Lately I've been wondering if I (or someone, any person) is religious, agnostic, etc., by nature.

I have some questions about metta meditation. 1- When I send love to myself, my cat, the world etc. Do I have to feel something? Do I have to sit and repeat the mantra May I Be Happy until I feel love for myself and not move on to my cat until I've reached that point? (If yes, what if that takes forever? If I don't feel a thing, why might that be? Do I move on anyway? How much time should I spend on each thing?) 2- When I imagine myself, my cat, my neighbour and so forth, how much energy should I put into visualizing these things? Do I need to see it all clearly or is it enough to keep them in mind?

In the book the Land of No Buddha the author interviews a Tibetan lama in which he talks about collective karma - to quote > All groups have karma that is more than just the collection of the > karma of the individuals of the group. For example a group can decide > collectively to start a war. (pp 76 of above book) This is the first and only time I have heard of collective karma. Is this a concept purely within Tibetan Buddhism? Is it wider than that or is it perhaps just this lama's understanding and it not really a concept in Buddhism generally? If it is a genuine concept then can someone give some more details and perhaps how it fits in with karma at an individual level?

The question is really just that - "What is stream"? I've recently found this forum, and recently started reading some Buddhist scriptures, and I've seen the term a few times and have no understanding of it.

I've read in many places in the Pali canon that the Buddha will answer a question if asked three times even if the Buddha is extremely reluctant to give the answer. For instance in the Talaputa Sutta the Buddha is asked by Talaputa ,the leader of a troupe of actors, about what will happen to actors when they are reborn. The Buddha clearly doesn't want to say (it's not good news) but Talaputa really pushes it and asks him three times > "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that." > > A second time... A third time Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, > said: "Lord, I have heard that [...] What does the Blessed One have > to say about that?" The Buddha gives in and delivers the bad news. But what is the origin of this questioning technique? Why does he always give an answer if pushed like that? Was it a traditional thing in Indian society at that time or was it just a thing with the Buddha? I've only read this in the Pali canon. Does it crop up in other texts and traditions too?

Did the Buddha have any personal experience with maras and devas and supernatural beings in general? And, if I'm not mistaken, the 31 planes of existence is something he taught. So, how did he come to know of them?

I've been meditating for me get a week and have always felt connected to my spiritual side. My dad has been meditating for about 30 years so I go by his guilds. I just wanted to know if anyone else felt what I have been feeing. After a few try's I saw an eye approach me and it kind of scared me away so I stopped the meditation till the next day. After that I've been getting vibrations coming through my body (from my feet to shoulders) every time I meditate. What should I expect next? Are there levels of meditation?

I'm referring to the chapter in the Avatamsaka. Here is one summary : 1. The Great Samadhi of Universal Light 1. The Great Samadhi of Wondrous Light 1. The Great Samadhi of Sequentially Going throughout all Buddhalands 1. The Great Samadhi of Purifying the Activities in the Depths of the Mind. 1. The Great Samadhi of the Magnificent Treasury of Knowing the Past. 1. The Great Samadhi of a Treasury of Wisdom Light 1. The Great Samadhi of Fathoming the Adornments of Buddhas in all Worlds. 1. The Great Samadhi of Distinguishing the Bodies of Living Beings. 1. The Great Samadhi of Ease and Comfort in the Dharma Realm. 1. The Great Samadhi of the Unhindered Wheel. Here is outline of the whole thing that mentions the 10 Samadis . 3 is clear enough, there is a chapter in the Avatamsaka that does this, (chapter 4 I think). 5, 7, and 8 are results of meditation rather than steps leading to it. Were these Samadhi's something that a lay or monastic bodhisattva would be expected to practice, or are these Samadhis that an already enlightened or nearly englightened Bodhisattva would engage in? (Sorry I don't have a link to the full text, I only know of the Cleary translation which is available on Amazon .)

One occasionally comes across stories in the Buddhist canon like the story of Manduka (Sanskrit: frog) Devaputta (Sanskrit: son of devas) *(Chronicle of the Buddhas, Page 1123)* - a frog while listening to the Buddha's sermon, attains the Tavatimsa Deva realm when he is accidentally crushed by a member of the audience. The story makes a big deal of the frog's deva mansion 12 yojanas long and fair deva maidens who wait on him day and night. Do women who are born in the deva realm too get fair attendants who are men? Or are all devas men? Why are the samsaric pleasures of a large palace and maidens the chief attraction of the deva realm? Don't the fair maidens of the deva realm get a lesser deal - having to wait on the devas - how do they make merit? I know these are silly questions, little to do with the dhamma, but one wonders all the same. These stories remind me of telemarketing slots on TV - "call now, and we will throw in this 12-spanner set for free."

Our body will die but not our good deeds. If nothing can erase our good deeds, does it mean everyone will become enlightened eventually?

