The question is: How does Kamma associate with "provocation"? Example 1: A says to B "Hit/kill me if you dare." Example 2: A tells B that killing is justified if the cause is right. In the above examples, and if B did the hitting/killing after the provocation, who's kamma is worse? A or B? And Why?

During his lifetime, did the Buddha teach meditation to lay people, or did he teach meditation **only** to monks? Are there any references to this in the Pali Canon or commentaries? It's clear that all Buddhists, including lay people, should gain the Right View by learning the Dhamma , for that is the first step on the Noble Eightfold Path . There are also references in the Pali Canon for lay people to live a virtuous life, for example in the Sigalovada Sutta . However, most of the meditation teachings appear to target monks.

Further to [these comments](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3545/if-theres-nobody-to-get-enlightened-why-bother/3550?noredirect=1#comment29427_3550) , why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', specifically, instead of about 'attachment'? Wouldn't they make as much sense, or even make more sense, if they identified attachment rather than craving as a condition for the types of suffering which are mentioned in the first noble truth?

Conscience is described as being the moral sense in which an individual makes decisions. Do Buddhists believe there is a conscience? If so how is it defined

I'm energetically trying to uproot the view of self, meaning, the sense that there is a subject of experience. I have read/heard authors such as Sam Harris and Joseph Goldstein say that the self as a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place." > Sam Harris, Page 92 > > The self that does not survive scrutiny is the subject of > experience in each present moment— the feeling of being a thinker of > thoughts inside one’s head, the sense of being an owner or inhabitant > of a physical body, which this false self seems to appropriate as a > kind of vehicle. > > And yet, however one looks for it, this self is nowhere to be found. It cannot be seen amid the particulars of experience, and it cannot be seen when experience itself is viewed as a totality. However, its absence can be found— and when it is, the feeling of being a self disappears. > > Josteph Goldstein, No-Self (17:00) > > Losing the self is not necessary, you don’t have to get rid of the > self because it is not there in the first place. Is it be more accurate to say that the self as a *feeling* that there is a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."? Since, when an object is known, how do you deny there being someone who has done the knowing of the object?

I am trying to understand how somebody following the dhamma is supposed to verify what the Buddha said about rebirth. In the past I've been told that once somebody has developed samadhi/calmed the mind to a great extent then they will be able to see that rebirth occurs after death. Usually samadhi helps along the path by making it easier to observe thing and see the world as it is. It's clear how this helps to see anatta/anicca/dukkha, but I do not understand how samadhi helps with seeing anything related to rebirth. I don't know what anyone would begin to observe to see rebirth. This question has a very similar title to my previous question but it is not a duplicate. In the previous question I had one idea on how someone could verify rebirth occurs after death but the answers said that my idea was incorrect. This new question is asking for other ideas on how someone can verify rebirth through experience.

It seems to be a big deal that we see things as they are. If we are merely assuming when things begin and end or change then how do we ever really see things as they are?

I always wonder how all this started... How did we arrive here? What are we doing in this place? So are there teachings in Buddhism that are clear on this point? How did the world start? and How is it gonna end?

I have read once you have reached the bliss stage you should take your focus off the object and on the blissful sensations and hold it. Then in time you will be in Jhana. But i also read in other sources you should just stay with the object and one pointed focus will rise that way. Which is it? This confuse me. I've reached bliss i kept focusing on my earth kasina but before i could fully enter the first jhana i felt my breath fading and it scared me out of my mediation. So i don't know if focusing on my object would have allowed me to reach jhana.

How to get to know mind has reached sakadagami state or still in sotapanna?During meditation experience no thoughts and Feel like clear emptiness. Reached clear darkness with peace of mind and there is a light with dark in sometime. And sexual craving disappears when meditation feel free after that. At which state of mind dependent origin will break?whether it is just a jhana state .

