Some explanations of the second Noble truth emphasizes the three poisons of ignorance, attachment and aversion as the causes of Dukkha. There are probably many different ways to lay this out, but my question is about ignorance, our misunderstanding of the nature of reality. What is the most basic and important deeply rooted ignorance about reality? What is it – on the most basic level – that we don’t see? What is it about the nature of reality that we are ignorant about? What is it that this bewilderment about reality consists of?

Every statue of the Buddha I have seen depicts him as having long ears. Did Buddha really have long ears? If so, why and how did he get long ears?

Dependent arising is often explained in three different levels, from the coarse to the depest. On the first level dependent arising is explained according to causes and conditions. That is, things arise dependently on causes. This is referring to nonstatic phenomena – phenomena that change from moment to moment and are affected by things, namely causes and conditions. And then the second level of understanding dependent arising is that things arise dependently on parts. And that refers to everything, both static and nonstatic; in other words, things that don’t change from moment to moment and things that do change from moment to moment. The third level of dependent arising is things arise dependently in terms of or in relation to mental labeling. And this deals with the deepest truth about things: how they exist. I sometimes feel that the first level is deeper than the second. If i meditate on causes on coniditions there is no end to it. There's no end to it regarding dependence on parts either, but the time aspect seems to be different. 1. Are there any Buddhist philosophies that put special emphasis on the first level of dependent arising as perhaps even more suptle than the second? 2. About the third level. Is this mainly a Mahayana/Madhyamka idea? I'm not asking if it's a good or bad/ right or wrong idea. (It seems to me that some of the discussions here are from such different perspective according to what tenet system the writer writes from) But is there a very generally accepted answer to this?

Lifestyle means the daily activities carried out, the monasteries, the rules and regulations, etc. If there are more than one types of the traditions, then please focus your answer on Tibetan Buddhism.

Does anyone have a good tip for literature about different varieties of rangtong (empty of self) and shentong (empty of other) perspectives on emptiness?

I'm new to the practice of Buddhism. But I'm not new to the philosophical ideas of Buddhism. I've just begun a ground course in Tibetan Buddhism. The shamata parts are good, the philosophy parts not so much. I feel that the "view" is not really explained at all (for example, emptiness and the two truths). This creates a tension when I sit in "class". If this was university I'd go right ahead and state my opinion about the lack of proper introduction to these views. But somehow I feel I'm not supposed to object or criticize, I'm a bit afraid to offend and so on. But honestly I feel the philosophy part is not duly taken care of and explained. My question is, does anyone have any advice for me about how to relate to this feeling of lack of teaching on basic Buddhist philosophy when in "class"? And what if some of what the teacher says is simply wrong or misleading: would you comment directly on that?

Even though emptiness (Śūnyatā) seems like it should just be one thing (concept/experinece/realisation) does it in fact have different types? Can it be categorised in any way? I know Buddhism is very keen on lists. Is there a list of different types of emptiness in any tradition? The motivation for this question is that I remember hearing that there were 32 types of sūnyatā. However I can't remember where I heard this so I'm hoping that this question might cast some light on that issue. If anyone could provide reference to canonical texts, commentaries or other sources about this, that would be particularly good.

In the general view of "attachment" in Buddhism, is the _quality_ of attachment considered to be the same across all possible types of attachments? Or are there different qualities or degrees of attachment? Put another way, can one kind of attachment be considered "less bad" or "more bad" than another kind? Or is it all just "attachment" in a general sense, without distinction? For example: Is clinging to the nostalgia of an old childhood friendship any different than clinging to money or cars?

In [the suttas quoted in this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11081/254) , the Buddha describes the Citta as pure, free from defilement and transcending the 5 aggregates, and its liberation from samsara as the highest aim of his teaching. Is this evidence that the Buddha never taught "emptiness" (in the Mahayana sense of "emptiness of inherent existence"), and does it contradict the Mahayana doctrine of "emptiness? [Pabhassara Sutta AN 1.49-52 PTS: A i 10 (I,v,9-10; I,vi,1-2)](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an01/an01.049.than.html)

Do buddhists pray? Do they ever speak to the universe in a spiritual manner? What are buddhists views on suicide? Do you help plan out your life before being reincarnated?

I received an email invite from a local Buddhist group that's holding a "Dhammanusati practice". In part it stated "Of the meditation practices, one of the most important practices is called Dhammanusati, the Contemplation of the Dharma". It was described as an ancient form of deep listening. Dhammanusati looked to me like a typical Pali word and I thought I'd have no problem googling it and getting more information. But the only things that came up were a few blogs and videos and no results at all on the sites I usually rely on. Is this a Pali word? Is it more commonly known by a different name? From the email I have a pretty good idea of what the practice involves. It's actually the word itself that is curious to me due to the lack of information online about it. Thanks for any information. :)

According to this page the same word, 'kusala', can mean 'wholesome', 'skillful', 'good', or 'meritorious'. In English, these words have very different meanings or connotations, especially in different cultural contexts, e.g., in cultures that have religious ideas of sin. For this reason, I am wondering if anyone can provide more information about the Pāli term, the connotations it had, and the subtleties of its meaning in the context of Buddhist teachings (generally or in specific contexts, i.e., specific suttas). Does it carry a moral sense with it (in the sense of sin)? Thanks.

