Would like some suggestions on books/authors/resources for commentaries on keeping and maintaining the 8 and 10 precepts. Haven't found this question answered elsewhere. Am already aware of what the precepts are, just asking for ideas on how to support their practice in everyday situations.

What does Buddhism say that the laity should do when someone injuries them? So in Christianity there is "turn the other cheek ", which seems easy to do, if not understand. > The phrase originates from the Sermon on the Mount in the New > Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, an alternative for "an eye for an > eye" is given by Jesus: 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An > eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That > ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, > turn to him the other also. How should we ordinary beings respond to injury?

Reference needed. I remember reading a sutta where Buddha mentioned something like a stream enterer would no longer use words to attack others like weapons. I would like to read that sutta in its entirety again. Thanks.

So according to the 8 Garudhammas of Bhikkunis this is the first one. > 1) A nun who has been ordained even for a hundred years must greet respectfully, rise up from her seat, salute with joined palms, do proper homage to a monk ordained but that day. For me this sort of pushes the males to superiority. What is the reason for this? Is it accurate? Where can I find a reference to it in the Vinaya Pitakaya?

Do fully enlightened "persons" still meditate, and why? I get why they keep living, to help sentient beings. But does meditation help in that way?

I am reading multiple interpretations of the 2nd noble truth. Most of the sources indicate that it is craving, desires, wanting. Some sources talk about wrong understanding of reality and itself, clouded judgement, not understanding the nature of the mind. Question: If there is a sick child, suffering and in pain, what is the cause there? Child didn't have a chance to have desires and wrong cravings yet, its just an innocent child. Of course, there is karma, child is sick because of previous karma. But nowhere I saw the source stating that cause of suffering is karma repaying, especially for a child, just starting new life. Can someone please refer me to a source explaining that? Mostly we have a very detailed description of the 1st noble truth: life is suffering (sickness, death, old age, the whole life disappointments, departures, not getting what person wants, losing something/someone...etc) And a jump to cravings/desires explaining that suffering in the 2nd noble truth. But imho it doesn't explain all the suffering, only some. Can someone please clarify. Thank you!

This answer refers to a Tao Buddhist. I've never heard of this term. Is a a definite religious movement or is it just a colloquial term that refers to someone who holds both view simultaneously? In either case, is there any conflict when subscribing to both philosophies at the same time?

What is the main difference between paramitha (perfection) and merits (pin/kusal)? Is it the same? Or is a perfection advance? Or are all perfections a merit whereas all merits are not perfections? Which is what?

Gautama Buddha was not the only Buddha. There were many Buddhas in the past and there will be many in the future. My question is: what characteristic of a person defines Buddha? My answer is that Buddha is the knowledge of Truth.Anyone who has realized the Truth is the Buddha.Some say Buddha is a title ... just as King is the title. But they forget that King can be stupid i.e position of title King can be occupied by an undeserving candidate. But any person who occupies the title of Buddha must be the one who has realized the Truth. All Buddhas of the past, present and future tell the same eternal truths again and again... they feel the same compassion and equanimity for all the beings. My second question is : is the past Buddha an ancestor to the future Buddha? In other words can future Buddha recall the past Buddha and say that that was me in my previous manifestation ? EDIT: I think my answer to who is Buddha is wrong one. Buddha indeed occupies an office and Brahma appoints the Buddha through a process mentioned in Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence. Any prospective Buddha needs to possess at least following three qualities: 1.Should be a Boddhisat. 2.Should have a wish to become the teacher of the three worlds. 3.Should hold the wish to release sentient beings from the evils of existence. I quote from p.88 which translates the whole process of electing Buddha by Brahma. > The beings who will in due course become Budhas are called Bodhisat. > They are numberless ; but the name, in common usage, is almost > exclusively confined to those who have become avowed candidates for > the high office. When many ages have elapsed without the appearance of > a Budha, there arc no beings to supply the continued diminution of the > numbers in the brahma-lokas. This excites the attention of some > compassionate brahma, who, when he has discovered the cause and the > remedy, looks, out to see in what world the Bodhisat exists who will > next become an aspirant for the Budhaship ; and when he has discovered > the Bodhisat in question, he inspires him with the resolution that > enables him to form the wish to become the teacher of the three > worlds, that he may release sentient beings from the evils of > existence. The ages that succeed this period are divided into three > eras; in each of which we have legends of Gotama. > 1. The era of resolution (1). 2. The era of expres-, sion (2). 3. The era of nomination (3).

