briefly out line the benefits the dead receive from the gifts given by the living.. and there are many more injection in the Pali Cannon with similar tone. My question is are we to read these as alogorical or literally? Do the dead benefit from the offering given by their relations? I have seen these practices in Cambodia, but never had a chance to ask why and how these are done. Many thanks.

Can a bad kamma be cancelled out by doing a strong good kamma? If the answer is no, at-least can we reduce the effect of that bad kamma by doing so? If the answers are no for the above two questions, can we postpone the time which kamma gives its result by doing a strong opposite kamma?