I have heard that in the birth where Gautama Bodhisathva met Deepankara Buddha, he had many powers but he didn't use it to prepare the road the Buddha was supposed to walk across but used his own effort. Where can I find further details of this story?

If someone is attacking you to kill you should you defend yourself? Would it be ethical to kill an intruder coming into your home? If not, how did the bushido samauri warriors justify it? We're they wrong?

I am reading "A Critical Analysis Of The Jhanas" And it's talking about the way to reach the first jhana. This passage below. > Block quote The Pa:isambhidāmagga explains them as follows: For one developing the first jhāna, the hindrances are abandoned by way of suppression. For one developing concentration partaking of penetration, wrong views are abandoned by way of substitution of opposites. For one developing the supramundane path that leads to their destruction, (defilements) are abandoned by way of cutting off. At the moment of fruition they are abandoned by way of tranquillization. And abandoning by deliverance is nibbāna, cessation.2 (Wr. tr.). ` The question is, isn't the first jhanas all about concentration? So why did it say if you want to reach the first jhana you must partake in abandonment by suppression, and to reach concentration you must abandoned by way of substitution of opposites. Isn't it all dedicated to concentration?

I am learning the 8 jhanas. And in the book im reading it states the five factors of possession are opposed of the 5 hindrance. What are initial thought and discursive thought? I can't find a definiton.

Would the imposition of Asimov's three laws of robotics make a robot act in a Buddhist manner? > * A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. >* A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. >* A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. In this case I think we can associate "human" with "higher power or morality" - be that suttas, kamma, laws, or whatever.

If you are happy, you will have to face sorrow right? So I am being told to just observe everything with equanimity or Anapana. TBH which is very boring So I observed that instead of thinking of everything leads to sorrow in this world, why not enjoy this moment. (Is is necessary to keep observing when you are happy.) After all we want Nirvana because **we are looking for a being in a state of something eternal**, Which is equanimity. **According to me Equanimity is not happiness for sure.** In [this](https://www.ted.com/talks/jim_holt_why_does_the_universe_exist) Video Philosopher and writer Jim Holt says **we can't live like dead humans as per Buddhism** and think like a western. I have experienced intoxication occasionally and I was in to Anapana for nearly a week and I have kept myself safe from any kind of intoxication for a year, everything was going smooth breathing while walking, lying, sitting, talking not always but I was satisfied with my pace of being aware. But this weekend I had nothing to do and suddenly a teeny tiny thought arises which says to get drunk and at the same time one of my friend said the same thing and we get drunk. I was still trying to figure out what is happening in mind, Why I am feeling different now. I know I should not be drinking is there anyway I can punish myself. I was actually scared of getting attacked by mind when alone. It attacked. Should i keep in doing Anapana as i believes that it cuts your Karmic chain for the moment.

I have been reflecting on suffering and it seems to me that, since everyone is suffering and yet most people around me seem happy and contented, there is a way to live "happily" despite suffering that is accessible to everyone, Buddhist and non buddhist alike. None of these "happy" people I know are Buddhist - most have no spiritual beliefs. I'm mainly talking about the people at my work: I am the youngest and all the others are middle aged, I have a healthy body and most are overweight or have pain from age related problems, most have children which (from the sound of it) is a big source of suffering. I admit I have depression (I have had it since I was abused as a child by a parent and don't expect it will ever go away), and I only have one friend (probably due to depression too), but I feel that objectively I am suffering less than everyone I spend time with even though it doesn't seem that way. If this is true then I must be missing something really big, if I'm here trying to learn the way to escaping suffering but my colleagues are already halfway there without thinking about it. It seems like every day takes all my effort just to get through, but my colleagues are doing the same work happily AND raising kids (for example). My teacher seems to teach only that you can ignore suffering if you focus on imagined, "happy" scenarios, and that thia can even heal my depression if I brainwash myself enough, but I am questioning this as Buddha clearly said that only enlightenment is the cessation of suffering. What does Buddha teach about how to live well while suffering? Do I need to suffer more to toughen myself up against suffering - am I too "soft" because I've lived a life relatively free of pain? Have my older colleagues already suffered so much that they are beginning to be free of it? Is it really just about ignoring the negative emotions and exhaustion I constantly feel, and lying to myself until it becomes true? None of that seems right but my teacher seems so sure. (She is New Kadampa - I don't know where that sits under the various Buddhist umbrellas.)

I feel concern for others, but like my efforts in anything are wasted. Is there any practice I could engage in, to remedy the latter? I've been taught meditation in a handful of contexts. What about sort of focusing on or keeping that feeling of nothing mattering, during zazen? Caveat: I won't believe in other lives, only karma.

