DN2 talks of many aeons of cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction. What does this mean in Buddhist cosmology? Is this similar to Big Bounce in physics?

What is the difference between the 16 stage insight meditation vs. 10 stage insight meditation? What about 0 stages any teacher teach 0 nanas? What is the basis for "nanas" is the suttas?

I really need help identifying who the below represents... is it Siddhartha Gautama (Shakyamuni Buddha)? Thank you. 

Coming from an Islamic background and having a community/Sangha that is loyal to the religion of Islam, how do you harmoniously integrate yourself and your Buddhist study and practice with the community you were born in including within a mosque?

I would really like to ask here: how accurate is [AN 9.20 – Velāma Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.020.than.html) ? * Is stuff exaggerated in places ? * If you give all the stuff Velama gave, wouldn't you get at least a little more than a "whiff of a heart of good will" while doing so - more moments of good will than just one ? I'm not sure I remember all I want to ask about this sutta so if you have anything to add that is welcomed.

What is the Theravada position to following question? Is there a time difference between death and re-birth? Some further reading: Are my future parents already here? https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21961&hilit

I currently live in Taiwan, and we are currently experiencing "ghost month". The Wikipedia article for Ghost Festival starts with: >The Ghost Festival, also known as the Hungry Ghost Festival, Zhongyuan Festival or Yulan Festival (traditional Chinese: 盂蘭節) is a traditional Buddhist and Taoist festival held in Asian countries. The use of "traditional festival" suggests it may be more of a cultural tradition than a strict Buddhist concept. Does the idea that hungry ghosts or spirits escape from (some subset of) Hell once a year and need to be fed have any root in the early origins of Buddhism, or is this an add-on concept coming from cultural ideas or perhaps from Taoism?

How are laws and rules in harmony with the Dhamma? How are the laws and rules we make in harmony or in conflict with the Dhamma? How can one best practice Dhamma while also practicing law ,enforcing law or enforcing any rules?

I hear people saying this a lot regarding Annatta - "if something is impermanent then it cannot be self." But doesn't this only apply if you're coming from the view that a 'self' must be permanent? Why can't the self be impermanent? If I have the view that there is a self and it's impermanent then something impermanent can be self.

I have often been told that nirvana is not a state or entity, because there are no real states or entities in Mahayana Buddhism. If so, is that nirvanisation (a word I've seen for the process of coming to enlightenment) a state for those that undergo it?

I was walking through a Taipei grocery/department store a few years ago and saw shelves with packs of "paper money" or joss paper to be used for burning. For the bank-note varieties were three choices; New Taiwan dollars, Chinese RMB, and US dollars. The way different people approach the subject here is quite varied, from very serious to quite light-hearted. My question is not really about the origin of the practice as much as it is about its "paper trail". Are there historical buddhist writings that lay out the importance of burning paper money and its efficacy? Or is it more of an unwritten tradition?

I am reading up on the jhana and theres this paragraphs. There talking about the 3 ways Beginning, Middle & End and the 10 characteristic of jhana. I'm not sure what im suppose to do or what this is suppose to mean. The book is the path to purification. > “‘Of the first jhána intensification of equanimity is the middle’: how many characteristics has the middle? The middle has three characteristics. He [now] looks on with equanimity at the mind that is purified; he looks on with equanimity at it as having made way for serenity; he looks on with equanimity at the appearance of unity.32 And in that he [now] looks on with equanimity at the mind that is purified and looks on with equanimity at it as having made way for serenity and looks on with equanimity at the appearance of unity, that intensification of equanimity is the middle of the first jhána. These are the three characteristics of the middle. Hence it is said: ‘The first jhána is good in the middle which possesses three characteristics.’ Heres the full page. The parts specifically im asking about is on line 112

There are many monks who are engaging in many political activities such as riots and other types of embarrassing activities in certain countries. What are the Vinaya Rules on these? It would be great if sources are provided.

