Ignorance is the cause of suffering. Buddha says in SN 12.2 : > “And what, bhikkhus, is ignorance? Not knowing suffering, not knowing > the origin of suffering, not knowing the cessation of suffering, not > knowing the way leading to the cessation of suffering. This is called > ignorance. Note that Buddha says "not knowing".And what is knowing ? Knowing is for example I know my name. I know my house address. I know history etc. Now that I 'know' suffering. Now that I 'know' origin of suffering. Now that I 'know' cessation of suffering. Now that I 'know' the way leading to the cessation of suffering. My ignorance should be removed and my suffering should end. But that doesn't happen , which means there is some mistranslation from Pali. Actually I guess the wording should be :Ignorance is not knowing suffering , not knowing the origin of suffering , not knowing the cessation of suffering ,not **walking(or applying or practicing)** the way leading to the cessation of suffering. My question is : Is there a mistranslation of definition of ignorance?

What is "interrelatedness"? Do the Pali suttas teach about "interrelatedness"?

[This comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28492/awakened-great-zen-master-seung-sahn-is-it-possible-he-lost-the-state-of-nibba#comment47855_28498) writes, reasonably enough: > Worth mentioning regarding Tantra and Vajrayana that Vajrayana is not a path of renunciation So I was wondering what it is, if it isn't that. I remembered that I've read that there are, but know very nearly nothing about, [Five paths](http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Five_paths) -- starting with the "path of accumulation". - Is this doctrine ("five paths") for/from all (or most) forms of Mahayana, including East Asian and Zen for example, or is it more just Tibetan? - [This wiki entry](http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Path_of_accumulation) says, > It is called the path of accumulation because it is the stage at which one makes a special effort to gather the accumulation of merit, and also because it marks the beginning of many incalculable aeons of gathering the accumulations. > On the lesser path of accumulation it is uncertain when one will reach the path of joining. On the intermediate path of accumulation it is certain that one will reach the path of joining in the very next lifetime. On the greater path of accumulation it is certain that one will reach the path of joining within that very same lifetime. There seems to be some controversy about whether (in "Theravada" for example) the doctrine is applicable "this very life" or whether it's understood as happening over multiple lifetimes. Can you comment on that from a Mahayana view? I'm not sure that I see the path[s] described in the Pali canon even as a "path of renunciation", though it's true that *Nekkhamma* is translated as "renunciation". In formal Christian doctrine I think the word "renounce" is used in the context of "renouncing evil" or "renouncing the devil", and that the word "renounce" comes from a Latin word meaning "to protest". I think that more informally/conventionally, though, the word is maybe used to imply something like, "try to do without what you like, at least temporarily" -- a person might try to renounce cigarette smoking, for example, or to eat less chocolate, or perhaps vow to stay with only one sexual partner. I thought that *Nekkhamma* isn't quite like this informal meaning -- instead it involves clearly seeing the disadvantage of something, and therefore deciding that you don't even want it. And so I think it might be more accurately described as a "path to cessation" rather than a "path of renunciation" -- cessation of suffering, of hindrances and afflictions etc. So: - Are any/various forms of Mahayana too a "path to cessation", or not exactly?

From this list of previous Buddhas it looks like all were Indians.( I mean from their names). Ancient Greece or Egypt were also developed enough to have understood the Dhamma. We can consider Socretes and Moses from that part, but India(Nepal) was chosen for the Buddha. What's the reason?

What does the perception of Buddhism observe or speculate, about the limitations of our 4 dimensions of perceptual observation (three dimensions of space, giving us the material; and time being the fourth, affording us memory of events within the material that we can judge the present by)? If Buddhism's pursuit is of enlightenment, could that goal lead to perception of five dimensions of observation (as that perception would afford a picture of the direction of time both ways, and give the observer a picture of every possible event leading from the 'choices' of each of the inhabitants of this world and every outcome of every choice chosen past present and future)? Is this the enlightenment Buddhism is pursuing (as it would give the observer knowledge of the outcome of every choice, and in a sense the 'Judgement and sentence' of every action, but would detach them from any interaction within the four as a consequence of its perception, and the certainty which would trap any attempt to change the four's events because of the undeniable logic)?

I want to make one commitment now to save myself from suffering in distant future. The kind of suffering is same as due to unity with undesired situation. For example I might have to shake hands with my enemy. Or I might have to live under poverty. Which single most important commitment should I make to follow every day or every moment or every week so that I may not suffer while getting united with the undesirable? (Answer should be like start keeping right view or start practicing right view or I should start jogging or I should start meditating or start chanting mantra etc...)

Are the Pali words "cause" ("hetu'), "condition" ("paccaya"), "nutriment" ("ahara") and "root" ("mula") always synonyms?

I would like to ask the community here what are your favourite treaties or texts in Mahayana tradition that did personally make great impact on your practice in the way that it cut through illusion or allowed you to grow by breakthrough in understanding etc. It might have sentimental value of sorts. It might be a bullet point list with the title and description what it is and why it had such impact on your practice. Examples of such works could be Dogen - “Shobogenzo” or Shantideva - “Way of Bodhisattva”. It might be written from perspective of Vajrayanists but not about tantric practise per we.

