I have questions about the Bodhisattva ideal, based on the 37 practices of the Bodhisattva . I’m also curious about how this practice is for one with the aspiration of becoming an Arhat. The general Bodhisattva ideal seems to be that you are supposed to have compassion and take everything upon you no matter what happens. But isn’t this sometimes going to make things worse – for *everyone* - the perpetrator included? And I wonder if you people have any reflections on how this is for someone with the aspiration to become an Arhat? Is s/he equally supposed to have compassion and take everything upon him/her self – no matter what happens? What are the differences and similarities here between the two? **Some background** In “the 37 practices of the Bodhisattva” there are some passages about how a Bodhisattva reacts to different situations. Some situations described are quite extreme, and too much for someone on my level! But many of them are such that I try to practice them, and here is an example (verse 15): > “Though someone may deride and speak bad words About you in a public > gathering, Looking on her as a spiritual teacher, Bow to her with > respect— This is the practice of Bodhisattvas.” This is a situation I come upon very often at work. We have had some big problems with calumny, people saying bad things about each other. I find it quite difficult to see someone doing this as “a spiritual teacher”. But, more disturbingly, I think it might be counterproductive. If a person keeps saying bad things about the others, and we all look upon that person as “a spiritual teacher”, how is the situation going to get better? Violence is another example. If a woman is about to be raped, is she not going to fight back? Is she supposed to take the misdeed upon herself? How is not fighting back going to make the situation better? Isn't this just going to produce more rapists? I’m thinking here about verse 13: > Even if someone tries to cut off your head When you haven’t done the > slightest thing wrong, Out of compassion take all her misdeeds Upon > yourself— This is the practice of Bodhisattvas.

I find it very hard to get a clear understanding what is considered a breach of this precept and what is not. Different perspective offers different answer. For example: Some people considered social niceties such as "I'm fine" as an answer to "How are you?" is not lying (when someone is not fine). Some people do not make such exceptions, when you say something untrue, that means you are lying. Receiving foods and say "Thank you, it's delicious" is a lie since the food is not eaten yet. Some people said that is not lying but an expression of gratitude. One person views others as justifying lying. The other person views others as being (too) dogmatic, which is not the core of Buddhist teaching. How can we have a clear cut understanding about this particular precept therefore put them into practice? To what extent it can be considered misrepresenting untruth?

Practitioners and scholars from various schools of Buddhism differ a lot on how they view (conceptual) thinking. For example Tsongkhapa/Gelug put a lot of emphasis on thinking because it is vitally important to “identify the object of negation”, as Tsongkhapa would put it. (The object of negation Tibetan: dgag bya, eg. inherent existence, self-existence). On the other hand, Zen scholars and practitioners I have asked are more explicit in making the point that conceptual thinking is *in itself* a hindrance and “part of the problem”. - If there is a "goal" or "point" of conceptual thinking in Buddhism, what is that "goal/point"? - What are the biggest problems of either too much or too little thinking?

Consider a situation (just a silly example) like this: Suppose I'm walking on a road or grass field, and I know there are living beings like ants and other insects lying down on the surface, but I don't have any intention to kill any being while I walk there to reach my destination. But, as I'm walking, consequently, many little beings are killed by me by stomping on them, though I don't have intention to do so. Buddhism says that only an action done with intention will account as a Karma that will affect us accordingly.. Referring to this and the situation I gave for example, does it mean that the killing of insects without intention (though I know I'm going to kill them) isn't a bad Karma? Will I not face any effect due to that action I did unintentionally, but KNOWINGLY? If that's the case, why can't I rob a house and say that I just did it to quench my starving stomach, not to hurt anyone? Isn't the consequence of doing an unintentional action considered as a seed that can affect oneself? Why? If you say I'm wrong, then how is Karma in Buddhism different from that of Jainism, where every action is a Karma?

> "One should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world. > Sutta Nipāta 2.396" Is there more negative kamma associated with killing a biting insect than with killing a more sentient animal like a sparrow or mole? For instance, do I incur more negative kamma by swatting a mosquito that is sucking my blood than if I kill a more sentient and less troublesome squirrel that is raiding my garden?

Some philosophers have the idea that humanity is undergoing a spiritual evolution. The most famous representative of this idea is G. W. F. Hegel (whose ideas Marx used and later Communism tried to put into practice). There are also many, more esoteric and religious thinkers, with ideas like that. Rudolf Steiner is one of them; he thinks humanity is evolving spiritually. The common idea between them is that we are in a better position to become acquainted with ourselves as spirit (this idea does not pertain to Marx’ materialist view, though). One of my teachers, a Plato researcher, said: “we understand Plato better than Plato could understand himself”? How is this in Buddhism? Is mankind now, 2500 years after the historical Buddha, in a better position to make use of the Dharma? Are we better “equipped for enlightenment”? Is the understanding and insights growing as time goes by? Or perhaps it is the other way around? Maybe the distance in time since the start of the spreading of the Dharma makes it more and more difficult for us? Could talk about a spiritual devolution? Or is it not changing at all, neither spiritual evolution nor devolution of mankind?

Swearing and the use of everyday vulgarity is often part of a conversation whether it be in jest or seriousness e.g. confrontation, frustration,etc How is swearing or the use of vulgarities perceived in the context of Buddhism?

