I feel that Buddhism is not what it used to be (the original teachings of Lord Buddha). It has got corrupted and what is left mostly relates terminology and worldly-matter and excuses. For-example: recently I came across a question in which someone said Buddhism teaches it is okay to eat meat, drink wine, etc. with various excuses such as it's okay as long as the animal isn't killed particularly for you and so on. I think, like Christianity and Hinduism, the teachings of Buddha are mis-interpreted for one's own benefits and the discipline with which Buddhism started out has long faded. Neither remains the atheism which Buddha preached, for example see: [this](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/13872/did-buddha-walk-on-water-was-jesus-trained-as-a-buddhist) . People have forgotten the abstract concepts and the Buddhist way of life and instead focus on miracles, folklores and powers that Buddhists monks possess. The question:
Do you think so too? If so, provide references of Buddha's teachings being mis-interpreted. If not, tell me then what was it that Buddha forbade, and if it was nothing, then why is Buddhism a religion? Shouldn't it be just living your life the usual way?

Do you have any suggestion on how to view the *act* of sexual intercourse objectively? For example, when we view a lady, we view her as a composite of flesh, bones, feces, pus, joint oil, etc. Similarly in which way can we address sex neutrally without labelling it as good or bad? This is because I have learnt to remove my lust for the human flesh, but not for the sexual act. Is there any thought based method using which I can achieve this feat? Similarly while using urge surfing, when a lustful desire comes up I repeat in my mind "pleasure, pleasure" -- similarly how can I combat a desire to have sex through this technique as I am on a period of abstinence?

Both the Theravada and Tibetan systems distinguish between two *aspects* of meditation -- **concentration** (aka shamata, serenity, calm abiding, shiney or zhiney (Tib.)) and **insight** (aka vipashyana, lhatong (Tib.)). (Some call them *types* of meditation, but I prefer *aspects*, since you need your concentration skill while doing insight work -- in fact, that is what concentration is for -- but you can at different times be aiming at one or the other.) The question -- does Zen make a similar distinction? I realize Zen is not monolithic, so answers for specific schools are fine.

Given that there are 'intentions' (*cetanā*) which lead (if they're not neutral) to either wholesome fruits or unwholesome fruits -- then is the same also true for 'purpose' (*sankappa*), i.e.: - Are there wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral purposes? - Which purpose could be 'wholesome' (if there is a purpose that fits that description)? - What is the difference between a 'wholesome' and 'unwholesome' purpose? - How could a wholesome purpose look like? Definitions: - 'Purpose': objective, agenda, goal, target (outwardly, 'more or less', 'near and far', 'time and place'). - 'Intention': state of *ceto* in action (inwardly) Samples: - If your purpose is to accumulate (material things, a state of becoming): is it possible to maintain wholesome intentions? For example: you like to have a monastery be built, you like to have a medi-community to grow, to be maintained. - If your intention is wholesome, is it possible to strive after a non beneficial purpose? - If your purpose is to let go (of material things, states of becoming): is it possible to maintain unwholesome intentions? For example, you have buliding material and you are willing to let go of it, you have time and you are willing to let go of it. - If your intention is unwholesome, is it possible to strive after a beneficial purpose?

Namo Buddhaya I want to ask something related to vegetarianism in Buddhism. This question started when I read about vegetarianism according to several schools of Buddhism such as Theravada and Mahayana. According to Theravada, the Buddha allows Buddhist and monks to consume meat if it is not seen, heard, or suspected as a sentient being is not slaughtered only for the eater. This is stated in Jivaka Sutta, MN 55. There were also monastic guidelines in Theravada stated that Buddhists are prohibited to eat 10 types of meat such as humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas. This is because these animals can be provoked by the smell of the flesh of their own kind, or because eating of such flesh would generate a bad reputation for the Sangha. This makes sense for me but why is cat not included ? So, the monks are not prohibited to eat meat and the rule is also not stated in the Vinaya (227 Patimokkha precepts). According to Mahayana, the Buddha doesn't allow his followers not to eat any kind of meat. Even if vegetarian food has been touched by meat, it needs to be washed away before it can be eaten. The Mahayana's precepts refer to the Dharmadatu. It means when you eat the flesh of a sentient being, it is the same as you eat the flesh of a single dhatu. For example, when you eat a chicken's flesh, it is the same as you eat the flesh of the chicken's mother. The 2 schools have made me confused which one is the right one? Why the Buddha's preaching about vegetarianism is not same in Theravada and Mahayana schools. Is the Buddha who preached about those not only Sidharta Gautama? However, because of this confusing, I take the own way or Middle way, that is, not to eat meat too often in order to save the world because of the green house gases. I hope the Buddhists here can help me to attain bright explanation of vegetarianism in buddhism. I'm sorry if there are misintrepreted sentences from me. Thank you Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta. I hope all sentient beings can live happily.

