CONTEXT: In everyday conversations, we often blame other things or persons for causing our positive or negative emotions. For example, people say things like, "That dog disturbs me by always barking", "My daughter angers me by disobeying me", "My computer makes me anxious because it hangs in the middle of my work", or "My son made me very happy by scoring good marks". Quite often, people feel that they are not in control of their own emotions. They think and/or say things like, "How can I help being anxious/angry/sad while my boss/husband/neighbour/dog/computer stops behaving as he/she/it does?" It is considered normal in daily life to put the onus of change on the external factor/person, and think along the lines of: "I will become happy after I get more money/better job/trendier smartphone" or "I will start talking calmly after my daughter-in-law stops back-answering me." In other words, if Condition A is fulfilled by someone or something else, I will become happy", or "If Condition B is fulfilled by the world around me, I will gain control over my anger/sadness/anxiety etc." QUESTIONS: What does the Buddha and modern gurus say about: 1) Taking agency/responsibility for our state of mind and our behaviour? Where does agency/responsibility for our positive/negative emotions lie? 2) Taking the responsibility ourselves, or putting the responsibility on other things/persons/situations where we ourselves have no control? 3) On the correctness of saying to another person, "Unless you exercise right-speech or right-action, I am unable to exercise right-speech, right-intention and right-mindfulness?

According to Buddhism, is the Mind (known by Citta, Manas, Vinnana or any other name that corresponds to Mind/Consciousness) connected with the organ called Brain? Is the brain (or loosely speaking, head) referred to in Buddhist writings as the seat of mind, consciousness or the cause of human behaviour?

Read it a long time back, I remember it had something to do with someone meditating in a field of grass, and watching the wind go through the individual blades of grass and how they swayed. It was a specific term and dealt with emptiness and the uniqueness of each passing moment.

If someone stops going to a temple because he/she doesn't feel comfortable in that particular temple. Is this a right thing to do or is this a kind of aversion she/he needs to worry therefore should keep going to that temple?

Before Siddhartha Gautama became The Omniscient Buddha, did he believe in, support and uphold the religious beliefs that the commoners and/or learned persons practiced at the time that he lived? Or alternatively, did he question the established religious beliefs of his time, and in his culture? In other words, did Siddhartha Gautama arrive at his Enlightenment by BELIEVING in prevailing religious mythology and principles, or did he arrive at his Enlightenment by QUESTIONING, EXAMINING and REJECTING them?

In his talk titled, Science at the Crossroads , the Dalai Lama said, > On the philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last. This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be. 1. With specific reference to the last line: in the "Buddhist investigation of reality", when does empirical evidence "triumph over" or even challenge, scriptural authority? 2. Is the Dalai Lama's point of view confirmed or contradicted by other points of view in the scriptures, or in the talks and writings of recent Gurus?

What are the 3 commom and 3 uncommon preliminaries in Tibetan Buddhism?

Zen question-and-answers and talks like the ones described here don't seem like commonly accepted 'right speech'; yet, they are believed or intended to trigger spiritual progress. In what way do such Zen interactions deliver benefits? For example, are they meant to be thought-provoking dissonance, discomfort and anger, and thereby cause dissatisfaction with habitually-held positions, and thereby create scope for spiritual progress? Have the teachers specified (in any writings or talks) how to distinguish such dissonance-causing dialectics from "wrong speech" which causes hindrance in spiritual progress and delivers no spiritual benefits to listeners/readers?

