In the Pali suttas, SN 56.102-113 state those that realise the Four Noble Truth will be 'reborn in the human state' (*manussesu paccājāyanti*). The same message is found in SN 56.47 & SN 56.48, which also state the human state (*manussattaṃ*) is very rare. As for the law of kamma, the message that unwholesome actions lead to pain & wholesome actions lead to pleasure is found in countless suttas, namely: > *'These beings — who were endowed with **bad conduct** of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions > under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, > after death, have **re-appeared in the plane of deprivation**, the bad > destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were > endowed with **good conduct** of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile > noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the > influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, > have **re-appeared in the good destinations**, in the heavenly world.*' However, a sutta named the Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta claims evil-doers can be 'reborn' in the human state, as follows: > *There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a **killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed**, given to killing & slaying, > showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried > out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she > reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower > realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — **instead > of reappearing in the plane of deprivation**, the bad destination, the > lower realms, hell — **he/she comes to the human state**, then he/she is > short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a short life: > to be a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to > killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings.* How can this be? How can one single sutta (Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta) override the doctrine or law found in all of the suttas that a brutal bloody-handed killer of living beings will experience a state beset by suffering? Surely, a killer than feels no pain from killing & murdering is a psychopath.

I read the following on the internet: > *No consciousness as "real thing". The cessation of ignorance means that the illusory nature of all "real things" is realized.* Yet when the Pali suttas describe liberation of mind (citta), this includes liberated consciousness, as follows: > *If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there > is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, > not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it > is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its > contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is > totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the > holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this > world.'* > > *Upaya Sutta* Since the Pali suttas describe the destruction of craving or passion as liberation & Nibbana, is it necessary to view consciousness as '*no consciousness*' or '*not a real thing*' for liberation?

Sensual desire is a hindrance and thus it should be avoided and preferably eliminated (though I'm highly skeptical whether something in the brain can really be "eliminated" regarding emotions - I doubt it.) But we humans have all day long sensual desires. Let it be for food, bodily comfort, music (sound), art (sight), sex, etc. So should we remove all of them (ideally)? Also what is meant by sense restraint? I cannot really fathom it. I doubt that it means to go out with closed eyes and ears, haha. Does it simply mean to avoid certain triggers? (which would answer the first question simultaneously) Thanks in advance

I seem to remember that Mahayana Buddhism said somewhere something along the lines of, "Our Buddha nature (or the Buddha) chooses not to be enlightened". I am not sure if I am remembering this correctly. Does anyone know the teaching to which I am referring, and would someone be so kind as to clear this up, perhaps with some sort of quote, for me?

As per my understanding the only effort I have to make for the cessation of suffering is to realize the Truth as it removes the ignorance. Once I have removed the ignorance rest of the things happen automatically. With cessation of ignorance comes the automatic cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the automatic cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the automatic cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the automatic cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the automatic cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the automatic cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the automatic cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the automatic cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the automatic cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the automatic cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease automatically. Are there any other choices(other than realizing the Truth) I will have to make for the cessation of suffering? Because as per my understanding cessations are happening automatically once I have realized the Truth. If anyone is conscious then does it mean he has not realized the Truth? Because realizing the Truth would mean automatic cessation of Consciousness. Have you met anyone who has realized the Truth but has no intellect consciousness ? Here is the definition of consciousness : > "And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: > eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, > tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. > This is called consciousness.

We are different. Our upbringing is different.Our sanskaras are different. We are made up of sanskaras therefore every self must be different. Yet Buddha says *Practice the truth that thy brother is the same as thou* . It would be great if someone can explain what is meant by the above statement of Buddha?

I want to know how promiscuity affects us? How it binds? What are the after affects of making many sexual partners?

