I am having difficulty understanding the idea of interdependent origination within the following text. It is from The Essence of Buddhism by Traleg Kyabgon . I am finding this book very useful as a refresher on the basic philosophy of Buddhism, especially because it includes Tibetan Buddhism. However this section, which talks about one of the two main ideas in Buddhism, seems to rely on terminology that gives me the impression of circular reasoning. > "How, then, do things come into being? They come into being because of > what is called interdependent origination, or pratitya-samutpada—that > is, due to causes and conditions. This implies that things do not have > inherent existence, because if they had any kind of essence or > independent existence there would be no need for the whole idea of > causality. Nagarjuna says: “The origination of inherent existence from > causes and conditions is illogical, since if inherent existence > originated from causes and conditions, all things would thereby become > contingent. How could there be contingent inherent existence? For > inherent existence is not contingent; nor is it dependent on another > being. So the very idea of causality involves the notion that things > are contingent. There is no being that can exist on its own without > depending on anything else; no self-sufficient being. Everything is > interdependent. Everything that exists on both the physical and mental > plane involves the idea of interdependence, or pratitya-samutpada.” I would very much appreciate an explanation, in clear English and without reliance on terminology (because it appears to be explaining by self referencing concepts and terms) of this basic idea. My guess is that the author is assuming that I already know something which I do not. References to online sources would be appreciated, if you can explain it yourself that would be terrific, and most of all if you can refer me to a clear, translation of the Buddha's original words about this that would be splendid. Many thanks.

Usually when speaking about someone who is following the buddha teach is called a monk. But are monks or other buddhists sometimes also called brothers and sisters? Is it common or very rare? And what is the reason behind it?

**Background**: Recently when I was in the deep sleep I saw some dreams, which showed that I am going against the five precepts. For Instance, I lied somebody. I felt that as I lie in real life; I remember that I planned about revealing disinformation and creatively managed the flow of false information. If it was a real situation I may not act in such way. Is this scenario really cause to break the fourth precept? As we know, dreams are born based on the feelings of our subconscious mind. Therefore, Isn't it my own fault to see such a dream?

Selling animal for its meat is considered a wrong livelihood. Made intoxicants and sell them is also a wrong livelihood. If people are working on a non-vegetarian food counter, I believe that is not a wrong livelihood. With the same understanding, if someone is working on the wine counter, the duties are serving customers who ask for wine, beer, filling shelves, that is also considered not a wrong livelihood. But is being a bartender considered a wrong livelihood or not?

I am looking for a textual reference. I cannot recall the exact details but I will try my best; if anyone knows what I am referring to and can point me to the text, it would be much appreciated. The basic idea in the passage was roughly, I believe, that if one doesn't have anyone who can tell them what to do or not do...doesn't have a person who can punish them, then they won't become angry. I believe I read this in the Visuddhimagga but I'm not sure. Any help is appreciated!

If you get disturbed at night by tiny sounds or find it difficult to hear loud sounds at day is there a particulary cause known for that in buddhism. Is it bad and what to do about it?

An elaborated answer on meaningless speech as in ten unwholesome acts is expected

In general in Buddhism, is escapism seen as a bad "movement" to involve one's self in? I have seen many posts on SE about separating one's self from one's body, or getting rid of desire, so; would these actions been seen as escapism?

I am listening through the talks and guided meditations from the retreat at Amaravati Just One More: Dependent Origination and the Cycles of Addiction Retreat , where there are a number of references to the teachings, and using them in meditation. However, although I've found many websites referencing the Paṭiccasamuppāda, I've been unable to find study materials for learning how to practically use the teachings. Not having any teacher nearby, I have been looking online for materials. Wikipedia mentions the Twelve Nidānas , but that resource is mostly fact oriented, which is not what I am looking for. Can anyone direct me towards any online materials (website, pdf, audio, video) that help develop techniques in this area? **EDIT** for clarification. There are many writings on the subject, and many try to explain the concepts of dependent origination. However, this question is regarding **finding practical instructions to applying the teachings in meditation**. In other words, instead of focusing on acquiring some intellectual "understanding" of the teachings, I am following the "see for yourself" approach, by not taking anyone's word for granted. Instead, using the teachings to access the wisdom they describe. In essence, it's like being thirsty, and finding a sign saying "water this way ->". You have the choice to walk the path leading to the water, and drink, or study the sign, which won't leave you any less thirsty.

