The Wikipedia article on animals in Buddhism states that animals have Buddha nature, and therefore have potential for enlightenment. I do not dispute this as I sit here petting my cat, but wonder - what are the actual mechanics of how they might go about this? For humans, the path is laid out for us in the teachings of the Buddha. But how can an animal achieve the same final goal?

I think we all have experienced with our own native languages how works written a while back can have different words for the same meaning or the other way round. Also that words get lost in translations, almost inevitably. Metaphor and other rhetorical uses of a language may be hard to detect as well and last but not least, the lack of modern scientific terminologies may likewise contribute to ambiguity and confusion. Therefore I'd like to pose the following questions: 1.How well studied are the Buddhist scripts? (compared to the modern study on Greek, Roman and medieval philosophy) 2.How well studied are Pali and Sanskrit linguistically in the context of Buddhism? (compared to ancient Greek and Latin, or even Arabic/Islam if someone has experiences) 3.What efforts have people made to prevent misunderstanding caused by the observations I mentioned at the very beginning? 4.Although I know there are such things called canonical scripts/literature, I'd still like to know others' opinions regarding what (and maybe how) to read, and what to believe literally. ps: my personal preference would be those that are most loyal to Gautama's own words with few extended discussions and little personal guessing, but what scriptures would this comprise?

There is a sutra about the downfall of our civilization. It explains how some people flee the urban life and live in far away places while others go into a Killing spree/ War. It also features how the people who fled come to their senses and how they build a proper society again. This is a Sutra in Sutra pitaka (Theravada). Can someone name this and give me a link?

I have problems meditating in the morning. I usually feel very tired when getting up early on a weekday and then have a limited timeframe (~ 30 min.) for meditation. My body feels so tired, that I am unable to meditate. This is often accompanied by the tendency to get into a negative, rejecting mindstate. Should I try to meditate anyway or try to bring up energy (going outside, cold shower)? Is it possible to influence the habitual tiredness in the morning (at least a bit), or is this exclusively a body thing?

When I sit for meditation, sometimes I realize my breath has stopped and thoughts are subtle, for but a very minimum amount of time, but that time I feel totally in a present moment, in a moment. It this a goal of meditation? or something else? or analyzing? When is the awareness aware of awareness? Is feeling the gap awareness?

How many monks does it take to ordain a new monk? How many monks does it take to create a new Sangha? I've read this before, now I can't find it. I think these are very old rules & are similar across different traditions. **Note**. I already know that schism is considered the worst thing in the universe by traditional Buddhism.

For example, I can point to my eye: the eye itself; I can point to an object of the eye: a book; But I cannot point to the eye-consciousness that arises based on the two.

The Sallatha Sutta, famous for the idea of two arrows, has the following passages that are less often discussed. I am particularly interested in interpretations of the highlighted words and how they might relate to the modern psychological concept of **decentering**, **defusion**, **disidentification** or a **metacognitive stance**. (See modern passage below.) Both personal opinions and references welcome. Sallatha Sutta, SN 36.6, Thanissaro Bikkhu translation About the "uninstructed person"... > Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he senses it as though **joined** with it. > Sensing a feeling of pain, he senses it as though **joined** with it. > Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he senses it as though > **joined** with it. This is called an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person > **joined** with birth, aging, & death; with sorrows, lamentations, pains, > distresses, & despairs. He is **joined**, I tell you, with suffering & > stress. And later about the "well-instructed disciple", the same structure, for example... > This is called a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones **disjoined** > from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, > distresses, & despairs. The Nyanaponika Thera translation is a bit more condensed here and uses "fettered" instead of "joined" > When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral > feeling, he feels it as one **fettered** by it. Such a one, O monks, > is called an untaught worldling who is **fettered** by birth, by old > age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is > fettered by suffering, this I declare Bikkhu Bodhi (not online) uses "attached" and "detached"... > "If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it **attached**. If he feels a > painful feeling, he feels it **attached**. If he feels a neither- > painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it **attached**. This, bhikkhus, is > called an uninstructed worldling who is **attached** to birth, aging and > death; who is **attached** to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and > despair; who is **attached** to suffering, I say. > > > If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it **detached**. If he feels a > painful feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a neither- > painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it **detached**. This, bhikkhus, is > called a noble disciple who is **detached** from birth, aging, and death; > who is **detached** from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeas­ure, and > despair; who is **detached** from suffering, I say. From the point of view of Buddhadharma of the Pali Canon, is it reasonable to say that the highlighted words (in the negative sense -- disjoined, not fettered, detached) have roughly the same meaning as the modern psychological concept in this passage from a 2002 paper by Teasdale . > Particular importance has been attached to the shift in cognitive set > known as “**decentering**” or “**disidentification**,” in which, > rather than simply being their emotions, or identifying personally > with negative thoughts and feelings, patients relate to negative > experiences as mental events in a wider context or field of awareness. > For example, a patient’s perspective on thoughts and feelings of > worthlessness might change from one in which they are experienced as > the “reality by which I am condemned” to one in which they are > experienced more as “passing thoughts and feelings that may or may not > have some truth in them.

I wondered if there was a consciousness that underwent nirvana? Is there a consciousness of nirvana? Is there a consciousness that creates either of these consciousnesses? I would call that the "good" consciousness, like the good guy in the movies. i.e. salvific.

I am looking for a *sutta* in which something is said--roughly: that unless one has suppressed the hindrances, one cannot see the welfare of self or other. Or that without jhāna one cannot see one's own welfare or anothers.

