If the anger disappears once it has been seen, what is that state of mind then? After that, saw mind has two sides, no klesa and klesa, like a coin.

The BBC has these two quotes attributed to the Buddha that strike me as suspiciously pop-culture-esque assumptions of Buddhism. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/capitalpunishment.shtml Quote #1: > An action, even if it brings benefit to oneself, cannot be considered > a good action if it causes physical and mental pain to another being. > > The Buddha > Quote #2: > If a person foolishly does me wrong, I will return to him > the protection of my boundless love. The more evil that comes from > him, the more good will go from me. > > The Buddha The language isn't right, and they don't stand up to the test of logic. **For example:** 1: A girl pesters a monk to marry her, and is heartbroken when the monk refuses and commits suicide out of heart break. I don't think Buddhism would blame the monk because his intention is not to hurt the girl. 2: The words "protection of my boundless love" seem odd, when actually per the laws of karma, none can protect another from the effects of their actions. Plus, the Buddha doesn't mind calling a spade a spade - he can't hate anyone obviously, but he isn't going to love the sinners more than the virtuous as the quote implies.

In this book **Preparing to Die: Practical Advice and Spiritual Wisdom from the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition** Lama Tharchin makes a powerful statement > Dharma is how we can come to die professionally. What did mean by that? How does dharma help us during the death process? book's link

Love, I mean the common one which cares only to the beloved and is indifferent to others, is accessible to many, but as I understand it this is the near enemy of Metta, not truly Metta. My question is the true Metta, which is a kind of goodwill to all without preference, without exception. How does one wish goodwill to all in this world where nature itself works by compromise, where one's goodwill is another's misfortune? To give crude examples a lion eating am unborn calf or you frying unborn chick to feed you loving child. I know the idea of Metta is not limited to Buddhism Laozi also has it in his gradation of the world we live in, he set the lover below the saint who champion a kind of universal love, which is Metta, but Laozi higher goal is even to abandon Metta and let go of everything to run as is...in a sense a lion eating a calf is part of the process of Tao so not evil. How's Metta seen in the ultimate sense in Buddhism, and how does one practice goodwill for the entire cosmos and cultivate a limitless heart in everyday life?

How is samsara nirvana? I have heard this mentioned in a couple books recently, but they never go into much detail.

What is the "mark of cessation"? E.g. from Kihwa's _Commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment_: > From the standpoint of cultivation and severing, the sequence is from > coarse to subtle: ceasing, changing, abiding, and arising. > If you extinguish the mark of cessation, then you have for the first time attained the level of faith. Is it an abstract entity? If so, how would Dignaga's theory of apoha account for it? If not, I think it would be phenomenal, but I don't know what sort of actual thing it could be. I mean, can it studied empirically, like fire, or like consciousness? Does it matter either way to Buddhist practice or just life in general? --- Here's a copy of the text in question:

I am designing an educational computer simulation to explain the Buddhist concept of Samsara. The gameplay will consist of players interacting with the simulated environment and other players. One of the concepts of the game will be if you are doing creative actions with other players or environment then your Karma points will increase and you will get more powers if you do destructive things like shoot someone with a gun, you will be reduced of Karma points. Based on them you will be transferred to different levels. This is one of my ideas I will be implementing. Can you help me with more ideas related to the Buddhist understanding of what Samsara is? This should be educational about Buddhist Samsara.

From the Lonaphala Sutta : > Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is > experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears > for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is > **developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e., > painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in > discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the > immeasurable**. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is > experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears > for a moment. What developed in body and developed in mind means, is elaborated in MN36 : > "And how is one developed in body and developed in mind? There is the > case where a pleasant feeling arises in a well-educated disciple of > the noble ones. On being touched by the pleasant feeling, he doesn't > become impassioned with pleasure, and is not reduced to being > impassioned with pleasure. His pleasant feeling ceases. With the > cessation of the pleasant feeling there arises a painful feeling. On > being touched with the painful feeling, he doesn't sorrow, grieve, or > lament, beat his breast or becomes distraught. When that pleasant > feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain > because of his development of the body. When that painful feeling had > arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his > development of the mind. This is how one is developed in body and > developed in mind." What being developed in virtue (sila) means, is covered by the Five Precepts (and also the Eight Precepts and Ten Precepts ), Right Speech , Right Action and Right Livelihood . These links provide more info on these. However, what does "developed in discernment" mean? Please also provide references from the scriptures.

I don't know anything in depth about Buddhism but as I figure there are three possibilities in life at it's end, either: 1. the soul is released from the physical world and returns to where it originated from; 2. the soul remains in the physical world and is then passed on and contained within another living entity; or 3. the soul remains in the physical world and is not contained within any physical body. The latter I believe I would not favour. If I am correct about my deduction then the latter entity would be incorporeal. Buddhism as much as I know is based upon transference of souls to other living entities so how does it deal with the possible existence of incorporeal entities or does it refute the idea? There is one possibility at the expense of the humanity of things there could be no soul god forbid.

