According to this site, one of the questions asked at ordination is "do you have eczema?" to which the reply must be "No, Venerable" in order to ordain. Is this accurate? Is it the case the one with eczema cannot ever become a monk?

Learning Buddha dharma we need to dive in to the dharma world. Without knowing the truth about Dharma we can not reach our enlightenment.

In the Aghatavinaya Sutta , there are five antidotes given for arisen ill-will(āghāto). I am puzzled because one of these is to develop equanimity ("upekkhā tasmiṃ puggale bhāvetabbā") and another is to reflect on ownership of kamma, which is used to generate (/is the cause of) equanimity as I understand it. I don't understand what is intended by having these separate. Full text follows. > "There are these five ways of subduing hatred by which, when hatred > arises in a monk, he should wipe it out completely. Which five? > > "When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should develop > good will for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual > should be subdued. > > "When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should develop > compassion for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual > should be subdued. > > "When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should develop > equanimity toward that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual > should be subdued. > > "When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should pay him > no mind & pay him no attention. Thus the hatred for that individual > should be subdued. > > "When one gives birth to hatred for an individual, one should direct > one's thoughts to the fact of his being the product of his actions: > 'This venerable one is the doer of his actions, heir to his actions, > born of his actions, related by his actions, and has his actions as > his arbitrator. Whatever action he does, for good or for evil, to that > will he fall heir.' Thus the hatred for that individual should be > subdued. > > "These are five ways of subduing hatred by which, when hatred arises > in a monk, he should wipe it out completely."

What did the Buddha mean when he spoke about *samma samadhi*? Did he mean access concentration *(upacara samadhi)* or full absorption *(appana samadhi)* or momentary concentration *(khanika samadhi)*?

What is the equivalent to the 3 Marks of Existence in Vajrayana or Mahayana Buddhism? I heard a version of the Buddha's enlightenment¹, where the Buddha didn't realize impermanence, dukkha and no-self but in place of that he realized the past, the present and the future. That sounded a bit odd to me, is that a popular Vajrayana version of the Buddha's enlightenment? --- ¹ Here is how the Buddha's enlightenment is narrated in the movie "*Kundun*": > "Then, at the time of midnight, the Bodhisattva saw a clear light. Then he saw in a single instant the three states of existence, > the past, the present, and the future > purified by the clear light. Then, sitting at the Tree of Enlightenment, he conquered all the devils."

Among the descriptions of stream-enterer (sotāpanna) is one which says that they is not capable of committing [six wrong actions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sot%C4%81panna#Six_actions_that_cannot_be_committed) : > - Murdering one's own mother. - Murdering one's own father. - Murdering an arahant. - Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing blood. - Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community. - Taking another teacher. Question: 1. **Do the scriptures and/or commentators say something** about the significance of this particular selection of actions? Why are these (and not some other) actions the ones which cannot be committed? 2. Is it suggested hereby that **creating a schism** in the monastic community **is as grave an action** as patricide, matricide or murder of a holy and peaceful person? 3. Does it also mean that taking another teacher **is like wounding one's teacher**, which is as terrible an offence as patricide, matricide, murder etc?

I'm asking about what ancient traditionalist wrote or believed, particularly the ones the reified the narkas, i.e. took them literally. Us humans don't normally remember our past lives and this is made explicit in Mahayana, where one of the qualities of a Buddha is that they can remember past lives. If people are reborn in hells and they don't know why they are there, I'm not sure how effective the punishment is. Did anyone come up with a rationalization for punishment for crimes they don't remember, or did people in the hells remember what they did?

I generally had the understanding that there is no way one can save the deceased from the consequences of their Kamma. At most, we can send Metta to the deceased which may comfort them wherever they exist. This understanding of mine is based on this story , wherein the Buddha using the analogy of butter and stones in two earthen pots makes the son of a deceased father understand that one cannot help the deceased escape from their Kamma by performing rites and rituals. But I was surprised to come across the Ullambana Sutra in another answer in this forum, where the Budhha seems to suggest the contrary - recommending rites and rituals for the benefit of the deceased and in fact their liberation from woeful states. Can anyone clarify this contradiction and elaborate on how one can help the deceased? Is Metta for the deceased effective for their well being? P.S. My question is not to create controversy. I'm more interested in learning the right view than the contradiction, if that helps anyone answer. I would be glad even if anyone answered the question without touching upon the contradiction part.