As a Mahayana follower I keep growing my wish to help all beings. To accomplish this, I have developed the wish to become a Buddha. As I meditate and follow the teachings, I really wish to help all beings to be free from suffering and want them to be happy, and I really can feel by my own experience that I can make them happy by practicing. Although sometimes I also have the feeling I should help in other ways. Like giving them food or even doing some volunteer work to help them to be free from suffering, at least for a short period of time. When is the time to meditate, and when is the time to help others (and of course by doing this wanting them to be free from suffering)?

When I see something or someone beautiful, would it be good to imagine that thing or that person in decayed/old form? This idea came to me when I was reading about "Dasa sanya" (i.e. *dasasaññā* or "ten perceptions"). Will it be bad practice to take "Vipassana meditation" in a mental image form, like focusing on the decayed/old form of the particular object or person, instead of focusing on what I see?

Where does the terms 'Hinayana' and 'Mahayana' come from? Who made them up? They are often translated as "lesser vehicle" and "greater vehicle". I wonder about this translation. Is it correct? I think it sounds a bit degrading, as if Mahayana is somehow greater or better than Hinayana. Are there better terms with which to speak about what is generally called 'Hinayana' and 'Mahayana'?

I've studied both "Western" and "Eastern" philosophy (mainly Buddhism) for some time, and enjoying it a lot. Western philosophy is all about clarifying concepts. The exception might perhaps be phenomenology (I include Heidegger in that category, and so did he. When Heidegger talked about existentialism, he specifically referred to Sartre). When I was writing my MA, I asked my fellow students "how does studying philosophy affect your personal life?" The general answer was "not the slightest bit". I generally had the feeling that it was a lot of competition and everyone were trying to be better and smarter than the next guy. This is one of the things I find so utterly different in Buddhist philosophy - it's affecting my daily life and ethical outlook to a much greater extent. I think our culture is so fixated on competition and being the best, and that outlook is still affecting me to a certain extent. Does anyone have good advice for practising humility, both on and off the cushion?

Wearing a bracelet to remind me to be mindful ... is it a good idea ? from previous attempt it seemed useful for a day maybe two but than i get used to wearing the bracelet and i dont notice im wearing it What are your thoughts about doing this practice - is it useful ? are there other ways to remind yourself to be mindful ? anything someone wants to add about this subject is appreciated

Many spiritual teachings ask the followers to develop detachment towards worldly objects and events. Certain meditation techniques ask the followers to be a mere spectator to one's thoughts and get emotionally detached. Few spiritual people report having spiritual experiences like out-of-body or having seen a deity in their dreams or in daylight. My question is, how do a follower of spiritual practice differentiate between a spiritual experience and a mental or neurotic disorder like ' dissociative disorder'?

If I do not know the rules of a country, that does not count for that much in a court of law. I will still be punished for breaking the law. Likewise, if I do not know that bad speech results in bad karma will I be punished (in the sense of bad karma in the future )? Or maybe if I don't know what bad speech is will I be punished? To put the most extreme example, if I murder millions of people but I have a brain disorder and don't realize that is wrong, then will I be punished in the future by karma?

Repentence is often mentioned in Mahayana texts. Outside of my knowledge of the meaning of the English word, which is colored by Christian concerns, I'm not sure what's involved. What is done during repentance? Is it just a matter of feeling sorry?

The first lay precept says “I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.” (The formulation is from Wikipedia.) As I understand it, this rule pertains to all kinds of sentient beings. Is eating meat compatible with this precept? Is it possible to say I am following this precept when the rule I’m following in fact is “I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing but I get someone else to do the killing for me”?

I need a suggestion. I raised up as an aspirant on my side. As per my family (attached people) i was a sign of glory to them. In India, i did completed my education with good grades. I started my career on a positive note. 3 years back i was earning 1 lakhs plus every three months. Then i joined psychedelics and also started learning about religion/science related people and their thoughts. I came along buddhism. I managed to buy our own home. Now i am earning less than 1 lakhs a year. My family's financial earning was always like hand to mouth, same is mine now a days. This situation is so bad to us. To me its like i am all negative right now. I want to know 'what is the right way of earning life, when i don't want to hurt anyone else including me 'as i don't like any corporate?

This might be a poor question, for which I apologize but I am trying to gain some insight on this idea I have had for a long time... It seems that paths and practices are taught to people with the intent that they have the same results that the teacher did by doing that. But the teacher might have come across the practice by accident, and the teaching is simply their experience, not a principle. When I read suttas, interviews, articles, different sects' explanations and so on, there is an almost infinite variety of statements and interpretations, and people seem to get lost in words. If a practice was really "true" absolutely, then there could be no difference of explanation or understanding, right? It certainly is not like Physics, where everyone would get the same results of a clear experiment. If a Teacher was so wise that they came up with the practice before they had used it, that would be a miracle indeed. Is it not the case that all that is taught about spiritual development is basically experiential? Even the Buddha had to learn by doing. We are just following what he said.

I often hear and read about Buddha nature. I wonder, is Buddha nature something common to all varieties of Buddhism? And where in the scriptures can I find out more about this? I'm asking because sometimes when I hear about it, it sounds a bit like the idea of atman as brahman: which I don't understand, because how can that be compatible with anatman and emptiness?

I normally do not dream and if i dream those are very long and mixed when it comes to content (Both calming and provoking). So what is the Buddhist point of view on dreams.