Is there anything for Buddhist texts equivalent to the typical way of citing Biblical verses? (e.g. John 1:1) Related question on [Tripitaka Section Numbering .]

I once heard we should pay homage (bending, prostrating or some similar) to our parents on their birthday. If that is correct, for who else should we pay homage/bend to? Monks and parents only?

When I see my direction of motivation towards working or relationships or for that matter even meditation is the want to feel proud of myself. Why do we need to feel proud of ourselves? Can we overcome that need? Also want to know if this is related to emotional insecurity

I've never had a problem with sleepiness, and I only get impatient when sitting on my own. But oh *that leg pain is something else*. Does anyone have any advice from a Zen perspective - not necessarily how to reduce the pain, but how to not simply hate meditation because of it (at least the half lotus position, and at least when in that position).

Recently, I have become interested in Soto Zen. I would like to go to a Soto Zen center, but I live to far away from one. This leaves me with the option for listening to online talks. Are there any free online dharma talks given by reliable teachers known to the Soto community. Dogen explains the features of a reliable teacher but I haven't been able to find one. Can you guys help?

I recently stumbled upon a lovely collection of well-typeset Vietnamese Buddhist texts. It must have taken tremendous effort to typeset [this](http://nigioikhatsi.net/kinhsach-pdf/nietban2015-01.pdf) bilingual Chinese-Vietnamese edition of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra in LaTeX, for example. As a computational linguist and Buddhism enthusiast, I would be highly interested to discover more sources of beautifully typeset multilingual Buddhist materials.

Perhaps some Buddhists will say death doesn't really exist, but in any case, when your parents die, there is something changed. What would Buddha teach to say goodbye to your parents. Probably all kinds of feelings may be there and that is good, but worry a lot wouldn't be very advisable. But is it 'advisable' to feel joy or sadness. For short, how to say goodbye when someone close to you died?

It is generally told that the 4th entry in the chain of Dependent Origination, namely Nama-rupa is nothing but the Five Aggregates (Nama being the sum of Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara and Vinnana). But three of the Aggregates separately appear in the chain of Dependent Origination : Sankhara (2nd entry), Vinnana (3rd entry) and Vedana (7th entry). So there occur three repetitions if Nama-rupa is identical with Five Aggregates. How can this be explained?

If achieving “nirvana” means that we will be liberated from the illusion of consciousness, how then will we know (be conscious of) our achieving this “nirvana”? How can we be “conscious” of this, if “consciousness” will no longer exist?

What is the interpretation of the Pali phrase "Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati..." this seems to be interpreted differently by different lineages. What are the different interpretations? What is the rationale behind the interpretation? How is the word Sabbakayapatisamvedi interpreted by the tradition, and what is the rationale behind it? How is it interpreted in the context of different meditation types (Kamatahan)? Is it connected to any stage of Insight Knowledge as per the interpretation? ___ With regard to one among many of the numerous occurrences of this phrase, the canonical text summarizing the 16 steps of Anapanasati meditation has the following passage: > Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' He trains himself, 'I will breath in sensitive to the whole body.' ---> (sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati) He trains himself, 'I will breath out sensitive to the whole body.' ---> (sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;) He trains himself, 'I will breath in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breath out calming bodily fabrication.' ... Again this is only one occurrence among many, hence do not bias or limit the answer to the context of Anapanasati.

It is well known scientific fact that over time, the animal population including human population increases. How does a colloquially scientific religion explain reincarnation if populations increases? Don't give copout answers or rhetorical impulses that I have already heard about this question from many people who were sometimes practising buddhists and buddhist monks. This is an important question that needs rational scientific answers and not wishful thinking. EDIT: No thanks for the copouts. And for guy who said something like it will be the dominant theory if not for the monotheistic religions, no thanks for the royal copout. You should learn how to not be hostile towards my questions Messer's Copouts. Don't be angry. Give rational answers and not the ones where I have read more on it to understand. The answer that I have to read on it more is the biggest copout. Every religion uses that to keep its people in abject poverty. Picture of poor tibetan buddhists here.