There are multiple question related to this already asked, but none of the response or question address as to why children are presented in Buddhist text as inessential, such as these: > … That is not a strong fetter, the wise say, which is made of iron, > wood or hemp. But the infatuation and longing for jewels and > ornaments, children and wives — that, they say, is a far stronger > fetter, which pulls one downward and, though seemingly loose, is hard > to remove… again > … Ten children I bore from this physical heap. Then weak from that, > aged, I went to a nun. She taught me the Dhamma and again > …. Those with children grieve because of their children. Those with > cattle grieve because of their cows. A person's grief comes from > acquisitions, since a person with no acquisitions doesn't grieve… again What the Buddha said to Visakha when she express her wish to have as many children & grandchildren. > “those who have a hundred dear ones have a hundred sufferings” and many more can be listed. With such representation, how do lay Buddhists reconcile have children ask skillful?

Why do Buddhists argue that nirvana is nothing in addition to the skandhas? I found this, and I hope it suffices to demonstrate that's what the Buddha taught: > "What do you think : Do you regard the Tathagata as being in > form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than > feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In > fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... > Elsewhere than consciousness?" > > "No, my friend." > > "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as > form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" > > "No, my friend." > > "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without > feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without > consciousness?" > > "No, my friend." > > "And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a > truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to > declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a > monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is > annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?" The quote seems to say that the Tathagata is not without form feeling etc.. If nirvana were something in addition to the aggregates, then I'm thinking the Tathagata would be *without the aggregates*. On the grounds that nirvana is all that the Tathagata is.

Ven. members of the Sangha (coming across here), Valued Upasaka, Upasika, Valued Team here and for awakening seeking readers, whether young or old, lay person or ordained, since child one would be trained in generosity after having made merits, may it be just a recitation, veneration, after a giving, after taking precepts, after a meditation session, after having listened to Dhamma. In traditional countries there are many deep and beautiful verses used an known. Here some may know a traditional recitation as sample: [Dedication of Merit](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/dhammayut/chanting_en.html#merit) - Do you know or even practice a certain Verse and feel inspired sharing it? - Do you know good and nice sources (not commercial but dedicated as Dana) of valuable Verses in various languages? Feel inspired to share you ways and possessions. If inspired to even share an audio of your recitation, feel invited to do such here: [Rejoice with others & sharing merits *pattanumodāna & pattidāna*](http://sangham.net/index.php/board,5.0.html) . You can link it into here and no need to take uninvited space or contracts anywhere. *[Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma, and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains.]*

Today I happen to read the article “Charitable giving by country: who is the most generous? ” Then this question came up. When it comes to generosity, sometimes people look at what they’ve got and they’d like to be able to give much more. They’d like to make a more impressive offering, but their means are limited. So they have to content themselves with giving limited gifts. So what do you think happens when your tank is empty, and you’ve got nothing left to give?

I recently bought this *Ayya Khema Ebook Bundle* . I bought the bundle for my own interest in the first place but after reading in them I would now like to share them with my friend, who is just starting out on the Buddhist Path. Can I share the books I bought with my friend or should I buy the Ebook bundle again in order to share it? Thank you for your time.

For those who are scared of growing old and death, what would be a well thought out response be? My first thoughts on it would be, if you learn to meditate, you are going to enjoy your old age, and you will never fear death. But that is not an answer that will go down well with many people. So this is a question that cries out for a mature, seasoned response?

There’s a passage where the Buddha says that the reason we get so stuck on sensual desires, sensual pleasures, is because we don’t see any other alternative to pain. But when you see that there is the alternative and, as you reflect on it, you see that it has fewer drawbacks, greater rewards, and that you can learn how to tap into it when you need it, then it can be your new attachment—a better one. Does anyone know in which sutta that this passage is found? Could someone help me in this?

The question that I was asked recently and couldn’t come up with a proper answer to was, > "Please explain to me why I have to suffer due to a thing that a person in a past life has done that I have no control over?" Supreme Buddha says that we suffer because of our mis-perceptions of things, seeing constancy in what’s inconstant, pleasure in what’s painful, self in what’s not-self, and attractiveness in what’s really unattractive. So the question that I am asking is in relation to this question, that an ordinary person who is suffering, and has little understanding about this ‘otherness’ that is found in the dhamma, once asked.

How can women get male anima? Women bear many sorrowful feelings all of their lives. So how can they escape those lives and be men?

