In the Pali there are two terms, which are (generally) used contextually in two different ways: 1. uppajjati (and its past particle uppanna) 2. upapajjati (and its past particle upapanna) What do these terms actually mean and what is the distinction between them? Importantly, how are these terms constructed or derived in Pali to differentiate their meaning? Of note: the PTS dictionary makes the rather vague comment: > *doubtful whether a legitimate form as upa + pad or a diaeretic form of uppajjati = ud + pad. In this case all passages ought to go under > the latter. Trenckner however (Notes 77) defends upa˚ & considers in > many cases upp˚ a substitution for upa. The diaeresis may be due to > metre, as nearly all forms are found in poetry. The variant reading > upp˚ is apparently frequent; but it is almost impossible to > distinguish between upap˚ and upp˚ in the Sinhalese writing, and > either the scribe or the reader may mistake one for the other*

Are there any suttas where the Buddha gives advice how to change one's behaviours, like eating addiction, mindless eating, addiction to entertainment, laziness and all that? Basically giving in into worldy pleasures. Thanks

I can see the major to entering this path as being quite significant: the seeing through ones own imagination of their self. I also see that this four stage progression must be held onto quite loosely as one could become lost in defining their *selves* as sotapanna for instance and living out the identity of being someone who has seen through their identity. However, what practical use can one obtain from using the four stages?

More specifically, Buddha informs the Kurus thus: "Contemplating mind internally. Contemplating mind externally. Contemplating mind both internally and externally" How is one to contemplate the mind externally? Additionally, in chapter 1 of the Shurangama sutra, the Buddha skillfully guides Ananda into locating his own mind by searching not just within the body but outside of the body. This throws Ananda and the other monks into mental and emotional upheaval (quite fascinating actually). So, from the perspective of satipathanna sutta, is one to contemplate mind beyond the boundaries of the body?

Is there really any evidence that anything goes beyond death ? By that I mean our self awareness. That our awareness transcends death? I know there is absolutely no concrete evidence of reincarnation. I'm not denying its possible. Just denying there is any scientific evidence However i have read claims that the self aware part of us-the part thats aware we are thinking goes beyond death and was here before birth ? Is there any hard evidence for this ?

I have looked at a list of some wrong-views in Buddhism, and I'm somewhat confused about the meaning of the notion of 'view' [*ditthi*]. **In Buddhism, what does it mean to *hold* a view?** 1) I ask this because I'm unsure what the holding of a view means in this case. Does it mean merely believing the view? Does it mean believing and acting in relation to that view? 2) More so, I'm unsure whether the views listed as wrong are considered as definitive? Or, are there various types of wrong views and the lists consider only the greatest examples? 3) Finally, I wonder what views are in relation to emptiness. I can't help but feel wisdom linked with emptiness would dismantle views altogether. Wouldn't a view, in emptiness, exist only relatively and not in a definite manner? Wouldn't it be impossible to hold a view as true? I'm reminded of Nagarjuna who claims, for example, that those seeing emptiness as a *view* are misguided.

Is there a 'dead zone' in meditation and the effort applied? So to explain 1. Going from no meditation at all to meditating even a bit (10 mins every few days) - benefits felt quickly 2. Going up to intense meditation in a retreat situation (meditating many hours a day for several days to several weeks) - benefits felt and quite long lasting 3. Meditating for an intermediate amount -(meditating 30 mins a day 5-7 days a week over months / years) - meditator plateaus and feels stuck. Little benefit felt This is just my experience but I'm wondering is it a thing - has this been pointed out in any texts or by established teachers. Or is it just me? Many Thanks

I wondered recently whether the ideas of developing positive qualities and abandoning negative qualities are different. To me, it seems developing positive qualities requires an active effort, a type of striving. In contrast, abandoning negative qualities requires a relinquishing, a restraint. **Are these endeavours two different aspirations? Does achieving one ascertain the achievement of the other or not?** In other words, does one lead automatically to the other, or should one *intentionally* implement both?

Recently I got to know that there are 4 types of ways to protect the 5 precepts. Such as 1. You don't do it 2. You don't make others do it 3. You don't support others to do it 4. You don't praise and talk about it. Where can I find the sutta source? Please provide the sutta link kindly

According to this comment : > I think that monks and laypeople are meant to depend on each other > (e.g. as described in Iti 107 ) however monks must not sell their > dhamma talks for food. **So there are monastic rules about food and > dhamma talks: they're separate transactions ... a *quid pro quo* is > forbidden** -- having given a dhamma talk (i.e. after his speaking) the > Buddha was no longer willing to receive food, because that would > appear as if he were receiving food in exchange for or as payment for > talking. Please provide references from the Vinaya and/or Patimokkha for "there are monastic rules about food and dhamma talks: they're separate transactions ... a *quid pro quo* is forbidden".

