How does upaya (skillful means) feature in Tibetan Buddhism? I'm just intrigued, because the texts I've spent longer trying to 'get' seem to be more inspired by the lotus sutra.

It's very common for unmarried adult Asians in Asia to continue to live with their parents. Some choose to move out once they're married, some people for some reasons choose to stay even after they're married. One of the object of transgression of the third precept is having intercourse with those "protected by parents". My understanding is, generally speaking, protected children are underaged children, children who are vulnerable to unwanted advances and financially dependent. In the case of a married adult couple who is already mature and independent but can't afford to buy a house therefore the adult child with his wife live with his parents in his parents' house, does this count as "protected by parents"? How should one determine the scope of "protected by parents" according to the precept?

I ask the above because Socrates in the Republic has proven that the cessation of suffering is a quietude of the mind, an illusion or a jugglery not real. What we should we aim according to him is not the end of suffering which is a quietude, but true Joy. Quoted below is form the Republic ... *( i have added [mind] next to Soul to ease the reading for those who detest the idea of the soul; i think, the soul in Socratic tradition is akin to mind in Buddist ideas, but that in itself is a long discussion ..)* ---------- > Say, then, is not pleasure opposed to pain? > > True. And there is a neutral state which is neither pleasure nor > pain? > > There is. > > A state which is intermediate, and a sort of repose of the [mind] soul about > either --that is what you mean? > > Yes. > > You remember what people say when they are sick? > > What do they say? > > That after all nothing is pleasanter than health. But then they never > knew this to be the greatest of pleasures until they were ill. > > Yes, I know, he said. > > And when persons are suffering from acute pain, you must. have heard > them say that there is nothing pleasanter than to get rid of their > pain? > > I have. > > And there are many other cases of suffering in which the mere rest and > cessation of pain, and not any positive enjoyment, is extolled by them > as the greatest pleasure? > > Yes, he said; at the time they are pleased and well content to be at > rest. > > Again, when pleasure ceases, that sort of rest or cessation will be > painful? > > Doubtless, he said. > > Then the intermediate state of rest will be pleasure and will also be > pain? > > So it would seem. > > But can that which is neither become both? > > I should say not. > > And both pleasure and pain are motions of the [mind] soul, are they not? > Yes. > > But that which is neither was just now shown to be rest and not > motion, and in a mean between them? > > Yes. > > How, then, can we be right in supposing that the absence of pain is > pleasure, or that the absence of pleasure is pain? > > Impossible. > > This then is an appearance only and not a reality; that is to say, the > rest is pleasure at the moment and in comparison of what is painful, > and painful in comparison of what is pleasant; but all these > representations, when tried by the test of true pleasure, are not real > but a sort of imposition? > > That is the inference. > > Look at the other class of pleasures which have no antecedent pains > and you will no longer suppose, as you perhaps may at present, that > pleasure is only the cessation of pain, or pain of pleasure. > > What are they, he said, and where shall I find them? There are many > of them: take as an example the pleasures, of smell, which are very > great and have no antecedent pains; they come in a moment, and when > they depart leave no pain behind them. > > Most true, he said. > > Let us not, then, be induced to believe that pure pleasure is the > cessation of pain, or pain of pleasure. > > No. > > Still, the more numerous and violent pleasures which reach the [mind] soul > through the body are generally of this sort --they are reliefs of > pain. > > That is true. > > And the anticipations of future pleasures and pains are of a like > nature? > > Yes. > > Shall I give you an illustration of them? > > Let me hear. > > You would allow, I said, that there is in nature an upper and lower > and middle region? > > I should. > > And if a person were to go from the lower to the middle region, would > he not imagine that he is going up; and he who is standing in the > middle and sees whence he has come, would imagine that he is already > in the upper region, if he has never seen the true upper world? > > To be sure, he said; how can he think otherwise? > > But if he were taken back again he would imagine, and truly imagine, > that he was descending? > > No doubt. > > All that would arise out of his ignorance of the true upper and middle > and lower regions? > > Yes. > > Then can you wonder that persons who are inexperienced in the truth, > as they have wrong ideas about many other things, should also have > wrong ideas about pleasure and pain and the intermediate state; so > that when they are only being drawn towards the painful they feel pain > and think the pain which they experience to be real, and in like > manner, when drawn away from pain to the neutral or intermediate > state, they firmly believe that they have reached the goal of satiety > and pleasure; they, not knowing pleasure, err in contrasting pain with > the absence of pain. which is like contrasting black with grey instead > of white --can you wonder, I say, at this? > >No, indeed; I should be much more disposed to wonder at the opposite. >....

