Does any one know, which is the best posture to be assumed for practicing meditation?

Sorry, I'm a beginner to Buddhism but at least from whatever I have heard buddhism seems atheistic. But I've also heard claims like the Buddha is higher than the 'devas' and all that. Does buddhism believe in god? are there any suttas which can prove otherwise?

Here in India we bath after funeral, But my prior question was "What is funeral law of Buddhism?" and answerer said that when he lived in a forest monastery in Thailand, dead monks & residents were cremated on a pile of wood in the forest & they would practice meditation on the burning corpse. Therefor I think no need to bath but let me know should we bath after funeral?

Does Buddhism propose the possibility of any state of consciousness which feels better than neutral? Many buddhist teachings I have heard so far (mostly by Alan Watts) seem to point to an "ideal" state of consciousness which feels neutral or maybe even not at all, as there is no conscious. Does Buddhism claim to have some path to "eternal happiness" and more than "non-suffering"?

The difference between Theravada and Zen may be like night and day. I favour Zen over Chinese Mahayana because I don't quite prefer the Pure Land beliefs. Hence, I want to compare these two. I already know that in Theravada, one seeks Nirvana and it is sufficient to become a Arahant which is already difficult enough to attain. However, in Mahayana, one aspires to go in the path of the Bodhisattva. However, philosophically and doctrinally, what are the major differences between Theravada and Zen? Please elaborate. For e.g. Zen has Buddha Nature and Emptiness which do not feature in Theravada. Compassion also features more strongly in Zen than Theravada. Zen also has Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth? On the other hand, Theravada strongly emphasizes the Four Noble Truths, Three Marks of Existence, dependent origination and the Noble Eightfold Path. I'm not sure how important these Theravada doctrines are to the Zen tradition. How do these differences in philosophy shape the differences in mindset and world views between the two? For example, are Zen Buddhists more compassionate towards the suffering of others, while Theravadins are more detached from, and thus more apathetic towards the suffering of others? Another example: Are Zen Buddhists more in touch with their emotions in terms of compassion and appreciation of the Buddha Nature and Emptiness in nature and in the world around them, compared to Theravadins who may want to be detached from their emotions? The philosophical and doctrinal differences may also influence differences in terms of practice. Any examples of this?

In Buddhism can there be found any justification (whatever the perceived provocation) for war and military violence?

In an answer to Non-attachment as object of meditation , there was an interesting idea that the essence of many advanced practices is > to be at peace with whatever happens in your phenomenal field - without either suppressing it or getting carried away by it. > > ... You don't get attached to either the thoughtless state, or to any individual thought (or emotion) If so, then what should you do when a delusion, e.g. an attachment, comes to your phenomenal field and starts to develop? Should you be at peace with it and let the attachment develop? It seems to be a question worth some exploration, because we could use various approaches, each might have some merit: 1. Just watch, in a non-attached way, how the delusion develops. Eventually it could help to realize, through direct experience, how the mental processes work. Perhaps that realization could lead to liberation from such delusions. 2. Or we might wish to dissolve somehow that development of the delusion which came to our phenomenal field. Perhaps that might help to reform our mental habits directly. 3. Maybe it could be reasonable to combine those two methods, in accordance with particular circumstances? Then when should we use this or that approach?

I know he did some teaching with his mother in the heaven realms but what other incidents are mentioned in the cannon?

I have been using the Pali Digital Reader to learn Pali (it is a wonderful resource!). Does anyone know of any similar resources for sanskrit? An online software/plugin/reader which makes translating from Sanskrit to English easy and quick? I am studying Sanskrit a lot and spend hours copy pasting words from the sanskrit into the online sanskrit dictionary. I was hoping there is something similar to the Pali Digital Reader out there which would make this process easier? Any help or advice at all is very much appreciated. Thank you so much in advance for your help!!!

Buddhism denies existence of any Self.But I think I can prove the existence of Self as fundamental by the logic of continuity of memories. I define Self as someone who remembers the past essence. Examples to demonstrate the applicability of the definition above: 1. Buddha. Buddha is the essence of Gautama. Buddha's knowledge is immortal. Who remembers this essence? My answer will be that Self remembers Buddha. And moreover because Buddha's knowledge is immortal, that self becomes immortal and therefore fundamental. 2. MySelf. I exist. I can remember my past essence that Truth is Supreme. Who remembers this essence of me ? My answer will be that my Self remembers my essence. Therefore we see that self can be found as someone who remembers past essence.This self is imperishable.

I would like some rules in the form of dos & don'ts to ensure happiness & eradication of miseries for making life calm & serene.

I've found this phrase- > Buddhist logic school of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, which flourished in medieval Kashmir. According to this school, the foundation of knowledge is a series of momentary and discrete perceptual data (svalakshana). There are no grounds in those data for the recognitions of any enduring entities through ostensible cognitions utilizing linguistic or conceptual interpretation (savikalpaka jnāna). But I'm unable to intuitively understand the meaning of Svalakshanam & savikalpaka jnana clearly. Can anyone help?

Which body of the Buddha belongs to the Buddha nature? I suppose all three, but I would be interested to hear otherwise.

Me and my brother visited this pizzeria recently and he ordered two apple juices. Ryder's Wild Apple to be exact. I drank a sip of it and it tasted and smelled a bit like alcohol and obviously had the apple taste. But it had that beer smell. And then only I saw the label 8.8%. And I stopped drinking after it. Did I break my 5th precept? I'm a person who doesn't take my precept very lightly. But I want to know whether I broke my 5th precept or not.

In a lot of Buddhist literature you will find passages suggesting that our Buddha nature is actually "nothingness" or "emptiness". I was wondering if this was true? I'm starting to doubt this claim because of the Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya is one of the three bodies of Buddha which is transcendent. While some say that the Dharmakaya "is" nothingness, others claim that it is neither part of space (emptiness and form) nor time. The idea is that everything, including nothingness (emptiness), originated out of the Dharmakaya. It's an impersonal force which holds everything together, originated everything, and maintains everything through a transcendent state. **My question**: What is the proper understanding of the Dharmakaya and it's relationship with our Buddha nature? Is it the Buddha nature or not?

I don't like human beings because of their ego centric nature. They have destroyed nature- plants, species, morality, love, harmony etc. I just wish whole human species vanish or come to end. They have messed up the perfect nature. How can I develop love or Metta towards human beings? What are the ways by which I can develop love towards who are not doing such works to be loved?

Many Buddhist texts and teachings make a distinction between absolute and relative truth. Please explain the difference and give some examples.

I've been practicing mindfulness of breath (*Anapanasati*) lately and noticed this phenomena. During the initial few minutes, the breathing is generally short, but as the mind starts concentrating and gets still, the breathing becomes slower and slower. In fact, some times, I feel like one in/outer breath is taking like minutes. What actually causes this phenomena?

I have heard that the Buddha once stated that he only teaches the cause of suffering and the end of suffering. 1. Can I have a Sutta reference for this? 2. What happened to the other two of the four noble truths? Doesn't he teach them? Why did he only specify two?

If enlightened beings aren't bothered by pain, why did occasions happen where Buddha was unable to give a lecture because the pain was so severe or when he had to meditate to lessen the pain he was feeling. Surely if the pain truly didn't bother him, he could have just continued as normal without needing to do anything special. Thanks.