It is of certain interest to me how does buddhism view the mechanics of karma accounting. By accounting I mean the weighing of intentions and outcomes and adjustment of the karmic ledger of the reincarnated unit - without a "supercomputer" to calculate all the expected probabilities. Consider this example from the book [https://www.amazon.com/Three-Levels-Spiritual-Perception-Commentary/dp/0861713680] "The three levels of spiritual perception" by Kunga Tenpay Nyima: *"... there is a story in the Jakata Tales of one of the earlier lives of the Buddha as a bodhisattva. In that rebirth he was a sailor. While crossing a river in a ferry, through his bodhisattva's prescience he realized that one of the passengers was planning to kill all five hundred people aboard the ship. Quick as a wink, he killed the person intending the evil act. By doing so, he saved not only the other passengers but also the person who was planning to kill them, preventing him from committing such a terrible sin. Even though he did this at the price of killing a living being himself, because his intention was so good, and was motivated by compassion, both for the other passengers and for the would-be killer, it was, on balance a meritorious action."* Note the complexity of this scenario, and also extend it a bit in your imagination with other people suspecting that the killing could take place, and also the killer himself still debating in his mind as to whether to proceed and sink the ship. The bodhisattva could also not be 100% sure that the deed will eventually take place - as Buddhism rejects _complete determinism_ and fatalism. There were other passenger with their intentions and decisions to act or not to act, passengers whose karma was to be punished on this ship and by not dying on that day the balance could have been changed for the worse. Imagine there were future killers among the passengers, etc etc. There was a web of intentions, partial knowledge, and unknown outcomes. 1. How does karma calculation proceed in this case without a supercomputer? 2. How can we, as individuals, choose the right course of action without knowing the outcome of this complicated karmic accounting?

Stupa/Chorten, Pagoda, Vihara are places to achieve peace. But I never thought that those places are graves. I found this, [Symbolism of the Stupa/Chrten](http://buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/buddhist-art/stupas.htm) : > The perfect proportions of the Buddha’s body corresponds to the design of religious monuments. Its architecture developed from the pre-Buddhist Indian grave-mound. Under these mounds the saintly ascetic were buried; their bodies were seated on the ground and covered with earth. These dome-shaped graves, or tumuli, of the saints were regarded as holy places. And were destinations for pilgrimage for the devotional and places of practice for meditators. The right side of figure shows stages: **Void, Wind, Fire, Earth.** Does that mean all those monuments are explaining life (body and soul)? The Buddha said this about the body of living being (quoting the 7th point at the bottom of page 131 of [The Buddha and His Dhamma by Dr B. R. Ambedkar](http://www.ambedkarintellectuals.in/attachment/4.buddha-and-his-dhamma.pdf)) : > The body of a living being consists of the **combination of four great elements, viz., earth, water, fire and air,** and when this combination is resolved into the four component elements, dissolution ensues.

This page shows each feature of a pagoda symbolizing the steps to Nirvana. In Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta , S. N. Goenka mentions a similar symbolism on how the pagoda relates to the Maha Satipatthana Sutta: > In every chapter the repetition of certain words indicates the importance of this sampajañña. Ātāpī sampajāno satimā applies to the observation of kāya, vedanā, citta and dhammā: sampajañña has to be present. Similarly samudaya-, vaya-, and samudaya-vaya-dhammānupassī, which apply everywhere in the Sutta, have to be with sampajañña and sensations. **For example, in Myanmar there are many pagodas on plateaus, with four staircases, one each from the east, west, north and south. Similarly you might start with kāya, vedanā, citta, or dhammā, but as you enter the gallery they all intermingle in vedanā, and reaching the shrine room it is the same nibbāna. Whichever staircase you start climbing, you come to vedanā and sampajañña: and if you are with sampajañña you are progressing step by step towards the final goal.** Are there any other forms of symbolism regarding pagodas and the Maha Sattipattana Sutta and other suttas covering Samatha meditation subjects?

Can i have a list "If there is one" of the different objects for building up the first jhana?

I have read many Q&As here on ignorance but I am concerned with the recognition of my own ignorance on particular topics. I feel like recognizing my ignorance helps me to reduce my identification with my limited understanding and the opinions and emotions this brings up. I feel like it keeps me from feeling any need to argue about things I recognize I am not well informed about, and rather communicate how my limited understanding connects to things I believe in. For lack of a better word it seems to help me with equanimity, this posture of recognizing that I just don't know. Maybe ignorance is the wrong word, but I am wondering if Buddhism addresses this idea.

