This seems to be a common trope-- samnaha. I honestly have no idea what they mean, it strikes me as a "it's raining cats and dogs" sort of idiom. Is there an explanation for what it means? Examples: > For they wear the armor of great vows, accumulate merits, deliver all > beings from birth-and-death, visit Buddha-lands to perform the > bodhisattva practices, make offerings to Buddhas http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/48-bosatsu-vows.shtml And in Shingon, they visualize themselves putting on armor (or physically don?) Thinking Through Shingon Ritutual "Then one protects the body by donning armor..."

I'm a strict vegetarian and non-alcoholic. But all my friends are non-vegetarians and alcohol consumers. So, when I host a party at my place, it becomes obligatory of me to host them with alcohol and non-vegetarian food (bought from a restaurant). Although, I have done this in the past, I have started to think if it is really right of me to do so, since I may be aiding them in breaking their Sila. But, coming from a culture where guests are to be treated as Gods, I also wonder if it will be rude of me to call them home and not serve to their liking. So, should I, at the cost of hosting a boring(for them) party, appearing rude and risk losing their company, help them keep their Sila intact (if at all it does) at least for an evening? Or should I not bother about trying to combine preaching and hosting and keep my ethics limited to me? P.S. I'm convinced that consumption of meat and alcohol is breaking of Sila in the true spirit of the Buddha's teachings, irrespective of how certain sects or traditions of Buddhism may justify alcohol and meat consumption.

I just finished re-watching this lecture by Jan Nattier , an academic expert in Mahayhana Buddhism. She mentioned that the 10 Bhumis in the 26th chapter of the Avatamsaka had a predecessor called the Buddavatamasaka which had a more coherent enumeration of 10 Bhumis and had steps that mere mortals could follow. I can't find it it anywhere. Wikipedia does mention the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, but that appears to be the free standing later version of the 10 Bhumis. The Cleary translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is the later version of the 10 Bhumis that is mostly opaque literary bombast, describes the results of the steps but not the steps and other than bodhicitta, doesn't describe any steps that mere mortals can engage in in this life.

In this question The Seven Factors of Enlightenment shown, Tranquility, Concentration, Equanimity, Investigation of dhammas, Effort and Rapture as specific phases in the path of enlightenment (also in a linear progression), and how to apply them. Also here . The seven levels of consciousness which make up the path of spiritual development , shown in TM as: 1. the state of waking consciousness; 2. deep sleep; 3. dreaming; 4. transcendental consciousness; 5. cosmic consciousness; 6. god consciousness; unity consciousness. Are these steps equally valued in the Buddhist path?

I ask this question in the context of one who does wrong action and gets right results anyways, which happens a lot. Someone with a pretty good understanding of Kamma but to my knowledge it doesn't usually work like that. So, wrong action produces right results regularly, a lot of times ends up on top and in a better situation even through challenging circumstances... practices diligently. What is known about this phenomenon?

Suppose a leading Buddhist figure -- say a well-known Tibetan monk -- were to suddenly start displaying cultural behavior appropriate to other religious faiths. For instance, suppose this monk were to start performing namaz like a Muslim five times a day, and frequently make the sign-of-the-cross gesture during conversations. Would this result in loss of rank, social standing and credibility in his own circles? Or would this cause others around him to start looking up to him? What's your opinion? Are Buddhist cultural habits and traditional ways of dress, behavior, speech etc. important for making spiritual progress?

