I am not sure if I should ask this on this site and I apologise if I shouldn't. Just let me know and will be out of your hear. :D I am going to go to South East Asia at the end of December and will stay there for about 5 months. I am really interested to see buddist ceremonies/festivals. I am from Romania (not a buddhist country) and there, in each region, monasteries have certain rituals which apply only for their region. I was wondering if there is anything like this in SEA as well? Or which are the rituals you would definitely want to go to? I would also like to go to monasteries where maybe you can join the muns for meditation for a day before moving on. I know you are supposed to do at least 7 days, but my partner is not really that into this type of things although he would have the patience of trying it for a day here and there. I am trying to ease him into it. :D Please let me know what you think and again, if it was inaproprite for me to ask this here, I apologise.

** > I was trying to figure out the meaning of Non-self one day and > stumbled upon this idea. Please bear with me as this is a bit long... ** There are four great elements which are responsible for all conceivable objects and forms. If we take a human being, we have a body made of the 4 great elements and a consciousness. As we know there is no such thing called a person beyond the grammatical meaning, therefore neither mind or body is a person or a soul or any such thing. Let's expand this to a universal level, the same way a body host a consciousness, the universe hosts all consciousnesses. So the assumption here is that 4 great elements provide the infrastructure for the birth of a consciousness. if we forget the identities like human,animal,heavenly,etc, what we have is a sea of 4 great elements that facilitate the existence of all so called "beings". this shows an uncanny resemblance to what we call a being. **- Allow me to elaborate -** A body is a housing for a consciousness, the body consist of the 4 elements. The universe is a housing for consciousnesses, the universe consist of the 4 elements. Take into account that according to the teaching, the consciousness is not a permanent one, it is explained as a static that occurs and ceases with every though,recognition,comparison,etc. Taken as a static, a consciousness does not even last a second. Bearing this in mind, allow me to end the question. * > If consciousness is a static like phenomenon, and the body taken out > of its uniformed identity resembles the universe itself, can one find > that the non-self idea within this context? > > > * ***I know that this is very philosophical, but this is how Buddhism's discussions have happened in the canon and the only way to discuss > deeper concepts. as i expecct my friends here to be more than > signposts that point directions, i have asked this here and i hope the > question is not going to be flagged or deleted because of its long and > philosophical nature***.**

Within the Trikāya doctrine (the bodies of the Buddha) I've never felt very clear about the differences between the Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya. I believe that the Nirmanakaya is the physicality of the Buddha (happy to be corrected on this) but I'm vague about what Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya are and how they relate to each other. I'd appreciate if anyone can summarise the differences and the relations between them. I'm interested in answers from all traditions - I'm unsure if there are variations in interpretations of the doctrines across Buddhist schools and traditions to be honest.

I have roused myself to meditate, but I am experiencing lethargy and drowsiness throughout the whole session, drowsiness which doesn't cause me to sleep but which I perceive helplessly. My question is should I: a) continue to merely watch my hazy thought process as long as I am not sleeping b) reduce the length of my sessions so that the *time* spent in meditation is devoid of drowsiness. I've done a session of 30 min, and am wondering whether to reduce it to 15 or 20 min. Thank you.

I am not sure about this but the title of this book (*When the Buddha Was an Elephant: 32 Animal Wisdom Tales from the Jataka*) implies that Buddha was once an elephant; in other words that an elephant was a Buddha. Here is the story in question : My question is: according to Jataka tales or other scriptural references, is it true that an elephant was a Buddha (not just Bodhisatta but Buddha)?

I looked up 'social media' in the questions, but didn't find an answer precise enough for my inquiry. Basically, I came to the conclusion that 1) social media fragments attention drastically by multitasking and unawareness, and 2) it is extremely addictive, perhaps for that precise reason. Thus, I ask what is likely cause, effect, and remedy linked with social media. What fuels social media use? What effects does its use have? What are the best ways to deal with this addictive medium? And finally, is it possible to tackle this addiction without alleviating it with the natural drive to socialize? Thank you.

Are there any sutras or parables where Buddha applies the middle way, not to the self or to abstract metaphysical principles, but to concrete conflicts in practical life?

If you would like to, suggest the -- let's say 10 -- best core question-and-answer sequences on this site ... which you would select to present (maybe for a tiny book "BSE and beyond - teachings on Dhamma", or a introduction link for a "new-comer" here). Ideally an answer should provide a nice ["Step by Step" teaching](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/ptf/dhamma/index_en.html) . *[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]*

In Hinduism it is said to be the place of Lord Shiva and his wife godess parvati, How is it related to Buddhist? Did Buddha himself ever said the importance of Mount Kailash? and if it is just a culture Buddhist follows how did it start? Jain's are also worshipping this sacred mountain. Buddhist Monk Milarepa have climbed Mount Kailash(is it true?)

