The Buddha put high emphasize on Anicca and thus it shouldn't be dismissed. Now my question: When should one remind oneself of the transience of all phenomena? I doubt in every occassion. If I for example walk or do my daily chores, according to the Buddha I apply Sati on the sense that I remember to not to forget walking. So this then is a rather concentration excercise without pañña (wisdom), right?

I read a comment on this forum, which said: > **why do you even need to work hard attain Nibbana? Why not just commit suicide when things get tough?** This comment gives me the impression the writer believes there are some similarities between suicide & Nibbana. My questions: 1. What are the reasons why people equate suicide with Nibbana? 2. Why is Nibbana totally different to suicide?

Can a arahant recognize other arahants? Can a arahant recognize stream winners, once-returners and never-returners? Can a arahant recognize the spiritual attainment (and conversely, the defilement) of others? If a arahant is able to recognize other arahants, then we may be able to reliably establish a recognized group of arahants in our time, who can be the lead teachers of the sangha worldwide.

If I, for example, was meditating, and the thought came in my mind, say, obsessive-compulsively (meaning it keeps resurfacing due to the fact that the thought bothers me): "I'm a bad person", if I ignored it and returned to my breathing, would my *not* addressing the thought and thinking "No, I'm not, and here's why.." cause me to subconsciously believe I'm a bad person? It's holding me back from meditating because I feel uneasy about dropping the thought.

I was watching this YouTube Video about the [The Buddha And The Beggar](https://youtu.be/VOh6xUIIs3w) My question as mentioned in the comment of that video is why is that the beggar can have only 8 items in the possessions and what are those 8 items? One of the commentator mentioned that the story in thai its 8/100 (eight-one-hundred). It,s not 8 items and the other mentioned that it has something to do with the The Eightfold Path. I have a fair understanding of The Noble Eightfold Path but I do not understand it's relation to my original question. Can anyone shed more light here? What am I missing here? If there is no relation then what is the answer to my original question?

Does any buddhist school, extant or otherwise, say that there is no *svabhava* what-so-ever? I was thinking maybe an early school without the abhidahrma (mahasanghika) or perhaps prasangika-yogaraca in which non duality and convention / absolute emptiness is all there is. However, do these schools say that there is no essence?

When I was searching for the translated name from Chinese 阿那律 to Sanskrit while attempting a *comment* on one post , I entered 阿那律 or Anuruddha to Google it came up with the list and the usual short brief at the right corner of the screen, to my amusement the brief said: > Anuruddha > > **Born: Sri Lanka** Though I open the brief the Wikipedia full page is Born: Kapilavastu, India Is there a movement to relocate Buddhism (not just relocate, but part of the grand scheme to **invent** in the sense of *re-invent* Buddha's teachings) to be originated from Sri Lanka since the Sri Lankan Pali Canon is splendidly adored as the only authentic plus the most early Buddhism's teaching? - As the first step. Now here comes the next step to relocate Buddha gradually first by *migrating* :D !! one of his ten major disciples? I'm diligently waiting to be enlightened in this context.

I read on the internet the following opinion: > *... the view that death marks the end of experiencing, that death is the end of experience... this, according to the Buddha, is wrong > view.* However, Dhammapada 41 states: > Vata Alas! Ayam kåyo This body, Aciram Cannot endure. Apetaviñ > Apetaviññåno When consciousness is gone, Chuddho They throw it away, > Adhisessati Adhisessati To lie, Pathavi Pathavim Upon the earth > Kalimgaram iva Like a fallen log, Nirattham Useless, > meaningless ... Also, the last words of the Buddha from DN 16 are: > *"Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"* If experience did not end at the termination of life, why would Dhp 41 use the word "Alas!"? If experience did not vanish at the termination of life, why should a Buddhist practitioner strive with earnestness?

I find being mindful while sitting on a computer very hard. Most movements with mouse/keyboard are happening so fast and intuitive that it's very hard to be conscious of what the actual intention (by clicking on/typing this or that) is; often this also leads me into restlessness or loosing track of time; I'm sure this is a common phenomenon. Are there certain tricks/tips by which one can be more aware while sitting/working on a computer?

In Yamaka Sutta, this was wrong view: > *As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more (mental) effluents, on the break-up of the body, is > annihilated, perishes & does not exist after death.* In Yamaka Sutta, this was right view: > *Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the > break-up of the body, after death?* > > *Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is > unsatisfactory (dukkha). That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and > gone to its end.* Most Buddhists believe an arahant has ended the cycle of reincarnations. If so, what made the view of Yamaka wrong view? Also, what makes the right view here right view?