I have been experiencing greater calm lately, yet at some moments I seem to judge others, as in public places or in general. I understand this as contempt, though I don't really believe it; I don't *believe* I am better or that people are worthy of contempt, but the thoughts arise anyways and I try to just observe them with equanimity. Often, I experience quite a few of these thoughts, and this impedes my calmness. What is the best manner to deal with contempt, or just comparing oneself with others in general? 1. Does metta help, and what kind? 2. Should I watch the thoughts with equanimity or alter them? 3. Is there some other meditative technique that would help? Thank you

I am wondering how concentration meditation (i.e. shamatha) compares with other techniques or remedies for awareness and alertness. Does anyone know whether meditation increases alertness more than exercise, or nutrition? Or perhaps, I mean to ask how efficient -- if this is a measurable aspect -- focused meditation is at sustaining alertness? Thank you.

I hope to have a go at reading a little about the Eucharist. Because my religious sympathies largely lie with Buddhism, I thought it'd be good to know of anything comparative therein.

In DN 31, the Buddha said a libertine is an evil companion leading to ruin. > *There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in associating with evil companions, namely: any gambler, any libertine, > any drunkard, any swindler, any cheat, any rowdy is his friend and > companion.* > > *These are the six dangers inherent in bad companionship: any rogue, drunkard, addict, cheat, swindler, or thug becomes a friend and > colleague.* In the Tanhavagga, the Buddha taught craving, particularly when developed, leads to woe and suffering: > *334. The craving of one given to heedless living grows like a creeper. Like the monkey seeking fruits in the forest, he leaps from > life to life (tasting the fruit of his kamma).* > > *335. Whoever is overcome by this wretched and sticky craving, his sorrows grow like grass after the rains.* > > *342. Beset by craving, people run about like an entrapped hare. Held fast by mental fetters, they come to suffering again and again for a > long time.* Therefore, if a person pursues and engages in sexual activity merely for sexual gratification, will they increase craving in both themselves and another? If a man, for example, has sex with a woman because his has lust but has not personal commitment towards the woman, will not craving be created in the woman leading her to keep searching for a sexual partner? Are those who are always searching for sex, love & companionship destined for rebirth in the hungry ghost world or even hell?

In the Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN22), the mindfulness about the elements is taught: > “There are in this body, the earth element, the water element, the > fire element, the wind element.” > > Just as though, monks, a clever butcher, or a butcher’s apprentice, > after slaughtering a cow, were sitting down at a crossroads after > dividing it into portions; even so, monks, a monk in regard to this > very body, however placed, however disposed, reflects by way of the > elements: > “There are in this body, the earth element, the water element, the > fire element, the wind element.” However I am unable to understand why we have to look at the elements from the clever butcher's point of view. What kind of mental state does the meditation on elements generate? Please explain the analogy in detail.

Namo Buddhaya. At many places in the texts it is said that the Buddha had set the wheel of dhamma in motion and that it can not be rolled back by anyone. This sutta is devoted to the understanding of wheel of dhamma. My questions are based on the above sutta(I am looking for the answer to the first question mainly but you can answer the rest if you want.) : 1. What is meant by setting the "wheel" of Dharma in motion? Why is it called a wheel? 2. In the sutta mentioned above following is said : > But when my knowledge and vision of these Four Noble Truths as they > really are in *their three phases and twelve aspects* was thoroughly > purified in this way, then I claimed to have awakened What are the three phases and twelve aspects of Dhamma? 3. In the same sutta mentioned above, Buddha says : > “‘This *noble truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned*’: > thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me > vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light. Why the noble Truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned ? (I think craving needs to be abandoned and not the Truth)

People who have children have them for the sake of their own happiness, and ultimately the child suffers. Can we justify not having children at all even for householders stating that all life is bound to suffering?

I've googled this, but can't find it. I know there is a tradition of writing legendary/mythological/fictional biographies (hagiographies) of monks in the Chinese tradition. Just a few days ago was the celebration of Kwan Yin's going forth day, but for the life of me, I can't find any other accounts of Kwan Yin's life as a monk or nun.

Not counting this site are there any communities where I can talk about the Dhamma with serious lay practitioners in facebook? Most of the groups I have been have been riddled with really toxic and judgemental people.

Is it reasonable to call these truths, or would it be more reasonable to call them accurate statements from two different frames of reference? The truth, from the frame of reference of conditioned experience, is emptiness. The truth, from the frame of reference of the unconditioned, is neither the condition of emptiness, nor the condition of non-emptiness, neither both nor neither. .. In that a statement with regards to the ultimate is false from a conditioned frame, and a statement with regards to the conditioned is false from the ultimate frame, how can either one declare any 'satya'?

I ask this question because I assumed the importance of motivation being paramount in determining the virtue/non-virtue of karmic action was widely shared among all traditions. Anyway, I'd like to know if this assumption is correct from practitioners of other traditions. So how important is motivation in determining whether a particular action is virtuous or non-virtuous? Are there any actions where motivation is not important? Are there any actions where it is the only thing that is important? Something in between?