Is it possible to attain happiness without support, through art, not overt meditation? I'm not really an *expert* on any art, but take the question (somewhat) seriously.

Buddha is eternal. His knowledge is eternal. His experience is eternal. His fruits of actions are eternal. And we know that past Knowledge , past experience ,past actions are remembered by Self. So my question is who remembers the past existences of Buddha ? Is it the Self? If it is the Self then that Self must also be immortal because Buddha is immortal. EDIT: This was naive attempt to ask a genuinely logical question "Who remembers the Buddha?" I guess I have found an answer in the Manual of Buddhism by Spence Hardy. It is the Brahma who remembers the Buddha. I quote from p.88: > The beings who will in due course become Budhas are called Bodhisat. > They are numberless ; but the name, in common usage, is almost > exclusively confined to those who have become avowed candidates for > the high office. When many ages have elapsed without the appearance of > a Budha, there arc no beings to supply the continued diminution of the > numbers in the brahma-lokas. **This excites the attention of some** > **compassionate brahma, who, when he has discovered the cause and the** > **remedy, looks, out to see in what world the Bodhisat exists who will** > **next become an aspirant for the Budhaship** ; and when he has discovered > the Bodhisat in question, he inspires him with the resolution that > enables him to form the wish to become the teacher of the three > worlds, that he may release sentient beings from the evils of > existence. The ages that succeed this period are divided into three > eras; in each of which we have legends of Gotama. > 1. The era of resolution (1). 2. The era of expres-, sion (2). 3. The era of nomination (3).

As per my understanding during his lifetime, Gautama Buddha, had attained Nibbana with residue. And after death he attained Parinibbana (or Nibbana with no residue). Nibbana with residue is defined as following : > What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a > bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life > fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, > attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released > through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain > unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and > disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of > attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the > Nibbana-element with residue left. During his last days Gautama Buddha felt sharp pain and illness which he suppressed. In other words Gautama Buddha suffered because he was yet to reach his final Nibbana (Nibbana with no residue). > And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda > the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he > suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them > mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed. We describe all sufferings using dependent co-arising.But dependent co-arising of suffering of Gautama Buddha is only possible if Gautama Buddha had failed to achieve the complete cessation of ignorance. Because if he had completely destroyed the ignorance at the very beginning then suffering would have ceased automatically. > From the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes > the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications > comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of > consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation > of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the > cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From > the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the > cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the > cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From > the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. > From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the > cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, > distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire > mass of stress & suffering My question is: How did the suffering of Gautama Buddha(no matter how small) arise or co-arise? My guess is that with incomplete cessation of ignorance came incomplete cessation of fabrications. From incomplete cessation of fabrications came incomplete cessation of consciousness. From incomplete cessation of consciousness came incomplete cessation of name-form. From incomplete cessation of name-form came incomplete cessation of six sense media. From incomplete cessation of six sense media came incomplete cessation of contact. From incomplete cessation of contact came incomplete cessation of feeling. From incomplete cessation of feeling came incomplete craving. From incomplete cessation of craving came incomplete cessation of clinging/sustenance. From incomplete cessation of clinging/sustenance came incomplete cessation of becoming. From incomplete cessation of becoming came incomplete cessation of birth. From incomplete cessation of birth came incomplete cessation of aging ,death ,sorrow,pain , distress. I am not saying that Buddha was ignorant but that there is a possibility that there are levels of ignorance which one needs to transcend like the levels of jhanas .

Gautama Buddha died and had attained final Nirvana. His cleaving to existing objects had ceased. His ignorance was destroyed. He had no upadana or karma left. Yet Buddha said that he will take rebirth as Metteyya . > And the Blessed One replied: "I am not the first Buddha who came upon > earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise > in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with > wisdom in conduct, auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable > leader of men, a master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you > the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach his > religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax, and glorious > at the goal, in the spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a > religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now proclaim." > > Ananda said: "How shall we know him?" The Blessed One said: "He will > be known as Metteyya, which means 'he whose name is kindness.'" In above quote it is clear that Buddha says another Buddha will rise. Is it not the rebirth of Buddha ? (I am not saying rebirth of Gautama but Buddha) My question is if Nirvana means cessation of birth then how is it possible for Buddha to take rebirth?