Although it could well be that those words were not directly from Gautama himself, yet just in case, assuming Gautama probably wouldn't lie except for educational purposes, how can those rather surreal descriptions of the world, which again share (too) many similarities with the hinduist ones, reconcile with modern science? Should one just regard them as "white lies" so that Buddhism be more easily accepted? How self-consistent are those descriptions anyways? Also, I read somewhere before that those "insights", including Karma could be partially gained/observed through meditation. How true is this statement in terms of canonical literature reference?

In relation to the sutta SN 47.42 can you explain how you understand the following? > “With the origination of name-and-form there is the origination of > mind. With the cessation of name-and-form there is the passing away of > mind. > > “With the origination of attention there is the origination of > phenomena. With the cessation of attention, there is the passing away > of phenomena.” SN 47.42 I also wish to know the difference between four nutriments and the condition (*paccaya*) in dependent origination.

From what I have read, Buddhism seems provide a practical path to follow in everyday life for a commoner to lead a life with lesser Dukkha and a rigorous path aimed at Monks seeking nirvana. But do any Buddhist teachings prescribe rules for nation building and politics? For example, in Hinduism (Sanathana Dharma), there is Arthashastra which gives a Dharmic way to engage in politics and run the country. Since there are nations whose state religion is Buddhism (Cambodia, Bhutan, etc), does Buddhist teaching have anything about laws for governance (like the Sharia law in Islam)?

My teacher has been talking about how each person's reality (including the body) is in fact an illusion generated by the mind in each moment. As an extension of this, she teaches that there are no "good" or "bad" people, things or circumstances - the way things appear and the qualities they have are all coming from my own mind. I think I kind of understand this as a metaphor, but I don't understand how she can seem to literally believe this: for example, during the teaching session I was very hungry. I thought, "I can meditate and come to ignore how hungry I am- but if I did that every time, one day I would die of starvation, whether I was aware of that in my mind or not. So surely hunger is actually "real" and not just in my mind - because it will lead to me dying unnecessarily unless I react to it?" Another example I thought of was murder. I can believe everyone is neither good nor bad, and via compassion, everyone will seem good. But surely it doesn't matter how I imagine a situation is going in my mind - if I meet someone who tries to murder me, for example, they will kill me, regardless of how loving I believe them to be. My death would occur regardless of my mind (but if I had listened to my mind, I might have been able to avoid the death that would result from interacting with that person). I understand that death isn't "good" or "bad" either - but how does the dharma explain the division between "mind reality" and actual physical reality that can kill me no matter what my mind does? Another quick example: medication for mental illness. I had a teacher once who endorsed mentally ill people stopping all medication, because it was only a placebo - but if that's true then why is it that an unmedicated schizophrenic (for example) would be physically unable to meditate (and cure themselves, as my teacher suggested) most of the time, as they would be too ill to concentrate? Isnt that an example of physical chemicals (drugs) being "stronger" than the mind (calming the mind so that it can begin to meditate)? Apologies if I'm being ignorant, or if I sound critical. I feel like I'm missing some vocabulary that would help me explain better. Thanks for reading :) (Edit: I also have a very similar question/example: why does it result in good karma when you feed starving people, if the food, the pain of starvation, and even your good deed is just an illusion in the minds of you and the starving person? Obviously if I had a sandwich, and I saw a child who was hungry, I'd give them all of the sandwich. But then isnt the child receiving negative karma for causing ME to go hungry, even though it was my choice? And why bother at all if only karma is real - the child's hunger isn't "real", so why end it?)

I see it everywhere in my book on jhana. but don't truly understand it's meaning or even find a definition.

1) How are cetasikas expressed? Could they be expressed as how the mind is orientated, thus influencing how, when, and what cittas arise? 2) Do cetasikas therefore play any indirect role in the patticasamuppada process (dependent origination, did I spell the Pali right), say, for example, by governing what vēdana arises in response to contact?

Are Therevada's cosmology and the Mahanaya's sutras physically, rather than only psychologically, plasusible? I read about the former in the abhidharmakosabhasyam, about all the hells and heavens that await us. And the Mahayana sutras often include reference to e.g. celestial bodhisattvas. I'm skeptical that these things have physical, rather than psychological, truth, empirical (we've this heaven) or otherwise (we have evidence that these heavens exist). As with with classical georgraphy, and history. My specific question is: - do we have good reason to believe that physics will end up allowing a Buddhist timeline of events?