Is not doing what others tell you to do a wholesome or unwholesome act? When someone tells you to do something, and you decline, when it's a wholesome act and when it's an unwholesome act from your part? When someone tells you to do something, and you accept, when it's a wholesome act and when it's an unwholesome act from your part? **Example 1:** Person A looks at the lawn in front of the house and tells to person B: "The yard is ugly with that high lawn. Go mow that lawn now!" Person B looks at the lawn and says to person A: "The yard is just the yard. The lawn is just the lawn. Neither cannot be beautiful nor ugly. **The lawn is not too high.** I'll mow the lawn when it grows higher." Person A, angrily: "No, you mow the lawn now because it's too high and the yard is ugly with that lawn!" Person B, calmly: "The yard cannot be ugly nor beautiful. The yard is just the yard. The lawn is not too high. If you think it's too high, mow it yourself." Note: Both persons have the same capabilities and resources to mow the lawn and no time constraints. Person A is angry with person B. Person B is calm, unaffected. Which person has acted wholesomely or unwholesomely , A, B or both? Why? **Example 2:** Person A looks at the lawn in front of the house and tells to person B: "The yard is ugly with that high lawn. Go mow that lawn now!" Person B looks at the lawn and says to person A: "The yard is just the yard. The lawn is just the lawn. Neither cannot be beautiful nor ugly. **Yes, the lawn is very very high.** I'll mow the lawn when it grows higher." Person A, angrily: "No, you mow the lawn now because it's too high and the yard is ugly with that lawn!" Person B, calmly: "The yard cannot be ugly nor beautiful. The yard is just the yard. Yes, the lawn is very very high, but I'll wait until it grows higher. If you think it's too high, mow it yourself." Note: Both persons have the same capabilities and resources to mow the lawn and no time constraints. Person A is angry with person B. Person B is calm, unaffected. Which person has acted wholesomely or unwholesomely, A, B or both? Why? **Example 3:** Same example as example 1, but person A takes a pistol and kills 10 persons out of his anger. Has person B acted more or less wholesomely or unwholesomely than in example 1? **Example 4:** Same example as example 2, but person A takes a pistol and kills 10 persons out of his anger. Has person B acted more or less wholesomely or unwholesomely than in example 2? **Example 4:** Same example as examples 1 and 2, but: Person A tells madly at person B: "Go mow the lawn now!!" Person B clearly sees person A is mad and will probably kill someone because of that madness, and because person A sees person B could go to hell because of his actions, person A says: "Ok ok. I'll mow the lawn. No problem." and mows the lawn. Person A is happy. Person B is calm, unaffected. The question is, what would happen if person B would not give in to the demands of person A? Would that be an unwholesome act for person B?

Buddha was born (according to Wikipedia) somewhere around 563 BCE to 480 BCE, and lived 80 years. From what I have understood, no teachings that made it to this day, have been written down when he was alive. What are the earliest scriptures (or other writings) that we know of, and when were they created?

I was out walking today when my eyes were intially attracted to a butterfly that was on the ground to my right. I stopped to have a quick look at it to notice that it couldnt' fly very well. I picked it up, it fluttered about in my hand and then flew a bit and landed on my jacket where I could see it better. It turned out there was a bit of (what looked like) brown leaf which was stuck to one of its wings, which didn't seem fully developed / opened. I made the decision to pull this bit of brown off away from the wing thinking it'd help the butterfly. As I pulled it cafefully off, I noticed a tiny speck of the wing came off too. However, after I pulled it off, the butterfly flew away over my head - something it couldn't do before. So, I'm thinking was it so panicked that it managed to fly away in terms of a short burst (it fluttered away fairly quickly) or was I able to help it do what it wanted to do in the first place? I realise that I imposed my will onto something thinking I know best which I feel bad about but I possibly also helped it do something that it wanted to do in the first place? I also realise that in the grand system, maybe that butterfly was to become food for another creature which I've now deprived it of. So I'm not sure whether I did something worthwhile or not. If it wasn't worthwhile, then is helping another creature / person frowned upon because it isn't as it should be?

As per the answer given to this question , AN 3.87 was cited as such: > ...Having undertaken the training rules, he trains in them. With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a seven-times-at-most attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among devas and humans seven times at most, makes an end of suffering; > >With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a family-to-family attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among good families two or three times, makes an end of suffering; > >With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a one-seed attainer who, after being reborn once more in human existence, makes an end of suffering. I'm not able to find an English translation of this sutta online, but the individual who posted this said that the third individual described, a "one-seeder", is actually not a Sakadagami, but an Ekabiji, the highest degree of Sotapanna? And the first two are lower degrees of Sotapanna. Does anyone have any insight into this? I was unaware that there were varying degrees of stream-winners. Thank you.

Regarding previous Question Desire without attachment . If desire without the attachment still lead to suffering then how abandon desire without desire? As shown by Unnabha the Brahman it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."

What are Kusala roots, how are they determined, what effects do they have? And where in the Buddha's teaching are they mentioned? Thank you.

What would the buddha advise to someone considering reducing or eliminating visting a parent that causes emotional distress and fear after one has tried to practice patience, acceptance, acknowledement that this behavior is coming from their own suffeirng, metta practice, meditation, along with trying different ways to communicate so as to not arouse negative statements to an adult child? Also, a reference text, if any could be appreciated. Would distancing onself not be in accordance with the path of a bodhisattva? These dynamics have always existed and it has become worse. Recently the sibling of this parent that distanced herself years ago from this parent and validated the narcissistic behavior of this parent. In this specific situation and which is a factor in the level of difficulty dealing with this parent is that the other parent requires 24 hour nursing care at home and is unable to care for herself (including the inability to communicate). The other parent/caretaker has refused to disginate the next of kin (adult child) living in a reasonable distance from their home in the event that something unforeseen happens to the caretaker. Even a short hospitalization would require someone to step in immediately. The rationale has to do with the fear of not being in control with money. After trying to assure this parent that this is not about money, rather the other parents coordination of outside care, in different ways and at different times, it is met with cruel, untruthful statements about the adult child that is willing to step in. The response also included a statement that if something did happen he didn't care if the estate all went to the State. Again, money and control of money was not mentioned to this parent. This parent was told by the adult child that the statements were hurtful and not true. The response from the parent was that it was not his responsibility how this adult child felt and would not take any responsibility. The fear and emotional distress mentioned above mainly is the result not having an emergency plan in place and second the acknowledgment of the diffence in character, values and feelings of loss of both parents. Exposure to this parent tends to water the unwholesome seeds of unsatifactory feelings of this adult child.

