Who or what decides that someone has enlightened himself? It's just about an urge to know the point where/how enlightened one's or their followers approve that 'they are enlightened'. What happens immediately after that?

I heard a Dhamma talk wherein a monk said that Mara blamed the Buddha being lazy cause he laid down and the Buddha replied something like "I am laying down for the benefit of all sentient beings". Can someone explain the logic behind his answer and expand on this issue? Is there a practice wherein you gain a mind set to take action for your own good while thinking you are doing every action? ie. "for the benefit of all sentient beings"

Does any Buddhist school or tradition make the assertion that all human beings have the capacity to be enlightened in this lifetime? Or to put it the other way are there groups of people who it just is not possible for them to become enlightened and they have to wait for a better rebirth? Do different traditions differ on this? Does any tradition make the claim that particular human beings will never be enlightened no matter what even in subsequent rebirths?

Every day I ride my bike from home to office. It takes 1 hour journey. During that hour, many times I found myself somehow teleported to certain distance. It is not magic, I simply lost in thought when that happened. I am so absorbed in my own thought that I am clueless to my surrounding, although my autopilot will guide me safely during that teleportation. that is only an example of many activities where my autopilot kicked in. Problem is, I feel that it is a mistake to be lost in thought. I feel it is not supposed to happen. I feel I supposed to being in present moment. So to counter it, I try to being aware of my body movement, such as opening/closing gas, shifting up/down gear. I recite the word in my mind when the body move. After doing so, I came to realization that my body movement/reaction is faster that my mind. the questions are: - Is it really a mistake to be lost in thought? - Is my way of countering have bad effect?

How should we proceed in our practice when we have broken some of the five precepts? I am anguished over this unwholesome behavior and the negative karma I created. Ajahn Brahm talks about self-forgiveness and the Buddha in the Sankha Sutta (the Conch Trumpet Sutta) talks about waking up from unwholesome behavior by refraining from such actions in the future. And of course, there is the story of Angulimala, so there are some examples in the teachings of people waking from patterns of negative karma-making. I suppose the only way to proceed is to maintain the precepts, deepen my practice and strive to create wholesome karma?

related to, but not the same as https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1919/does-buddhism-have-a-significant-notion-of-justice I need some clarification. What is one's moral obligation to render justice (or bring to justice) others for observed misdeeds? this can but need not be as member of a jury which *must* render justice. it is clear that one should sympathize with the perpetrator. it is clear that one should not get emotional over a (passed) misdeed or over (or while) rendering a sentence. I am guessing that to be compassionate is to contemplate the effects of a sentence on other sentient beings, [a] in light of the future incentives that one's judicial actions will create, and [b] in light of the contemporaneous effect that one's sentence will have on the perpetrators, victims, and others. even though the deed was done and thus has passed, and even though others should be philosophical about it now, it is still true that a sentence can improve the lives of many others at the cost of worsening the life of the perpetrator. [there is no dilemma if the latter is not the case.] is there more Buddhist advice to us here?

I ask this with a healthy skepticism. What is meditation? Is it the style that is put forth in the texts or traditions, like Tibetan or Indian or whatever tradition? For example, sit down and dedicate time to meditate. And is the definition of meditation objective or is it a subjective experience/practice? For example, Marcus Aurelius' writing, Meditations. Can following a train of thought intentionally, not compulsively, be considered meditation? I wish to question why we sit down to meditate for sometime. I have been giving answers on this site, giving so-called "practical advice" about sitting and meditating and then it struck me that I may be dulling the mind through this. Meditation seems to lend you to a certain calmness, which is good, but if I may say, a certain suggestibility. I accept that the mind's activity is fairly ceaseless. Is this an altering of the state of mind in a sort of long term negative way? What I mean is, it seems to me that sometimes I can't seem to distinguish between "dulling of the mind" and "calmness" through meditation.

Today people are **betraying** each other in different levels without considering relationships and bonds. *For example scenarios:* - Children betrays parents and ignore them - Boy/Girl cheats on Girl/Boy due to bad friends and bad intensions - Betrays who were in need when got succeeded and forget them I can't understand how people do these kind of very simple to understand misdeeds. **Even a dog wags it's tail when we gave it some food just ONE time.** Then why does these humans do this inappropriate acts without giving any values to relationships, bonds ??? Lord Buddha did '**animisa lochana puuja**' to the Bo Tree as it helps Buddha to get Enlightenment. Can anyone explain in practical scenarios that how can we teach our loved ones not to betray anyone in life with the guidance of Buddhism ? How can we teach our friends Betraying is bad ? AND most importantly How can we make our mind when someone Betrayed ON us ??

Is the central idea of Buddhism about being totally objective, see things as what they are and don't have a preference or judgement? If that is correct, then why we should prefer the ideas in Buddhism to any other ideas. Isn't that already making a judgement? Am I misunderstanding anything?

