I'm working on a radio history of vegetarianism and featuring a dramatisation of the story of General Siha in the Mahavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka because it shows the difference between Jain (there called Niganthas - "tieless ones") and classical Theravada Buddhist attitudes to meat-eating. Here is a nineteenth century translation on archive.org. The story begins with the first sentence on the page: https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscipline14hornuoft#page/324/mode/2up The story is told as if it vindicates the Buddha of the Jains angry accusations of himsa. But that seems flawed to me. General Siha himself - as a recent convert from Jainism (the 'Niganthas') - wouldn't have had any meat to hand in the first place if not for (in the Pali canon account) Gautama's influence. And grounds for suspicion had literally been shouted through the streets, albeit by a rival sect. I want to make sure that I accurately reflect the Theravada understanding of the story, but I can't find it anywhere. How is Gautama the wise sramana vindicated?

Should one practice vipassana every day in a formal sitting? If so, how long should it be compared to samatha meditation, should it be practiced right before/after (not asking which comes first!) samatha or at anytime during the day?

Why did Buddhist start making idols of Buddha a few hundred years after Buddha died, even though Buddha himself said Idol worship was one of the biggest scourges of humanity

Sometimes you hear of people who can levitate from the ground. It looks like it is not just a state of mind but a real physical happening. So is there any prove of the existence of it and how is it is physically possible.

The essay *The Progress of Insight* includes the following definitions: > [Maturity Knowledge](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html#ch6.14) > Immediately afterwards, a type of knowledge manifests itself that, as it were, falls for the first time into Nibbana, which is void of formations (conditioned phenomena) since it is the cessation of them. This knowledge is called "maturity knowledge." > [Path Knowledge](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html#ch7.15) > It is followed immediately by knowledge that abides in that same Nibbana, which is void of formations since it is the cessation of them. This is called "path knowledge." It is also called "purification by knowledge and vision." In the first paragraph, does “which is void of formations (conditioned phenomena) since it is the cessation of them” refer to nibbana, or does it refer to the knowledge that abides in nibbana?

After stressful events that I'm unaccustomed to, or after strenuous workout, my body feels as if it wants to cry. I am unable to produce the tears to "cry it out", but my body feels it. This started happening when I had a miscarriage (at the time, I didn't know I had miscarriage, but Doctor estimates it was at that time). Right now, I do meditative drawing to ease the symptoms. People think I am an artist (I'm in IT) because the drawings are so intense and beautiful. Also, I do deep-breathing meditation, 15 minutes, 2 times a day. I lay on my bed on my back, knees bent, feet flat on the floor. I place one hand on my stomach, one hand on my chest, and I concentrate on breathing through my diaphragm. As I inhale, diaphragm expands, exhale, diaphragm contracts. Anything else I can do? What does Buddhism recommend about art? Or anything to ease this suffering?

Does anyone have an explanation as to how Buddha explains the reasons as to why are beings born? What is the reason for birth?

I consider myself new to being a Buddhist. I've been practicing mindfulness for the past two and a half years . Most of what I have learned and what seems practical are teaching from books written by Thich nhat hanh . I've had much success dealing with anxiety. Lately though I've been unable calm my anger and it seems to be getting worst not better. No matter how much I focus on breathing. I live near Vancouver BC, Canada. How do I find other Buddhists or teachers for support? Something in line with Thich nhat hanh's books.

A number of Suttas make very clear the practitioner's duty to his/her parents. Does the Pali Canon say anything about duty to siblings? Thank you

In some traditions their philosophy says that concrete things don't really exist, only in the mind like just an experience. But is that vision important, or could just your relation to those things as if they don't exist be enough? In other words, is this philosophy just a way to concentrate on the spirit, instead of the outer world, or do they really mean this?

Please note that my understanding of Buddhist principles may be very much influenced by popular depictions. I have read that the eight-fold path teaches that you should strike a balance between asceticism and indulgence. Common depictions of Buddhist monks often shows them living a very ascetic lifestyle. My sources for this are simply what I have seen in documentaries online. My questions are: 1. Do Buddhist monks live such an ascetic life style? If so, then why? Is this not going against the eight-fold path? 2. If the depictions I have in mind are untrue then what is Buddhist monastery life like such that it balances indulgence and asceticism?

When the rebirth-linking consciousness arises in the fetus (I read elsewhere at around 26 weeks), but the fetus dies (somehow) prior to or during birth, is it possible to understand why this kind of existence happened? And could it be a result of previous lifetime good or bad karma? In this situation, while there are senses, the fetus cannot make any conscious decision or thought processes or have any understandings yet. Of course depending on the situation physical suffering may have occurred. So I am trying to understand what kind of link this lifetime is, between the previous and next lifetime, and the effect on continuing rebirths.

When seeking or on the path, is the journey intended to be for the one on the path or can it be travelled by more than an individual i.e. is the path different for each being?

I live in Denmark and here we have gotten an amazing concept called "City Gardens". Its basically a 3 x 3 meter garden in the middle of the city granting city dwellers acces to grow their own vegetables, flowers etc. Yesterday i got one of these gardens (see picture below). I thought about cleaning it up and plant some new stuff in it but then i saw that there were many small plants and flowers growing in it already. I do know that the first precept is not broken since it covers life that has a breath and a consciousness. But i was wondering if im breaking any other buddhist ethics or precepts by interfering with that plant life already living there? Help would be much appreciated. Thank you. Lanka

Current India was previously not as big and united as it is now. Multiple countries quarrel for existence. Life was not normal for people. Chaos and Imbalance was on its height. Is that the reason, Shakyamuni Buddha choose Indian Subcontinent as a favorable place to teach Buddhist way of living? If so, next destination for Buddha to teach may be Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or even United States. If next Buddha is seen in some other place besides Indian Subcontinent, will he/she be recognized as Buddha? What if Jesus was a form of Buddha? What if new Buddha change the way Buddhism is what we are following, according to current situation?

