According to Buddhism someone who reach a higher level of Meditation (Samadhi) would be born in the Brahma realm. These beings are not sexually attracted to female gender (They don't have a female gender), They are with or without a Physical appearance. But when Buddhism describe the destruction of a universe it says that beings from almost all the realms are born in this "**Ābhassara World** " which is a Brahma world. --- But how does such a birth happen to any creature when they haven't reached a higher state of mind?

As a monk how would you handle a homeless person who wants to stay in your temple? If you are not a monk just give the hypothetical answer based on your present knowledge assuming you are a monk.

Recently I was chatting with some Christian friends and we were recollecting some of Jesus' teachings - I, particularly, specified a couple aspects of the New Testament that were downright absurd; one is resurrection: one group of Christians believe Christ had actually raised from the dead, and the other that it was a metaphor. The first view is obviously non-scientific, and one might actually argue it makes no sense. I have been reading the nikayas myself and although I have found them to be beautiful, I cannot avoid detecting leftovers of Hinduism and absurdity in Buddha's sayings - if taken literally. I have already asked a question about the absurdity of interpreting rebirth literally, and was satisfied with Buddhadasa Bikkhu's view that it should be interpreted metaphorically - even though Buddha explicitly said that rebirth also happened after death (references can be found in the linked question). I now have read more suttas and am very dislocated with regards to many passages. I list some of them below. *Buddha affirms ugliness is a direct consequence of past lives (MN 135):* > There is the case, where a woman or man is ill-tempered & easily upset; even when lightly criticized, he/she grows offended, provoked, malicious, & resentful; shows annoyance, aversion, & bitterness. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is ugly wherever reborn. *Buddha affirms conception is only possible with the presence of a lesser metaphysical creature to be reborn in the foetus (MN 93):* > "'Do you know how there is the descent of an embryo?' > > "'Yes, master, we know how there is the descent of an embryo. There is the case where the mother & father have come together, the mother is fertile, and a gandhabba [the being about to be reborn] is standing present. The coming together of these three is the descent of the embryo.' *Buddha affirms that Dhamma practise will turn a person into, let's face it, some sort of superman (DN 2):* > With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers. He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. If taken metaphorically, the last quote can make sense. The first and second are fruits of a mind that was born in the VI BCE, before the discovery of genetics and physiology. A previous question has answers that say that to be a Buddhism a person has to have "unwavering faith in Buddha". Does that mean that to become a Buddhist I must give hand of science and start believing nonsense like this? Is it part of being a Buddhist believing everything the Buddha said is true, or must I be discerning and throw away things that are now know to be false? I have already understood that the role of Buddha is taken to be showing mankind the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. These do make sense for me, completely... But I'm stuck with those esoteric aspects of Buddhism.

Subject sounds simple, but let me explain why I'm asking. So Gautama joined the ascetic lifestyle and lived it to the most extreme. Then it dawned on him that he would eventually die never finding out the cause/solution to suffering. Accounts I've seen then vary: He then got up and went begging in a village, other accounts say a farm boy with cattle found him and offered him food, and then there's that story of Sujata with the rice milk which Siddhartha accepted. Going a little further on the last account, he divided the rice milk into 49 potions for the next 49 days, after which he got up and went to the Bodhi Tree where he attained enlightenment. Usually the different stories I read have one or a mix of these events. Now here's where I'm confused. By this point, the Future Buddha had tried extreme mortification, realized that wasn't working, returned to eating to sustain his life, went under the Bodhi Tree, then makes the vow to not leave again until he finds the answer, EVEN til his body is dried and shriveled. How does the Middle Way operate in this part of the story? Isn't he just returning to that previous practice he renounced? What am I missing here? I suppose my analysis of Buddha's life is probably disorganized, but there are certain events and the order in which I find them that I cannot reconcile and make sense in my mind. If anyone can better explain to me this, that would be most appreciated. PS I've asked this elsewhere, and am getting some help, I'm just expanding the search.

What is the difference between an arhat, a bodhisattva and a buddha? References to the scriptures would be most helpful. I'm open to both Theravada and Mahayana perspectives.

