One major differing point between Hinduism and Buddhism is the understanding of the self. Buddhist reject the Brahminical notion of an eternal, non-material soul substance that is distinct from the mind, body and sense organs. How then, is consciousness explained? Acts of cognition must occur from a *cogniser*, a subject that knows, because consciousness does not belong to the body or the mind. Could it not be therefore inferred that this *cogniser* exists as the self - a non-material soul? How can Buddhism explain consciousness?

From what I understand in the suttas, unless you renounce the household life and desire almost entirely, chances are you won't eliminate the necessary fetters to achieve nibbana in this life. For someone who has to take care of a family, work a job, and be social, stream-entry seems like a more realistic goal, which is achieved through faith and virtue (AN 10.92, SN 55.7). Despite the importance of these topics, I can hardly find any instruction on cultivating faith and virtue outside of the suttas and Visuddhagga. Is interest in the devotional practices really so scarce?

Why is sukha (third Jhana) higher than pīti (second Jhana)? In other words, why does sukha not come before pīti? This question is based on the following suttas in the Moggallāna Saṃyutta.

When attend an event at the sangha I'm with (Triratna ) we often transfer merit (puñña) at the end of it. So any good result of the meditation, ritual, dharma study etc... we give away. I know that this isn't something we have just invented. It's a practice that we have taken from other traditions. What confuses me is merit can be given away. If merit is the fruits of my karma in what sense can this be transferred over to another being? How can someone else benefit from my skillful actions?

Anatta is beautifully described here . The following quote sums up the idea of no self: > "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no > doer of the deeds is there; Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters > it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." Extending the above analogy, can I say that,this question exists but no questioner is found? Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no choice maker will be found? If you answer the above questions then haven't you yourself made the choice ? EDIT: Some people have raised doubt over the validity of the quote above saying that this is not the mainstream Buddhist thought. To further support the argument that there is no sufferer I quote from the book Buddha: His Life ,His Doctrine ,His Order BY Dr. Hermann Oldenberg(page 253): > A seeing,a hearing, a conceiving, above all a suffering, takes place : > **but an existence, which may be regarded as the seer, the hearer,the sufferer, is not recognized in Buddhist teaching.**

I guess I have no craving left for the existence except for food and water. Will I be reindividualised after death? Should I give up the desire for food and water in order to stop my rebirth?

I want to know if Buddhism was practised in Kerala, India around 500CE. When did it lose popularity and why?

What is the Sanskrit term for a person who is a follower of the Buddha, i.e. a "Buddhist"? Things I tried: I searched online but couldn't find anything. I looked in the only Sanskrit I have access to, which is The Student's Sanskrit English Dictionary by Vaman Shivram Apte. It has a term in it, but the Devanagari is so small, I can't make out the letters. It looks like the term is "buddhupasaka" or "buddhupasakra", and it is defined as "a worshipper of Buddha".

One of the four lowest realms of the 31 planes of existence is the realm of the hungry ghosts or hungry shades or petas or pretas. These cannot be souls or spirits, because in Buddhism, there is no transmigration of souls. On this page , it is described as: > peta yoni — here the beings have deformed bodies and are usually > consumed by hunger and thirst In the Janussonin Sutta , the Buddha states that food offerings to the dead cannot reach them if they are reborn in hell, as animal, as human or as devas (heavanly beings). **However, food offerings to the dead would reach them or other ancestors who are born as hungry ghosts or petas.** Those who offer this, would not go unrewarded for their generosity, according to the sutta. This appears to be the practice described in the Tirokudda Kanda . Ven. Nanda Mahathera writes here : > Peta-yoni (pa + ita) lit., departed beings, or those absolutely devoid > of happiness. They are not disembodied spirits of ghosts. They possess > deformed physical forms of varying magnitude, generally invisible to > the naked eye. They have no planes of their own, but live in forests, > dirty surroundings, etc. Ven. Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo describes them here as: > Hungry shades come in all different shapes and sizes — really > entertaining, the hungry shades. Some of them have heads as big as > large water jars, but their mouths are just like the eye of a needle: > that's all, no bigger than the eye of a needle! Some of them have legs > six yards long, but hands only half a foot. They're amazing to watch, > just like a cartoon. Some of them have lower lips with no upper lips, > some of them are missing their lips altogether, with their teeth > exposed all the time. There are all kinds of hungry shades. Some of > them have big, bulging eyes, the size of coconuts, others have > fingernails as long as palm leaves. You really ought to see them. Some > of them are so fat they can't move, others so thin that they're > nothing but bones. And sometimes the different groups get into > battles, biting each other, hitting each other. Based on all the descriptions above, it sounds to me like hungry ghosts or hungry shades are microorganisms. It also makes sense that when food offerings are made to the dead, they would be consumed by microorganisms. Questions: 1. What are the hungry ghosts or hungry shades really? 2. Could they be microorganisms? Have any Buddhist scholars considered this possibility? 3. Is offering of food to the dead still practised today? 4. Is this a recommended practice or is it not recommended? And why? According to this answer , the Buddha neither rejected nor endorsed the practice. 5. Does the opinion of the different Buddhist schools differ from each other on this?

