Dhammapada 242 and AN 8.15 say: > *Malitthiyā duccaritaṃ / malaṃ itthiyā duccaritaṃ* This is translated as: > *Unchastity is the taint in a woman. (Buddharakkhita)* > > *In a woman, misconduct is an impurity. (Thanissaro)* > > *Misconduct is a woman’s stain. (Sujato)* > > *A woman’s stain is misconduct. (Bodhi)* The above stain specific to women is found among other stains, as follows: > *Bhikkhus, there are these eight stains. What eight?* > > *(1) Non-recitation is the stain of the hymns.* > > *(2) The stain of houses is lack of upkeep.* > > *(3) The stain of beauty is laziness.* > > *(4) Heedlessness is the stain of a guard.* > > *(5) A woman’s stain is misconduct.* > > *(6) Miserliness is a donor’s stain.* > > *(7) Bad unwholesome qualities are stains in this world and the next.* > > *(8) A stain graver than this is ignorance, the very worst of stains.* > > *These, bhikkhus, are the eight stains.* Despite this focus on women above, the definition of sexual misconduct in the suttas is addressed to men, as follows: > *He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their > brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with > husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with > flowers by another man.* > >*AN 10.176* My question is why do Dhammapada 242 and AN 8.15 focus on sexual misconduct as the stain of a woman (when they are so many other stains, such as listed in MN 7)?

According to the article An Explanation of Upaya in Buddhism by Barbara O'Brien: > Mahayana Buddhists often use the word upaya, which is translated > "skillful means" or "expedient means." Very simply, upaya is any > activity that helps others realize enlightenment. Sometimes upaya is > spelled upaya-kausalya, which is "skill in means." > > Upaya can be unconventional; something not normally associated with > Buddhist doctrine or practice. The most important points are that the > action is applied with wisdom and compassion and that it is > appropriate in its time and place. ..... > > **In Theravada Buddhism, upaya refers to the Buddha's skill in shaping > his teaching to be appropriate to his audience—simple doctrines and > parables for beginners; more advanced teaching for senior students.** > Mahayana Buddhists see the historical Buddha's teachings as > provisional, preparing the ground for the later Mahayana teachings > (see "Three Turnings of the Dharma Wheel"). > > According to some sources just about anything is allowable as upaya, > including breaking the Precepts. Zen history is full of accounts of > monks realizing enlightenment after being struck or shouted at by a > teacher. In one famous story, a monk realized enlightenment when his > teacher slammed a door on his leg and broke it. > > Obviously, this no-holds-barred approach potentially could be abused. Upaya or "skillful means" is a popular concept in Mahayana Buddhism. When the Buddha tells one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience, based on their specific needs, this is considered upaya. It might be the case that the teaching to one audience is completely the opposite to the teaching to the other audience in Mahayana Buddhism. In certain Mahayana traditions, the teacher may even break the precepts (for example, drinking alcohol ), or shout at or hit the disciples, as part of the skillful means (upaya) to teach them. 1. Does this exist in Theravada Buddhism? 2. Please provide examples of upaya from the Pali Canon. 3. From the Pali Canon or Theravada Buddhism, would the Buddha even tell completely opposite things to different audiences? 4. From the Pali Canon or Theravada Buddhism, could the Buddha break his own rules, or even do things like shouting or hitting in order to teach his disciples?

