If one is expected to have unshakable faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha and there is concern that an Ajahn's teachings may be inaccurate, is it still possible to take refuge?

Nibanna is not suffering but it is said to be Anatta: > Sabbe Dhamma Anatta My question is why shouldn't I identify with Nibanna ? Why shouldn't I say I am Nibanna ? Or why shouldn't I say my true self is Nibanna ? Or why shouldn't I say I am in a state of Nibanna ?

During sitting meditation, Most of the times, I am not able to notice rise and fall of abdomen This problem is not getting better, even after doing sitting meditation for some time Want to get advice on anything I can explore to solve this Metta

I simply ask myself rather one could make sense of the Dharma and apply it without the concepts of rebirth and kamma? Though for me it is my personal approach to the Dharma, which i find to be highly meaningful in both theoretical and practical manner. As like no other intellectual complex, I think the Dharma could claim something like describing the essence and nature of being - if such claim should ever be stressed. I would not dare to discuss this question as a devout follower. My interest is simply philosophical in its nature. So i am just about to read C.W.Gorwans "Philosophy of the Buddha" and I am very pleased about how well balanced and respectful he treats the topic as a scholar of analytic philosophy. Considering the concepts of kamma and rebirth, ONE of the approaches the author offers, is that the Lord Buddha just simply took kamma and rebirth as beliefs deriving from his culture, beliefs so deep and taken for granted that he would not spend a second on doubting it - although he must have been very critical to all kinds of believe. But for example, if you consider doubtful questioning in western philosophy, such as "the meditations" of Descartes and Husserl, it seems mostly obvious that doubt could never ever stressed out in the whole sense. Even though while claiming that radical doubt will set up everything to the disposition of rational examination, there will always be some "leftover" belief as remains (for Descartes it was god , for Husserl it must have been the ego). The latter should also be a position that C.Taylor stresses in his historical treatise "Sources of the Self". Ok, but coming back in addressing my question to you as experts in the Dharma, what are your opinions about this issue? Could we make sense of the teaching of the Lord Buddha without believing that we will be reborn? As for the concept of kamma, it is possible to make sense of it without believing in rebirth. Well I do not expect a discussion on a very high intellectual level, but maybe an exchange of ideas and opinions on the applicability of "Buddhism" and its precious teaching in a mindset that could be called "western". As I found out that it is a major critique of native Buddhists about western fellows that they don't sufficiently reflect the teaching according to their own culture and should not simply adopt it as a belief - which would actually be contradicting the Dharma. warm regards!

I have now spent quite sometime understanding what Lord Buddha said. Some of the fundamental things are still not clear to me. For example Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Meaning all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself. But why all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself?Because all Dhammas are impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering. Therefore can I conclude that all Dhammas are ultimately cause of suffering? If that is true then why should I adopt the three jewels : Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha?

Do transformation bodies appear before a buddha reaches enlightenment? So that the many bodies of Shakyamuni that the fan Wang ching (Sutra of Brahmas net ) claims Vairocana manifests may have appeared before our Gautama Buddha? If the Buddha bodies do *not* all manifest at the same time then can two transformation bodies of the same Buddha appear in what will be the same Buddha field, at different times? I'm interested because I want to understand the lotus sutra and e.g. its claims about the Buddha's eternal life.

In my opinion, the Sutta Pitaka and Mahayana Agamas (the Mahayana equivalent of the Pali suttas) discuss the nature of the self (anatta, empty of self, dependent arising) in such a way that it is useful to the path towards liberation from suffering (such as overcoming self-view or sakkāya-diṭṭhi). Meanwhile, the Sutta Pitaka and Mahayana Agamas (the Mahayana equivalent of the Pali suttas) do not discuss the nature of other non-sentient things (e.g. a chair, the universe, atoms, five aggregates), beyond noting that other things are conditioned (sankhara) and impermanent (anicca). On the other hand, Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka seems to have expanded on these concepts to cover the nature of all reality (empty of inherent nature / svabhava, dependent arising, dependent designation). On top of this, Madhyamaka also posits that emptiness itself is empty of inherent nature. To a non-Mādhyamika practitioner, Madhyamaka's discussion on the nature of all reality may appear to be an exposition on the "poisoned arrow ". That is to say, it is not useful to the path towards liberation from suffering. Some might even say that the nature of all reality falls under the fourth imponderable (Acintita Sutta ). From a Mādhyamika practitioner's perspective, how is Madhyamaka useful to the path towards liberation from suffering? How is it useful to personal practice? This should not be seen as negative criticism towards Madhyamaka. Rather, I seek to understand its usefulness to personal practice.