I want to find the cannon text on learning the jhanas. Is there a pdf or something in english i can download? Any help would be appreciated

> **Syncretism** is a union or attempted fusion of different religions, > cultures, or philosophies — like Halloween, which has both Christian > and pagan roots, or the combination of Aristotelian philosophy with > the belief system of the early punk rock practitioners. I suppose some of my family are Christian, and though I wasn't really raised that way, I'm wondering, if Buddhism is syncretic, as with the Tao in China, how it has or will combine with the Abrahamaic religions. Has there been any serious scholarship charting this, or even, though the idea seems off, predicting it?

I've learned that Lord Buddha has put forward 7 rules on Bikkhunies when female were given the permission to enter the shasana as Bikkhunies. Maha Prajapathee devi & the other princesses were given the permission to be Bikkhunies after agreeing to live accordingly. There is one rule which I really don't undersatnd why Lord Buddha chanted; "Bikkhunies should worship monks who even became a monk on that very day, even though the Bikkhuni is elder in Bikkuni life". As a great philosoper who said men to treat women equally, I really wonder why this rule is put forward by Lord Buddha. Monks are always asked to worship another monk based on the time period lived as a monk. One day during a Dhamma deshana I heard a thero chanting that these rules were added later into Buddhism, by Brahmins, to show that Lord Buddha didn't give equal right to women, which was a practice in their community. Can someone please clarify this to me? May the noble triple gem bless you!

Was reading the article linked to below about how happiness is merely the absence of dukkha in much the same way that darkness is the absence of light. That happiness is alway there. All we need to do is change our mind. We confuse gratification with happiness. We think that accomplishing, achieving, attaining will make us happier but we are misguided. I understand this, it makes perfect sense however say for example I feel lonely because I have no friends. I can sit there and experience what it feels like to be lonely and make peace with that or I can take action to make new friends so that I feel more connected and thus less lonely. If I do the latter then aren't I accomplishing, gratifying etc? Surely it's a good thing to make efforts to connect. Buddhism seems to be saying it's all in your own head but then if this is so why try to change anything? Why go out and try to make new friends when I feel lonely? Why go out and try to make money when I don't have enough? Etc etc. doing these things creates a better life, one of less struggle. Surely that is a good thing and leads to more happiness? http://www.raptitude.com/2010/07/good-news-happiness-doesn 't-exist/

Though to the extent of my admittedly scarce knowledge, decapitation as a simile for some level of attainment is not to be found in the Pali Canon, but I bet the Zen tradition offers countless koans and stories wherein, figuratively, the incumbent experiencer of realization is beheaded, very much to his surprise I would say. If you happen to know a few of these stories, your kind attention in helping me digging out these similes is greatly appreciated. My gratitude for having taken the time to read this.

In day to day interaction, people treat me as if I exist. They say "'Dheeraj' would you like to see a movie?" They say "'Dheeraj' you are married." They say, "Would you like to eat spicy food or non spicy food?" Socially I am acceptable as an individual called 'Dheeraj'. If society is not collectively wrong in their view, then I exist. If society is collectively wrong about me, then myself is an error, illusion or dream, not just for me but for the entire society... Therefore if there is an escape for 'Dheeraj' from Self then it necessarily means that 'Dheeraj' has to escape from the society which believes that 'Dheeraj' exists. From Buddha's point of view if Self is Mara then Society is the follower of Mara as it encourages the growth of self. So my question is: is society the follower of Mara , the evil one?

In the Manorathapūraṇī (a later-day commentary), it is written: > *duve saccāni akkhāsi sambuddho vadataṃ varo sammutiṃ paramatthañca tatiyaṃ nupalabbhati* > > *The Awakened One, best of speakers, Spoke two kinds of truths: The conventional and the ultimate. A third truth does not obtain.* > > *tattha: saṅketavacanaṃ saccaṃ lokasammutikāraṇaṃ paramatthavacanaṃ saccaṃ dhammānaṃ tathalakkhaṇan ti* > > *Therein: The speech wherewith the world converses is true On account of its being agreed upon by the world. The speech which describes what > is ultimate is also true, Through characterizing dhammas as they > really are.* > > *tasmā vohārakusalassa lokanāthassa satthuno sammutiṃ voharantassa musāvādo na jāyatī ti* > > *Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise in the Teacher, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks according to > conventions.* > > *(Mn. i. 95)* Is this saying worldly people understand dhamma different to enlightened people & that worldly people do not understand dhammas as they really are but only how they imagine them to be?