I'm writing a paper on religion and the different attitudes and approaches to prostitution and I can't quite find anything that indicates the major differences in how Buddhism and Hinduism regards sex workers, prostitution itself and how it translated into laws. If possible I'd also like to know if different Buddhist and Hinduist tendencies differ in their approaches. Any help would be wonderful and I give thanks in advance

I have been practicing vipassanā and mettā at least six months and I have embraced the teachings and practice in my everyday life. However there are certain situations in life where I find difficult to apply the teachings, which are the following: - How to respond to hate and violence to oneself - How to deal with hypocrisy - How to respond in situations of injustice - How to deal when someone abuses of your kindness - How to deal when someone takes advantage of your good intentions - How to apply the teachings in a society where oneself and ego predominates I hope somebody can give me insights on how to deal with those situations. Thank you. EDIT: Thank you everyone for your responses so far. I have learned something new in every single one of them. To be more clear regarding the questions, the objective is how to find the balance in embracing the teachings in our interactions with other beings, but also living by the rules of the capitalism society, which most of us lives on. As an example, consider the following: someone treats you with bad speech in front of others, and you react mindfully. In the society we live in, if you do not defend yourself and let it happen, it is highly probable that he will do it again, or others will start to take advantage of you, since you are not defending yourself. How to balance this?

I was once told a story by the abbott of a monastery about how the Buddha once decided to delay his speech and said it only when it was the right time. Paraphrasing, the story is like this - > Two tribes were going to war over the waters of a river and the Buddha > wanted them to stop, but he knew that they were not in the right frame > of mind to listen to him. So he kept quiet. After 3 days of > fighting, when both sides were in pain from the fighting, the Buddha > decided to give them advice at that moment, when they were primed to > listen and they stopped the war immediately. Although he allowed many > people to die in waiting for the right moment, he saved a great many > more lives. If he had spoken right away and they'd rejected his advice, they > might also not have listened to him afterwards either. The abbott then advised me to remember this story as a model. And I did. I liked it a lot too. This was many years ago. The problem is, I recently decided to look up the story and found this story in the Mahāvaṃsa , of imminent war between the Sakyans and the Koliyans over the waters of the Rohini river. A key difference here is that the Buddha ***did not*** wait until the fighting had started. He showed up at the site where the armies had gathered. Still a nice story of the Buddha stopping a war, but not an example of delaying speech for the appropriate moment *even at some cost*. It's no longer possible for me to ask the abbott whether he meant this or another story or if he has a reference to another version of the same story which involved 3 days of battle. Instead, I'd like to ask the community about the main point: 1. Do you know of a canonical reference (from **any flavor of Buddhism**) where the Buddha or another prominent figure decided to delay a statement on account of timeliness and later said it with positive impact? To be clear, instances where the Buddha decided not to say something are numerous - I'm only looking for examples where he (or another person) did end up saying it later. **Edit:** Also, I know that the teaching on speaking at the appropriate time is quite clear - what I'm asking about is examples from the life of the ancients. 2. It would be particularly great if there are examples where the delay did come at a cost.

What is the difference between Dhithi (view) and Panna (wisdom)? According to Buddhism the teaching of other religions considered views. However, people who follow those religions think that they have wisdom. How can we differentiate views from wisdom?

If one intends to ordain, say in Thailand, and one lives in India - would it be right/moral to ask support from one's parents (since one is not yet ready/able to support oneself)?

I've been studying Buddhism for the past few months and part of it entails reading about Siddartha's life story, including his path to enlightenment. What's been confusing to me is whether or not one is to believe all of the "magic" that is described in his past - things like his birth and walking, leaving behind him roses in his path (a newborn baby walking?); or later when he doesn't eat for incredibly long periods; when he creates a golden bridge in the sky and walks it to prove his enlightenment (week 3 after enlightenment);when a king cobra wraps itself around him to keep him warm (6th week after enlightenment)? All of these things seem very unrealistic, akin to stories about Jesus in the christian bible. My struggle is that, as far as I'm understanding and what has truly drawn to Buddhism, this religion is supposed to be based on logic.... these events do not strike me as "logical", i.e., they defy our understanding of science and the material world. Are these stories, therefore, meant to be understood as metaphors, or are they believed as fact? Thanks for any thoughts on this! Kevin

I believe there is a sutta in which the Buddha uses an example of whittling or carving a piece of wood to describe the process of refocusing your mind in meditation. What is this sutta?

I got pigeon eggs in my big balcony - in different places - some of them get abandoned by the pigeons. At what time by Buddhism are the eggs considered a sentient being ?