Quoted below is an article posted on BuddhaNet Magazine relating Krishnamurti's philosophy with Buddhism. The writer relates Krishnamurti's view that there is "no "path", no procedures, no organization, and no rules" with Buddhism referring to The Sutra of the Heart. The writer claimed that this Sutra teaches that "There is ... no path, no wisdom, no attainment..." I haven't read this Sutra, but I have a hard time following anything which states that there is no "Wisdom"! If what the person says is true then it's wisdom and if false then there is wisdom! Learning from other schools of thought, the critical response for anyone who says " listen to me there is no wisdom" is that what he/she says is meaningless because it fit perfectly with the liar paradox. At the end of the article, the writer quoting to a Buddist teacher said that the Buddha "compromised" himself by teaching on the two different levels... and that Krishnamurti's view is identical with the higher level of teaching. >.... > To Krishnamurti there is no "path", no procedures, no organization, and no rules that should be laid down by men for other men to follow > on the road to enlightenment. As part of the path, Buddhists must > observe a very typical, man-made, structure which begins at the top > with The Three Precious Ones: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. > Each of these pillars has subsets of rules associated with it: The > Five Skandhas, The Eight Siddhis, etc. Some would have us believe that > learning all these articles of faith are necessary for enlightenment. > > Much Buddhist literature suggests that in following Buddhism there is > a great object that one must attain and that one progresses towards > this goal as one takes each step along the path. To Krishnamurti > setting a psychological goal and working for progress in any direction > will only lead to more confusion and suffering. Any attempts at > psychological self-betterment will amount to no more than just one > more futile duplication of many similar past efforts, all of which had > previously failed. > > The typical pattern of human behavior that we always seem to fall > into, perhaps by virtue of conditioning, is the "work for a reward" > stereotype. One finds a religion and sees something desirable in it > which becomes an object of attainment. The next step is to devise a > plan to acquire the object, and finally, with great deliberation we > set about to carry out that plan with hard, unrelenting work. > > Krishnamurti tells us that the "work for a reward" operandi has been > tried countless times by homo sapiens, but it has never led us to > anything new or different in the area of spiritual enlightenment. What > do we make of all this? Buddhist leaders round the world tell us that > there are Buddhist goals and a path of hard work and attainment for > reaching these goals. > > Here again Krishnamurti seems to be more in agreement with the very > core of Buddhist teachings than the Buddhists themselves. The Sutra of > the Heart of Transcendent Knowledge sounds more like Krishnamurti than > does many of the Buddhist teachers: "There is ... no path, **no wisdom**, > no attainment, and no nonattainment ..." Here Krishnamurti is telling > us to live up to the precepts of this great Buddhist Sutra. He is not > telling us to follow a path, but to under stand that there is no path. > He tells this just as bluntly and simply as the Sutra does. There is > no apparent sympathy or embellishments for the benefit of those who > either fail to understand or for those who have beliefs in goals to > which they must continue to cling. http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm

I have seen certain suttas where the Buddha explains about the qualities of monks who are and who are not worthy of gifts, salutation and etc. Where can I find the Suttas? References are appreciated.

In the following video this monk said that consuming alcohol is a latter addition to the fifth precept and hence not part of the Noble Eightfold Path. I wish to know your thoughts on this. https://youtu.be/VI3dT4aXkfM?t=3163

[Stephen Batchelor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Batchelor_(author)) claims in several speeches and books that * Buddha never said the Karma and rebirth theory was true, * it is not important to Buddha's teachings, and * when he was a Gelug monk and asked for support for the Karma and rebirth theory, he didn't get any sufficient answers (despite the fact that Gelug Buddhists tend to focus on scientific methods of acquiring knowledge). According to Batchelor, the Karma theory was a common worldview in India at the time. Siddhartha Gautama's contemporaries believed in Karma like we believe in the Big Bang theory and evolution. Neither of these theories can be proved or refuted with an affordable effort (in order to prove evolution for yourself, you need substantial knowledge of biology plus systemic thinking skills -- both of which are hard to acquire). Also, neither of these theories affects the main purpose of Buddhist practice -- to reduce suffering. If tomorrow someone proved the Big Bang theory to be definitely true (or definitely wrong), it wouldn't make most of the people happier/unhappier than before. However, the question about Karma theory affects the Buddhist practice. If someone believes in rebirth, then they would spend most of their time meditating and preparing for the next lives. This is not just theory -- in some Buddhist communities advanced members spend almost all their evenings in the Buddhist center and almost every vacation on some retreat. It looks like they don't have their own life apart from this practice. If someone does not believe in the Karma theory, they will focus on making the best of this life (which may be the only one we get). Buddhist practice is a means to live the one life one has as effectively as possible. Basically, you meditate in the evening in order to better achieve your personal goals during the day. Is the Karma theory an essential component of Buddha's teaching or not?

Everyone is saying that the Dhamma will last 5000 years after the parinibbana. That it will last in Sri Lanka. So far I haven't found any authentic sources even in Tripitaka saying that Are there any sources if so please do provide. If not, is this some fact created by people in Sri Lanka back in the days ?

This is a tradition I have heard in Thailand: Many men become monk for a few months in order to transfer merits to his parents and so they can go to heaven. If I'm not mistaken the Buddha said you could only transfer merits for ghosts (according to teacher Dhammavvuddho Thero), it is not possible to transfer merits from man to man. Is it? Any text to help? I may be wrong so I appreciate the explanations.

Referring to the Four Characteristics of Karma (catvāri karmasvabhāva), as taught in Tibetan schools: 1. The certainty of karma. 2. The magnification of karma. 3. Not experiencing the effects of actions you did not do. 4. The actions you have done do not perish. (From "The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Tib. Lam rim chen mo, Volume 1: Volume One" by Tsong-Kha-Pa.) I have no issue with 3 of the 4 characteristics of Karma, but it seems to me that #3 Not experiencing the effects of actions you did not do has been incorrectly extended by many to nothing can be experienced unless you have created the cause. The problem with this is that there must be some random events mixed in with cause and effect.