I realize that at least the first part of the title is probably the most easily researched question with relevance to Buddhism possible, but I'd say I've read quite a bit and though I've seen very appealing and interesting ideas, I have no idea how to actually apply many of them. I'm a fourteen year old male. I've always sorta felt like there was something more but that Christianity always looked outside yourself seemed wrong. Recently I had a spiritual experience and soon after read Be Here Now and it all seems to fit perfectly. I just have no idea what to do. I have little choice in what I eat, wear, how I look, none in what I live (etc)... what do I do? I'm trying to meditate and though it does make me conscious and alert, I feel like soon after I feel a strange warm sensation I "snap out of it" automatically. More than the actual lifestyle changes, of course, I'm looking for changes in the way I think and act. The spiritual experience sorta let me see the degree to which almost everything around me is fake and wrong. I feel like I'm a much better person compared to the guy I was before but I'm just having incredible difficulties making it stay because though my state of mind and experience has changed, my surroundings have not and I feel like due to my confidence problems I conform. I realize that this journey lasts a lifetime and forever, but I'm afraid that if I don't make progress and begin it'll just be a forgotten memory. Has anyone been in a similar situation? Any tips? What did you do that finally made you adopt the lifestyle? I'd be perfectly satisfied with a link or a name of a book but I need something.

I am given to understand that a true Buddhist seeks tirelessly to liberate from the suffering (dukkha) of existence all living beings, and not only humans. Attainment of Buddhahood depends on such actions on an ongoing basis, I am told. Based on this, my question is: 1) Apart from generally showing compassion and benevolence towards all living beings, in what ways do accomplished Buddhism practitioners work for the liberation of living being as diverse as, say, ants, pine trees, salmon and e-coli bacteria? What do the scriptures say, and what do the more recent writings say on this matter? 2) How do accomplished Buddhism practitioners liberate from dukkha the beings of non-earthly nature of other lokas, such as angry deities and hungry ghosts? What do the scriptures say, and what does recent literature say?

I'm confused over Buddhism's lack of afterlife, yet belief in rebirth. * https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26/if-there-is-no-soul-how-can-there-be-rebirth * https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/7733/what-happens-to-the-five-aggregates-after-death?lq=1 * https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10485/consciousness-in-nibbana From reading answers given on this site, there is no rebirth of the self or consciousness. Logically then any concern of either suffering from bad karma in a next life, or being reborn as an animal is unwarranted. Although apparently death leads to rebirth, Nirvana appears futile as life will continue to reproduce unhindered. Life is far more effective at producing more life than death is. What does Nirvana offer that death does not? It would seem they both lead to oblivion.

[This comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11482/can-the-elements-of-buddhist-cosmology-be-confirmed/11507#comment19041_11482) suggests that the various lokas and beings inhabiting them can be taken metaphorically, i.e. it said, >Many of these can be answered with references back to metaphorical interpretations, by both traditional lineages and by the modern secular Buddhism movement. If I were you I would ask questions about the meaning behind the metaphorical language and how it can be applied to solve the problems of life and death. --- So, as a follow-on from that comment — i.e. if or when they *are* interpreted metaphorically: 1. Is there an overarching metaphorical meaning of the 31 lokas, and the various kinds of beings that inhabit them? What is the meaning, and how does this meaning help the practitioners of Buddhism, and all earthly beings? 2. Wikipedia descrides the Bṛhatphala planes as follows — unless this reference is inaccurate, would you explain how *its* metaphorical meaning can help practitioners and all earthly beings? > [Bṛhatphala Planes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology_of_the_Theravada_school#B.E1.B9.9Bhatphala_Planes) > > These two realms are a result of attaining the fourth jhana. They remain in the tranquil state attained in the 4th Jhana, and is characterized by equanimity (upekṣā). > > - 22 - Unconscious beings (Asaññasatta) Realm of mindless beings who have only bodies without consciousness. Rebirth into this plane results from a meditative practice aimed at the suppression of consciousness. Those who take up this practice assume release from suffering can be achieved by attaining unconsciousness. However, when the life span in this realm ends, the beings pass away and are born in other planes where consciousness returns. > > - 21 - Very Fruitful devas (vehapphala deva) In the Jhana Sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya the Buddha said "The Vehapphala devas, monks, have a life-span of 500 eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades."