Are there any living teachers who claim to be able to attain vajrasamadhi? Apologies if *looking for a guru* questions are off-topic here. Is there any way to verify if they have done so, according to the sutras etc.?

I am suffering from mind disturb. I am living alone one city for job purpose and my husband living with his family also for his job. All time he prefer his family more than me. If I told very small thing , he angry on me. Most of week he had some work in office that why I go to home and spending time with family. When I want to get him alone. That's time I fill that he has not much happy with like with he spent with his family. Now he don't want talk me so much. If I call him more than 2 in morning ,he fill irritating for this. If I told more than 2 to 3 for same thing , he angry on me. Please do suggest me advice from Buddhist traditions.

Recently seeing questions on Buddhist stack exchange community I thought to ask this question. My understanding that we can choose anyone as life partner the way Buddha said all about is kind of qualities and so on. And Because of Buddhism is nothing but liberty that's why Buddha didn't impose this thing to followers just like in other religions. So if it was like we should marry to Buddhist only then it were Dhamma's sake and would helpful to spreading Dhamma. One another question is if both partners are from different religions then how they could lead their children? May other partner have influence of it's own religion and may this would worse everything partner's child's and own life. I seen in other religion they are super religious to choose a partner. Even my own experience my ex was a Muslim and she has great impact of religion on her since my thinking is being like that. See we Indian mostly choose Buddhist to marry but absence of practicing Dhamma. So I'd choose the one who is Buddhist and practicing Dhamma as well then we could spread it well. Finally since both are Buddhist then its kind of package we have got everything in it. All qualities and as Buddha's way to choose a life partner. So why Buddha speak about qualities instead advising people to find Buddhist partner that could one of the way to spread Dhamma? Thank you.

What is the meaning of the phrase "delineate a delineation" from MN 18 ? What is its message? Is it connecting papanca (objectification-classification or reification) with dependent origination? > "Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is > eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a > delineation of contact. (Note1) When there is a delineation of contact, it > is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When > there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will > delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of > perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of > thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that > one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions > & categories of objectification. > > "When there is the ear... > > "When there is the nose... > > "When there is the tongue... > > "When there is the body... > > "When there is the intellect, when there are ideas, when there is > intellect-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a > delineation of contact. When there is a delineation of contact, it is > possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there > is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a > delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception, > it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When > there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will > delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & > categories of objectification. > > "Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no > eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a > delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is > impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When > there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will > delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of > perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of > thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible > that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the > perceptions & categories of objectification. > > "When there is no ear... > > "When there is no nose... > > "When there is no tongue... > > "When there is no body... > > "When there is no intellect, when there are no ideas, when there is no > intellect-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a > delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is > impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When > there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will > delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of > perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of > thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible > that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the > perceptions & categories of objectification. > > **Note1 (Thanissaro commentary):** > The artificiality of this phrase — "delineate a delineation" — seems > intentional. It underlines the artifice implicit in the process by > which the mind, in singling out events, turns them into discrete > things.

I know it is very common these days to associate Chakras with Buddhist meditation, but I couldn't find anything that supports that in the suttas. (I haven't read all suttas) Did the Buddha himself taught about Chakras or has it been incorporated later in some parts of the world?

From a chemical point of view, there has to be an after effect of the amount of joy and happiness one feels, right ? In a spiritual point of view, I know one should be aware of attachement to jhana. I am wondering because I experienced first jhana for the first time this week, and my natural tendency was to repeat this experience as much as I could in the following days. Is it advisable ?

Two premises presumed for my question: 1. The 14th Dalai Lama is an especially sincere spirit 2. Reincarnation, beyond the scientific eg recycling of atoms / culture / dna, is an incorrect idea. Is the 14h Dalai Lama's charisma created by being raised as a spiritual leader? Are all Tibetans especially sweet souls? Is it both or neither, but rather great luck? I am trying to tease out nature & nurture, and squeeze out the supernatural!

I know that there were rules for the Disciples to shave only on the New moon and the Full moon. Did the Buddha follow this practice , too? Or, did Buddha usually have a beard?'

There have been many questions about what love is, ranging from non-attachment and compassion. I am not looking for a clear definition of the opposite of love, i.e. what love isn't, but feel free to do so if you think it can help answer the question. Rather, I want to know if love can exist without suffering: in much the same way that happiness cannot exist without suffering. I don't mean to equate love with happiness but love does have an element of joy to it. So, to what extent is pain the opposite of love? Or, to what extent can pain be separated from love? Principle of non-duality answers this, but I want to hear other opinions.

I wonder simply what the difference is between walking and sitting meditation in terms of value on the path. I have been practicing walking meditation for some time without any seeming result. **Is it necessary to practice sitting meditation to see results, or for walking meditation to be truly effective? If formal sitting meditation is important, then why is that so?**