The Buddha has spoken many times about giving up bad friends, we can find it in the Dhammapada, in the beautiful Maha Mangala Sutta and many other places. My first point is: If we abandon bad friends, how will they improve? What role compassion plays here? My second point is: It is very hard these days to completely abandon bad friends, we have social networks, professional networks, smartphones etc., we are connected like never before, it is very hard for a lay person to live only with good friends around, except if maybe he/she becomes a recluse, so what should one do? Just set limits?

After enlightenment, the Buddha spoke: > This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to > realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, > to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in > attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a > generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying > attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard > to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all > fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of > craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the > Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome > for me, troublesome for me. > > > Enough now with teaching what only with difficulty I reached. This > Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion & > passion. > > What is abstruse, subtle, deep, hard to see, going against the flow > — those delighting in passion, cloaked in the mass of darkness, won't > see. Was the Buddha judging people unfairly here because his mind was defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)?

What is right view regarding rebirth according to the Buddha? Is it: - a) Rebirth stops after breakup of physical body for all even if craving is not eradicated - b) Rebirth continues eternally after breakup of physical body for all even if craving is eradicated - c) Rebirth stops after breakup of physical body if craving is eradicated. Rebirth continues after breakup of physical body if craving is not eradicated. - d) Other? If possible, please provide sutta references.

I often found that driving to work and back to be the most stressful part of my day. And, to combat this I started to drive without the radio on and tried to focus my mind to the vibrations felt by the car, and the sounds of the engine and other cars. Now obviously some could consider this as dangerous. However, I feel it actually makes my driving safer, just wanted to know if anyone has ever read anything on this subject ? Obviously there are no teachings of the past on this subject

Suppose somebody strongly believes in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly denies the possibility of the existence of rebirth. Is such a belief/view a result of craving for views regarding rebirth? Is it possible to attain Nirvana with such a belief/view? Does an arahat strongly believe in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly deny the possibility of the existence of rebirth?

In a nutshell, the Buddha's teaching is: - self-views ("I have a self" and/or "I have no self") must be avoided - craving is a precondition for suffering, thus we must train ourselves to gain control over craving and, finally, to eradicate it - nihilism ("non existence") and/or existentialism ("existence") must be avoided - being spiritual or having spiritual views is better than being materialistic or having materialistic views - extremes must be avoided (middle way) I'm wondering WHY a strong belief in rebirth does not conform with the above Buddha's teachings? I really want to understand the WHY behind it. WHY a belief in rebirth does not lead to the cessation of suffering? WHY somebody who **strongly accepts rebirth** (read the below case to see what I mean by "strongly accepting rebirth") can't attain Nibanna? Please respond to the below questions that I provided and then if you wish give your explanations/answers. ********* CASE a) Suppose person X **STRONGLY ACCEPTS REBIRTH** by claiming: ***"There's NO WAY that after death there is no life. Life after death doesn't stop. Life after death is real. Life after death can't stop."*** When asked *"Can life after death come to an end for an arahat?"* person X would answer: *"No. There's NO WAY life after death can come to an end. Life after death does not come to an end for all beings, even if a being is an arahat or attained enlightenment (Nirvana).*". When asked "*Is there at least any tinyyyy possibility life after death can come to an end for an arahat?*" person X would answer: *"No. There's NO WAY! I know there's no way! NO WAY."*. Suppose person X is very sturdy and close minded and there's no way person X will change his/her views about life after death, not even if somebody would threaten his/her life and would actually kill him/her. Questions: **1a.** Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of craving? Why? **2a.** Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of nihilistic ("non existence") and/or eternalists ("existence") views? Why? **3a.** Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of a view regarding self ("I have a self" and/or "I have no self")? Why? **4a.** Can an arahat strongly accept rebirth, just like person X in the example above? Why?

In AN 4.123, it is reported the Buddha taught monks if a person clings to the heaven of jhana they will end up in hell, as follows: > *Monks, there are these four types of individuals to be found existing in the world. Which four?* > > *There is the case where an individual, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first > jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by > directed thought & evaluation. He savors that, longs for that, finds > satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling > there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he > reappears in conjunction with the devas of Brahma's retinue. The devas > of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon. A > run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the > life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the > state of the hungry shades.* ________________________________________________ In comparison, in many suttas addressed to laypeople, the Buddha taught if they do good kamma, they will appear in a happy state or in heaven, as follows: > *The Blessed One asked them, "Householders, is there any teacher agreeable to you, in whom you have found grounded conviction?"* > > *With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is the other world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the > body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly > world. Even if we didn't speak of the other world, and there weren't > the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this > venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant > as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine > of existence.' If there really is a other world, then this venerable > person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the > observant here-&-now; and in that — with the breakup of the body, > after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly > world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by > him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the > unskillful. MN 60* ________________________________________________________________ > *The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:* > > > *(i) they restrain him from evil, (ii) they persuade him to do good, > (iii) they love him with a kind heart, (iv) they make him hear what he > has not heard, (v) they clarify what he has already heard, (vi) they > point out the **path to a heavenly state**.* > > *DN 31* ____________________________________________________________ Are there any suttas where it is taught to householder laypeople that after their time in heaven expires they will be reborn in hell?