What is the explanation of Ahankaara(Ego) & Swabhimaan(Self Respect) as per Buddhism ? Is there any way something in a way so that one keeps his **self respect** without showing **Ego** ?

it is a well-observed fact that that the cycle of emotions never cease to exist, but they do follow a defined route which I shall refer to in this question as the SFE route namely: A sensation-----feeling-------emotions(----represents"gives rise to")say, when I eat a doughnut, the sensation is of eating, feeling of pleasure, and emotion of happiness. how can I use a similar mindset of this technique to counter lust like emotions which arise and disturb through my meditation practice and sometimes cause me to relapse on my bad track of sexual misconduct. for eg: when a lustful thought emerges in my mind is suppress it easily by satipathana and mindfulness however when a thought arises related to the act of copulation, it becomes impossible to suppress it as it is very difficult to view the act objectively.(i.e without any biased feelings and from a neutral point of view).this thought then keeps appearing until I finally give into my bad ways of self-pleasuring as I am a novice-in-training and not being accepted due to this reason. P.S: please forgive me if this answer seems to violate or copy other answers, i am new to the various technicalities of this website and will take time to adjsut.

In what ways have Buddhists responded to the apparent impossibility of saving all sentient beings? Do they claim that it isn't impossible, or only need be partially achieved, or that not all Buddha's took this vow, or what?

I like this verse, it is simply stated, and I like simple statements that can be made into something, or understood as, important. But I'm totally unsure how to make sense of its four (famous) components! I probably think that "emptiness" means no causation, the idea that conditioned (caused) things don't exist in **reality**: that any *supposed* knowledge about them is bound to be found out as a form of *ignorance*. So then I understand them as: - causation isn't real - this is real - we can study this - and we already are Is that an OK-ish understanding, or have I fallen into a trap? If it is, do all four of these teachings **permanently replace** our deluded conceptualisations?

In this video it is said that Buddha walked on water. Is that true and written down? And why did he do that? It also says that Jesus might have been trained in the ways of Buddhism? Is there evidence to support this?

My general observation about religions is that they have this fundamental assumption of fear of something. For example, fear of punishment or getting into hell is present in many religions. Buddhism too has this fear of rebirth in lower realms, but also a fear of getting into sadness (dukkha?) These days people of modern outlook tend to discount such fears as childish and practically useless. While a philosophy that distinguishes between harmful and beneficial will still be valid to a general society even after religions disappear. How can Buddhism be helpful to a secular society that does not have any irrational fear of hell or getting into sadness? Additionally, how can Buddhism be useful to a practical society concerned with real harm and benefit?

Hello regarding the reclining Buddha statue here in this link http://www.buddhastatuesnow.com -- What are the differences between this and other reclining statues in Asia? I have seen several and this one is different. For example the fingers are much longer and the Buddha appears happy while in other countries he is more solemn and hands are not so prominent. Thank you for any info you can provide!

I have heard a story in which a concubine of a certain Deva died while she was with him and other concubines of him in a park. She was born as a human in next life but she remembered who she was in her last life and so she wanted nothing but to return to her deva. So she lived a virtuous life and was born among the very bunch again. Her death has gone unnoticed and her deva asks her where she's been. Here she tells him about her human life and he is amazed by the short life of humans as they are still in the very same park enjoying it's beauty, remaining there since the last time she was a deva (A whole human life spent in a single visit to a park) I have often seen this story used as an anchor by monks to explain the length of life in higher realms saying >"It has only been a few days for them since the *Parinirvana* of Lord Buddha, so there is still thee purest of the teaching as there are ones who saw and listened to lord buddha there still among them. Also there are enlightened one's from that era still living and advising there." I can't help but think that no mater what no one will spend a human lifetime's length to have a walk in a park. ***Perhaps this is a time lapse that is here?*** I know this is not a place to play with science and buddhism. but i'm asking this to get an explanation as i've seen many people listen to this and delay their efforts limiting themselves to hording only good karma but no other efforts on much arduous sections of the path. >Before you downvote or delete this please consider the kind of good or harm that can come of this as this is an interpretation that has rallied too many people behind it (At least in my country). And i'm not asking for opinions either > >What can we make of this? > >**Is it a universal phenomenon like time lapse/ Einstein's reletivity?** > >**Or a misinterpretation?**