Reading most of the responses given here related to my question and also reading many suttas it seems to me that there are two contradictory views. I don't want to name any school of thought, I don't think I'm qualified to do so, however, when one read, for example, Puttamansa Sutta: A Son's Flesh it seems clear that this world is to be abandoned, and everything we do is inherently gross and scary to say the list, but there are many responses given in this platform and I may even cite some suttas that view this world as a in harmony and perfect. In short, according to this latter view, the world is perfect it's the mind which is f**kedup ; a worldview akin to Taoism or Stoicism in the west where everything is perfect except the deluded mind. My question is how do these two seemingly incompatible view work in Buddhism or should these be viewed as ideas propounded by different schools of thought? ---------- I have got three response up-to now; @ruben2020 think the world to be indifferent, @Andrei Volkov believe that the world is good and for @ ChrisW the question is wrong and to be avoided as an extreme view. However, when one read most of the Suttas such as the Adittapariyaya Sutta and many more the teaching seems to gravitate towards negative view of the world or at list the Suttas instruct us to sail very close to the view of seeing the world as bad. So, i'm going to live the question open as unanswered.

How is it that 3 separate schools of Buddhism that developed they're own separate characteristics and sometimes even developed different fundamental teachings are taught as lower, middle and greater yanas by some teachers in Tibetan Buddhism? Isn't it a fundamental teaching of the Buddha to not be partial or judgemental? How is this not an example of partiality?

What type of Jhana (Vimuttimagga or Visuddhimagga) would you recommend? Is it possible for a Laity to attain all the four levels of Visuddhimagga Jhana? Metta. Charles.

This can be a stupid question to ask as Buddhism is much superior than astrology. But my problem is in today's society the Buddhists are too much concerned with these horoscopes than any other religion just like it is a part of Buddhist teachings. Why is that? Is there a truth behind it or any connectivity with Buddhism ?

What did the Buddha mean by "no truth can be spoken" in the Diamond Sutra ?

Why must someone strive for something which is everlasting, e.g. Nirvana? It is unfortunate if everything is impermanent but I think this is a mistake, a false conclusion, that you shouldn't be attached to anything which is impermanent. It is not 100% awful if everything is fleeting. One doesnt need to cling to a belief that there is something which lasts forever. Did anyone come to the idea that everyone cling to the buddha and the idea of liberation? Well now one could argue that you can enjoy something which is impermanent and not get attached to it, but that is never really mentioned in the suttas.. it's not about enjoying but always to renounce. Now, I thing that it's not good to base one's goal PRIMARLY to self oriented ones, i.e. only achieving enlightenment. I know that this is not a good motivation and that one rather focus on others or on much measureable goals like.. meditating twice per day or showing forgiveness or to apologize for one's wrongdoings.. Agreed on that? I think you all do but still the main goal in Buddhism is to escape Samsara and the cycle(s) of rebirth. Which leads to my second question: Does one practise metta just for the sake to cleanse one's karma, for the wish that the other escapes samsara (which is ok if one literally - and not metaphorically - believes in it) and to not being reborn in this - im sorry - "mess" yet again? I think, it is better to stick to an agnostic "i don't know" attitude concerning rebirth, samsara, nirvana or rather reinterprates them than to greedily chase for liberation which is just another craving and could foster laziness, selfishness and everything which is contrary to the teachings.

I have been vegan (no animal products) for over 5 years but recently have encountered many health issues (unable to digest many plant protein, leaving no viable protein to eat), including some meat in my diet seems to be the only option (I can't tolerate any grains or beans anymore). I would try to source as ethically as I could, but it does of course, still involve the killing of another. Is there any way this is acceptable? Or should one sacrifice their health, if necessary?

What is rhys david dictionary's license for now? > Pali-English. Dictionary. EDITED BY. T. W. RHYS DAVIDS F.B.A. D.Sc. > Ph.D. LL.D. D.Litt and WILLIAM STEDE Ph.D. Personal scientific use > only. [1921-1925]

It is generally told that the Khuddaka Nikaya is the latest among the five Nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka. Similary, the Abhidhamma Pitaka is also considered as the latest composition among the three Pitakas. It seems that these are universally accepted truths among the scholars of Buddhism. But what are the exact arguments behind these two assertions?