My meditation practice is hindered by doubt. - First of all I see that the framework of the noble eightfold path (to which I adhere) does not seem to matter much, to so many gurus with repulsive behavior, and to the buddhist websites like Tricycle and Lion's Roar which continuously publish the writings of someone like Chogyam Trungpa. And I certainly can't see in the Dalai-Lama a personification of the Buddhist teachings, let alone his former friend Sogyal Rinpoche. - Secondly I am very disturbed by the situation in Myanmar (Burma): a 90 percent Buddhist country, with criminal monks and a public opinion dramatically gone astray! - Third, the very lucrative "mindfulness¨ industry selling Buddhism, like just any commodity, not without some harmful and dangerous consequences. The question is: do Buddhist teachings downplay the role of reasonable, objective thinking? Buddha is supposed to have said, "Place no head above your own". In some way it is akin to the motto of Western enlightenment by Kant (who certainly cannot be accused of having a "monkey mind"): "have the courage to use your own reason". But some Buddhists speak and act as if all thinking was "mind wandering". Or don't you think that to abandon the capacity to think, and minimizing the role of the factors which foster that capacity, like education, can have dramatic consequences? And that a fake buddhism isn't one of those consequences? If naive Western women could "think", would they be abused by pathologically narcissistic gurus? If the 90 percent Buddhist Burmese were less poor and more educated, and more apt to think objectively, would they behave as they do? Please do help me to practice, by answering to these somewhat disturbing questions.

I have had very strong sensations in my throat since I started practicing *Vipassana* 2 years back. They keep changing shapes and sharpness - they started like a picket fence and now are like hard pokey stone(s). They get overwhelming at times and am not able to focus on other body parts. - Has anyone experienced something like this ? - Have you managed to be equanimous in the face of sensations that seem to be ***communicating*** with you?

I’m wondering what your meditation practice’s effects are on your sleep. I’m asking this because I have a strange tendency, habit of waking up with very troubled thoughts and memories of past hardships. I’m meditating before and after sleep not only for spiritual goals but also for the purposes of relaxing and letting go of these thoughts. What are you experiences? Do you know if Buddha had anything to say on this matter? I would love to hear what you have to say! Thank you for your kindness, A Buddhist

DN 31 says: > *In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion: (i) they restrain > them from evil, (ii) they encourage them to do good, (iii) they train > them for a profession, (iv) **they arrange a suitable marriage**, (v) at > the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.* The definition of sexual misconduct in the suttas (addressed to men) is as follows: > *He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are **protected by their mothers, their fathers**, their > brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with > husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with > flowers by another man. AN 10.176* A Commentary explains the precept as follows: > *In the case where the father is gone, or the mother provides support such as food and clothing, the mother guards [her] thinking "**I will > give [her] to a good family when she comes of age.**" This is called > "protected by the mother". By the same means "protected by the > father", etc., should be understood.* It appears quite obvious the Buddhist way of life when the Buddha was alive was for parents to arrange the marriage of their children in Indian traditional practise. This tradition would have provided little scope for sex outside of marriage, apart from outcastes and in the upper classes (who had courtesans, concubines, sex slaves from war captives, etc). Since the norms of society has changed greatly since the Buddha's time, is the definition of sexual misconduct now obsolete?

If meditation techniques were ranked by how quickly they can instill and develop the feelings of joy and bliss within oneself, which ones would be ranked at the top and why?

First some introduction: I am in my ending teen years and like a normal teen would aspire for success, I aspire for it too. But there is a catch... I don't want to get too lost into material world, such that, at the end of the day I will be lost. In a sense I don't want to waste time. I have desire to be a little above mediocrity which can take lots of time(and there is no guarantee that I will succeed), so I believe it would be better if I realize the pointlessness of it as(many gurus claim). Some say to realize pointlessness of money(and any such desires like higher social status) it is important to have them first. So is it like I have heard that at the end of tough road is a steep fall and for me to realize it I have to work hard and see for myself, is there no better choice? > Can't I move towards it(worldly successes) and in the meantime practice something so I realize it is not that important? Right now I don't have courage to live like a monastic and even if I do, I'll be thinking of worldly pursuits most of the time and will have this sense of failure with me, that, I chose this path(spiritual) because I would fail in material path(this idea of choosing spiritual path because of failure in materialistic path is frowned upon where I live). Note: I know that I have to try to keep precepts and be moral, I want little bit advanced practice(while I try to build my career) Thank you!