The three poisons are greed or sensual attachment (lobha or raga), aversion or ill-will (dosa or dvesha) and delusion or confusion (moha). These are said to the unwholesome roots, or the roots to all other unwholesome mental states. I'm trying to analyze the mild, severe and opposite examples of the three poisons, in order to get a deeper understanding what the three poisons are. Greed (lobha) ============ The opposite of greed (lobha or raga) is apparently generosity (dana). Is this right? The severe examples of greed include the desire to take what does not belong to you (to steal), covet another's spouse. Can I say that the mild version of greed include the desire to buy certain types of clothes and dress better to make a good impression on others? How about the enjoyment of nice pleasant weather or tasty food, and the desire that it should continue further? What about looking at a good-looking person and desiring to go and talk to them? What about feeling happy when being praised by others? Aversion (dosa or dvesha) ================= The opposite of aversion (dosa or dvesha) is apparently loving-kindness (metta or maitri). Is this right? The severe example of aversion include anger that results in the act of killing or injuring others. Can I say that the mild version of aversion include the dislike of unpleasant weather (too hot and humid, or too cold), or the dislike of minor physical pain (like a mosquito bite) and wishing that it goes away? What about judging others in your mind for their perceived flaws? What about being impatient because your friend is late to meet you for dinner? What about feeling displeased because you were criticized by others? Delusion (moha) =============== The opposite of delusion (moha) is apparently wisdom (panna or prajna). Is this right? What are severe forms of delusion? Could depression, anxiety, rage, terror, remorse be considered severe forms of delusion? What would be mild forms of delusion? What if I fear catching a disease from mosquito bites? What if I feel unhappy due to others' criticism because I care too much about what they think? Or having regret that I did not purchase something when there was a discount which has now expired? Or is this often linked to the greed (lobha) and hatred (dosa), and seldom exists standalone? For example, I judge someone negatively in my mind, but it's actually because I did not understand the reason why they are in that situation? Or I do things like dressing up better for getting recognition from others, but it's actually because I have the wrong notion of putting too much importance into that recognition? Other types of negative mental states =================================== How do other types of negative mental states like envy, sloth, conceit, miserliness, restlessness, lack of shame etc. (list of other unwholesome mental states here ) connect to the three unwholesome roots?

Are Buddhist monks allowed to have prescriptions, or would that be considered an attachment? Did the Buddha say anything of medicine?

As a Buddhist, is it right to say that anything about Buddhism is right? If it is not right to *say* so, how right or wrong is it to *assume* that? Myself as a "traditional Buddhist" from Myanmar, I find it pretty disturbing to see Buddhists here having blindfolded faith in Buddhism and every act of monks and religious leaders. Above question might also relate to this question: as a self-aware Buddhist, how can you analyse if your thoughts or actions are right, without having much knowledge about Dhamma (Dharma)?

The new Sutta Central translations have translated the Pali word "sattā" as "sentient beings", as follows: > *And what is rebirth? Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti?* > > *The rebirth, inception, conception, **reincarnation**, manifestation of the aggregates, and acquisition of the sense fields of the various > **sentient beings** in the various orders of **sentient beings**.* > > *Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ **sattā**naṃ tamhi tamhi **satta**nikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti **abhinibbatti** khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho.* > >*SN 12.2* What evidence is there in the Pali suttas that the word "sattā" means "sentient beings"?

The translations of SN 26.9 sounds unusual to me; which are as follows: > Yo kho, bhikkhave, pathavīdhātuyā uppādo ṭhiti > abhinibbatti pātubhāvo … pe … jarāmaraṇassa pātubhāvo; yo āpodhātuyā > … yo tejodhātuyā … yo vāyodhātuyā … yo ākāsadhātuyā … yo > viññāṇadhātuyā uppādo ṭhiti abhinibbatti pātubhāvo, dukkhasseso > uppādo, rogānaṃ ṭhiti, jarāmaraṇassa pātubhāvo. Yo ca kho, bhikkhave, > pathavīdhātuyā nirodho … pe … jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo; yo āpodhātuyā > nirodho … yo tejodhātuyā nirodho … yo vāyodhātuyā nirodho … yo > ākāsadhātuyā nirodho … yo viññāṇadhātuyā nirodho vūpasamo atthaṅgamo, > dukkhasseso nirodho, rogānaṃ vūpasamo, jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo”ti. > > Mendicants, the arising, continuation, rebirth, and manifestation of the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element is the arising of suffering, the continuation of diseases, and the manifestation of old age and death. The cessation of the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element is the cessation of suffering, the settling of diseases, and the ending of old age and death. > >SN 26.9 Since the 2nd Noble Truth and Dependent Origination explain suffering arises due to craving, attachment & becoming, how does the "manifestation" of the mere physical elements, per the above translations, manifest as the arising of "suffering"?

