This article titled [The Theory of Kama](http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm) says, > Volition, or Will (*tetana*), is itself the doer, Feeling (*vedana*) is > itself the reaper of the fruits of actions. So feelings are the fruit of will and of actions. Is the the converse also true: does diminished volition and not-acting create karma that will have a neutral sensation?

The Vinaya contains 227 rules for male monks and 311 rules for female monks. Is it known why so many additional rules were put in place for Bhikkhunis?

I see that in some theravdan traditions woman cannot fully ordain (some thai traditions). But in some burmese and tibetan traditions they can. From what I understand it is because of the break in lineage but how do these other traditions justify it?

Is the state of Nibbana the state of "not existing at all in any way" or is it nonexistence with benefits that are too deep to understand from the perspective of samsara? Does the only "bliss" pertaining to Nibbana happen during the Arahant's life or when an arahant dies? Just to be clear (because I hear conflicting words concerning this) we will be "no more" if we become enlightened and the path is learning how to accept this, right?

As a budding Buddhist, one cannot help but investigate day to day phenomena with the magnificent tools made available to us by the Buddha. An interesting thought occurred to me today and prompted me to ponder the nature of love. The conclusion that was arrived at the end of this particular stream of consciousness is that love is non hate, non greed, and (hopefully) non delusional. It is experiential, highly conditional, impinges on all faculties, and reverberates through the heartstring. As with all formations, it is impermanent. Wordly beings crave it, but few truly uncover it. How do other lay people conceptualize love? And how would a monk approach this investigation?

If one practices Goenka style Vipassana or Anapana meditation then the main object of contemplation is the nose area. If one has a cold and the nose is blocked then is it o.k. to breath through the mouth, chest or abdomen(in the Goenka, Anapana or any Buddhist meditation that uses the nose area)? If, in that situation, it is proper to breath through the mouth, then are there any special instructions for breathing through the mouth in Anapana, Goenka or any other Buddhist meditation practice that uses the nose area? What if one has always found it difficult to breath through the nose because of a partial blockage or some unknown condition that might be psychological?

I have heard the last thoughts of a person can define next life. If so can we somehow define them through practice, so when the time comes they will be as we planned? Or is there a practice that would cause them to be positive?

While practicing sitting vipassana meditation, using the felt sensations of the abdomen rising and falling with each breath as the meditation object, there is the frequent flood of mental images arising and passing away. The mental images seem much stronger, i.e. more noticeable, than the felt sensations of the meditation object. Is there a mind or mindfulness technique to make the felt sensations more noticeable, thus improving concentration on the chosen meditation object?

Some sensations are neither good nor bad, when I think there is an absence both of pleasure and pain. But what about nirvana itself? Obviously there is no vedana to it. Is its "bliss" something *like* the memory of neutral sensation? I just wonder if that's what it's like to be without the three poisons of attachment aversion and ignorance .

Lord Buddha once said "The future humans will have unusual lusts and temptations" So when i saw a this in a TV series i couldn't define the line, If two step siblings form a romantic relationship is it against the five precepts? So what if we say they are independent individuals,What then?

According to the [Lonaphala Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.099.than.html) , a minor evil deed done by a spiritual novice would take him to hell, while the same minor evil deed done by the spiritually advanced would be barely experienced. In the sutta, the Buddha gives more analogies like the salt crystal in a cup of water vs the river, the poor thief vs. the rich thief etc. which definitely work as analogies. But then could anyone explain why is it really like that? How to make sense of it? > "There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain > individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same > sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the > here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment. > > "Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him > to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped > in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in > mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling > with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual > takes him to hell. > > "Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is > experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears > for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is > developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed > in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, > dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort > of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part > barely appears for a moment.

In Buddhism we are encouraged to make the right choices, make the right effort, keep morality etc. it feels like our future is open. Kamma also points to that direction. The future will be created according to our actions! On the other hand, on several occasions, the Buddha spoke about the future as if it were predetermined. A few examples: Person A will become a Buddha, true Dhamma will be replaced, people will live only 10 years, Maitreya Buddha will come etc. It can be confusing! Is the future open? Do we know that some things will happen no matter what? Are they irreversible?