I just reread Bachelor's translation of MMK . It struck me that the argument against causation was that: A cause has no essence in addition to what it is, else it would not be the final cause. But it must have an essence if it is to be active for more than a moment. So everything is radically impermanent: and nothing exists long enough to be born and then cease. And so everything that is born and ceases is empty, it is not a final cause. Any conditioned entity is then a mere conventional designation, something which can be identified in a better way (and on forever) and so is always incorrectly identified. ---------- But I was reading about Sautrantika-Yogacara, and the idea that "existents" which aren't unique particulars aren't causally real. This to me seems wrong, I think we can eliminate the unique particulars from a theory and be left with something which is grounded in the particulars' causal properties. This is what some scientific realists do. ---------- My question Assuming it true that there can be causation without causes, then is there any way to argue that the sentences of science, with their unique particulars eliminated, are not conceptually constructed? Perhaps because only those particulars are as such, and so empty; and our ideas about the rest of the world can be grounded in them, without that structure being thereby empty.

Reading this question and its accepted answer prompted me to ask the following question: Is there a difference between Suttas and Sutras? and, if so, what is the difference? Thank you

Before Siddhartha Gautama attained Enlightenment, did he have a normal human body with normal human attributes? Or was his body anatomically different or superior to yours and mine in its physical attributes? If different, in what ways was it different? Before Enlightenment, did Siddhartha Gautama have a **mind** (or mental/spiritual capabilities) that was different from a normal human mind? If his mind differed from yours and mine, in what ways did it differ? What do scriptural writings and recent gurus say about this? What are your own thoughts about this?

In this answer , I was told, > Many Mahayana schools of Buddhism, including at least *some* Zen sects and *some* Tibetan Vajrayana lineages, understand the supernatural as skillful means (*upaya*), i.e. useful metaphors/simplifications pointing to aspects of "reality". Assuming this to be true, can these schools of thought discard the supernatural aspects (which we may refer to as "myths of Buddhism"), as such metaphors may be less useful or not useful in the modern age? In other words, may we "modernize" Buddhism as an upaya? If the supernatural elements or "myths" (such as Buddhist cosmology etc.) are skillful means rather than integral to The Buddha's teachings, then is it correct to say that "modernizing" the teachings could also be an Upaya? Has any recent guru (within the past 50 years or so) mentioned such a possibility of "modernizing Buddhism" in his writings or his speeches? Kindly give references.

***Three gates and Four marks*** are shown using these tearms -Impermanence, Suffering, Non-self, Voidness, Nirvana,Shunyata (Emptiness). Some questions discuss them separatly. But some conflicts can see. Quote from FullPeaceOrg > The Three marks of existence (Pali: tilakkhaṇa; Sanskrit: trilakṣaṇa), > are these three characteristics (**Theravada**) > > Impermanence (Anicca) > Suffering or unsatisfactoriness (Dukkha) > Non-self or not-self (Anatta) > > This is a central teaching in Buddhism - completely understanding > these three leads to the liberation of Nirvana/Nibbana. All sentient > beings experience these marks of existence Quote from Andrei > In an interesting twist, my present teacher, who comes from a > **Taoism**-influenced non-sectarian tradition, speaks of ***Three Gates To > Enlightenment***, the experiential realizations one must go through on > one's way to Completion: > > - Pain or Suffering. One must realize that life is painful and accept pain as necessary condition for one's growth. This involves > dropping resistance that comes from seeing pain as important factor of > one's decisions. > - Impermanence or Transience. One must fully accept that nothing is permanent in one's life, and admit the inevitability of death. This > involves dropping attachments to what one holds as dear. > - Nothingness or Voidness. One must go through the realization that life is pointless and has no meaning in the absolute sense. This > involves dropping fundamental preconceptions or imperatives about the > purpose of one's life. > Quote from Three Marks of **Mahayana** > Most of the time in Mahayana (both **Vajrayana** and **Zen**) I hear of **Four Marks of Existence**: Transience, Unsatisfactoriness, Corelessness, and > Nirvana. All four are subsumed under Shunyata (Emptiness) which is > equated with Pratitya-Samutpada (Dependent Co-Arising). **Is something missing there?** **Is there any common agreement?**

Suppose A's granddad died many years ago and was buried in the back yard. Right next to his tomb, grows a very fruitful apple tree. There are many delicious apples on that tree. Is it ok to eat these apples? There is a very high chance, that the tree obtained energy from the tomb. When the granddad's corpse decayed, it released a lot of biological substances that are good for the tree.