Irreverent humour is reasonably well-tolerated in some sections of modern society. For instance, jokes about the pope and about pastors' wives are fairly widespread among even church-going Christians. There are also plenty of God and Devil jokes. What, if any, role does humour play in Buddhism? Are jokes about The Buddha, or Buddhist gurus and their disciples taboo or in bad taste? If so, what is the basis for this? Is humour discouraged for reasons such as, say, retarding progress towards Nirvana? Are such jokes considered against Vinaya?

Buddhists often cite the research of people like Ian Stevenson or Jim Tucker in support of their views on rebirth. My understanding however is that these researchers consider their evidence supports the idea of reincarnation - i.e. that they believe in a strong form of body/mind or matter/spirit dualism which allows for the same spirit to inhabit a series of new bodies and thus retain their memories (which are perforce not stored physically in the brain, but psychically in some as yet unknown medium that is available to beings whatever body they happen to be in). Doesn't this approach contradict Buddhist doctrines on rebirth and dependent arising? Given that it conflicts with our fundamental doctrines, how do we explain the popularity of such reincarnation research amongst Buddhists?

Is there any historical third-party evidence that the Gautama Buddha actually existed? Is there historical third-party evidence that Prince Siddhartha or the Gautama Buddha existed outside of the writings of Buddhism?

How can I trust someone who lies, manipulates and hurts people? I know a person who manipulates people and I know I can not trust him but recently, the mother of that person has health problems, and my group of friends want to integrate him. I do not agree and now I have the impression of lacking compassion. What should I do? Should I be more compassionate?

It's said that our actions are originated from unconscious mind. People are trying to become more patient, more tolerable, etc. but there are anger type of people, lustful type of people, etc.. Once the circumstances change, people also change according to their nature. So can we change our 'true nature' by just doing good deeds? Or good deeds have to come from our true nature? Thanks all.

I remember reading about one sutta "emptiness in small gap". Since consciousness (Vijñāna) raises and falls all the time, between each consciousness there is a very small and briefest gap where Vijñāna doesn't take place. If i remember correctly, Buddha might have said about this emptiness as FYI. Anyone could help me find sutta about "emptiness in small gap" or "emptiness in small space", or "void in tight space". i want to study this sutta again to see if buddha ralated this emptiness to vimutti or maha-sunyata. thanks

In Unnabho Brahmano Sutta: The Brahman Unnabha says > "There are, Brahman, these five sense-faculties... which do not share > in each other's sphere of action. Mind is their resort, and it is mind > that profits from their combined activity." > > "But, good Gotama, what is mind's resort?" > > "Mind's resort, Brahman, is mindfulness." > > "Then, good Gotama, what is the resort of mindfulness?" > > "The resort of mindfulness, Brahman, is liberation." > > "Then, good Gotama, what is the resort of liberation?" > > "The resort of liberation is Nibbaana." > > "Then, good Gotama, what is the resort of Nibbaana?" > > "That question goes too far Brahman. No answer can encompass it. The > aim of the holy life, Brahman, is immersion in Nibbaana, it has > Nibbaana for its final end, Nibbaana for its conclusion." Is this suttha says Nibbaana resort on five seance faculties? or If Not how can it seance?

As a practitioner (but a beginner) of Anapana and Vipassana meditation, I have realized and experienced the immense benefits of the technique and the immense potential of Dhamma to bring change and goodness in whoever applies it in life. As is natural, when one samples something as beneficial as the Dhamma, one cannot contain the benefits to oneself and is always tempted to suggest the practise of Vipassana to those around us, so that they may also start coming out of their misery. This is what I understand is one of the qualities of Dhamma, "Ehipassiko". But, the question really is, should a beginner like me even talk about it to others? Because, I still have my share of mental defilements and as a result I'm still prone to wrong thoughts, words and deeds. Therefore, although I genuinely feel like recommending the practise of Vipassana to others out of compassion, I'm apprehensive that I may not be the best example to show others what practitioners of Vipassana really are and that may as a result corrupt the idea of the Buddha's teachings in the minds of someone who may be listening to Dhamma for the first time. So, should one really talk about the Dhamma and Vipassana to others and if yes, when (at what minimum level of advancement or personal progress on the path, so that one inspires others as a personal living example)?