Are there any sources about Meditations of Mahayana Schools?

[Vastu shastra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vastu_shastra) (*vāstu śāstra*) is "a traditional Hindu system of architecture". Did Lord Buddha debunk vasthu shastra? If not, what are some teachings made by Lord Buddha on the same? If Buddhism does not have an opinion on the topic, opinions of members are appreciated

I want the differences between the two, followed by their definitions?

I have totally refrained from sexual misconduct and after reading the answers about Masturbation to the previous question on this site I have even refrained from that. Also, I have practically zero sexual thoughts during meditation. But you see, as we eat food, the body automatically produces semen which is beyond our control. This accumulates and as the epididymis gets full either it ends up in a nightfall or heightened sexual urges which then gets beyond control. How to deal with this problem? Do monks face this problem?

What does the following mean? >You should not try to find the point where the moving air strokes the nostrils, but keep your focus at the nose breath. This comes from the followingpage that was linked to from another person: http://mahamevnawa.lk/ananda-sutta-leading-to-awakening/ I'm really not sure what they mean by "the nose breath". I generally have trouble with focusing anywhere near the nose. I can feel some coolness when breathing in, but I can feel nothing on the way out. I have tried for years and it has never become easier. That is why I focus on the abdomen as in the Mahasi style, but I still would like to know what this article means. Can you please explain to me what "nose breath" means?

I was reading through some Suttas and a word solitude was found. I looked up the original pali sutta for the word and found that word "Viveko" is getting translated as solitude. I have a sanskrit background and I studied sanskrit when I was in 8th standard. The word Viveko seems to have been derived from the sanskrit word vivek. Vivek means discretion , wisdom , true knowledge,investigation , consideration etc..but it does not mean solitude.(Solitude means privacy) Here is the sutta which uses the word solitude : > Two thoughts occur to him, The Tathāgata, the Awakened One Who endured > what is beyond endurance: Security (for beings) was the first thought > spoken of, **Solitude** was the second announced. Its pali version is as follows : > “Tathāgataṃ buddhamasayhasāhinaṃ, Duve vitakkā samudācaranti naṃ; > Khemo vitakko paṭhamo udīrito, Tato **viveko** dutiyo pakāsito. My question is : What is the meaning of the pali word "Viveko" ?

I love most aspects of Buddhism but I can't agree that animals have a "lower" rebirth than us. Dogs for example sometimes have enormous love and compassion for their owners, even if they are being terribly mistreated. I am a vegan because I love animals; animals do not harm us, yet humans routinely kill animals for their own sensual pleasure. The dairy and egg industries are also very cruel -- all those male chickens being killed! And how female dairy cows are always kept pregnant or lactating through artificially insemination. It's human cruelty that keeps them in their difficult position. Saying "It's just their bad karma" is in my opinion a way of weakening your own karma. Many animals are somewhat psychic -- they sense things that humans can't. Personally I would rather come back as an animal than a human. They seem more peaceful, humans are constantly thinking and doing and stressing about things. So can I still be a Buddhist, with these beliefs?

What I think of meditation is sitting with a good posture and concentrating on breathing and thinking about nothing. How does this help a person with anything? The only plus point that I can think of meditation is that, during the time you meditate, you forget all the distractions around you and become calm and stress free. Why do people talk about enlightenment? I saw [this definition of enlightenment](https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/439/what-is-enlightenment.htm) on Google: > Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. (Kant, 1784) Doesn't that imply "Enlightenment" equals "being disciplined, mature and independent"? How does meditation achieve this? Don't we become mature through experience and growth, disciplined through hard work and independent by accepting yourself? Hence why do we meditate? Why do we say things like "enlightenment can be achieved through meditation" when it can be achieved without it?

I finished watching two movies on the life of H.H the Dalai Lama (Kundun and Seven years in Tibet ) which also highlight the tragedy of Tibet. Historically Tibet can be said as the only country which has dedicated itself to the attainment of Nibbana (take this with a pinch of salt). A huge amount of cultural heritage and Buddhist documents must have been lost during the cultural revolution. So what do you make out of the tragedy of Tibet? Do we learn any lessons about Karma? Do you think that for protection of Dhamma Tibet should have indulged in dealing with arms? If you are a Vajrayana, do you care for Liberation of Tibet? ***P.S: Not being judgemental towards the Chinese.***

I have heard stories of non-enlightened monks preach dharma to ordinary people and those people would become enlightened (At least a stream-enterer). Can I have any sources on these? Possibly any sutta sources as well?

I have mastered the 1st and wish to move now to the second. But all the books and sources online confuse me. Some say it happen naturally other say it's something you can focus on to bring about the second jhana like thoughts on how unpleasant the 1st is. So how can i summon the second at will?

I am currently jobless. I saw the advertisement of recruitment of government insurance company. So I thought to ask before applying. I am very confused. I don't want to do any wrong livelihood jobs.