Fact: Buddha ate meat. He died from food poisoning eating pork. Are not thousands if not millions of living being slaughtered when you harvest vegetables (worms, insects, micro-organisms etc.)? So how is vegetarianism morally superior to eating meat in a Buddhist context?

According to this wikipedia article on Gautama Buddha, > Accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later. Why were the teachings of Buddha not preserved in writings by his first generation of followers? In other words, what is the reason for adopting an oral method instead of written verbal method?

Is most of the Chinese content (books or articles) about Zen Buddhism, available on the internet, written in simplified or traditional Chinese? And of course, now and then we want to buy printed books: so what about them? Is simplified or traditional more widely used?

How important is the surangama sutra in contemporary Mahayana Buddhism? As far as I know there's never been any "school" which based itself on its interpretations, unlike the Mahaparinirvana, hua-yen, lotus, etc. Where can I find out about its historical and contemporary use?

I just discovered this website and it seems really interesting! But now I ask myself: "What exactly is this? What exactly is Buddhism? How can it help me? Where does it help me?" etc. I really want to start with it (if it really helps me in everyday life), but I don't know how :(. Can anyone explain it to me? Thank you in advance!

"The purification of one's own mind/will (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha" [DN 2.49] "How is it that one is called a 'Buddha'?...gnosis that the mind/will (citta) is purified (visuddham)...such is how one is deemed a 'Buddha'." [MN 2.144] [DN 2.157] "Gotama who is steadfast in mind (citta), inherently quelled from all desires the mighty sage has passed beyond. With mind (citta) limitless (Brahman) he no longer bears sensations; illumined and unbound (nibbana), his mind (citta) is definitely (ahu) liberated." [SN 3.45] "The mind (citta) being so liberated and arisen from defilements, one is fixed in the Soul as liberation, one is quelled in fixation upon the Soul. Quelled in the Soul one is unshakable. So being unshakable, the very Soul is thoroughly unbound (parinirvana)." "The Soul is Charioteer"[Jataka-2-1341] "I leave you now, having made my Soul the refuge (saranamatta) DN 2.120 "The Self (atman) as refuge, with nary another as refuge" DN 2.100 [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto” “the body cannot pass that gate to fare beyond,..only the Soul (The Self)” -Udana “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind/will/spirit (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his citta (nous/spirit/mind) within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is the most excellent!” [MN 1.436] [MN 1.511] “For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto consciousness.” SN 1.96 “The nihilist…goes to terrible hell…from darkness to darkness” [SN 2.17] ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite (atoms)’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of annihilationism])'”

From my perspective, the two biggest obstacles to to perfect understanding of Dharma is the apparent contradictions between "Tanha" and "Right Aspiration" and Anatta vs Buddha's condemnation of nihilism (SN 1.96: “The nihilist…goes to terrible hell…from darkness to darkness”) and his teachings on rebirth. Tanha, "thirst" (desire) is given as the primary cause of Dukkha and yet "right Aspiration" (basically desire) is part of the 8 fold path. Clearly Buddha did not condemn "desire" if you define it as wanting something you don't have. So what distinguishes between the two? Anatta doctrine held by some Buddhist, that there ultimately is no-soul or self and nothing really "exists" but is empty of inherent existence and therefore insubstantial and suffering is basically nihilist. This contradicts Buddha's teaching on rebirth and Nirvana (the unborn, unmade, unconditioned etc. makes liberation from the born, made, conditioned possible). No matter how you want to spin it, if your position is that the soul does not exists and there is no self outside of conditioned existence, then you are doomed to the grave and there is zero possibility for enlightenment or liberation from Samsara because how can an "illusion" that doesn't exists be "enlightened" or "saved"? The only option for a mind made illusion is to simply cease to exist once the causes that create the illusion (the body 5 kandas etc.) dies. You just fade to black, no karma, no rebirth, no Nirvana, no enlightenment no nothing. How do you resolve this seeming contradiction?