Is it fine if you are mindful while doing it? Or did the Buddha denounce such practices as revelling or exaggerating emotions to provide temporary relief? I find that simply being mindful while repressing emotions has a tendency towards leading to passive aggressiveness. To be specific, I mean actions like systematically screaming to release anger, systematically feeling to release sorrow... etc. Purposely releasing these mindstates and going over the top instead of repressing them. What about other traditions aside from Therevada? Do they share a similar view towards catharsis, or is that not the case?

The Pali suttas, particularly in teachings about kamma, has the phrase: "*at the break-up of the body after death*". Are there contexts other than kamma where this phrase is used? What does "*break-up of the body after death*" actually mean in the suttas? Are these words in the language of materialism? Do they have a non-materialistic meaning?

It is said that dependent on becoming birth arises. How can I understand becoming? What is becoming? Can you give me a simile by which I can understand it? For example it is very easy to understand that dependent on birth, death arises because these two concepts are like the two faces of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. How to see becoming to make it clear?

In my interactions with other people I am sometimes very full of my self, proud and vanitous and it leaves me with a bad taste afterwards or it even stops me from taking action in a direction I would desire. Do you know any examples in the Suttas where these conditions of the mind are treated? I am thinking about the perception of a skeleton as a helpful aid in this matter but maybe there are others.

Is this explained in the Pali Canon? >Then the Blessed One went with a large number of monks to the Black Rock on the slope of Isigili. From afar he saw Ven. Vakkali lying dead on a couch. Now at that time a smokiness, a darkness was moving to the east, moving to the west, moving to the north, the south, above, below, moving to the intermediate directions. The Blessed One said, “Monks, do you see that smokiness, that darkness …?” “Yes, Lord.” “That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman: “Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman established?” But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that Vakkali the clansman has become totally unbound.”— SN 22:87

Is pain comprised of the four great elements. I believe it is because it has hardness/softness, coolness/hotness, etc.

I read the Lord Buddha taught nihilism is better than eternalism. In which Pali suttas is this teaching found? Please provide quote the relevant suttas. Please do not give personal opinions.

I have pondered about the buddhist teaching a little bit and I came to a point where doubt arose in me. It is probably because of my skeptical nature (which the Buddha endorsed). So here are certain points that needs to be elaborated upon. There are probably more, but maybe experienced practitioners can help to shed some lights on my criticism, but I doubt they can, unless with good arguments (as always) Critique Buddhism: 1. Suffering is highly exaggerated portrayed. As if nothing positive or good can happen from a bad event/feeling. Suppose one had a good experience and then the person get's back to his ordinary things, a buddhist would exaggerately call this state dukkha and suffering (because the good event was fleeting and now he is back to shithood) Or simple frustration is seen as suffering or dukkha when in fact it's totally natural to feel both positive and negative emotions. Why? So long they are not extreme (i.e.: anger, depression, unhealthy jelousy, self/other depreciation) emotions like concern, frustration, sorry, disappointment, regret, give one feedback. These emotions are less intense and consequently give one more room to act and think rational. 2. People don't learn to act assertively both in speech and deeds 3. Unrealistic goals: "purifying the mind" -> Being always good. No bad tendencies. 4. Buddha is seen as all perfect 5. Was the Buddha really enlightened? Evidence? l 6. Ethics are "too rigid". They might be optional, but trying to be kind all the time will not happed, since humans tend to be fallible 7. Sensual desire. Dropping of sensual desires? No sex? Quite inhumane. See pt. 3 8.While anicca is/might be true, impermanence shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid wealth or pleasure. Everything is transient but to have the experience is still better, for one has a life to experience it (imo) 9. Denegration of sex and the body (see: meditation of the parts of the body) 10. Buddhism isn't wholly tolerant. Look up all the rules bhikkus and especiall bhikkunis have to undertake. Btw, bhikkunis have much more rules to follow. That's sexist and completely contrary to his loving-kindness doctrine(s). 11. Anger or frustration is seen as all bad when they can, perhaps rarely, have benefits, especially the latter emotion. It drives one to act differently to change certain situations and it displays that certain conditions are contrary to our liking which is human. Why? Because we all have preferences (like/dislike) 12. Black and white thinking in the satipatthanna sutta: If one is mindful one is "alive" if one is not "one is like a corpse". No gray zone there. "This path is the only path to liberation" (all or nothing thinking). 13. Absolute thinking: Nirvana. Endless, permanent and absolute absence of dukkha. But all or never conditions are rarely true. 14. The end goal (in this case: Nirvana/Enlightenment) that makes every religion worth striving .Similar to heaven (and avoiding hell). But where really is the evidence? 15. Economic effects of not killing animals or not working in butchery etc. (Right livelyhood, Precepts..) 16. Not killing pesky insects? 17. According to the Buddha the superior live is to be a monk. How will society run if no one is working and rather wants to go for alms? 18. Meditation and/or mindfulness is seen as a panacea. While it has benefits this won't change underlying faulty cognitions (i.e. beliefs, schemas, thoughts) and it can easily be used as a "run away tool". 19. Monks and nuns are not allowed to have sex, dance, sing, the have to look down at certain points in a conversation... that's inhumane and life denying and against our nature! 20. It doesnt teach you how to deal with negative thoughts. It just says observe it or replace it with an opposite. But this rarely works long term! One needs to question the old, to see its irrationalities, that it's illogical and not helpful, and then to replace it with a positive but realistic (that is balanced) new belief which is -again- conform with empirical evidence which helps the practitioner in the long run. 21. Doesnt teach you with other life obstacles that cause the "holy suffering" like divorcing, social problems, money problems etc.. The buddha taught the cessation of dukkha and if these basics arent met, how is buddhism going to work then? 22. How can delusion be a "poison" ? We humans have cognitive distortions on a daily basis. It's a constant in human experience. It's literally wired in our brain to think both rational and irrational and both can be trained individually, in society and is also to an extent biologically determined.

