In order to attain the bhumis a person needs to enter somewhere so my question is pretty important in the way of the Bodhisattva. How does a person enter the 1st Bhumi?

I have read from scriptures about psychic and supernatural powers of Buddha and arahats: for example, just after birth the Buddha walked some steps on lotus flowers, elevated during meditation in his childhood, occurrence of earthquake when he touched the earth at the moment of enlightenment, ability to spread water and fire, communication with gods without physical body, ability to read mind of others, recall past lives etc. The above are accepted only based on our faith to Buddha is reasonable: but in front of rationalists' point of view the above can't be explained; and so, 1. Do we have to maintain silence as Buddhists? 2. Do supernatural and psychic phenomena really exist, if so why does nobody take the challenge of rationalists (see e.g. [List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal)) I mean not "psychic powers" up to Buddha's level; just for example to describe precisely certain object in a black box (also refer to [Abraham Kovoor's challenge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Kovoor%27s_challenge)) .

I have just found out that there is a person producing and selling a beer in my town called "Buddha Beer" with Hotei's picture on it. Initially I found it offensive and disrespectful (marketing Buddha's name, associating it with alcohol and putting the image in the trash just like every bottle when it's empty). Well, I'm sure the person meant no disrespect, I know the producer, but I still didn't like it. Allow me to give more context: We live in a country with almost no Buddhism in it. People have no idea regarding what Buddhism is all about and commonly confuse the Buddha with Hotei. Even though the person meant no disrespect I found it disrespectful and so this question came to my mind: If I felt offended by it, is this a problem that I have with attachment? So, where is the real problem, in the beer or in myself? Or maybe in both? I thought about talking to the person and explaining why this is a bad idea but I'm sure it will be completely useless (let's face it, no one will change a brand because of that as the commercial impact is irrelevant here and people dont believe in Kamma) and I will also look like "that boring guy" that complains because of religion. I guess I will do nothing unless someone asks for my opinion. That said, how a Buddhist should behave in such a situation. Shoud we feel offended? Should we discuss it with someone not Buddhist?

I recently stumbled upon a fascinating series of [conversations on consciousness](http://www.nybooks.com/topics/on-consciousness/) in the New York Review of Books by an [MIT Fulbright scholar](http://www.consciousness.it/RM_CV.php) named Riccardo Manzotti. That series led me to his [*The Spread Mind*](http://www.thespreadmind.com/The_Spread_Mind_C0.php) website, his [*How to Locate Consciousness in the Physical World*](https://vimeo.com/123199950) video, his [Why Consciousness and World are one and the same](http://www.orbooks.com/catalog/the-spread-mind/) book and two of his [philosophical¹](http://www.consciousness.it/Comics/Manzotti%20-%202016%20-%20Objectbound%20-%202016.pdf) [cartoons²](http://www.consciousness.it/Comics/Manzotti%20-%202017%20-%20All%20is%20relative.pdf) . Three (of many) of his ideas are as follows: - Consciousness is the object one is conscious of. - A physical entity exists if and only if it is the actual cause of something else. - The past is not defined until it produces an effect, but once it does, the past has been defined since it occurred originally. I'm certainly not yet an expert in Buddhism but these three ideas alone seem to have a likeness to Buddhist teachings, namely: nonduality, not-self, dependent origination and cause-condition-effect. Yet, he was specifically asked in one of the NYR conversations if he was familiar with Buddhism and he indicated that he was not. **Are the above three ideas of his equivalent to, similar to, a subset of, or compatible with those of Buddhist teachings?** Any input that anyone would be kind enough to provide would be especially appreciated. Thank you.

I'm just trying to understand the concept of anatta better here. Buddhism tells me there is the concept of no-self (anatta), and even the so called conditional self is actually an illusion that arises out of my ignorance (correct me if I'm wrong). But psychology tells me on the other hand, that there exists something called Volition or Will. From Wikipedia: > Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action. So you see, there needs to be an individual or self who needs to take the decision or make the will, so to speak. As a practical example, I decide to lift my hand right now, and lo and behold! my hand is lifted instantly. So, who is this decision-maker or will-maker that made the decision of lifting the hand? You say there is no self? Now saying that the conditional self made the decision is not something I'm going to buy. How can anything as lowly as an illusion, decides to take control of things and make an impact on the real world? It is just an illusion after all. That's the reason I'm unable to bring anatta in sync with this practicality of life, however hard I try. Please care explain how do you explain volition if anatta is a reality?

I heard from Buddhist monks love is "kamachannda" and definitly a "Klesha"(hindrance).When I analyze the definition of love in in Oxford Dictionary it states; 1. An intense feeling of deep affection(a feeling of fondness or liking.) 2.A strong feeling of affection and sexual attraction for someone. So this is a match with "channda"(liking) logically no body love something or some one which dislike. Once I search single word for "metta" in English; Universal love (as mention in "What's the Buddha thought by Ven.Walpola Tero) and this is the common interpretation for "metta". So is loving wrong thing to do?what is the difference of love and metta? Is love an attachment?

I've seen some posts (questions _and_ answers) talking about how feeling bad... is bad. Basically that you shouldn't feel bad because of... whatever reason. It varies. My question is... how does that affect Buddhist teens? You know, the ones controlled by their emotions. Or the ones that are depressed. Will it not act like a Circle of Depresseion, where the person becomes more depressed by thinking that they are a bad Buddhist by being depressed? Like, you feel sad > you're not supposed to feel sad. You're supposed to be above that > you feel sadder because you are sad and you're not supposed to. How does newly converted buddhists face that? How does _any_ buddhist face that? Note that this question talks about laymen, and not munks.