I'm trying to understand how modern Buddhism deals with our current scientific understanding. Science indicates that life began on this planet with a small set of life forms. So there was a point in time where only a few life forms would be capable of rebirth. Now, however, there are over 7 billion humans and immensely more other creatures which can all be reborn. Where did all the souls/consciousnesses that exist now come from? How does the idea of rebirth fit with the evolution of life on Earth? I am very curious as to how modern Buddhism deals with this question. Please forgive me if it is a dumb question, my understanding of Buddhism is very minimal. Thanks in advance!

How do I do "contemplation of death" meditation? And is it dangerous? Because I read it might cause someone to commit suicide, so how do I make sure I won't reach that situation? And how exactly should I do this meditation - and for how long each time - and how many times each day?

I see a lot of texts hailing this quality, but I have not seen any practical advice on how to actually cultivate the quality. In a similar vein, how do you banish laziness? For example, I have plenty of downtime, which is basically me being lazy and wasting time. I'd like to be productive the majority of my time, but I don't know how. Thank you

I have studied Buddhism for a few years now, on and off, and this one question has been bugging me for a long time. Please correct me if I am wrong, however, the way that I understand it is that Buddhism is all about the cessation of suffering. In order to end suffering, we first need to end attachment. By being attached to objects, we suffer when something happens to those objects. Instead of connecting and attaching to the objects and perpetuating suffering in our lives, we should instead focus on the here and now and concentrate on existing rather than material things. My question is: **How does buddhism allow for the existence of families?** I cannot think of a more connected and attached system than the familial system. Significant others, children, siblings are all people that we can't help but love and feel attached to. I just can't seem to fathom a family that does not end in suffering when a member dies. Just to be clear, I am searching for an authoritative answer from a legitimate source, not a personal anecdote or opinion.

Ellen Langer has an interesting passage in her book on mindfulness claiming that her work is significantly different than 'spiritual buddhism' because it comes from the Western Scientific tradition. > “Mindfulness East and West > >The definitions of mindfulness in this chapter, especially the process orientation just discussed, will remind many readers of various concepts of mindfulness found in Eastern religion. Students in my classes who are knowledgeable about such fields are continually drawing parallels. While there are many similarities, the differences in the historical and cultural background from which they are derived, and the more elaborate methods, including meditation, through which a mindful state is said to be achieved in the Eastern traditions should make us cautious about drawing comparisons that are too tidy. >>My work on mindfulness has been conducted almost entirely within the Western scientific perspective. Initially, my focus was on mindlessness and its prevalence in daily life. As can be seen in the order of chapters so far in this book, the notion of mindfulness develops gradually by looking at aspects of mindlessness and then at the other side of the coin. Only after a series of experiments demonstrating the costs of rigid mindsets and single-minded perspectives do I begin to explore the enormous potential benefits of a mindful attitude in aging, health, creativity, and the workplace. >>Behind Eastern teachings of mindfulness lies an elaborate an elaborate system of cosmology developed and refined over time. The moral aspect of mindfulness (the idea that the mindful state achieved through meditation will lead to spontaneous right action12) is an essential part of these philosophies. It reaches into matters too complex for the scope of this book. Since many qualities of the Eastern concepts of mindfulness and of the one being described in this book are strikingly similar, however, we might hope that some of the moral consequences striven for by the Eastern disciplines might also result from mindfulness as understood in this Western form and context. >>As an example of the semantic and philosophical tangles that arise if we try to compare Eastern and Western views of the mindful state, consider the activity of creating new categories. While this is a form of mindfulness in our definition, it appears to be in direct opposition to what one does during meditation.13 In meditation, the mind becomes quieter and active thought is discouraged. In some forms of meditation, thoughts and images that come to mind are considered unimportant and are relinquished as soon as one discerns their presence. At the same time, in many Eastern views, the[…]” >Excerpt From: Ellen J. Langer. “Mindfulness.” iBooks. What are these big differences?

I always thought that the remembrance of the past lives and the vision of the mechanism of the kamma were the fruits of the jhanas. BUT, it is said that the Tathagata learnt the (8) jhanas from two teachers. it is also said that he remembered his past lives during the famous seven days, after he decided to gain what he would call nibbana. Do we know whether the Tathagata had access to his previous lives or to the karmic mechanism before the week of accessing nibbana ? if no, does this mean that only the dhamma --- instead of the practice from hinduism, jainism and perhaps others doctrines --- permits to see the past lives, or the karmic mechanism ?

I think **Hatred** and **Love** comes together. - Sometimes people **hate** each other due to misunderstandings. But when the misunderstandings vanished they start to regret and **Love** each other. - Other way sometimes we **love** each other due to misunderstandings. But when the misunderstandings vanished we starts to again regret and **Hate** each other. In both these Love and Hatred what we finally get is **Suffering** as I see. So is there ***really*** a connection between Love and Hatred according to Buddhist Teachings ?

Human population is increasing whether we like it or not and might even hit 10bn in the next few decades. But why is this happening according to a Buddhist's perspective? Some that I know that don't believe in kamma use this as a counter example saying that if people are becoming more sinful they ask how come the population is increasing. While I have my own understanding (devas being born back among humans, kamma alone doesn't determine the next birth "cuti sitha" does) I would like your expert opinion this.

Who is considered to be ignorant according to Buddhism? What does the term ignorance cover ? When does one realize, one is ignorant ? Can one know nothing of ignorance and still become enlightened?

I thougt that Siddarta Gautama lived in a Hindu society. But were there Brahmans who disagreed with Siddartha or was Siddartha ever in an argue with them?