When I wake in the morning I have noticed that in that first moment when I realise I am conscious I feel this kind of yuckiness or sinking feeling. I'm not sure quite how to describe it. I guess it's dukkha? It's a daily realisation about where I am and the effort and discomfort that entails. I don't want to face the daily struggle to survive life. When I'm on retreat I wake up fresh and light with a sense of joyous wonder about what is ahead. I am completely different person. The person I want to be. I suppose retreat isn't really reality. It's like a bubble frozen in time, buffered from external stress. But I want to feel like this in my daily life. I want to wake up and feel like I'm glad to be alive but I don't. I feel more like a slave or a pawn trapped in a shitty capitalist system, being used to prop up the greedy and powerful. I don't feel free in any way. I feel weighed down. what advice can you give me about this? Do I need to try and change how I'm seeing things and if so how? How do I have more of the energised joyous wonder??

Since studying and attempting to adhere to the buddhist path as a lay follower, lately I've been finding it very difficult to connect with friends who are not on the same path. I note that much of the time spent together centers on gossip, politics, and myriad of other self-centered topics. I try not to engage, and/or even change the subject, but I am the only one, so I usually resort to sitting there silently. Any words of compassion or love I attempt to offer to the conversations are generally ignored, or even mocked. I find myself asking "do I need to abandon these friendships?" If so, I would essentially be friendless. Do I seek out other likeminded folk? Where do I find them?

DN 1 states the view of nihilist wanderers, as follows: > *Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form; > it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father > and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed > with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this > point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim > the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent > being.* Is the word 'self' used here in conventional language? Or does the word 'self' here actually represent a belief in self by those nihilist wanderers? If those nihilist wanderers did not believe in 'self' ( and thus used 'conventional language'), why were they not considered to be enlightened?

I try to sit back and look at things more objectively. This is how I see things right now: 1. we are awareness made flesh. with all the senses and limitations associated with being a human flesh creature. 2. our bodies are on a 75 year camping trip. We're roughing it with these senses and subject to the ravages of time which normally doesnt affect us. 3. in our normal forms, as awareness, we only sense vibrations and "warm" events give us resonant vibrations and harmonies. events other than that cause discordant vibrations and we are repulsed by them. 4. when our bodies die we go back to being awareness. That is our only rebirth or afterlife. 5. man has the capacity to move beyond rebirth, but it will never happen until the human race is homogenized physically and mentally. this just happens with time. So I have a definite dispute with the Buddha over the feasibility of working towards an end-goal of Nirvana. Has anyone ascended to date? I believe the true definition is nirvana after death and better lives while alive. Why is this not a more feasible end result? What is wrong with my reasoning?

In the Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta (Sn1.4 and SN7.11) , the Buddha went to get alms from the brahman Kasi Bharadvaja, who hinted that monks like the Buddha, should also work hard by plowing and sowing, in order to earn their meals. To this, the Buddha responded with details on how he plowed and sowed, and reaped the fruit which is deathless. Kasi Bharadvaja then heaped up milk rice from a large bronze serving bowl, and offered it to the Buddha, who said: > **What's been chanted over with verses shouldn't be eaten by me. That's not the nature, brahman, of one who's seen rightly. What's been > chanted over with verses Awakened Ones reject.** That being their > nature, brahman, this is their way of life. Serve with other food & > drink a fully-perfected great seer, his fermentations ended, his > anxiety stilled, for that is the field for one looking for merit. What does this mean? Is food chanted over with verses not good for consumption? Does that apply to the chanting of all religions? The next part of the sutta baffles me: > "Then to whom, Master Gotama, should I give this milk-rice?" > > "**Brahman, I don't see that person in this world — with its devas, > Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its royalty & common people > — by whom this milk-rice, having been eaten, would be rightly > digested, aside from a Tathagata or a Tathagata's disciple**. In that > case, brahman, throw the milk-rice away in a place without vegetation, > or dump it in water with no living beings." > > **So Kasi Bharadvaja dumped the milk-rice in water with no living beings. And the milk-rice, when dropped in the water, hissed & > sizzled, seethed & steamed.** Just as an iron ball heated all day, > when tossed in the water, hisses & sizzles, seethes & steams, in the > same way the milk-rice, when dropped in the water, hissed & sizzled, > seethed & steamed. > > **Then Kasi Bharadvaja — in awe, his hair standing on end** — went to the Blessed One Why is it that this milk rice can be consumed only by a Tathagatha or a Tathagatha's disciple? But then, in the earlier part, the Buddha said that the Awakened Ones would never eat it. Why is this the case? Why did the milk rice hiss, sizzle, seeth and steam when dumped into the water? Why was Kasi Bharadvaja in awe, on seeing that?