I came across 'The Chant of Metta' (*Metta Gatha*), in a beautiful rendition by Imee Ooi in this YouTube video . Here is the full text in Pali, with English translation: [THE CHANT OF METTA](http://satipatthana.ca/articles/06the_chant_metta.pdf) Is this chant from the Tipitaka or is it a later composition? The Karaniya Metta Sutta from Tipitaka has different wordings in this translation.

There's a wrinkle in the teachings about the three levels of suffering. The Pali Canon, in SN 38.14 -- Dukkha Sutta -- has it thus (leaving things uninterpreted for the moment): - the suffering of pain (*dukkha-dukkhatā*) - the suffering of fabrication (*sankhāra-dukkhatā*) - the suffering of change (*vipariṇāma-dukkhatā*) The Tibetan teachings typically have it in the following order (Gampopa, *Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Chapter 5*, has the reverse): - the suffering of suffering -- overt, obviously painful stuff. - the suffering of change -- suffering implicit in pleasure because of impermanence, so it will end - all-pervasive suffering -- suffering due to conditioned existence itself, and the aggregates which are of the nature of suffering The Tibetan teaching is widely interpreted as I have indicated (though a lot of the descriptions of all-pervasive suffering shade into the definition of suffering of change, which they shouldn't IMHO). A lot of commentators (such as Guenther on Gampopa) see SN 38.14 as the source of the the Tibetan teaching, and the first items of each do seem to line up nicely, as do the suffering of change in both. But after that there are problems, mainly, why did the order change. Most pervasively, there is an interpretation (by contemporary teacher Bodhipaksa) of SN 38.14 where the two sufferings of change don't even totally line up, and maybe the whole correspondence is wrong and is more about the two-arrow teaching of SN 36.6 -- The Sallatha Sutta -- than levels of suffering, and referred to in this SE answer: that correct interpretation of SN 38.14 is roughly: - the suffering of pain (*dukkha-dukkhatā*) -- the initial pain -- the "first arrow" - the suffering of fabrication (*sankhāra-dukkhatā*) -- the constructed pain we add by resisting/resenting/etc the initial pain -- the "second arrow" - the suffering of change (*vipariṇāma-dukkhatā*) -- the suffering we get by seeking to cover the constructed pain with pleasure, which is impermanent. The change in order, putting suffering of formations/conditioned existence in the middle, is the smoking gun, according to Bodhipaksa -- if the Tibetan interpretation of SN 38.14 were correct, then suffering of formations would absolutely have to come last. **So finally my question -- not which is "correct" but -- when did the Tibetan interpretation arise, if not an entirely new teaching, at least the change of order and interpretation of suffering of formations as universal, all-pervasive suffering rather than a personal, second-arrow kind of deal. Is is it in the Theravada anywhere?** The farthest back I can find it is Gampopa, whose *Jewel Ornament of Liberation* is (I believe) the first fully articulated, book-length *Lam Rim* text, after Atisha's *Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment* which is the origin of the *Lam Rim*, but only has 68 verses and does not go to this level of detail. Seems that those are close enough to the beginning of Buddhadharma in Tibet that the next stop back, if there is one, is probably India or maybe a Nyingma teaching. Addendum -- Toni Bernhard, Author of *How to be Sick* and other books, explicates the non-Tibetan, Bodhipaksa version of three sufferings. Addendum -- There is another sutta with the same sequence as SN 38.14, namely SN 45.165 -- The Dukkhata Sutta. Well known contemporary scholar, translator and practitioner Maurice Walshe has this translation and interpretation of SN 45.165 that accords with the Tibetan reading, despite the sequence.

Feel invited or maybe even inspired to share any teachings regarding "*Apacāyana*" (Respect or Veneration). It is one of the less taught, but very basic and fundamental, meritorious deeds. Teachings within Suttas, and Dhamma talks even from 'stranger' resources, if Dhamma, are welcome (in English and/or German). They are actually difficult to find in the modern world, since they go a lot against the grain of how Dhamma was often introduced and promoted. Such are of course just of beneficial use if they had originated and forwarded in line of meritorious deeds. Atma would like to share this merits (*Pattānuppadāna*), not to speak of rejoicing with your merits . It will not be easy to fully answer this question, so it might stay without an accepted answer for a longer time. Asian dhamma talks are normally full of this matter, now here we can hardly find anything: of course from cause. In addition: Even more complicated, such teachings should be Dhamma also given in line of Dhamma. So commercial stuff and taken things (althought it will be naturally less on this topic) is not useful since it has lost the line of respect.

What are some signs that one might be seeing the three characteristics with more clarity or depth? What might represent that one is having a new and more profound experience of impermanence, dukkha or not-self during one's practice or during any time? **Here are some examples of what is meant by sign:** - When we finish sweeping the floor, that might be a sign of impermanence. - If an annoying song keeps repeating in the mind that we can't control then that might be a sign of not-self. - We strongly misidentify the body as the self. If while meditating we see past the concept of the body then we might strangely feel like we have no body at some point. This no body effect might be a sign of not-self.

I have to be honest with you, this question was already answered by an authority on Buddhism and long-time practitioner, which is the spiritual leader of the Sangha which I meditate with. And yet, I feel the need to listen to other opinions. The question is the one in the title. His main argument was that going to the gym is not beneficial in any way and it actually worsens us by feeding our pride, thus making the schism between ourselves and vain glory more difficult to realize. What do you think?