I ask this question because in pali, "to let go (nibbāna)", in this context, is known by monk. It is not just a target. The (ariya) monk thinking of nibbāna in his concentration, in this context. I just wanna make sure that english translation is right, because when I translate that english sentence, by my terrible english, it look like "to let go " and "object" means "target", not "something is known by monk". In the pāli: **ārammaṇa** means "something is known by consciousness", "something is thought by consciousness", **"external sense-fields"**. It doesn't means **target/object**. > "And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, **making it his object to let go**, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.010.than.html ---------- Edited: It should to be: > "And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, **making "to let go" as his mind's focus**, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.

That is to say, I only remember of the pattern of anicca→dukkha→anatta (that which is impermanent and unsatisfactory cannot be considered Self, to paraphrase) in the suttas. Is there an argument that progresses from anicca to anatta (and then to dukkha), directly?

According to the Gandhatthena Sutta (SN 9.14) , a monk sniffing a flower in the wilderness, that was not given to him, is considered stealing, even if it's only a hair-tip's worth of evil. Why is sniffing a flower in the wilderness considered to be stealing? Does that apply to lay followers too? > I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among > the Kosalans in a forest thicket. Now at that time, after his meal, > returning from his almsround, he went down to a lotus pond and sniffed > a red lotus. > > Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for > the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses, > approached him and addressed him with this verse: > > *[Devata:]* > **You sniff this water-born flower > that hasn't been given to you. > This, dear sir, is a factor of stealing. > You are a thief of a scent.** > > *[The monk:]* > I don't take, don't damage. > I sniff at the lotus > from far away. > So why do you call me > a thief of a scent? > > One who > digs up the stalks, > damages flowers, > one of such ruthless behavior: > why don't you say it of him? > > *[The devata:]* > A person ruthless & grasping, > smeared like a nursing diaper: > to him > I have nothing to say. > It's you > to whom I should speak. > > To a person unblemished, > constantly searching for purity, > **a hair-tip's worth of evil** > seems as large > as a cloud. > > *[The monk:]* > Yes, yakkha, you understand me > and show me sympathy. > Warn me again, yakkha, > whenever again > you see something like this. > > *[The devata:]* > I don't depend on you > for my living > nor am I > your hired hand. > You, monk, > you yourself should know > how to go to the good destination. > > The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.

Why is samghabedabastu section of the mulasarvastavadin monastic code not published in any language besides it's original language?

It is often stated particularly by Theravada Buddhism that Nibbana/Nirvana is unconditioned. In fact extensive metaphysical speculations have even been written about by esteemed monks. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/resonance.html Where is this actually stated in the canonical scripture? This doctrine seems particularly important and should have extensive discourse by the Buddha. In fact, it would appears that this doctrine is in contradiction with the doctrine of dependent origination. And it would not be clear how the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Noble Path arrived at an "Unconditioned Nibana". > When this is, that is. > > From the arising of this comes the arising of that. > > When this isn't, that isn't. > > From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that. It was said that Venerable Sariputta upon hearing the dependent generation stanzas out of his profound wisdom immediately became a stream winner, knowing the way to end suffering. I believe the reasoning is as follows: - Things that arise due to causes and conditions cease with the end of those causes and conditions. - Suffering arise due to causes and conditions - Suffering therefore can be extinguish with the right causes and conditions. - The right causes and conditions are the Practice of the Noble Eightfold Path, which leads to Ethics, Concentration and Wisdom, removing the causes for suffering. But this mean that even the cessation of suffering Nibana itself is conditional! I did some research on Sutta Central and found the following https://suttacentral.net/en/sn43.12 > “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the unconditioned and the path leading to > the unconditioned. Listen to that…. > > “And what, bhikkhus, is the unconditioned? The destruction of lust, > the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called > the unconditioned. > > “And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned? > Serenity: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned…. > > “Thus, bhikkhus, I have taught you the unconditioned and the path > leading to the unconditioned…. This is our instruction to you.” > > “Thus, bhikkhus, I have taught you the unconditioned and the path > leading to the unconditioned. Whatever should be done, bhikkhus, by a > compassionate teacher out of compassion for his disciples, desiring > their welfare, that I have done for you. These are the feet of trees, > bhikkhus, these are empty huts. Meditate, bhikkhus, do not be > negligent, lest you regret it later. This is our instruction to you.” However, there is no correspondent parallel text in the Chinese Agama, and the content is lacking substance having no message apart from Buddhist practice leading to Unconditionality, and hence can be suspected to be a Theravadin innovation and a latter doctrinal addition. Likewise with https://suttacentral.net/en/ud8.3 > Thus I heard: At one time the Gracious One was dwelling near Sāvatthī, > in Jeta’s Wood, at Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Then at that time the > Gracious One was instructing, rousing, enthusing, and cheering the > monks with a Dhamma talk connected with Emancipation. Those monks, > after making it their goal, applying their minds, considering it with > all their mind, were listening to Dhamma with an attentive ear. > > Then the Gracious One, having understood the significance of it, on > that occasion uttered this exalted utterance: > > “There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, > monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you > could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and > conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, > unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, > made, and conditioned.” This sounds like an illogical tautology - circular reasoning supporting the unconditional Nibbana doctrine. The fact that this would be said by someone as enlightened as the Buddha is extremely slim. The main reason I can imagine this being used is the use of Nirvana (Cessation/Blown Out) as a negation, i.e. Nothing is Unconditioned, therefore Nirvana is Unconditioned. I would appreciate it if anyone can provide canonical sources that explain the importance of unconditionality with respect to Nibbana and Nirvana. Particularly why is it even important and consistent with the rest of Buddhist teachings? Please feel free to point out where you think my own views might be mistaken.