I have read a person without senses cannot attain arhatship or even go through the noble eight fold path. But the story of Chakkupala thero confuses me somewhat

Let me clarify,what I want to know is (a) 'An established monastic order' - This the Goenka school is not. (b) With principles and beleifs and aims as close to the Goenka school as possible?

What is the "ease" of the "dharma gate of ease and joy"? Can an unelightened person achieve it outside seated meditation? Ought I ***imagine*** everything is difficult, or everything is easy? How can we be effortful in our everyday lay tasks?

I have heard that when a meditator does a long meditation, he is able to enter into different world, see and hear that world. What are those? Are they just illusion, imagination or different universe?

I've been practicing for about a half dozen years now, have been fortunate to go on several retreats and have a consistent practice. Where I'm currently living I really don't have access to a sitting group I don't have any delusions about being a teacher but several people who know I sit have expressed interest in learning. I was considering doing simple guided sits. Are there any cautions? Should I probably not pursue this without training?

Is there a difference between *abhava* and *vibhava*? Or are those words synonyms? When they are not synonyms, what is their exact meaning.

Is it possible to maintain certain skeptical doubts about literal reincarnation and continue to work towards stream-entry, assuming one's practice is sincere and vigilant?

Has anyone experienced moments like being in a state of restlessness during a dhamma talk? A sense of relief, moment of temporary escape but yet the mind is actively running wild, almost gone into a state where one feels like tearing. I wonder if it could be due to the stress and sorrow the person going through, therefore the person entered into such state of mind. I always thought during dhamma talk, one's mind is supposed to be calm and steady or somewhat shielded from any harmful agent from the outside world. Anyone mind to share? Thanks!

I would like to know if I should expect any problems after I have done my meditation in the morning for a half hour? For the whole morning afterwards, my mind felt very slow to think of anything. Is that a good or bad sign?

In his book Breath by Breath , Larry Rosenberg says that being mindful of the breath, as in the Anapanasati Sutta , is a complete practice and can lead to complete liberation. Following on from that I would think it should be possible to experience all three marks of existence in the breath. From my own practice I can feel both the impermanence and no-self aspects of the breath. They seem fairly evident even with access or just momentary levels of concentration. However I don't see the other mark of conditioned existence i.e. suffering. How can one see suffering in the breath? How does this come about? Are there any traditional or contemporary writings on the subject? Many thanks for any all help

I feel the word enlightenment conveys the wrong meaning if used in context of nibbana. For example, Buddha says that nibbana is similar to a lighted lamp, having taken away the oil and the wick, will not light ("as though a lamp was extinguished" Rathana Sutta - Sutta Nipatha, Chulla Waggo, 2-1, 237). I'm interested in knowing how this word was associated with Theravada Buddhism if anyone knows early references of such usage. Thanks in advance.

Anyone know of any methods of learning languages within a Buddhist setting? Like learning to read and listen to Dhamma talks and suttas or learning conversation with dialogues of a Buddhist nature. I mean, for example, languages like Thai, Tibetan, Chinese, Burmese, Vietnamese, Sinhalese, English, Spanish and German. Actually, I mean any language that could be in a Buddhist setting. Maybe a method of learning both a language and beginning Buddhism , meditation at the same time. Maybe Pali and/or Sanskrit too, that would be teaching three birds with one teaching.

I heard from my teacher that between the insight "equanimity of formation" and the following path insights the meditator can be stuck in a delusion state. This state can only be mastered if the wisdowm faculties are ripe. The meditator cut through this with sharp mindfullness. Does anywhere heart about that?

I was reading some of the writings of Nichiren Daishōnin, and I came across this part where he says that it states in the Vimalakīrti Sutra that, "if the minds of living beings are impure, their land is also impure, but if their minds are pure, so is their land. There are not two lands, pure or impure in themselves. The difference lies solely in the good or evil of our minds" (On Attaining Buddhahood in this Lifetime 4). I assume that he was paraphrasing, but I couldn't find any footnotes about were he got this from. I've never read the Vimalakīrti Sutra, but if there is a passage where this message could have been taken from, I'd be happy to see it. Thank you!

How do we better determine when it is time to use logic and reason and when it is a time to just see things as they are? Note: We don't have to disclose the specific kind of meditation that we practice but it might make our answers less ambiguous -metta