Tibetan Buddhists often talk about the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma... What are the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma according to Tibetan Buddhism? Where did they take place according to Tibetan Buddhists? How do Tibetan Buddhists interpret these Three Turnings? Is there disagreement within Tibetan Buddhists schools about which teachings are definitive and which are provisional? Do Tibetan Buddhists think these Three Turnings are contradictory?

I am curious to know a little bit more about the day-to-day life of Theravada buddhist monks. I am drawn to the idea of ordaining, but I fear this is only because I have romanticized the buddhist monk's life in my mind as easy and care-free; like an escape from my own life. What is monastic life like, and how do the challenges that come with this lifestyle compare with those of lay-life? I am looking for a reality check if anyone can provide it. Thx!

Many buddhist mantras have Om/Aum in starting of it. In buddhism, esp. theravada, what is the meaning and "significance" of "Om"? (note:although I am open to mahayana,vajrayana interpretations too as an "additional" input)

Namo Buddhaya. According to the Mahayana Pratityasamutpadavibhanganirdesa Sutra, there are three cravings: craving for the sense-realm, craving for the form-realm, and craving for the formless-realm. But I couldn't find any definition of craving itself in the scriptures. I am trying to understand what is craving by reading or finding the examples of craving.If you give examples of craving then you will find that craving can not be defined without mentioning self or I. For example I want ice cream , I am good , I am bad, I am good because of this, I am bad because of this, I love music, I want to watch movies, I want to travel etc... Therefore it seems to me that non-understanding of anatta is at the root of craving. In other words if I declare the aggregates as worthless then then there will be revulsion and dispassion which is nothing but the end of craving. Further I can say that practice of anatta directly leads to cessation of craving. I have two questions in this regard: 1. Can we define craving without mentioning self? 2. Is it true that practice of anatta directly leads to cessation of craving?

Namo Buddhaya. After practicing Dhamma one becomes dispassionate. However Buddha says one should cultivate and practice Compassion. So am I not killing my own profit of dispassion by compassion? My question is: how can I remain compassionate if Dhamma makes me dispassionate? Or how can I remain dispassionate if Buddha asks me to remain compassionate?

Namo Buddhaya. I am learning dependent origination. If we follow the dependent origination strictly then by cutting off craving , the attachment ceases to be and with cessation of attachment, continuation ceases to be and with cessation of continuation , birth ceases to be and with cessation of birth , the suffering ceases to be. As the suffering ceases, Nirvana is attained. In the above sequence of happenings we do not need to mention Ignorance. However we know that dependent origination begins with Ignorance. My question is : can we reach to Nirvana ,without removing ignorance and just by cutting off craving ? Or is cutting off of the craving is same as removing the ignorance?

I just attended a 10-day Vipassana retreat and during the whole retreat I was constantly annoyed by nasal congestion and hyper-salivation. For many years I've had a sort of chronic nasal congestion, whether it's summer or winter, it doesn't matter, I always have at least one stuffy nostril. I know I need to go to the doctor but I've been lazy all this time, but now I'll do it, I promise. Anyways, it seems that in tandem with the nasal congestion I've also developed the automatic habit of "fighting" the nasal congestion by sucking/breathing the mucus in, producing saliva and then swallowing the saliva which kind of carries some of the mucus with it, thus producing a temporary feeling of relief from the nasal congestion. However, as I said the relief is partial and only temporary, because a few seconds later the feeling of nasal congestion comes back again, the urge to "fight" arises and the whole process repeats again. This almost subconscious process became blatantly obvious during the 10-day retreat where we were meditating 12 hours a day. It was super annoying. I was developing aversion towards it which totally defeats the purpose of Vipassana. So I tried to remain equanimous to my nasal congestion and hyper-salivation, but then I realized that even if I remain equanimous to the feeling of the air hitting the clogged nostril, the saliva production would not stop. The saliva would start accumulating quickly in my mouth, and eventually I would have no choice but to swallow it all. This was super annoying and many times I just gave up and started swallowing quickly and compulsively, hopelessly trying to get rid of the saliva, but then my mouth would keep producing saliva anyway. So one way or another I ended up fighting my nasal congestion and swallowing a lot of saliva, and felt like a weirdo making all these mouth noises during the group meditations, which probably annoyed my unfortunate fellow meditators in the room. So it seems as if my brain has somehow learned to automatically produce saliva whenever I experience nasal congestion, which is pretty much all the time. It's as if I've developed a sort of OCD of fighiting my nasal congestion and producing and swallowing saliva, and I don't know how to get rid of it. After the 10-day retreat I still keep experiencing this, in fact I had experienced this problem even before the retreat too, it's just that the retreat allowed me to become extremely aware of it. What can I do? Has anyone experienced something like this and managed to solve it? Thank you very much in advance.

How does Buddhism explain the creation of everything (universe). Did Buddhism faithfuls believe that universe had always been here and forever, and everything runs by cause-and-effect? Did Buddha have any power of any kind to influence the universe, or it's just teaching? and if so, who rules the universe before Buddha's birth?

I read a number of books regarding Buddhism. However for me it's a bit hard to identify how to make a life with satisfaction: in other words, I am looking for how to achieve a real happiness of life from myself. As far as I know, leaving is one way to achieve it. As a practice, I start to do *Anapanasathi* Meditation, to concentrate my mind. When mind is in concentration, for one thing, it makes freedom feeling of a life. I need to ask: what is the spirituality of a life? Please explain it in depth.

