I'm looking for a sutta in which the Buddha is recalling past lives, including, I believe, lives as the great Brahma, and asks himself on account of what actions he ascended to a position of such great power; he investigates and answers that it was because of three things. I remember two--abstention and giving--but can't remember the third. If anyone knows what passage I am talking about it would be much appreciated.

I have been friendless for around 5 years. The reason I'm in this situation is due to my bad traits alone. I have actually grown accustomed to this till recently, when I became increasingly unsettled by the constant silence in my house. Usually, I've been able to shrug off this loneliness by busying myself with my studies, but lately, the strategy is not working. This desire for friends has been gnawing at me everyday. But I've been alone for so long now that I find it hard to make friends. So my question is, is this desire healthy in terms of a Buddhist perspective? And if it's not, how do I subdue this desire?

The four marks are, in order from coarse to subtle 1. Cessation 2. Changing 3. Abiding 4. Arising These are discussed in a number of places, but the English language translator of Kihwa's (Korean) commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, seems to associate them with the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana. See e.g. p157 of that book. What I'm wondering, is how this works, how does the meditator go about "eliminating its mistaken function" (presumably -- see them to be empty), if there are no entities to be found in the first place? i.e. do they study the mark of cessation, then study the mark of change, etc., as if each mark inhered on some identical object? Or is the mark of change just another way of looking at the mark of cessation, without any thought really bearing the four?

Besides right livelihood described by Buddha, we also have to avoid action that is harmful. Some people claim that the long-term side effects associated with various modern products are unknown, or unpredictable at best: including products such as GM foods, EM radiation from cell phones and power transmission lines, etc. If you worked in an industry which makes or sells products like these, would you consider this as right livelihood or not? Note that since this is not a science forum, I don't want to discuss whether these examples (GM foods or EM radiation) are actually harmful, these are just examples of a more general question. I would love to hear your thoughts about how to consider the question from the perspective or right livelihood.

One of Buddha's four ways of training the mind for Sampajañña ("clear comprehension") is to *know the suitability of an action*. From an anecdote given by Joseph Goldstein, his meditation master was haggling with a seller. When asked why, he replied > The path of the Dhamma is to be simple, not a simpleton. The following are two situations which I deal with on a daily basis, and I still am unsure what is the suitable or correct action to take. - Two people are walking towards each other on a narrow path, do you yield first and let the other pass? - Two people both make eye contact, who should avert their gaze first to avoid a staredown contest? The more abstract problem here might be described as, the correct action to take when you and another have conflicting interests. An answer to that is appreciated as well, but I really do mean to ask, how do you deal with the two concrete situations given above?

I wish to circumambulate around Mount Kailash on foot. This is roughly 33 miles of mountaineous terrain. Many people do this for spiritual reasons, i.e circumambulate once to wash away your sins, circumambulate 108 times to attain nirvana. I just want to circumambulate around Mount Kailash because I want to. What type of physical and/or spiritual training do I require? I understand this can take years, even decades. Some information about me. lady in mid-30s (people swear I am in early 20s) 5'4", 140lbs (last time I weighed myself was Jan 2016) mostly eat fruits, veggies, fiber exercise 4 to 5 days a week, perform Surya Namaskar (started with 3 reps in Summer 2015, I'm up to 69 reps now, goal to reach 108 reps by end of 2017), plus light weights

I recently, and accidentally, found out one of my very close family members has been watching pornography on my computer. He had borrowed it and had used it apparently for his own purposes one night. I am not too bothered by this, but I did find that in recent history he had watched some very extreme videos in sexual nature. I had to think about it for a long awhile. On one hand I know I cannot control his karma and what decisions he makes. On the other I still question whether or not it is considered a break of the sexual immorality precept. I do not wish to judge anyone, but I was just so shocked to see one of my family members watching some very extreme videos in nature. Again, we are related, but his karma is not mine. I cannot push such a thought away, and I constantly wonder, not to my choosing, whether to consider it his personal free will and to let everyone be or if I should be worried if a relative was enjoying videos almost abusive in nature. I suppose some of this suffering stems from attachment to this relative, but I am just asking for advice from fellow Buddhists. I am pondering whether or not pornography is considered a violation of the precepts? How should I view such a situation? Should I ignore it and move on? What is the buddhist response to a situation like this? I am dearly confused. Thank you to all.

When i am meditating, my breath which was normal(means three seconds longer both in and out), is becoming one second long or only half second long(extremely short in length). How to manage if breath becomes so short in length, am i going in right manner of meditation ?. **note:** could any body say if i am going or doing meditation in intended manner.. or is there anything i could do to improve my situation or psychological state

I read about Buddhism where I came to know, we learn to see everything from bare prospect and don't judge anything. And a random thing came to my mind: I even read that pain is seen as pain and nothing more, no bad or good feeling towards pain. So suppose a Monk happens to see a pin in his path: - Will he step on it and accept pain, and think of pain as pain and detach from its feeling? - Or, would he judge the pin which will cause pain and move away? Moving away shows that he knows its bad to step on the pin. This was just a question which came to my mind. I don't mean any offence, literally I have no idea of it.