Is reiki practice (energy practice) harmful? Is it harmful to advancing in the path? I'm asking, not about getting a treatment, but about doing a course in it: and getting into this whole reiki thing and maybe treating others with it.

In Potthapada Sutta Buddha asks Citta similar question. > "Suppose they were to ask you: 'Did you exist in the past? Did you not > not exist? Will you exist in the future? Will you not not exist? Do > you exist now? Do you not not exist?' Thus asked, how would you > answer?" > > "... Thus asked, lord, I would answer: 'I existed in the past. I did > not not exist. I will exist in the future. I will not not exist. I > exist now. I do not not exist.'... That's how I would answer." If I interpret it correctly Citta essentially says that he existed in the past , will exist in the future and that he is existing now. This conclusion contradicts the position that self is an error, illusion or is like a dream because when an error is corrected it vanishes(self is annihilated). Self has both origin and an end then how can Citta say that he is existing now, he existed in the past and that he will exist in the future? I am simply repeating the question Buddha asked to Citta because the answer looked contradictory to me. The questions are : Did I exist ? Am I existing? Will I exist ?

Why does self-generation as a deity (yidam) require annutarayogatantra empowerment (wang, abhiṣeka), while visualizing it as a separate image doesn't?

Good day to all! Total beginner here hoping not to bother. I was wondering if there are any suggested reads, talks, podcasts or videos one in my starter level should dive into to understand a bit more about buddhist philosophy. I've only watched a few video modules on buddhism and have become quite interested in establishing it as a way of life. Unfortunately there are no buddhist temples or centers in close proximity, so getting information through those means is improbable. Thank you.

I have a tendency to take up many job opportunities for the sake of earning money beyond what is necessary. Can working too much for monetary gain be considered a form of indulgence that leads to the development of greed? Sutta or other textual references are appreciated.

Is there text (e.g. suttas, and/or articles by modern authors) which describes "non-attachment" as an object of meditation? Specifically, how is "non-attachment" an "object"? I'm asking partly because of [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/21787/254) which says: > In the correct practise of Anapanasati, the meditation object is non-attachment. The resultant awareness of breathing is merely a sign (nimitta) that the mind is correctly non-attached. I previously found texts reference more palpable meditation "objects", e.g. [Kasinas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasina) or breathing. I once found something which seemed like it might be a meditation on non-attachment, towards the end of the [Atthi Raga Sutta (SN 12.64)](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.064.than.html) : > Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?" > > "On the western wall, lord." > > "And if there is no western wall, where does it land?" > > "On the ground, lord." > > "And if there is no ground, where does it land?" > > "On the water, lord." > > "And if there is no water, where does it land?" > > "It does not land, lord." > > "In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. However, literally, that's presented more as if it's a simile than as an object or type of meditation. In the context of "meditation on non-attachment", is awareness of breathing a symptom of attachment to (i.e. contact with) form and perception (or if not, why not)? Have I misunderstood what's meant by "the meditation *object* is non-attachment" -- perhaps it means the "the meditation *goal, ambition, or purpose* is non-attachment", but not "the meditation *focus or contact* is non-attachment"?

I read stories about the monk called Cakkhupālattheravatthu, but still don't know how this name is pronounced? Can anyone please tell me the exact pronunciation of this name or word?

Imagine someone buys money in foreign currency, then sells it at a profit. Does Buddhism consider such operations ethical? Note: One possible reason why it may be unethical is the purpose of money -- to facilitate the exchange of products and services. When money becomes subject of trade, it cannot fulfill it main function and this hurts other people. Money to the economy is like blood to human body -- the more blood you remove from the body, the worse it will function.