During the last part of a concentration exercise (focusing eyes on a point between eyebrows) I felt a need to contract my Pubococcygeus muscle . During contraction I was feeling some vibration in my left wrist. What was that? It was nice vibration while my mind was clear.

How are the elements of Buddhist Cosmology (31 planes of existence, hungry ghosts/shades, angry deities, etc.) confirmed? Are there writings of recent gurus in the past 50 years or so, confirming, questioning or analyzing the elements of this cosmology in the light of modern science and their own experience? Other than faith in the ancient texts, is there any other basis for modern Buddhists to believe in Buddhist Cosmology? If so, what is that basis?

In [this answer](https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1693/254) to my question about why we keep referring to antiquated old parables and similes, Inzenity wrote, > "The scriptures are part of the teachings, the source of the teachings. It makes sense that to learn the teachings, what you call true Buddhism, they must go to the source material." The source material is not really straight from Buddha's pen, is it; nor is it even from the pens of his contemporaries or his disciples. What anybody may call source material was first committed to writing many centuries after the death of Gautam Buddha. **Isn't that's a bit like a whole bunch of us on this forum sitting down to commit to writing what was said by some guru who lived 10 generations ago, after about 500 years of oral transmission at least?** And then all that was translated from Pali into English -- possibly not in a single step either. And in between, there were commentaries in many languages, and many diverse traditions of speech and thought... **So, is it really "source material", just because it has bits and pieces of Pali tradition and ancient similes attached to it, imparting a certain quaint orientalism to the whole conglomerate? And if this body of work somehow acquired bits and pieces of Nordic or Mayan similes, parables etc, then would it stop suddenly being "Buddhist source material"?** Inzenity also wrote (about use of original explanations and logical arguments, as against the old well-worn ones from various Buddhist texts), > When they go to another person's teachings, are they still Buddhists or followers of the new guru? New religions are created this way. True that! Being original about it may mean that we may drift away from Buddhist teachings, and end up starting new religions or, alternatively, following new religions. **Are we hanging on to quaint old parables and similes and Pali aphorisms translated painfully into English, for the luxury of calling ourselves Buddhists, instead of, say, "Robertists" or "Umeshists" or "followers of Osho Rajneesh"? How sure are we that we haven't unknowingly gone to "another person's teaching" already -- those persons being numerous disciples and commentarists who willy-nilly added their own substantial philosophical DNA to Buddha's teachings, or alternatively, excised crucial teachings from Buddha's body of thought? What is Buddhism about, anyway? Is Buddhism about learning precepts about the nature of existence "at the feet of a master" as it were? Or is it about a fearless enquiry into the nature of existence, guided by numerous masters who broadly follow Buddha's school of thought, but not enchained to the philosophies of these masters?**

Practice : Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw Is there any "Gatha" (Verse) can be used to contemplate on "Death"? The purpose is to use as an aid to generate necessary energy to continue practice [mostly as the first thing in the morning]

From infancy till old age, our bodily, psychological and even spiritual change and evolve. Also, their faults or risks differ at each stage of life. For instance, the greatest "fault" of an infant is ignorance of the world, and simultaneously, her greatest need is to physically explore. The same infant may grow into a youth whose greatest fault is lack of self-knowledge, and his/her greatest need is to explore the word of relationships and seek romance. The same youth may grow into an old person whose greatest fault may be a false sense of power, authority and ownership over other people, and whose deepest need may simply be peace and rest. So, is there one dharma preaching for all stages of life (or stages of evolution) in Buddhism? or are there many?

I have heard there are 4 unthinkable (acinteyya) concepts in Buddhism. Not Acintya . The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows: > > - The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha > develops as a result of becoming a Buddha]; > - The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana]; > - The [precise working out of the] results of kamma; > - Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about. Why It says Unthinkable?