I was reading Ajahn Brahmavamso's book 'The Jhanas' (available freely online) in which he says that the Buddha discovered Jhanas by himself, and what Alara Kalama and Uddakha Ramaputta taught, were not related to jhana. The reason I am requesting your time is that, there are some teachers in Sri Lanka who claim that Jhanas are a later inclusion, citing the same fact that Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta were able to teach up to the highest immaterial Jhanas, and that a Samma Sambuddha couldn't have lent so heavily on the teaching of others for his own Enlightenment. Thus, they discourage samatha meditation. Fortunately such teachers still emphasize Sati. Would appreciate your thoughts.

During meditation if no doer and knower operate citta come for knowing. Means thoughts coming with spaces without external object. Is this what do you call citta? Is thoughts are due to citta operate without self ?when loba dvesa moha cease citta subjects to cease. Is it like that?

The context for this question is contemporary Tibetan Buddhist Monastic debate and associated definitions as practiced at Sera Je Monastic University. I'm looking for answers according to the specific definitions and system of jargon used in that context. In Tibetan Buddhist monastic debate according to The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate an *existent* is defined as, "that which is realized by a valid cognizer." I'm asking whether under such a definition a dream object - such as a snake - is considered an existent or a non-existent such as the son of a barren woman. I believe that it must be considered an *existent* as it is known by a directly perceiving mental consciousness given the above context. The same can be said of a face in the mirror although in this case it is directly perceived by the eye consciousness. Is this true from viewpoint of above context? Is it true from the Prasangika viewpoint? I posit that a dream snake and a snake I perceive in waking life are both conventionally existent. Further, that neither are ultimately existent. And that neither are real except from the perspective of a worldly consciousness. That is, they are both equally unreal. Is this true from the Prasangika viewpoint? If not, please give reasons according to the context mentioned above.

From the last few days i have been trying to meditate to generate equanimity. My question is simple: If i practice equanimity, compassion, loving kindness, forgiveness, there would always be people who would take advantage of that right? For instance if someone comes to steal from me, i should give him my belongings right? Like thats the Buddhist way right? Fighting and resisting is forbidden right? And he informs 10 other thieves about this kind man. How to be wise in this situation where you know people take advantage of your compassion, niceness?

Suppose a father is abusing his 3 year old child. As a consequence, the child is suffering. Who is the cause of the child's suffering?

Buddhist writers, such as Joseph Goldstein and Thupten Jinpa, say that although the self is not intrinsically real, that we still accept the "conventional" idea of self. For example : > If we arrive at the knowledge that the self at which we grasp is empty, we may imagine this means that we as individuals with personal identities do not exist. But of course this is not the case--our own personal experiences demonstrate that we as subjects and agents of our own lives, we certainly exist. So how then do we understand the content of this insight into absence of Self? What follows from this insight? > We must be very clear that *only the self that is being grasped as > intrinsically real* needs to be negated. The self as a conventional > phenomenon is not rejected. This is a crucial aspect of the Buddha's teaching on emptiness. Without understanding this distinction, one cannot fully understand the meaning of no-self. If we believe anatta, then how, specifically, can the "conventional" self be accepted? Do they mean we only pretend that the illusion of self is real in order to talk to people in everday language? Or is there some part of the concept of self that even Buddhism cannot reject?

What is the difference between the concept of emptiness (Śūnyatā in Sanskrit, or suññatā in Pali) in the Theravada tradition and the concept of emptiness in the Mahayana tradition? From my basic understanding, Theravada emptiness is only regarding the self, while Mahayana emptiness is regarding all things. Is this true? Or does Theravada also teach the emptiness of all things (e.g. in the sutta about foam and bubbles )? Are these (Theravada emptiness and Mahayana emptiness) really completely different, or at some level, do they allude to the same thing? For Theravada, could it be, that the emptiness of self is important for the path to ending suffering, but the emptiness of all things is not important for the path to ending suffering (as per the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow and the Parable of the Leaves in the Forest )? I found the following quote from this answer interesting: > It is said that beginner practitioners ("hinayana") only understand > corelessness of beings (anatta), but still assume various stuff to be > objectively/ontologically existing. This results in them erroneously > reifying such concepts as the five skandhas, 12 nidanas, 4 noble > truths, nirvana, and enlightenment. Advanced practitioners > ("mahayana") clearly understand that all knowable phenomena without > exception are contextually defined composites.

Namo Buddhaya. At many places in the Suttas, Buddha calls for development of wholesome qualities. I guess Love , Joy , Compassion , Equanimity,Honesty,Conscience are wholesome qualities but that is the not the final list of wholesome qualities. My question is : Is there a Sutta in which Buddha lists all the wholesome qualities one should develop in order to attain Nirvana?

My question to all my dear friend is why people use to share there stories of awakening ? will it affect the mind of others those who are meditating to find the inner peace.

By practising the eight fold path and meditation I have been able to get over lot of suffering as a result of my past created by my mind. I am able to get over self pity, hatered, anger by following the advise of friends in this forum... But now that I am over the past my mind has started playing new game...it starts painting pictures of grandiosness...like it presents me with illusions like i will be as great as the Buddha...I will be the Buddha and have followers...i will have super powers...i can fly etc etc... Its getting difficult to control these thoughts in meditation...its a kind of hindrance I didnt read in any book... I want to attain silent present moment awareness...is there any sutta which can help me with overcoming this maya of my mind? Is there any help?

Here Monks praise Buddha by exclaiming the following: > The monks said to the Buddha: “The Buddha is the root of the Dharma, > the eye of Dharma, the foundation of the Dharma. May he teach us! > Having heard him teach the Dharma, the monks will receive it > respectfully as he has taught it.” My questions are : What is the meaning of the fact that Buddha is the root of Dhamma? Similarly what is the meaning of the fact that Buddha is the eye of Dhamma? And what is the meaning of the fact that Buddha is the foundation of Dhamma ?