Did the Buddha say anything of the value of mundane acts of generosity which may temporarily alleviate the suffering of others in a temporary, worldly way, but do not *free* others from from suffering? For example, helping someone get what they desperately "need" will not free them from craving, nor will curing a disease free someone from old age, sickness, and death. The following quotes support this point, i.e. how mundane work or acts of generosity - which give material comfort but are not the gift of the dhamma - do not free anyone from the *causes* of suffering. Dalai Lama : > Science and technology have contributed immensely to the overall development of humankind, to our material comfort and well- being as well as to our understanding of the world we live in. But if we put too much emphasis on these endeavors, we are in danger of losing those aspects of human knowledge that contribute to the development of an honest and altruistic personality. > > ... > > No one can deny the material benefits of modern life, but we are still faced with suffering, fear, and tension— perhaps more now than ever before. Bhikku Bodhi : > The pāramitās begin with dāna-pāramitā, the perfection of giving. Social engagement can certainly be included under this category, as it involves giving others material gifts and the gift of security. But these gifts, as worthy as they are, do not equal in value the gift of the Dharma, for the gift of the Dharma leads to the permanent extinction of suffering. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche : > How many scientists do you know who have become enlightened? Have you heard of any? Well, if a scientist trains in this, he becomes enlightened. That’s pretty neat, isn’t it? These days scientists are praised as being the most eminent people in this world, because they make devices through which you can instantly talk to someone on the other end of the world, or you can fly through the skies. Well, with this practice you can go beyond being a scientist. Actually, what science can create is pretty amazing, but still, all science is on this side of the shore of knowledge. The profound samadhi means the other shore of knowledge, having transcended dualistic mind. Right now, if we compare ourselves with a scientist, a scientist seems to be better, right? But once the scientist arrives on the other shore, any mental doings is of no use at all! At that point, as far as we are concerned, it is much better to arrive on the other side at transcendent knowledge. Here’s a question for all of you: exactly how much benefit is there from scientific knowledge the moment you are in the bardo? Think about it well. When a scientist is in the bardo he no longer has any gadgets to help him, no spy satellites or jet planes to move around in. In the bardo isn’t whatever one created of absolutely no use? Scientific knowledge is not transcendent. The knowledge that we are supposed to train in is transcendent knowledge, prajnaparamita. > > Honestly, whatever mundane, unspiritual actions we do show themselves to be a total waste at the end of this life. They are good for absolutely nothing. Any work that one bothers to complete is pointless unless it is connected with a virtuous outcome. > Upasika Kee : > Don’t think that you were born to gain this or that level of comfort. You were born to study pain and the causes of pain, and to follow the practice that frees you from pain. This is the most important thing there is. Everything else is trivial and unimportant. What acts of compassion and generosity were considered worthwhile to the Buddha?

I had previously asked a question about lying in fiction, but I feel I had omitted some important elements which I recently realized. I often write theoretical statements I am unsure of. 1. Does writing (not fiction) something untrue in itself, even if not shown or deleted, cause one to have uttered a lie? 2. Does speculation about something, where ideas are asserted without certainty, consist in lying as well? I am mainly asking because I had recent intuitions that the way I wrote could be a form of lying, and that symptoms in myself -- such as inconsistency and great uncertainty -- could perhaps be linked to this form of false-like expression. Since the Buddha advised against lying even in jest, I wonder if my expression's closeness to lying is detrimental. Thank you.

Remorse or regret (kukucca) is supposed to be unwholesome, while shame of evil (hiri) is wholesome. What is the difference between the two? Why is one wholesome, while the other isn't?

Does anyone know any research or publications on the intersection of Buddhism and semiotics/biosemiotics? I don't mean the study of Buddhist schools with the help of semiotics, but rather an interpretation of Buddhist doctrine itself as a kind of ancient proto-semiotics. Any references are appreciated.

Is there an interpretation of the 12 nidanas (shown on the outside of the wheel below) that is compatible with a lack of belief in rebirth. For instance in the 12 nidanas there are the links > Becoming -> Birth -> Aging and Death So even though this explicitly names rebirth is there an interpretation of the cycle that occurs just over one lifetime (or reoccurs many times over one life). Or are the concepts of the nidanas so bound up with rebirth that they have no value or sense to practioners who are more agnostic about this.

How can the term "spirit" be translated into Buddhist doctrine? If I may just copy paste the definition: Moreover, could be mean anything unconditioned, permanent, or in some way separate from the rest of 'us'? The tags are clues, but I'm not being facetious.