EDIT: I'll try to be clearer in what I want to know. The philosophy of good/bad, like/dislike is really irrelevant. Question: If karma is neutral, then how come "good" karma leads to "good" rebirth. These aren't my words, I've heard it being said: "good karma leads to good rebirth". What "good" means in the context of Buddhism is beside the point and why Buddhists even use the term "good rebirth" is another question. Weather or not being rich is ultimately a "good" thing, "good" karma still leads, rather conveniently, to "good" rebirth, which I take as meaning rich and healthy since that is the only interpretation I've heard. But what I want to understand is why doing good can't lead to rebirth as, for example, a worm? Why does "good rebirth" mean to be born generally fortunate (by unenlightened standards) when karma is neutral? I hope that clarifies.

I'm looking for videos with Dharma talks and am hoping that the community here can help me. Grateful for any links to online talks and DVD recommendations.

Is the law of dependent origination completely deterministic? If everything is dependent, there should be no true randomness. The current mainstream view of the physicists is that true randomness does exist, that is, it is something inherent to the reality, and not just our uncertainty about the current state of the world. In other words, they believe that there is such thing as a true source of randomness. Is this viewpoint incompatible with the Buddhist doctrine? Or does dependent origination allow for some degree of non-determinism?

I have a friend that I met few years back. He always look polite, look decent, and look helping others a lot. I did him a lot of helps that no friend would do to him. Later, when I needed helps he really, replied me with very bad words, which I never thought he can even talk like that. This thing really becoming something that I cannot forget. It seems I suffer it a lot. I was thinking how to get rid of this for a long time now. What are the practical measures in Buddhism to get rid of such hate inside one's inside. Thank you.

Problem ------- In discussions on Buddhist term *consciousness* (viññāna) with non-Buddhists, it's imperative to start with talking about life in general because---to my understanding---life after all is the physical body we possess with consciousness, i.e., we wouldn't call a physical body without consciousness a life form. Some non-Buddhists I talked with define life as simply an arbitrary biological phenomena. For example, we humans have sensors, sensor signals are interpreted by a complicated neural network in the brain, decisions and interpretations made as a result are conveyed around the body accordingly, and the motor actions take care of the rest. That's with regard to actions. Thinking is simply a neurological decision process made in the brain. Also, according to them the birth is a result of a sperm and an egg and death 'cos the heart stops. All fair explanations. But, before even introducing the concept of this continuous consciousness that continues from one life form to another, all is *understood* biologically. Life is birth + (actions + thinking) + death. All done. The continuous consciousness that I'm addressing here (that I want to explain to others) is what I have learnt to be what continues whatever the life form we take till Nibbana. Question -------- How would you initiate one to step out of the above box of reasoning and get 'em to think of consciousness? What would be your line of reasoning to counter the above biological reasoning? Note: 1. Feel free to change the question if you think its wording is not exact or not understandable. 2. The *counter arguments* I requested are purely for the sake of explanation. I've no personal interest in engaging in word-fights! 3. Consider all sub questions in Question above as one question.

Before Shinto began to adopt aspects of Buddhism i am wondering how old the 2 were as to which of the 2 was the older. by age i am referring to from when they started to become a following and not from when their creation myths occurred.

When reciting or listening to mantras such as Om Mani Pade Hum, what difference does it make when either listening, reciting or both?

I've read the following passage and I wonder if it really implies what it seems to imply. > The gravity of the offence is determined by the degree of lust motivating the action and the qualities of the person against whom the transgression is committed. When the lust is very strong, even incest and rape can be committed, the most serious being the rape of a female Arahant. http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/PDF_BuddhismCourse/11_%20Five%20Precepts.pdf If it does, why is raping a non-arahant less serious? After all, the lust is equally harmful in both cases, but in the non-arahant scenario the rape is additionally harmful to the psyche of the victim, which wouldn't be the case for an arahant. So why the act that has more negative consequences is considered less serious? And why are men and women treated unequally in this regard?