I hope you can clarify my doubts: 1. If one is skeptical concerning enlightenment (because no one besides the Buddha and mysteriously *only* those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practice Buddhism? The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this? 2. I agree on the whole point concerning anicca, but impermanence is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we cant cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isn't that true? If you go by that belief it's quite bitter because monks that are long in their business haven't already realized nirvana/awakening and the chances are high that they wont. So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment? 3. Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough times due to getting bad karma otherwise? 4. If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightenment 5. Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics? 6. What if rebirth truly doesn't exist? The whole point in striving for enlightenment is then pointless. 7. Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority.

Somewhere reading the book i found something sensible like 'You think you're right , i think i'm right but at last we're neither right neither wrong.' So what is that which is neither right neither wrong. This might seem little bit confusing. But my interest lies in the question i.e 'What is the emptiness. Whole universe is made from nothing and from everything. Why is our access to the higher intellect restricted? I do know it is the physical limitation and the lack of our proper knowledge of manifestation but why this sort of answer to my own question doesn't even satisfies me.' Why is Om called without end, without beginning, without. This is the thought that striked me after reading one of the Upanishad from Hindu Vedic book i.e Chadogya Upanishada. Please enlighten. Thank you Stack Overflow community.

Like, there is song which I don't want, constantly reverberating in my mind. I've two questions. 1. Why it I reverberating in first place? 2. How to get rid of it?

I remember that I once read a sutta by the buddha where he mentioned to do things slowly while being mindful in order to recognize each step. Any ideas which sutta it could be?

Imagine this hypothetical situation (which is meant to simplify the scenario in this question): - There haven't been any past lives -- this is your first life, and therefore there is no past karma, but only the karma[s] you make in this life. (So, in this imagined version of events, we can use the knowledge at hand without complications clouding our judgement.) - The universe is in it's first cycle, and birth has happened for the first time. (This further eliminates any doubts of the unknown, and allows us to work with our hypothesis.) Now imagine the following two events/actions: 1. Imagine walking out into the streets and seeing a hungry puppy and feeding it your lunch out of kindness/empathy and happily walking into your workplace in the bliss of doing something nice with your lunch, instead of eating it like always. 2. In the lunch time an old enemy of yours taunt you and this leads to a fight which ends with him arm being broken by you (intentional). The question is: can you explain why both event 1 and event 2 would effect the next life? As there is no Soul/Person/being in our teaching, what we have is a self responding, self generating and a replicating consciousness. If there was a soul or a being, we can justify this by saying "I am being rewarded for my good and being punished for my faults". But we are without such permanent identities: what we have is a consciousness that gives birth to thoughts and disappears ... one thought would arise from another, but all thoughts have their own identity, apart from its parent thought (this is much like we and our parents). On what basis can we attach the karmas of different actions together, when there is only emptiness (Anatta) between 2 different actions?

**Question :** How to focus on one thing like a monk ( ideal one )? Is there a well defined meaning of word " focus " in buddhism? I want to learn the technique through which I can focus on one thing at a time like a monk.

**Dear friends**, looking for parallels between the practice of Tonglen , and the Husserlian notion of Intersubjectivity , I have come upon this research paper by Natalie Depraz, Phd. Quoting from the abstract : > It is well-known that Husserl’s analysis of intersubjectivity is > primarily based on empathy. Now, such an experience of empathy is > described in Husserl as involving the peculiar spatiality of our lived > body, a temporal pairing of both lived bodies and a specific > imaginative transfer of one’s psychic states into those of the other. > I would like to confront such a multilayered experience of the other > with the way some Buddhist teachings (which first appeared in India > and were then transmitted to Tibet) present the experience of > compassion within what is called the Mahayana tradition. Indeed, the > “tonglen” praxis (as Tibetans call it), which is described very > concretely in such a framework, echoes in many ways the Husserlian > empathetic experience as far as the bodily rooting, the synchronizing > timing are concerned and above all as far as the way imagination is > taken into account. By comparing both praxis and analysis with regard > to lived space, time and imagination, we will be able to evaluate > their affinities, their differences and finally how they may enlight > and even generate each other. I would welcome with the utmost gratitude your enlightening comments, and reference to relevant material. **Thank you** for having taken the time and effort to read this.

Were there 27 more Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautam Buddha? If so, are there any evidences of it. How about the finding of Buddhist *Stupas* and Idols in Harappa civilization?Is it linked with this fact?