https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanghyang_Adi_Buddha In Indonesia, due to muslim influence, believes in an "Esa" God is one of the founding principle of Indonesians. The words "Esa" in Indonesia can mean many things. Some says it means one (as in islam), or united (as in christianity) or comprehensive (according to my hindu friends). It seems that whoever wrote "Ketuhanan yang maha esa" wants to unite Indonesians under some open to interpretation terms. The buddhists in Indonesia then have this concept of Sang Hyang Adi Buddha which they called is "God" Is it? What is it? Is it God? I thought God is more like Bakka Brahma in Buddha. Is this just Indonesian thingy or is it common among buddha? In that wikipedia article I found a strange paragraph > “Ketahuilah Para Bhikkhu, Ada sesuatu Yang Tidak Dilahirkan, Yang > Tidak Menjelma, Yang Tidak Tercipta, Yang Mutlak. Wahai para Bhikkhu, > apabila Tidak ada Yang Tidak Dilahirkan, Yang Tidak Menjelma, Yang > Tidak Diciptakan, Yang Mutlak, maka tidak akan mungkin kita dapat > bebas dari kelahiran, penjelmaan, pembentukan, pemunculan dari sebab > yang lalu. Tetapi para Bhikkhu, karena ada Yang Tidak Dilahirkan, Yang > Tidak Menjelma, Yang Tidak Tercipta, Yang Mutlak, maka ada kemungkinan > untuk bebas dari kelahiran, penjelmaan, pembentukan, pemunculan dari > sebab yang lalu." I have no idea what Udana Nikaya (VIII: 3) is. I wish we have something like biblehub for buddhism. Let me translate that to English. Know Bhikkus, Something is not born, something doesn't manifest, something isn't created, something is absolute. Hi Bhikkus, if nothing is not unborn, not manifested, not created, not absolute, then we cannot be free from birth, manifestation (or incaranation/reincarnation), forming, and resulting out of previous causes. But Bhikkus, because something is not born, not manifested, not created, not resulting from previous cause, then there is a possibility to be free from birth, manifestation, forming, and resulting from previous causes. Any Indonesian can say that my translation is about right. Am I?

In the Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu): > He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those > who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, > their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; **those with > husbands**, those who entail punishments, or even **those crowned with > flowers by another man**. Questions: 1. What is meant by "those crowned with flowers by another man"? Since this is differentiated from "those with husbands", can I guess that "those crowned with flowers by another man" refer to a woman who is not-yet-married but with a lover or fiancé who is committed to her? 2. If this assumption is correct, then can I take it that it is not a sexual misconduct for an unmarried adult woman, who is not protected by her parents or relatives, to become sexually involved with with a lover or fiancé who is committed to her? 3. Also, what is meant by "those who entail punishments"?

I have followed the Dharma for the last ten+ years, and have been married for thirty. l have reached a stage where my progression is noticeably obstructed by the Layman's world. I've talked to my spouse(non Buddhist), but she is upset and doesn't want her world to change. What advice would you give to both of them?

There is a true story where a couple just got married. Soon after marriage, the wife is diagnosed with certain illness by the doctor. To make it short, because of the illness, the wife is not allowed to have sexual intercourse. The wife, however, tells the husband if needed he can have sexual intercourse with other woman to meet his biological need. In this particular case, if the husband has sexual intercourse with other woman, does he break the 3rd precept? Any source provided to back up the answer would be great.

What does mass donation of the Dhamma mean? How is that done? Does it include promotion of the Dhamma in public places or the Internet to vast audiences? According to Itivuttaka 100 : > "There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a > gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma. > > "There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things & > sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the > Dhamma. > > "There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material > things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help > with the Dhamma. > > **"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of > material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is > supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."**

Even as I find peace and contentment in observing the 5 precepts and following along the 8 fold path, I realize I sometimes unintentionally benefit from those who don't live in this manner. For example a friend takes something that wasn't freely given and shares it with me or a nearby person kills the insect flying around that I was trying to ignore. If I have not encouraged people to do such, should I be concerned about their actions or remain concerned only with my own intentions and actions?

It is said that Nirvana is not changing. But I found a text here which states that dharma of conditioned arising is unchanging. > The Buddha said to the monk: “Conditioned arising was neither made by > me, nor made by others. Whether a Tathāgata arises in the world or > not, this element of dharma remains unchanging. If sabbe dhamma anatta then how is it possible that Dhamma of conditioned arising is not changing ? And is it possible that Nirvana and Dhamma of conditioned arising are the same?