I understand that Hinayana as a term is generally pejorative when referring to Theravadin practitioners. Where is the use of the term Hinayana proper, and why is it still used if it's considered offensive to Theravadin practitioners? I believe that the term Hinayana is mainly used in the context of displaying "faulty" logic by earlier schools of Buddhist philosophy than the Madhyamikas. Can you say more about this?

Does anyone know how Anapanasati is written in Pali script? I failed to find a dictionary online that could give the correct script form. Thanks!

I am in very dilemma- When I am inactive or lazy I meditate well, read good religious books etc. But whenever I come into action like studies or useful work I become very material & also get desires to earn a lot of money, respect or other material desires by which I stop doing meditate & completely become indulgent. Can anyone tell me the way to be active & meditator simultaneously. In this current globalized & dynamic world it is huge requirement to be active but that activity makes me material & forget to work for this birth to cross Sansara or Dukkha. So how can I be active & aspirant to dissolve Dukkha/future births simultaneously?

Am I wrong or is "beginner's mind " a Zen term that means "seeing the experience you are aware of, moment by moment, as if you have never experienced concepts before... Like you have just been born with a mind that has not developed concepts yet and so you see things as they really are? Is "Beginner's Mind" equivalent to direct seeing or very related to direct seeing(or even clear comprehension)? Should insight meditators be "trying" to see this way, "trying" to see things as if the meditator was just born? ...OR... Does direct seeing develop when a beginner starts by watching meditation objects "imperfectly" with all the concepts of each meditation object mixed with what really is and then slowly through continuous practice the meditator will be able to understand what is concept and what is direct experience? If this is true then its not a matter of effort or trying to see direct reality but more about "discerning" what are concepts and what is the real object that is arising in experience by just seeing what the meditator sees. Maybe, I'm mistaken somewhere because it's not totally clear to me. EDIT: to sum it up, I'm trying to see if I have the right idea about "direct seeing" and "Beginner's Mind". Also, I'm generally asking if we put forth effort to experience directly or not. --Thank You & Metta ---------- Note: Beginner's Mind, or *Shoshin*, is a Chinese Buddhist term exported Japan, translated into English. The Chinese 初心 (pinyin: Chūxīn) is from Avatamsaka Sutra 《華嚴經》, describing the Bodhisattva when first making the Bodhisattva vow: > 三世一切諸如來　　靡不護念**初**發**心** > > All past, present and future Buddhas, none won't protect nor won't remember > those who first set motion this *heart [citta/mind]* (an usual > Classical Chinese grammar unusal for English, for *will protect and > remember*). > > 如菩薩**初心**　　不與後心俱 > > Like the Bodhisattva's **initial *heart*** (here it means the > willing/vowing determination to go the Bodhisattva Path) This initially may also include the meaning of an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject as brutally hacked off 80% of the rest of the meaning by Wikipedia *amateur experts*, further corrupted when hitch-hiking by book-writing Zen teachers such as wikipedia-ed Shunryū Suzuki. Of Import is, one shouldn't further corrupt this term with Theravadin's *Luminious Mind*. It will be very hazardous to the normal Buddhist student's learning, like smoke is hazardous to health. The excitement caused by nicotine is like the student excited by novelty, both are trading excitement with detrimental to health. Like the Law of Entropy in Physics, this freely hitch-hiking terms activities will further pollute the Dharma/Dhamma; also like Entropy, the end result is un-pure Dharma/Dhamma, or, chaos. > Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of > which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem > to many far-fetched, and may **repel beginners as obscure and > difficult of comprehension**. Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the > Thermodynamics of Fluids