Can we find a concept of "Dignity" or "Human Dignity" in Buddhism? My understanding is that in the Western World the concept of Human Dignity is used to justify that each of us deserves to be not only treated with respect but also valued as a part of humanity whatever our origin or our place in society. I read that each of us has the nature of Buddha. Could this be considered as the foundation of Human Dignity or a similar notion in Buddhism? What would be the closest(s) equivalent(s) in Buddhism?

I know this question maybe sounds odd and like a tautology, but in Buddhism the word dukkha seems to mean both the objective 'property' of being not satisfying and the subjective suffering. So is the goal to experience dukkha objectively, but not subjectively?

From what I know body and mind are two separate entities. Body cannot survive without a mind but is not the same case for a mind from what I know. When a person completely rids himself/herself of all the delusion and desire he/she becomes an arahant. An arahant ceases to exist when he/she passes away and nothing goes on or lingers and there are no more births. I am curious to know why this cannot happen as soon as becoming an arahant. Why does an arahant only cease to exist after death? How come the mind or sansara is extended to the point of which the body dies? Why doesn't the mind cease to exist as soon as attaining nirvana?

Lately when sitting, my head will abruptly turn at weird angles very suddenly. I'm not always able to catch it to stop it before it happens; sometimes the movements are really bizarre ( my head moving straight back, leaving me looking at the ceiling if my eyes were open). Is this a common/known occurrence in meditation, or do I need to see a doctor?

I have been reading books on Buddhism and contemplating on the Suttas. Lately the things which I was interested about like reading novels, watching movies, playing games and girls is losing its sheen. I am more inclined to just observe things happening around me. What is the process of transformation one undergoes when one is following Buddhism?

I looked around and found a couple of questions and answers on the site that discuss atheism in Buddhism, https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1690 & https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1581 it looks like belief in a supreme being may not be a requirement for being a Buddhist. Strictly speaking it is possible for a person to identify as an agnostic or atheist and also identify with any mono or polytheistic church. Though most (*all?*) of those actual religions do not support disbelief in their God(s), so they are not actually compatible. Are the concepts of agnostic or atheist believers compatible with Buddhism? Does the entire belief system or specific sects require the belief in any or a specific supreme being?

I came across this rather gender progressive comment from Nichiren > If we examine the Flower Garland Sutra, the first sutra to be preached > after the Buddha attained enlightenment, we find that it is a Mahayana > work preached by the Buddha in his aspect as the Thus Come One of the > reward body. Thus, to the voice-hearers, cause-awakened ones, and > others, it was like daytime to an owl or nighttime to a hawk; though > they listened to it, it was as though they did so with deaf ears or > blind eyes. **This being the case, though people hoped that the sutra > would enable them to pay back the four debts of gratitude, because it > speaks disparagingly of women,3 it was hardly possible for them to > repay the debt of gratitude owed to their mothers with the sutra.** which is footnoted with > 3) For example, the Daishonin cites the passage “Women are messengers of > hell who can destroy the seeds of Buddhahood. They may look like > bodhisattvas, but at heart they are like yaksha demons” with regard to > the Flower Garland Sutra. This passage is cited in A Collection of > Treasures as a quotation from the Flower Garland Sutra. http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-2/Content/264 I can't for the life of me find this or anything like it in my Cleary edition of the Avatamsaka. (I believe it is there, I've read all sorts of misogynistic passages in sutras, I just can't find it)

Few years ago, family put matrimonial ad in newspaper in India. We thought we selected nice person, but turns out he was abusive, unfaithful, and only wanted green card. Worse, he made me have miscarriage. Now, I wish to move on with my life. One minute my heart says I want family to put matrimonial ad in newspaper in India again, next moment my heart says I want to keep busy in USA, maybe I will find person I am meant to marry here. I asked God to give me sign, a "Yes" or "No" as to whether we should put another matrimonial ad (of course we learned from last time, will be million times more careful), but literally, one hour I think "Yes", next hour I think "No". What does Buddhism teachings say in this case. For past few months I have been torturing myself mentally just thinking of this.

Hurting someone physically, Mentally, Verbally is a sin according to Buddhism. As I believe no matter we love or hate each other, anyhow we don't have any ownership of any others lives. 1. So how about **Gossiping** or the **tattling** about others lives ? 2. How does Buddhism explain ***specifically*** about TATTLING ?? 3. How one should practice not to Gossip about others lives ? 4. In the other way how one should practice to face others Gossiping about himself/herself ?

The story of the birth of prince Siddhartha tells us that he walked and talked right after birth. That he even said that he will become a Buddha in this life and end the cycle of life. But after this he seems to have forgotten what he knew about being a Buddha even on the day he left the palace to find the truth. He started off knowing he would become Buddha, then becomes very confused with all the life experiences as a prince and has no idea what to do or that becoming a Buddha is the answer to it. How is this possible? Is it a flaw in the story or is my understanding of the question poor?

How are we supposed to respond to forced conversion, is the choice completely personal or did Buddha ever talk about this i.e. conversion or death? If someone chooses death over conversion to other religion, would that be the same as killing oneself or not maintaining loving kindness toward oneself and others?