Sometimes, a lay person would approach the Buddha and ask a question, such as, "If I earn all of the money in the world, will she like me?" to which the Buddha would reply, "It does not further". As the answer would not further his ultimate purpose, which is to give. (The question frames the asker as a 'taker', or 'possessor', or 'manipulator', etc.). Does the answer to the question, "What are the pitfalls to improvement?", further my purpose to improve?

Every internal sense organ comes along with corresponding external organ. For example eye comes along with form, ear comes along with sound, nose comes along with smell , mind comes along with mental phenomenon. I am aware of the meaning of form or sight , sound , smell etc .. but I am not sure what is meant by mental phenomenon? When eye and form/sight come together eye consciousness arises. When nose and smell come to together nose consciousness arises. In both the statement above it is clear from my experience what is sight and smell. But when we say mind and mental phenomenon come together mind consciousness arises, it is not clear from my experience ,what is the mental phenomenon? Is mental pehnomenon the memory of past or the simulation of future or is it the dream or is it the speech ? There are different types of tastes ,colors ,odours, touch etc... Are there different types of mental phenomenon also?

I recently went to a dhamma talk that I am skeptical of for a few reasons. One of the things we were told in this talk is that the mind always lies and the body never lies, which (in a mundane sense) doesn't line up with what I know. He specifically told us to go by how our body feels when asked for money by a panhandler. He said that if we feel bad physically when asked, we should not give money, but if we feel good physically, we should. (Part of the reason I am skeptical of this dhamma talk is that he said a bunch of really negative things about panhandlers here and about the idea of giving them money, which seems not based in Buddhist thought at all) Personally, I have had many times where I have been convinced I was suffocating during a panic attack. I have also read many studies where "gut feelings" - that is, physical feelings people interpret as guidance - are shown to perpetrate racist or other -ist biases in society. In a mundane sense, I am skeptical of the idea that bodily sensations are significantly more trustworthy than thoughts. My question here is if there is anything in the suttas (preferably the Pali canon, but I'm also interested in other sources) regarding this idea of trusting the physical sensations of the body as some great arbiter of truth. EDIT: Since someone mentioned not having more context, I'd like to make clear, we were not given much more context than I mentioned above. I'll do my best to explain what we were told exactly. This talk was specifically part of a once a week service for lay people who may not even identify or consider themselves Buddhist, and I do not believe the teacher expects that many of his audience even meditate outside of this once-a-week practice. The dhamma talk was centered on the Pāramitās and this discussion about the body was part of the part of the talk on generosity. The teacher briefly defined each term, and then spoke about them. For generosity, he said panhandling was an opportunity to practice generosity, which seems fair to me. Then he started talking about all the concerns he has had when approached by a panhandler- he spouted off a very very long list of negative beliefs or stereotypes about panhandlers, and then talked about how those thoughts were suffering. He made no positive statements regarding giving money to panhandlers, except for the initial statement that it was an opportunity to practice generosity. This is where he says that the mind always lies, but the body never lies, and that we should listen to our bodies when asked for money by panhandlers. Specifically, he said that if you felt bad and uncomfortable physically, you shouldn't give. This struck me as giving people carte-blanche to never be generous and also never consider why they didn't feel comfortable being generous. His only reference for "the body never lies" is a mention that "his teacher" taught him this, but throughout the talk he referenced non-Buddhist western "Mindfulness" teachers more than anything Buddhist, so I am unsure if his teacher was even nominally Buddhist. There was a strange emphasis on how these virtues were also important in Christianity as well, which I couldn't place/understand. The reason I asked the question is that I had an immediate reaction of "This can't possibly be true" but I wanted to get a second (and a third and so on if possible) opinion to be sure that I wasn't dismissing the teaching unfairly, or perhaps discover if it was at least rooted in something that was less likely to be used as an excuse for unskillful means.

The term 'kaya-sankhara' is defined in MN 44 as the 'in & out breathing'. The same term is found in step 4 of Anapanasati & in the 2nd nidana of Paticcasamuppada, as follows: > *He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming kāyasaṅkhāraṃ. 'He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming kāyasaṅkhāraṃ.' > Anapanasati Sutta* ~ > *And what are saṅkhārā? These three are saṅkhārā: kāyasaṅkhāro, vacī (verbal) saṅkhāro, citta (mind) saṅkhāro. These are called saṅkhārā. > Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta* My questions: 1. Does 'kaya-sankhara' have the same meaning in both contexts, i.e., in & out breathing? 2. If not, is there another alternative definition apart from in MN 44? 3. If not, is it possible for both contexts to have the same meaning?