What choice does Buddhist ethics recommend when faced with the moral dilemmas present in the [trolley problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) ? The problem has quite a few variants, here are the most important ones: 1. > you are the driver of a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks toward five workmen who cannot get out of the way. To prevent their deaths, your only option is to divert the trolley onto a side track, but diverting would kill one worker on the side track. Do you divert the trolley or not? 2. > you are a surgeon, and five of your patients will soon die unless they receive organ transplants. The only way to save the five is to fatally harvest the organs from a sixth, healthy patient, who is unwilling to donate any organs Do you kill the sixth patient or not? 3. > As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, a very fat man is right next to you. The only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed? 4. > The further development of this example involves the case, where the fat man is, in fact, the villain who put these five people in peril. Do you kill the villain to save five lives or not? 5. The trolley is running down the tracks towards five workmen, as in the first scenario. You can divert the trolley to a side track, but diverting would kill your mother, who is on the track. Do you divert the trolley or not?

First of all, I'd like to say I'm a scientist. This means fact will always come before faith, even if it hurts. In general, one's opinion doesn't mean much if the question itself has no meaning, but when the question is well phrased and has a quantitative background, then experiment is the ultimate - and decisive - destination. Secondly, I'm afraid this will be a rather long question. According to Walpola Rahula in his book What the Buddha Taught , Buddhism denies the existence of a soul or spirit: > Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self, or Atman. According to the teaching of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief which has no corresponding reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of 'me' and 'mine', selfish desire, craving, attachment, hatred, ill-will, conceit, pride, egoism, and other defilements, impurities and problems. It is the source of all the troubles in the world from personal conflicts to wars between nations. In short, to this false view can be traced all the evil in the world. This pleases me very much. As a scientist, I cannot conceive the existence of something we cannot observe or measure that lives on after I die. Everything Buddhism talks about pleases me very much: everything is dukkha, there's a way out of dukkha, we are unhappy because we cling to everything, and the path outside this unhappiness is to understand nothing has intrinsic value or meaning. In resume: I think Buddhism, unlike the other religions I've been exposed to, is beautiful and makes sense. But then I have a problem - and it's a big one, because it's in the eye of the tornado. According to Walpola Rahula (same book), > Will, volition, desire, thirst to exist, to continue, to become more and more, is a tremendous force that moves whole lives, whole existences, that even moves the whole world. This is the greatest force, the greatest energy in the world. According to Buddhism, this force does not stop with the non-functioning of the body, which is death; but it continues manifesting itself in another form, producing re-existence which is called rebirth. Now we have a problem. I've seen people discussing the differences between mind, brain, consciousness, etc. Well, science is pretty clear: the evidence is now overwhelming that every aspect of the mind is produced by the brain. I'm pretty familiar with NMR scanning and did read some hundreds of articles about the subject, and we have a huge, massive consensus that nothing survives our death. Not a *force*, not a *will*... Nothing. We can't see nothing. It doesn't exist. Now, I have come to a more traditional (non-westernized) version of rebirth by reading this wonderful, majestically written article by an evolutionary biologist (and aspiring Buddhist): even though people like to talk about rebirth as a deterministic process, it is not. It appears Buddha himself (see article) has said that rebirth is like lighting a candle with another's fire: everything is lost and there cannot be a causal process that links you to "former lives". Actually, the only part of rebirth that doesn't violate scientific laws is to say that my atoms will be reborn in other creatures and objects. And that pleases me very much. Now, a famous quote says that: > If science proves some belief of Buddhism is wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. It is attributed to Dalai Lama (probably wrongly), and is found in this great article by Tenzin Gyatso , where many scientifically proved benefits of meditation are discussed. If this sentence makes sense to Buddhists, why do they keep insisting in the concept of rebirth? Science is clear: there's no support of any evidence in its favour, at least not in the way I see people treating the subject. Buddha's metaphor about "lighting candles" is much better to have as an example, since it doesn't contradict facts, even though it doesn't make a lot of sense either. **I'd therefore like to know passages from suttas where Buddha affirms that knowledge of past lives is unattainable, or at least where He elucidates reincarnation is not something causal. If there aren't any, why do people still believing in this concept? Only because they feel safer?** **Edit:** This question is turning into a chimaera of weird unwanted lessons: people telling me I'm not ready for knowledge, or that articles that elucidate their misconceptions are not valid, or that I don't know the meaning of truth, or people trying to teach me concepts my PhD is about, and even people saying their own views are perfect. Until now, the most useful references where given by Dhammadhatu, and the best answers by ChrisW and Tenzin Dorje. Please refrain from counselling and preaching.

Suppose an ignorant person dies in a car accident. Has ignorance come to an end for that person?