Am very new to the Theravada Buddhist practices and would like to know specific items that could be given as alms. My understanding is that a monk cannot cook for himself from items given and further is not able to ask for specific items. This makes it difficult. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Ven. Members of the Sangha, Ven. Fellows, Valued Upasaka, Upasika, Dear readers and interested, [- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/homage_en.html) since the root-consideration of this possible vey popular idee "you can", is very deep connected with the fundation for the path liberation, right view, in means of gratitude, e.g. "there is mother and father, gifts and sacrifies...", my person thought that it's maybe interesting to investigate this matter of the abcestor-ship of the Noble One more in detail, so to possible cut of "when ever I like, I could" yet with it's rare oppotunities, that one really could. Can a being develope *indepentently* the path, it's skills, requirements... to awakening for itself? Or does it nevertheless have "mother and father, gifts and sacrifies... brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, (proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves)*" as prerequisite? *. *set in brackes, given here that nobody would proclaim, as foundation for this idea* References and similies of and from the past Noble Ones, Buddhas, Paccecabuddhas, there history... welcome. (Stories like Devatatta, who is said to become a Paccecabuddha one time, come to mind, yet met and taught by a Buddha...) (*Note: This question is not meant for use of commercial purpose or any other wordily gain, but intended for liberation only, so to give and share without bound to the world*)

A twofold question for the sake to become even one. General theoretical, general practical and personal answers of reflection (and generously let others have part of it) are suitable. Or even incl. all the views on it, to give a broad spectrum to grasp. (Liberation here means the highest goal a living being can archive: end of suffering and stress)

inner conversation of mind has reduced now.after a period of had stopped during meditation.is it due to Samadhi which achieved?And what is personality view?

I like to put things in perspective by using extremes to create high contrast. Let's imagine a person who has become an enlightened being, let's use the word "arahant". But imagine that they're put in an inescapable, hostile, deadly environment: a slave labor camp. What would this arahant experience, and how would it achieve those experiences? What would be this arahant's view on reality (reality as in the combination of objective and subjective reality)? From what I understand: if you master your mind, than you no longer suffer mentally; you might feel pain, sadness, grief or whatever, but you no longer suffer from the experience. But imagine that this arahant has a child, or a wife, who are taken away to be killed, never to be seen again. The reason I am asking this is that I just can't imagine that a person wouldn't fill up with hate and anger, disbelieve in any cause and become completely hopeless. How would an arahant hold itself in such a horrible situation? I can't imagine that it is even remotely possible to focus oneself on the teachings of the Buddha. Bad food, bad sleep, laborious days, bad shelter, bad clothing, bad physical health, etc... I couldn't even focus on where to put my next step! Let alone, keeping up righteous mental activity. **EDIT**: For those who are interested, I summarize what I learned from asking this question. I was lost in thought with some imaginary situation (described in this question). Like trying to prepare myself for any situation that might every arise and compare my current state with a state that would be required and trying to get there. For that part I was no longer present with my actual experience. Instead I created a whole lot of (now I see) unnecessary experience from which I mentally suffered. The answer I accepted is the answer that first answered the question on the matter asked, and then guided my attention back to my self. I experience the answer as: first addressed the wandering mind and get its attention, then give an answer that the mind can chew on. Then provide the answer with the 'real' value. That made the chewing of my mind on the subject decrease immediately. I feel more tuned in to the moment of now after reading it. I feel thankful.

Does Buddhism say anything about a relationship between greatness in art, music or other creative areas, and spiritual development? For example, consider the well-known great composers: is there anything to say about how they are able to produce astoundingly complex and beautiful works, like symphonies? (Answers from any tradition are fine.) **Addition:** I mean being **actively creative**, not just listening to music. Is being active and creative valued in Buddhism, or is the point to extinguish everything? What is the purpose of life *besides* trying to scream and run away? (OK, getting a bit frustrated here.) If life arose for any reason, would it not be to enjoy being in all its forms, and all activities? Or is that a Vexing Question?

From reading this answer I come to understand that anatta means the lack of a core that can be conceived as self. If there is no permanent self, then who or what gets enlightened?