[This subsection of Wikipedia's *Two Truths* article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine#Pali_Canon) says that the "two truths" distinction is *not* made in the suttas, but that there are some "suttas of indirect meaning". > ***Two Truths > Origin and development > Early Indian Buddhism > Pali Canon*** > > In the Pali canon, the distinction is not made between a lower *truth* and a higher *truth*, but rather between two kinds of expressions of the same truth, which must be interpreted differently. Thus a phrase or passage, or a whole sutta, might be classed as *neyyattha* or *samuti* or *vohāra*, but it is not regarded at this stage as expressing or conveying a different level of truth. > > *Nītattha* (Pāli; Sanskrit: *nītārtha*), "of plain or clear meaning" and *neyyattha* (Pāli; Sanskrit: *neyartha*), "[a word or sentence] having a sense that can only be guessed". These terms were used to identify texts or statements that either did or did not require additional interpretation. A *nītattha* text required no explanation, while a *neyyattha* one might mislead some people unless properly explained: > > > There are these two who misrepresent the Tathagata. Which two? He who represents a Sutta of indirect meaning as a Sutta of direct meaning and he who represents a Sutta of direct meaning as a Sutta of indirect meaning. If you diagree with these statements, please say so. Or if you agree with these statements, then please explain again: what is "a sutta of indirect meaning" (either in your own words or by referencing someone else's explanation); and cite some illustrative example[s] of "a sutta of indirect meaning". Also is there a specific, official, or famous commentary on the suttas where they're "classed" like that (i.e. classified or described as *neyyattha* or *samuti* or *vohāra*)?

There's a famous story that, eventually, the Buddha vowed not to move until he gained enlightenment. The story can be found [for example here](http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/pbs2_unit03.htm) : > Still seeking a way to understand the meaning of life, Siddhartha set out for Buddhagaya. Near a grove, he sat down under a huge Bodhi tree. **Silently he vowed**, "Even if my flesh and blood were to dry up, leaving only skin and bones, I will not leave this place until I find a way to end all sorrow." He sat there for forty nine days. He was determined to discover the source of all pain and suffering in the world. Mara, the evil one, tried to scare him into giving up his quest. For instance, he hoped to lure Siddhartha into having selfish thoughts by sending visions of his very beautiful daughters. But the Buddha's goodness protected him from such attacks. And [for example here](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel433.html) : > One day, when his physical strength had returned, he approached a lovely spot in Uruvela by the bank of the Nerañjara River. Here he prepared a seat of straw beneath an asvattha tree (later called the Bodhi Tree) and sat down cross-legged, **making a firm resolution** that he would never rise up from that seat until he had won his goal. As night descended he entered into deeper and deeper stages of meditation until his mind was perfectly calm and composed. Then, the records tell us, in the first watch of the night he directed his concentrated mind to the recollection of his previous lives. Gradually there unfolded before his inner vision his experiences in many past births, even during many cosmic aeons; in the middle watch of the night he developed the "divine eye" by which he could see beings passing away and taking rebirth in accordance with their karma, their deeds; and in the last watch of the night he penetrated the deepest truths of existence, the most basic laws of reality, and thereby removed from his mind the subtlest veils of ignorance. When dawn broke, the figure sitting beneath the tree was no longer a Bodhisatta, a seeker of enlightenment, but a Buddha, a Perfectly Enlightened One, one who had attained the Deathless in this very life itself. What is/are the original or canonical source[s] of this story? Some suttas like the [Maha-Saccaka Sutta (MN 36)](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html) are an account of that period of this life, but without mentioning the vow.

I'm wondering what these terms, *mettā* and *karuṇā* (loving-kindness and compassion), mean. - Are there suttas in which they're defined, otherwise where do the definitions come from? - Is there any important difference between these two terms, or do they mean the same thing? The words in the [metta chant](http://www.buddhanet.net/chant-metta.htm) are translated into English as being "free" from various forms of suffering. I think the Pali is just saying things like, "May I be with no-emnity" etc. Given [these definitions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara#Exegesis) , is "free from suffering" more a type of karuna rather than a type of metta, if so why is it in the "chant of metta"? Are they simply exact opposites, therefore the same thing? - In a translated phrase like "[May you be well](http://www.worldprayers.org/archive/prayers/celebrations/may_you_be_filled_with.html) " or "[May all beings be at ease](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html) ", is that always the word [Sukha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukha) being translated? Or are there other adjectives (states of being) that are wished for? - How is metta (having desire for someone's well-being) compatible with equanimity? [These Dhamma Lists](http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/dhamma-lists/) warn that "indifference" is the "near enemy" of "equanimity"; but could you maybe explain briefly what the right view is, how to distinguish indifference from equanimity, or to make equanimity compatible with metta? > 1. Lovingkindness, good-will (*metta*): Near enemy – attachment; far enemy – hatred > 2. Compassion (*karuna*): Near enemy – pity; far enemy – cruelty > 3. Sympathetic joy, Appreciation (*mudita*), joy at the good fortune of others: Near enemy – comparison, hypocrisy, insincerity, joy for others but tinged with identification (my team, my child); far enemy – envy > 4. Equanimity (*upekkha*): Near enemy – indifference; far enemy – anxiety, greed - How is metta compatible with anatta and dukkha? Doesn't metta imply that there *are* people and that they *can* be happy, whereas anatta and dukkha being characteristic of all compound things kind of implies the opposite? - Do you agree with the following statement, [copied from here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7275/254) : > People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita). In summary, is metta necessarily a wish that other beings be enlightened, or could it mean something other than that?