Do you think that pointing out ego fixations publically serves to free students of their egos? What do you think are the advantages, and drawbacks of this teaching method? Why do you think it works or does not work? In more ancient times, it was very common for aspirants to be repetitively humbled by teachers, in an attempt to free them of ego attachment. That is a less common tactic nowadays, but I have seen it still show up occasionally. I had two experiences in which a teacher has pointed out my ego fixations in front of a group, leaving me to feel humiliated. The first time it happened I ended up more cemented in my own suffering. The second time I was able, later in my own meditation, to take a perspective on the experience and see how my false-self was keeping me stuck in fixation. Now I find myself standing more firmly in my own truth, but less confident in the teaching I was given. Does anyone have a similar experience?

Sorry for the phrase 'not giving a f*ck'. I was thinking about using the word anger. But that doesn't cover what I am about to write. Last weekend I noticed some strong internal movements. I was soo tired of seeking/craving/desiring brought forth by some imagined future goals and self, that a voice in my mind awoke that crushed every motion that was doing this seeking/craving/desiring. E.g. 'Shall I make a coffee', was responded to by 'I do not need to feel happy. F#ck happiness I am tired of this all'. The same with a hot shower. The "aahh... this is nice" moment of a hot shower that I used to have was not allowed by this voice. So the shower was ice cold. And more of this, no cookies anymore, f*ck the nice taste of chocolate, fat and sugar. I do not need it. There was a lot of hate and anger involved. Not towards people or the world around me, but directed to a part of my self. I knew this was not equanimity. This could not last. Though there were moments where there was no craving, nor the presence of the voice that crushed them. And in these moments, although very briefly, I experienced a level of detachment and freedom I have never experienced before. And it was full of joy. Although the joy was quickly picked up by the craving crushing voice, which seemed to be afraid of any joy. While it should only target the (sensual pleasing) joy, like sugar, coffee, chocolate, etc, you get the point. I felt like I woke up, literally. No coffee anymore wakes the mind up to produce activity that induces wakefulness, because there is no other way. No eating just for pleasure drove me towards sports to feel content. No hot shower, but just an ice cold one, to get the job of washing myself done, woke by body up intensely, etc. With everything newly learned, I see sort of a sinus wave moment, where there is almost all the time under- and overshoot. And with time, it stabilizes to an equilibrium because learning is involved. Although the craving crushing voice is tiring me as well, it has a positive effect. **The question** I can't find any literature on this process. I can imagine that the process to reach the cessation of Taṇhā is quiet similar among people. In other words, the not giving a f*ck attitude is probably experienced by a lot of people before Taṇhā ceased. Is there any literature that zooms in on this? And with zoomed in I mean, not the noble eightfold path that covers a whole lot. But specifically this attitude?

Labels are illusions like all conditioned phenomena, but I have an attachment to taxonomy and being able to describe myself accurately. I'm working on that, but in the meantime, I thought this would be a good question for the stack. **How best can people describe themselves in the hierarchy/ecology of believers if they aren't living the monastic life of the Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuṇī (monk/nun), but still consider themselves as living a life driven by the dhamma?** I personally identify as Theravada/Pali canon/early Bhuddism, but an answer specifying Mahayana/Vajrayana titles is also welcome! Ideally I'd like Pali words and their best English equivalents, but obviously including Sanskrit versions too would be polite (^_^) BONUS POINTS: My gender is non-binary (genderqueer/agender) and thus I really need a title that can apply to me without need to specify gender. If I ever become a monastic I will really have my work cut out for me and/or a need to compromise, but for any non-monastics with non-binary gender, which titles are functional for us?

I bear the brunt of my Karma. Nobody else. Self is so clearly elucidated by the theory of Kamma. Whatever I did in the past is responsible for what happens to me in the present and future. Effect of Kamma on self can not be neglected and I think I am nothing but a consequence of my Kamma in the past. My question is: can I say my Dhamma is Kamma? If yes , can I also say Sabbe Kamma Anatta?

When meditation experience mind without body loss sensation about the environment where I am and feel like mind is in the sky by hearing voice of birds.is it a jhana?