Are the six sense faculties just the sense organs, sense objects, and sense consciousnesses, considered all together, that (conventionally) makes up a (conventional) person? Does it make any difference if we think about "ourselves" in terms of them, rather than any other scheme? What canonical literature talks about nirvana in terms of the six sense Indriyas?

Buddhism teaches to respect parents. I do follow. But when ever i bow down our relation with my mother, she constantly tries to bring me down. She makes me feel bad for the way i look. I cannot change my skin color or my height. She nags about my appearance. My childhood was ruined and now she is making me depresses by saying no guy would like to marry me. It is getting hard to listen to her day by day. I am a person who upholds goodcharacter above anything. I can never say a bad word to anybody's face. Yet i am facing this almost everyday by my mother. When she fell ill i could not leave he and i was the one who suffer her illness more than her mentally. I feel bad as why she cannot see me as a daughter and love me when all i want is to make her happy. What mistake have i done in my past life to her that she is constantly taunting me to death.

For the [reasons explained here](https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2248/254) , can you recommend one or more books about Buddhism? - I suggest a format like, > Title of Book by Name of Author > A summary of what's in the book, recommended for these reasons. - One book per answer (but multiple answers, a different book for each answer, is welcome) - Books -- but not videos -- i.e. readable; published in print, and/or online - I think it's more important to mention why you recommend a book, and less important to summarise what's in it --- Unlike most other topics on this site, this topic is [Community Wiki](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/11741/139866) . If it's a good *introductory* book then post it here instead -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/60/254 -- and use this topic for other (non-Introductory) books about any more-specific topics.

I am in Varanasi , India where Buddha gave his sermons. I want to know ,are there any Buddhist monasteries near Varanasi ?

Buddhists, I am told, value the practice of paying attention to breathing. I think I'm going to give it a try while I go about my day ... it can't hurt. What are the benefits? Are there beginner guidelines to follow? I intend no insult, so forgive my ignorance please.

Is Nagarjuna is arguing that time cannot really be both infinitely divisible and extended, so is a conceptual construction? I'm asking because verse 2.23 suggested that to me, taken completely out of context, anyway. > 23. **[A going] which is other than the going by which a goer is made *evident* does not [enable a goer to] go**. Because it is impossible for > going to be twofold within a single goer. Emphasis, obviously, mine. I really like the idea that Nagarjuna was saying that time must be infinitely divisible, but time as we experience it (***evidently***) is not infinitely divisible, because if it was it would take forever to compose it. ---------- As I think it was pointed out in an answer, it is often I think said that Nagarjuna means time cannot inherently exist because it is infinitely divisible. I'm just adding that it ***can neither be infinitely divided nor not***. I would not conclude that time does not flow, but that anything that arises has already passed, radical impermanence, suggesting that extinction and so on is already present.

I don't know a lot about those two, but I hear that they are full of wisdom. Since they date farther back than buddhism, I was wondering if the Buddha ever mentioned them. What did he think of them? If he didn't mention them as such, he probably mentioned some concepts that are contained in them; Apart from obvious concepts contained in those two that also are within Buddhist thought (E.g. Karma).

Is one able to be ordained if they have psoriasis? It's similar to eczema but not identical? Will this vary depending on where you go to ordain? Thank you.

Sitting on a chair, working. Sometime later finding yourself sitting in a position same as one beside you. Is this an automatic influence on mind, you are not aware of the position in which the other being is sitting ? Sometimes while working make same mistakes as the one sitting beside or in front. The status of the mind same as the people around. Doing those things as thought by other. How to avoid this? Is there any reference in Buddhism to stop this? What is such behaviour of mind called? There is another thing , would like to mention, the status of mind sometimes becomes same as the one who remembers you. For e.g when someone trying to contact you for very long time via mobile, the mind becomes the person who is trying to contact you. Is it something to do with chakra? How to guard the mind?

actually I love any kind of animal, I had some birds like Nightingale, White-eared bulbul and so many others, even snake mouse and so..., That time I was child, some one said, you not love them, they love to be free, not in cage and you slave them, after that I did not keep any kind of animal anymore (as you said pet), I don't have pet for a long times But know I see many people that have homing pigeon, they are free and they come back to their cage freely, or in other way the special kind of pigeon which known as dove or white dove or ring-neck dove with it's extremely calm character somehow seems that it can not stay alive in wild world. so what about keeping pigeon that they became homing pigeon actually I should say we training them to became homing pigeon, or others that need to human take care of them like dove? are this act known as slavery? Is it wrong? even though this is not good excuse to cage them either for homing pigeon and for other need to take care, but I searching for straight and clear answer and wise explanation are these slave? does it acceptable in Buddhism? This is virtuous act? how we can explain it that is either good or bad?