Any intentional action is kamma. We do good and bad actions. Like any other actions, sometimes we do it intentionally, sometimes we just do it without intention. Is it necessary to generating good intention before/when doing wholesome deed? The more we do good deeds the more frequent we create this intention which can easily become an obsession of the mind and create (new) sankhara. But if there is no intention, how can a good action become a good kamma?

Buddha says if one plants mango, he will reap only mango not something else. Short-lived and get killed are the result of killing living beings, poverty is the result of stealing, not trusted by others is the result of lying and so forth. Then why Buddha says the result of kamma is one of the four imponderables. Does it mean one who loves to kill living beings will experience poverty or not trusted by others which is the result of stealing and lying? How do we relate that with "sow apple seed, reap apple fruit?"

I'm new to Buddhism and I had just started to put some of the teachings into practice. But I'm having great difficulty dealing with my anger. I have always been rather intense in my emotions. I get angered quite easily. I've done some reading and I'm still stuck. I need some help on the way forward. From the readings I've done, I was told to practice forbearance, which is something I'm actually quite used to doing. But the things is, instead of expressing it, the anger is seething inside of me, and I would be passive aggressive, which is also wrong. From doing this, I would get a headache and waste a great portion of the day. Then, I've read that I should practice metta towards my anger, accepting it with equanimity. So, this morning when I was angry, I tried but failed. I would tell myself that being angry is normal, but the anger still remained in me for a long time. So, actually, I'm rather confused with this acceptance of anger. How does it help in any way? Thanks all.

I am just beginning and in need of help and advice on rebirth. I'm struggling for direction in life. I felt a connection with Buddhism in my day to day life and decided to pursue it further, In the hope it would help me connect to the universe in the way I crave. I'm struggling with the life, death rebirth concept. Before I take my next big step I need to know if my beliefs could be accepted. I believe heavily in cause and effect but I am struggling with the concept of rebirth. I believe that when I die, my mind dies with me. I am willing to accept that my mental energy may live on but not in the way I have read about. Please bear in mind I am not saying I categorically do not believe in rebirth I'm just saying my interpretation of it is probably not of the norm. I am concerned this will hinder my progress. I believe that my energy will not move to another being after I die, but I believe that the way I treat people and the good I do in my short time on earth will live on, although my body is gone I believe that in some way I will live on in the people I have encountered in life. The people I have done good and the people I have done bad. I feel I need to find a community as many people do not share my opinions and I find a lot of the things I believe marry up with that of the Buddhist beliefs and I want to extend I'm beliefs and build a better connection physically and spiritually with myself and my surroundings. I would like to find peace within myself and help others. As I'm sure you can tell I am very new to this and the way I explain myself is probably not the best, my spiritual connection is lacking and I'm struggling to see the bigger picture, that I what I wish to expand on. I'm just getting to grips with things and regardless to whether the answer to my question is a yes or no I will still pursue my beliefs. Ultimately I would like to know if I can become a Buddhist and if I can become accepted within a Buddhist community. Thank you in advance.

I understand that Siddhartha Gautama Buddha lived at the same time as the ancient Israelites (Jews) and that India knew of Israel and that ancient Israel knew of India and that the two nations traded with one another. I am also aware that at one time there were a small group of Buddhist staying in Jerusalem. My question is, did Gautama Buddha ever mention Jews or did he ever encounter them? Or was he completely ignorant of their existence and nation all together?

I feel a little stressed out when I move my attention through the body to observe the sensations. I am able to meditate far better if I focus on the entire body as a whole and feel sensations wherever they come up. Is this acceptable in the S. N. Goenka Vipassana technique or is it important that a mediator scan the body part by part?

Does any Buddhist practice consists of supplication, or is there too much merit being exchanged for that? > Supplication (also known as petitioning) is a form of prayer, wherein > one party humbly or earnestly asks another party to provide something, > either for the party who is doing the supplicating (e.g., "Please > spare my life.") or on behalf of someone else (e.g., "Please spare my > child's life.").

1. I was practice Breath Meditation then OM Chanting Meditation from year. and finally leave these both because its not suite for me. 2. Then I start Sound Meditation where I try to listen sound of my heart or other subtle sound. Last week I sit in meditation, after 2 minutes I hear sound like buzzing, hissing, humming. 3. from that day its continuously buzzing in my ear. Its > Tinnitus or > Sound of Silence?