It seems that the more successful your meditation is, the more lavish the surroundings of your next life (e.g. rebirth in a heavenly realm following the attainment of certain meditative states). However, this seems contrary to the goal of non-attachment, and a more logical karmic result of meditative attainment would be rebirth in some setting that would most easily propel you into a monastery. So, why does progress in meditation cause rebirth in a more worldly setting?

I am looking for early mentions of the accumulation of karma while dreaming. Here is what I've been able to find so far: 1. In The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom a discussion of accumulating karma in dreams: > Sāriputra: Ven. Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great being, who in > his dreams enters into the three concentrations—emptiness, the > signless, the wishless—does he, then, grow in perfect wisdom? > > Subhuti: If, Ven. Śāriputra, he grows through the development by > day, then he also grows in a dream. And why? Because dream and waking > are indiscriminate. If the Bodhisattva who courses by day in the > perfection of wisdom has a development of the perfection of wisdom, > then also the Bodhisattva, the great being, who dreams will have a > development of the perfection of wisdom. > > Śāriputra: If again, Ven. Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great > being, does a deed in his dream, will there by of that deed a heaping > up or accumulation? If all dharmas are said to be like a dream, there > will be no heaping up or accumulation of it. And why? Because in a > dream no heaping up or accumulation of a dharma can be apprehended. > But when one wakes up and thinks it over, then there is a heaping up > or accumu- lation of it. > > Subhuti: One who had committed a murder in his dream, and, on > waking, would think it over like this, 'he has been well killed by me, > (A: it is right that he was killed, it is just that he was killed, it > was I who killed him!' Such thoughts are equivalent to the conscious > notion that he wants to kill someone). > > Śāriputra: Not without an objective support does a deed arise or an > act of will. > > Subhuti: So it is, Śāriputra, not without an objective support does > a deed arise or an act of will. Only with an objective support is a > deed produced, or an act of will, and not without. In seen, heard, and > known dharmas does intelligence proceed, and not in unseen, unheard, > unknown dharmas. Therein some intellectual acts take hold of > defilement, and some of purification. Therefore, then, Śāriputra, it > is with an objective support that a deed or act of will arises and not > without objective support. 2. In Tsongkhapa's Praise for Dependent Relativity it is mentioned that the karma of killing in a dream was a question answered by the Buddha, but no sources are provided. 3. Shantideva addressed this (or a closely related) question in Chapter 9 of his Guide to the Bodhisattvas Way of Life verse 11 and on: > If consciousness does not exist, there is no sin in killing an > illusory person. On the contrary, when one is endowed with the > illusion of consciousness, vice and merit do arise. 4. In the Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 lines: > Sariputra: If someone in his dreams does a deed, wholesome or > unwholesome, will that be added on to the heap or collection of his > karma? > > Subhuti: In so far as the Lord has taught that ultimately all dharmas > are like a dream, in so far that deed will not be added to his head or > collection of karma. But on the other hand [from the standpoint of > empirical reality], that deed will be added to the heap and collection > of his karma if, after the man has woken up, he thinks the dream over, > and consciously forms the notion that he wants to kill someone. How > does he do that? During his dream he may have taken life, and after he > has woken up, he thinks it over like this: “it is good that he was > killed! It is right that he was killed! It was just that he was > killed! It was I who killed him.” Such thoughts are equivalent to the > conscious notion that he wants to kill someone. Does anyone know of sutras or other ancient sources where the Buddha or Nagarjuna, Shantideva, Chandrakirti, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Tsongkhapa or others might have addressed the question of whether karma can be accumulated in dreams and if so, how? **I'm especially interested to know if this question was ever answered or addressed by the Buddha in the pali canon**

Let's say I am meditating for 2-3 hours each day. How long would it take?

I have just started practicing breathing mindfulness. At several places following is said for the breathing mindfulness: > While breathing in long, he knows “I am breathing in long”, or, while > breathing out long, he knows “I am breathing out long”; or, while > breathing in short, he knows “I am breathing in short”, or, while > breathing out short, he knows “I am breathing out short”. However most of the time I am breathing normally. I am neither taking long breath nor short breath. My question is: Why normal breathing situation is ignored during breathing mindfulness? In other words ,why don't we say "While breathing in normal , he knows 'I am breathing in normal', or , while breathing out normal, he knows ' I am breathing out normal'"?

What are the benefits of transferring karmic fruitfulness and how is this done by Buddhists?