Has pure Buddhism now been lost from the present sociological environment (lost from today's world, lost from present society), until the [Maitreya Buddha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya) will be born?

SN 47.8 (Pali here) is translated as such: > *Bhikkhus, suppose a foolish, incompetent, unskilful cook were to present a king or a royal minister with various kinds of curries: > sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, sharp, mild, salty, bland.* > > *That foolish, incompetent, unskilful cook does not pick up the sign of his own master’s preference: ‘Today this curry pleased my master, > or he reached for this one, or he took a lot of this one, or he spoke > in praise of this one; or the sour curry pleased my master today, or > he reached for the sour one, or he took a lot of the sour one, or he > spoke in praise of the sour one; or the bitter curry … or the pungent > curry … or the sweet curry … or the sharp curry … or the mild curry … > or the salty curry … or the bland curry pleased my master … or he > spoke in praise of the bland one.’* > *That foolish, incompetent, unskilful cook does not gain gifts of clothing, wages, and bonuses. For what reason? Because that foolish, > incompetent, unskilful cook does not pick up the sign of his own > master’s preference.* > > *So too, bhikkhus, here some foolish, incompetent, unskilful bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly > comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in > regard to the world. While he dwells contemplating the body in the > body, his mind does not become concentrated, his corruptions are not > abandoned, he does not pick up that sign. He dwells contemplating > feelings in feelings … mind in mind … phenomena in phenomena, ardent, > clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and > displeasure in regard to the world. While he dwells contemplating > phenomena in phenomena, his mind does not become concentrated, his > corruptions are not abandoned, he does not pick up that sign.* > > *That foolish, incompetent, unskilful bhikkhu does not gain pleasant dwellings in this very life, nor does he gain mindfulness and > clear comprehension. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that foolish, > incompetent, unskilful bhikkhu does not pick up the sign of his own > mind.* ____________________________________________________________ > > *Suppose, bhikkhus, a wise, competent, skilful cook were to present a king or a royal minister with various kinds of curries: sour, bitter, > pungent, sweet, sharp, mild, salty, bland.* > > *That wise, competent, skilful cook picks up the sign of his own master’s preference: ‘Today this curry pleased my master … or he spoke > in praise of the bland one.’* > > *That wise, competent, skilful cook gains gifts of clothing, wages, and bonuses. For what reason? Because that wise, competent, skilful > cook picks up the sign of his own master’s preference.* > > *So too, bhikkhus, here some wise, competent, skilful bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, > mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the > world. While he dwells contemplating the body in the body, his mind > becomes concentrated, his corruptions are abandoned, he picks up that > sign. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings … mind in mind … > phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having > removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world. While he > dwells contemplating phenomena in phenomena, his mind becomes > concentrated, his corruptions are abandoned, he picks up that sign.* > > *That wise, competent, skilful bhikkhu gains pleasant dwellings in this very life, and he gains mindfulness and clear comprehension. For > what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that wise, competent, skilful bhikkhu > picks up the sign of his own mind.”* What specific thing does the word 'nimitta' ('sign') refer to above in SN 47.8?