### Background I've been practicing with metta phrases adapted from the Visuddhimagga, and i've seen the same thing in other places: Part of the meditations focuses on *safety*, which is perhaps not as relevant in our modern world where we are better protected from physical injury than in the ancient times (Example: "May i be safe and free from injury") ### Question **I'd like to find an alternative to metta mediation phrases related to physical safety** so that the phrases that i practice with are more relevant to me and others ### What i've found so far So far i've been thinking about maybe exchanging phrases about physical safety to mental/emotional safety, or a feeling/perception of safety. In our modern society many people are suffering from anxiety *** Grateful for any help you can give

In this Wikipedia article on Arhat in Mahayana Buddhism , it is written: > Instead of aspiring for arhatship, Mahayanins are urged to instead > take up the path of the bodhisattva and to not fall back to the level > of arhats and śrāvakas. Therefore, it is taught that an arhat must go > on to become a bodhisattva eventually. If they fail to do so in the > lifetime in which they reach the attainment, they will fall into a > deep samādhi of emptiness, thence to be roused and taught the > bodhisattva path, presumably when ready. According to the Lotus Sutra, > any true arhat will eventually accept the Mahāyāna path. In this Wikipedia article on the Eternal Buddha , it is written: > In east-Asian Buddhism, the Buddha of the Lotus Sutra is regarded as > the eternal Buddha. "The Tathagata´s Lifespan" chapter (ch 16) of the > Lotus Sutra portrays the Buddha as indicating that he became awakened > countless aeons ("kalpas") ago. The sutra itself, however, does not > directly employ the phrase "eternal Buddha". > > In China the Lotus Sutra was associated with the Mahaparinirvana > Sutra, which propagates the tathagatagarbha-doctrine, and with the > Awakening of Faith. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra presents the Buddha as > eternal, and equates him with the Dharmakaya. If the Arahant in Mahayana Buddhism goes into a deep samadhi after death, till he wakes up and continues the path towards Buddhahood, and if after becoming a Buddha, his personality can persist as an Eternal Buddha, then this shows eternalism in Mahayana teachings. An Arahant who can go into deep samadhi after death (without a body) only to reanimate later implies the existence of a soul. Furthermore, the story of Buddha Prabhutaratna from Wikipedia also has elements of eternalism: > "Great-Eloquence Bodhisattva" wants to see the Buddha in the stupa but > Prabhūtaratna's vow makes it a prerequisite for showing his body that > the Buddha who proclaims the Lotus teaching collects all his > manifestations. At this point Shakyamuni summons from around the > universe countless Buddhas who are his emanations, lifts the entire > assembly into the air, and opens the stupa. Prabhūtaratna praises > Shakyamuni and invites him to sit next to him. Shakyamuni then > continues to preach the Dharma. In the 22nd "Entrustment" chapter of > the Lotus Sutra, Prabhūtaratna and his stupa return to under the > earth. Eternalism (sāśvata-dṛṣṭi in Sanskrit) was rejected by the Buddha's original teachings on the Middle Path, as described by Ven. Dhammananda Mahathera's article (from here ) excerpt below: > Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we > understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find > anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and > continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they > depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we > cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the > eternalist view is considered wrong or false. My question is: Does Mahayana Buddhism teach eternalism? If this is not the case, then what is the right interpretation of the Mahayana teachings on Arahant and the Eternal Buddha above? In the question above, when I wrote "Mahayana Buddhism", I mean particularly in the context of the Lotus Sutra and the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

I'm a beginner and I'm studying (and trying to practice) both meditation on breathing and mettā meditation, and in the book Anapanasati by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, which i'm following with some initial success, when dealing with preliminaries and false views, it is said: "[...] Some forms of "radiating loving kindness" are phrased in an amusing way, for instance: "May I be happy, free from suffering hatred, difficulties, and troubles, and may I live in happiness!" This really reflects fear and self love on the part of the speaker. How could a person with such a weak mind ever put forth the effort necessary to realize impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-selfhood? With this kind of ritual he will only disturb his mind all the more. [...]" Now, i think almost every book and guide on mettā I've read suggests phrases like the one took as example in the above cited text. For example in Brahmavihara Dhama by Ven. Sayadaw it is suggested the phrase "May i be happy and free from misery" and similars. So the above mentioned paragraph confused me a bit. Do the Buddhadasa teachings conflict with traditional mettā practice? What view of things should a beginner follow, between these? Thanks in advance!

If you gave someone good or bad advice or wrote a book that was stored in the Library of Congress and read for centuries then wouldnt you have a karmic remnant to bear?

**Friends**, having heard in many a Dhamma talk references being made to the permanence of the Dhamma as refuge, I am looking for suttas in the Pali Canon evoking that very theme of permanence of the Dhamma. Thank you for your much appreciated help.

What should or are the characters of a human being? In today's age, r people real humans ? As i feel , humans are those who have compassion towards others, love towards others wheather it be animals nature or other humans.. But i don't see this any characters in todays humans(>99%). Should i call them humans just because they have intillegence ? I think even the crow is intillegent. Is only self awareness enough to be a human being?

While describing Dhamma Buddha asks "Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?" to which Ananda replies "suffering". My question is : Is what is impermanent always the cause of suffering?

I keep on long wondered the difference between wisdom and knowledge. I do not understand why the Buddha refers only to the intellect without talking to intellectuals?