I often hear that meditation is best at the first part of the day, and it is usually recommended to meditate before eating. Yet it seems odd to me that for the Dali Lama, washing would come first and meditation would come second. The only explanation I can come up with is that the washing would allow for enough time to pass so that the early morning 'dreamy' state of mind would wear off? (I am not sure if the Dali Lama still follows his traditional schedule, I am talking about the Dali Lama of centuries past)

[Consensus Buddhism](https://meaningness.wordpress.com/category/buddhism/consensus-buddhism/) is a term invented by David Chapman. To me it seems to be another name for what Thanissaro Bhikkhu calls [Buddhist Romanticism](http://www.tricycle.com/feature/romancing-buddha) . [Here](https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/the-crumbling-buddhist-consensus-preface/) are some characteristics of the supposed consensus, according to Chapman: > consensus Western Buddhism is—supposedly—egalitarian, democratic, anti-hierarchy, ecumenical, accepts all religious traditions (except of course Bad forms of Buddhism), respects and sometimes incorporates psychotherapy, is ecologically aware, talks about social justice, promotes internal and external peace, etc. [Moreover](https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/nice-buddhism/) : > Western Buddhism kept some traditional Buddhist mythology (in the same way liberal Christianity keeps some traditional mythology), but you aren’t expected to believe in it. It’s a bunch of “teaching stories,” not Truth. > > Consensus Buddhists mostly don’t believe in Buddhas, either. The important thing is not enlightenment, but a morality of good intentions, harmonious behavior, and inoffensiveness. [And](https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/wholeness-connection-and-meditation-competing-visions/) : > The main practice of Consensus Buddhism is vipassana. This method is meant to shatter the self and break connections. Western Buddhists mostly want and expect the opposite results. When describing "Consensus Buddhism", Chapman writes a lot about "hegemony", "monopoly" that "Consensus Buddhists" want to achieve, as well as "suppressing other alternatives". And he writes that such an approach dominated Buddhism in the West for a long time and only recently that "consensus" is "starting to break down". Despite having contact with various Buddhist groups in the last years, I hardly came across anyone who fits with the description of Consensus Buddhism, so I have the following questions: 1. In your experience, does/did mainstream Buddhism in the West really match the definition of Consensus Buddhism? 2. In your experience, what was the period when it dominated the mainstream Western Buddhism (in terms of printed media, number of followers, etc.)? 3. In your experience, does/did it really try to supress its alternatives? 4. If the answer to the first question is "yes", was the phenomenon of "Consensus Buddhism" restricted to any particular country or part of the world? (I have a feeling that there may be big differences in this regard between, say, North America, Europe and Oceania.) 5. What are the names of the "Consensus Buddhist" groups you know about?

When I come across animal or bird or bug injured and in pain, no resources available nearby to shelter, do I leave it to nature or kill it to end its misery. What is Buddhism view on mercy?

Taoism and Buddhism say we should distance our self from suffering and accept life as is if we cannot change it. But what if we have serious clinical depression or cannot provide properly for those we care about? It is easy to distance when your self is the only factor but not when others depend on us. If we cannot make the lives of those we care about good then is the next step to teach them Buddhist or Tao values of accepting life as is?

The 4 elements are: pruṭhavī-dhātu - solidity or attraction. This holds something together. You feel this as tightness, pressure in the body. āpa-dhātu - liquidity or relative motion. teja-dhātu - heat or energy. Body temperature, vibrations in the body you feel in meditation. Difference of temperature in and out meditation. vāyu-dhātu - expansion or repulsive forces. You feel this as pulsation or expansion and contraction in the body or flow of respiration, rumbling gasses in the belly and passing of wind. ---------------- So can we expand our knowledge about "Four great elements" in Buddhism using the knowledge that we have already understood by other means?

I would like to research this method in historical texts, but any search on google for ‘body scan’ only returns results related to the modern vipassana movement.

It maybe a very confusing question. But I have been contemplating this quite a lot recently. Ven. Ajahn Chah preached, as the Lord Buddha once said : > *One who sees Sankhara and is purged of attachment has happiness. Mind is Sankhara. Body is Sankhara. Sankhara is not us or ours. Thus those who see Sankhara are at peace. They see the mind and body not as 'self' but only as 'Sankhara'.* (pg.22, paragraph 3) > - Excerpt from **'Being Dharma' By Ven.Ajahn Chah** When I contemplate these deep words, I feel that 'Sankhara' means 'things that are conditioned, impermanent, ever changing and not reliable sources of happiness'. Wikipedia defines 'Sankhara' as follows: > **Saṅkhāra (Pali; Sanskrit saṃskāra)** is a term figuring prominently in Buddhism. The word means 'that which has been put together' and 'that which puts together'. In the *first (passive) sense*, saṅkhāra refers to conditioned phenomena generally but specifically to all mental "dispositions". These are called 'volitional formations' both because they are formed as a result of volition and because they are causes for the arising of future volitional actions. English translations for saṅkhāra in the first sense of the word include 'conditioned things,' 'determinations,' 'fabrications' and 'formations' (or, particularly when referring to mental processes, 'volitional formations'). In the *second (active) sense* of the word, saṅkhāra refers to that faculty of the mind/brain apparatus (sankhara-khandha) that puts together those formations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra But when we think even deeper, if both mind and body are 'sankhara', then *who* is the 'being' within our minds, who travels through this eternity of existence? This 'being' that some refer simply (and quite wrongly) as an 'Āthma' or in other ways as 'existence'? If 'Āthma' or 'existence' is Sankhara, then how does it endlessly exist? Sure it changes from one existence to another, but it is *endlessly existing* , which contradicts the nature of 'Sankhara' itself, making 'our existence' *immortal*. It is like a man travelling from house to house. The house breaks down, but the man is eternally travelling. Who is this man, and how is he eternally travelling, is he is also 'Sankhara'? Shouldn't he also end at some point or the other? In this analogy, the man is the 'existence', and the house symbolizes our body and mind. I know this is very confusing material, but I consider this site a realm filled with knowledgeable beings. I would find myself very happy to find any number of meaningful replies. Thankyou!!!

Sometimes I feel that my consciousness is separate from my body. How can this be explained in Buddhism? What is this state ? Can consciousness exist externally without physical body?