>"On the other hand, superior Bodhisattvas, who have attained the path of seeing, are not reborn through the force of their karma and destructive emotions, but due to the power of their compassion for sentient beings and based on their prayers to benefit others. They are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents". > >-- *Reincarnation by The Dalai Lama* So Superior Bodhisattvas can choose where to take rebirth, but the rest of us can't. So, what chooses where the rest of us get to take rebirth? How does "the force of karma" determine where the mind stream goes after physical death? In the case of the Bodhisattvas, is it their mind stream that makes the choice? And when they make this choice, do they choose from available alternatives and just pick what suits them best or do they have the power to create their ideal rebirth?

Is cutting off the "path of knives" (i.e. avoiding rebirth into lower realms) not the ultimate? I mean, obviously it's unlikely any Buddhist seeker would affirm that. But, given life on earth can be improved for humans, is it not very *like* the ultimate, to never again accrue evil karma and rebirth into hell or animal or ghost realms? Also, do any of the schools which say some sentient beings lack a seed for buddhahood, self enlightenment, and arhatship, claim that those sentient beings can forever avoid rebirth into the evil destinies? And in what way can they work for bodhicitta?

Someone I know is dying. If its death doesn't affect me much (Sadness, remorse...), I feel meditating about its condition as my own could be very beneficial. But if its not taking advantage of him, I feel it's still taking advantage of the situation. And even though I'm very thankful to him, I still feel unconfortable to practice about its death. Would it be considered as a selfish way to meditate ?

I know best poojawa is **prathipathi poojawa**. Does it mean follow the Lord Buddha's instructions? However what is a depth meaning of it? And how can I achieve it?

In [the third chapter of the Mahayana Mahaparininirvana Sutra](http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Mahayana_Mahaparinirvana_Sutra:_Chapter_3:_On_Grief) , Buddha calls the Self real and permanent: >Then the Buddha said to all the bhiksus: "Do not say this. I now leave all the unsurpassed Dharma in the hands of Mahakasyapa. This Kasyapa will henceforth be the one upon whom you may rely. This is as in the case where the Tathagata becomes the one to whom all beings can turn. The same is the case with Mahakasyapa. He will now become your refuge. This is as in the case of a king who has many territories and who goes on a tour of inspection, leaving all affairs of state in the hands of his minister. The same with the Tathagata. All right teachings are left in the hands of Mahakasyapa. Know that all that you have learned up to now about the non-eternal and suffering is not true. In spring, for example, people go bathing in a big pond. They are enjoying themselves, sailing in a boat, when they drop a gem of beryl into the depths of the water, after which it can no longer be seen. Then they all get into the water and search for this gem. They competitively scoop up all such rubbish as tiles, stones, bits of wood, and gravel, and say that they have the beryl. They are glad and take the things out, and see that what they hold in their hands is not true. The gem is still in the water. By the power of the gem itself, the water becomes clear and transparent. As a result, the people see that the gemis still in the water, as clearly as when they look up and see the form of the moon in the sky. At that time, there is a wise man there who, working out a power, slowly gets into the water and gains the gem. O you Bhiksus! **Do not abide in the thought of the non-Eternal, Suffering, non-Self**, and the not-Pure and be in the situation of those people who take stones, bits of wood, and gravel to be the true gem. You must study well the Way, how to act, wherever you go, and **“meditate on the Self, the Eternal, Bliss, and thePure”.** Know that the outer forms of the four items which you have learnt up to now are inversions and that anyone who desires to practise the Way should act like the wise man who deftly gets hold of thegem. This refers to the so-called thought of Self, and that of the Eternal, Bliss, and Pure." Now, as far, as I know, Buddhists believe in the concept of "Anatta" i.e. No-Self which seems to contradict the above passage. So how Buddhists reconcile the third chapter of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra with the concept of "Anatta"?