In the Dhammapada, within the Buddhavagga section, the Buddha is described as being trackless. > By what track can you trace that trackless Buddha of limitless range, > whose victory nothing can undo, whom none of the vanquished > defilements can ever pursue? > > By what track can you trace that trackless Buddha of limitless range, > in whom exists no longer, the entangling and embroiling craving that > perpetuates becoming? I find the notion of the Buddha being trackless very evocative. But at the same time I'm not sure exactly what it points to. Can someone help me unpack that a little. What qualities of the Buddha does trackless point to?

Recently I found myself having a conversation about having to choose between wrong actions. It begun with the following scenario: > While walking through the forest a rabbit passes by your side, and you see the direction it goes. Seconds after that, a hunter arrives from the same direction the rabbit did, and asks you in which direction the rabit went. Everything points that the hunter wants to kill the rabbit. Would you lie to the hunter about the direction the rabbit went, in order to save the rabbit's life and the hunter's karma? Here I see at least two limbs of the eightfold path that collide. On one hand, right speech tells me not to lie. On the other, right action and intention tells me not to kill nor be accomplice of killing by acting in such a way that will lead to that. Since that I'd been thinking about it, and about whether it has sense to balance my beliefs, to calculate which precepts, paramis, limbs, etc. are more important, or more leading to illumination. What I think right now is that it could be that sometimes the best option would be to break a rule I decided to live by, but I lack the wisdom to make that calculation. Also, if I see myself in a situation where I have to choose between which belief to betray, most probably I'm lacking the wisdom to see the third choice, since, I don't have to choose which tool (thinking of this beliefs as tools) leave. I'd like to share it with you so new points of view and conclusions can arise and we can improve our understanding of our own paths. *PS: I tried to ask the question as clearly and neatly as I could, but I feel like it is a bit confusing. Please, feel free to change anything if you think that through that change it'll be clearer.*

[I came across a skeleton meditation mentioned in this answer on this site](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10332/254) , and I was interested because it supposedly grants interesting special abilities. Googling it, I just found pages about something called white skeleton meditation, which I assume is the same thing (although according to guesswork on other forums it is either a Tibetan Buddhist type of meditation or a Taoist meditation but apparently NOT zen). Most sites that describe WSM talk of qi (because it "nourishes ones qi"), something I've never heard mentioned in a Buddhist context but I've heard very little. Wikipedia seems to have nothing on the subject, so what is the origin of skeleton meditation? Is it a Buddhist meditation? A skeleton meditation is mentioned in [this little book by Pa Auk Sayadaw](http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/nibbana1.pdf) (which I suppose is the same as the meditation mentioned in the answer referenced above). Did Buddha ever talk of/teach this meditation?

According to the Theravada Buddhism, a sotāpanna can be born in 7 existence in kama-loka which includes human realm. > *Yê ariya saccâni vibhâvayanti - gambhira paññnêna sudêsitâni,
Kincâpi tê honti bhusappamattâ - na te bhavam attamam âdiyanti,
Idampi sanghê ratanam panîtam - êtêna saccêna suvatthi hôtu.* > > Those who realized the Noble Truths well taught by him who is profound in wisdom (the Buddha), even though they may be exceedingly heedless, they will not take an eighth existence (in the realm of sense spheres).This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of the) truth may there be happiness. > -- Ratana Sutta Verse 9 Is there any such instance in the pali canon, in the commentaries or in any Buddhist culture?

I asked this question earlier: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11241/what-religions-did-previous-buddhas-practice/11244 Now I'm wondering if any teachings from earlier (or later) Buddhas have been passed down to our time. And if not, why?

The Buddha states that he sees no other thing that is so much responsible for the arising of unwholesome qualities in a person as bad friendship, nothing so helpful for the arising of wholesome qualities as good friendship. Is associating with good and wise people only useful for direct experience in this present life or is it right to assume that it will carry on to the next life e.g. reborn among the wise and good people or have good companionship? Thanks.

Can someone help ? i am looking for fun teaching of meditation and Buddhist teaching from age 4 ~ 13 old. Also help with morality, environmental protection, chanting, Buddhist religion's etiquette and meditation would be appreciated.