When I practice meditation I focus on the rising and falling of my abdomen and if any thoughts or sensations arise I note them and continue focusing in the breath but I notice that I'm very sensitive to sound. I am acutely aware of all the sounds going on around which is a never ending cacaphony of nearby people, traffic, wildlife etc. I was using earplugs for a long time because I found it too distracting but I decided to stop using them and now I am finding the sounds very much in my awareness a lot of the time and I can't seem to focus on my breath. So I note "hearing hearing" but like how long am I suppose to keep noting hearing ? If I sit for an hour and the sounds keep capturing my attention do I just keep noting hearing hearing every few seconds in the same way I do for thinking thinking?

How can it be proper for a meditator who does not yet see reality as it is... ...to judge other people so easily? There is so much potential for subtle misuse of power, I mean I know I would be corrupted if it were me. Not grossly corrupted(hopefully) but subtly corrupted because I am unaware of my subtle transgressions. Even though I do say this out of ego I would hope that I am also saying it out of compassion for our admins. I am not trying to argue as I was hoping we might agree. If the admins think this causes too much fuss or arguing then the admins can react and censor this inquiry. My point is that we need admins, but a practicing admin, that seems like a contradiction but that is just my opinion. If it is appropriate for a practitioner to behave like some kind of police officer then please enlighten me on the reasons it is appropriate... ...or just take the easy way out and censor this question.

Among the *40 Kammattana* how can I choose more suitable Kammattana for me?

It is said that a person can choose to return to samsara to help others after being reborn in Pure Land. But has anyone claimed to be that particular kind of person? I am not talking about those who claimed to have visited Pure Land in meditation or dreams. But those who was a human, rebirthed in a Pure Land, instructed by Buddhas and bodhisattvas in that Pure Land, then chose to rebirth back as human on earth to help other beings.

The knowledges(nanas) start at realizing mind and body. After the last knowledge, the practitioner goes back to realizing mind and body again? Is that correct? What is the difference between the first time realizing mind and body and the second time realizing mind and body?

Metta, According to Buddhism, the soul is absent but karma is there. How it's possible without Soul, Karma would present. After the death, due to the karma of a person, he will rebirth. If the soul is absent how he will take rebirth. 2nd doubt, In Buddhism there are 2 Sects. In Hinayana - Acceptance the teaching of Buddhism. In Mahayana - Acceptance of Idol of Buddha. My question is Buddha is a God or Preacher. Eh Ma Ho, SURESH BABU

According to Buddhist doctrine and Buddhist scriptures, have all human beings got the capacity for compassion or are some humans born without the ability to feel compassion. I appreciate that this question may have a particular answer from a scientific point of view but I'm interested what the Buddha or Buddhist teachers have to say.

I am curious about how to think about the *four immeasurable minds* in a practical way, please help me make sense of them (see detailed question below) ### Background In the book *Teachings on Love* by Thich Nhat Hanh he translates *Mudita* as Joy rather than *Sympathetic Joy* and explains that while other commentators have translated as *Sympathetic Joy* he prefers *Joy* because "Joy is for everyone" This got me thinking that it may be practical to see two sides of the immeasurables (another example would be self-compassion) ### My thinking so far Below is how i like to think of the four immeasurables Metta: * Self-love * Loving kindness towards others Karuna: * Self-compassion * Compassion for others Mudita: * Joy * Sympathetic joy Upeksha: * Peace/Equanimity * Non-discrimination - between self and others, between good and bad This way of thinking about them splits each of the first (*metta*, *karuna*, *mudita*) three into two parts, one for one-self and one for everyone else In Buddhism we don't want to make a harsh distinction between self and others but from a practical point of view this can (for example) help us to remember to have self-compassion. One downside is that there is a larger risk of not seeing our suffering as the suffering of others and the suffering of others as our own The last (upeksha) i have divided into two parts where the first is inner peace for oneself and the other is non-discrimination ### Question Is this (above) a practical way to think about the four immeasurables? (Practical in the sense of getting closer to living in line with them). **Are there other ways to think about them that you can recommend and that can help us achieve living with them on a daily basis?** (Please provide references to books or other materials if you can) Grateful for help and with kind regards, Tord

What did the Buddha *really* meant with 'kalapas' (those ultra small particles of existence, that arise and pass away at an incredible speed)? Is there a correlation between those kalapas and the emptiness of all things (sunnata)? Can those kalapas be considered as the 'source' for all manifestations?

What is the reason? It seems to be to train concentration while avoiding one pointedness? Might the lack of one pointedness be counter productive at some point?

I want to know why swastika is reverse in both the religion and what is the meaning of each sign?
Someone within this forum said below lines on which I want to know what you people have to say on it and I want to know what's right.
> In Buddhism drawing right hand side swastika 卍 (Good, positive, solar aspects, movement clockwise 'with' the currents of Nature) means non-violence, peace.

In Hinduism drawing left hand side swastika 卐 (Evil, negative, lunar aspects, movement counter-clockwise 'against' the currents of Nature) means violence. Please enlighten me.