My question is: as i understand if you are a bad person in this life you pile up a ton of negative karma which will lead to miserable circumstances in the next life like cruel parents, birth in the poor country and that entails bad upbringing. In the end we will get even worse person then in the previos life (some street thug) who will accumulate more bad karma and so on. How do a man break out of this vicious circle of karma?

I've always believed that empathy/feeling for others is a biological feature of evolution in social animals. So, why does/would an enlightened being go to lengths to help others reach enlightenment? Maybe if we are all different instances of the same consciousness, it kind of makes a little sense (one enlightened instance helping others),but not completely. Could someone clarify?

Is it correct to translate 'parayana' as 'the other shore'? Or is there another and better synonym ?

We all know that suicide has been totally refused in Buddhism as unwholesome act. suicide can be observed in human realm but why not in animal realm?

As I live in an extremely Christian centered country, and am still a closeted non-christian (if that makes sense), it's hard for me to just join a temple (there are none) or a community/sangha. Is it very important that I do, or can I practice Buddhism on my own?

I have heard about buddhist monks who undertake strictly solitary practice for 6 months where they practice entirely by themselves. They have no human contact and some of the other monks will come and bring them their food. The other monks will leave the food at the entrance and only when they leave the solitary monk will come out to take the food. I'm very interested in this way of practicing and would like to know what the benefits of such concentrated practice is and the fact that there is no human contact or contact with the outside world.

I'm in a period of my practice where i feel ready for a retreat. I have been looking into different types of retreats and have found the Goenka 10-day retreat the most suitable one for me as a first-timer. I do however not now when i will be able to attend one due to long waiting time in the area close to me and my current job do not allow me to travel. I was wondering about the reintegration-process back into society after 10 days with silence and minimal contact with people and no contact with the outside world. I have done small "retreats" by myself where i would buy food for 1-2 days and then stay inside and meditate. When i went outside after a couple of days and talked to other people i found that i had some aversion towards people and felt uncomfortable in their presence. I would rather stay for myself. I do not know how a 10-day retreat will affect me or if it will. Personal experiences and methods for dealing with people when comming out of a retreat is what i'm looking for. A side note - i will be doing the 10-day retreat in another country than where i live. I dont know if that has something to say but now the information is there. Thank you very much.

There are different kinds of birth in Buddhism, depending on what realm one is reborn in. What are these kinds of birth?

I would like to ask question regarding the 4 Noble Truths. The second Noble Truth broadly speaking is that suffering is a result of craving, aversion and ignorance. I can see how this can been seen as a cause of suffering-as-change (*Viparinama-dukkha*), and suffering-as-conditions (*Sankhara-dukkha*); but can not relate craving, aversion and ignorance to suffering-as-suffering (*Dukkha-dukkha*). For example how can the cause of suffering resulting from a severe burn be explained by those three factors?

A lay person who becomes an Arahant must become a monk or they will die? Can anyone explain what this teaching means? Do they have to become a **Buddhist** Monk? Can they just leave the world and become a hermit? Could it be appropriate to just die and enter parinibbana?

Someone told me the other day that a Sotapanna has perfect morality, particularly five precepts. I think I did read somewhere a Sotapanna has perfect morality but I forget the source. Can someone refer me to any source that says a Sotapanna has perfect sila?

Two spelling/usage questions about two Sanskrit words common in Buddhism. First, what is the difference between Madhyamaka (ending in "aka") and Madhyamika (ending in "ika"). I have seen that the former is the doctrine or school while the latter is an adherent of that school. Is that correct? Second, are either or both properly rendered in the Latin alphabet with or without the straight bar diacritical over the initial a: Madhyamaka or Mādhyamaka; Madhyamika or Mādhyamika. I have seen it both ways in numerous contexts.

Today morning, while browsing certain virtual Dhamma-places, the thought came into my persons mind: "Indeed, there are seldom people who give without out expecting anything, food (for good thoughts), clothes (accounts), shelter (space), and medicin (assistanes to exist further) for long life and comfortable existence, shelter and help for the Dhamma and long time welfare for many. What if I ask about the secound kind of seldom people in this world, to bring this also into attention?" Now having taken time for following that thought, my person likes to ask: **What would be the proper way to pay back goodness done to one?** **What kind of ways are there, to do so?** **What are the stages of being grateful, in accordiance to right view and ones personal circumstances?** ...when we make use of facilities, time, sacrifies... of others. >**[Has done much](http://sangham.net/index.php/page,s0402m2.mul2_en_uppa.html#an03.24)** > >"These three persons have done much to a person. Which three? The person gone to whom this person takes refuge in the Enlightenment, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus. > >"The person gone to whom this person knows as it really is, this is unpleasant, this is the arising of unpleasantness, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and this is the path leading to the cessation of unpleasantness. > >"Again, the person gone to whom, this person destroys desires, releases the mind and released through wisdom, here and now abides having realized. These three persons have done much to this person. > >"It is not possible that these three persons could be thoroughly repaid with gratitude, by this person revering him, attending on him, clasping hands towards him and honouring him with robes, morsel food, dwellings and medicinal requisites." May you like to let remembering words of Dhamma but also you most inner heart try to give an good answer. *(Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains)*