According to some there are 5 principal types of meditations: 1. Metta-Bhavana 2. Karuna-Bhavana 3. Mudita Bhavana 4. Asubha Bhavana 5. Upekka Bhavana I couldn't find any link which could support the above mentioned meditation theory. So my questions are: Is it true that there are 5 principal types of Meditations? Can anyone provide me the original links where Buddha lays down the above mentioned 5 types of meditation?

In Sutta pitaka we find two Suttas namely Jhana sutta and Samadhi sutta. What is the difference? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html

I just read within this question that the accomplished arhats, and perhaps the Buddha, still feel pain though they lack aversion to it. I had contemplated for a long time to generate insight and reasons, analytically, to tackle the arising of negative thoughts and attitudes. However, this process was seemingly effective in preventing the arising of negativity, but seems contrary to fully experiencing reality without attachment or aversion. 1) When a person just sits, aren't they, in a sense, with equanimity towards all that arises? Any orientation towards thoughts or experience changes with time, and it is time--in meditation--which determines the untangling of what arises. 2) Wouldn't equanimity towards *all* aspects of experience create a different result than either distraction or insight relative to what arises?

This may come off as a very strange question. From small days I have been taught Buddhism, not in the way it should have been, but in a way which took most stories and teachings for granted.

Those who know Buddhism know that Lord Buddha attained enlightenment on a Vesak Poya day (a full moon in May). According to Theravada teachings (and maybe even Mahayana I am not sure) what came next was seven weeks of very "Holy" or special events/activities concerning Lord Buddha.

First of which was the "Animisa Locana Pooja" where the Buddha was believed to have shown gratitude to a Bo tree. Later on was a week named "Ruwan Sakmana" where the Buddha meditated while walking. This I found very strange. A Buddha is a person who has found the ultimate liberation from all the sorrows, one whose kindness and compassion has no bounds. Laymen meditate to basically calm themselves and to improve "Maithri"/ kindness. Why does an enlightened being meditate? I doubt a Buddha would just meditate to pass time! My opinion is that a Buddha does not meditate because he does not need to do it anymore. But does a Buddha meditate?

I can understand how the Buddha and various arhats and the like can surmise the existence of past lives and rebirth. What I dont see is how they come up with actual numbers of times they have been reborn and the total number of times anyone is and how long the universe has been contracting and expanding and things like that? At some point isn't that delving into the unknowable?

When were Buddhist suttas written? Does anybody know any source with a compiled list of suttas and their approximate date of writing?

I have a simple question. Since emotional eating is connected with the drive of hunger, it is difficult to tackle. What would be the Buddhist method of combating such a drive-related issue? Here, I use the term 'emotional eating' to encompass: 1) eating for mere pleasure (attachment) 2) eating to avoid negative emotions (aversion).

I'm wondering how Buddhism deals with the comparison of oneself with others, and I'm specifically thinking in terms of accomplishments. For example, I have usually had some success in art fields in my life. I now am in a setting where many people have similar, or greater talent. I can't help but compare myself to them, and this causes suffering. Similarly, I tend to compare myself to others generally, in many ways. I am aware it is bad to do so, but I cannot help myself in engaging in that process. Is there any way to make the comparisons cease? What does Buddhism teach about this? If comparing is conceit, many of the answers to [How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9415/254) seem to advocate merely watching mindfully the arising and passing away of the aggregates to extinguish conceit. Would this be the recognized ways of diminishing the presence of conceit? If any practice could be recommended it would be much appreciated. Thank you for any reply.