There are many examples, a couple wants to be together but break up after long-term dating, they want to get married but they never get married. A person wants to get close with another person and vice versa but they can never get together no matter how hard they try, etc. In Buddhism, our life is not destined so how are we supposed to understand above situation? What makes someone has the affinity to become someone's parents or children for, for example, two lifetimes? What power determine the meeting? Is the affinity merely automatically created from the person we normally associate with in daily life?

- What's the rationale or logic behind the precepts? - Does fairness come into it? - Are the list of precepts ever expanded to accommodate changing contexts? Being very unfair to someone who trusts one is pretty similar in emotional harm to cheating on a spouse or lying, especially when the unfairness is made possible because of an abuse of a position of power. For example, employees of large corporations often feel lied to, even cheated when they are laid off by their employer because of new management policy. Yet, these are explicitly the terms of most employment contracts. Similarly, a home owner can feel pretty awful when evicted by the bank or lender for failure to pay the mortgage, especially when the bank is usually writing all the rules ab-initio protecting itself from market risks. Yet, this too is an agreed upon constraint because one party operates from a position of power. Modern life relies on governments, corporations and other faceless institutions to a large degree, and they do wield a great deal of power, so a lot of their transgressions fall afoul of the fairness test, though technically none of them are lies. This has to be a large source of misery in this world today. Yet, going by the precepts, at least to me, such behaviour doesn't seem to be overtly criticised. Does Buddhism have anything to say to such scenarios?

I'm aware that other religions such as Islam have a great emphasis on pilgrimage. Do any Buddhist schools or traditions also have an emphasis on pilgrimage and if so where do they go? I know that there are places with particular significance for Buddhism such as Bodhi Gaya and Buddhists do go there. But is that journey actually a significant part of their practice or tradition or is it just that it's personally inspirational to go. From my own point of view I would love to go see places of historical and religious significance to Buddhism. If I did though I wouldn't view this as part of my practice as a Buddhist. It would almost be religious sightseeing.

When I first started meditating I was very eager to progress. I started with five minutes and added another five with every week. I probably made it to 30 minutes or something when I just quit altogether. It was all quantity-over-quality. Towards the end there I lost a lot of will and motivation to keep going, I just wanted to do other things. I got bored and I let my mind wander and distract me, not making much effort in bringing the attention back to the stomach. Meditation became a chore and the only reason I kept going was because I didn't want to lose the routine, and also I hoped it was perhaps just a phase or something. In any case, to make a short story long, I've started meditating again now, 10 minutes at a time and since I have a cold and am tired all day as a result I don't become so restless. But when can I start adding more time? Will I "feel" it, or is it a question of discipline? Is it better to meditate poorly than not at all? If I add time, and find that I get really bored, is it because I'm doing it wrong or is it simply the nature of the mind?

In my area, there are many Buddhists centers referring to themselves as centers, meditation centers, or monasteries. These all seem to be various expressions of a Buddhist Sangha. However, being in the Mid-West one tends to expect the Sangha to be modeled on or similar to a church or synagogue. What are the proper expectations to have about being part of a Sangha? Should Westerns expect a sangha to conform to the Western notion of religious institutions?

I remember an image of the Buddha being surrounded by animals. I think the story is that they all flocked around after his enlightenment though I could be wrong. Does anyone know what the story is that goes with this picture and where if anywhere it is in the Buddhist texts. Also if someone can point me to a particularly good picture I would be grateful. My motivation for asking this is I'm due to run a family afternoon in my local centre and my idea is to get the children making clay animals (with googly eyes) that we can then arrange arround a Buddha to recreate this scene. Then we will all eat some cake! Many Thanks

If a person enters phala(nibbana) too frequently can they develop a tolerance to the peacefulness of it?

I'm struggling hard to make final sense of the chain of "dependent origination". In the oldest texts in Pali and Sanskrit, already, there are different explanations. The *Mahānidānasutta*, where the chain has just nine links, the general formula is > x-paccayā y meaning > through the condition of x, y (is). Now the question arises, what kind of condition this is thought to be: a sufficient condition? A necessary condition? Or both of them? The second part, states quite clearly, that if x is not there, then y is also not there, implying necessity of x for y. Now, a general rule (e.g. Majjhima Nikaya 38, 19) states: > imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati which translates as: > If that is, this is, through arising of that, this arises This is also consistent with a parallel in the Sanskrit *Catuṣpariṣatsūtra* but not with the view, that we are dealing with mere necessary conditions. They need to be sufficient, for this general statement to apply. Now here things become even more complicated, since another general rule, actually a seemingly extended version of the former states (MN 79, 7, also in SN and Udana) > imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati; imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati which now means > When that is, this is, through arising of that, this arises; when that is not, this is not, with cessation of that, this ceases. implying biconditionality. How are the different versions explained? What is, in the end, the relation between the links? What can be thought to be the Buddha's original version and intention?

Kamma is one of the thing that is not ponderable. We experience many things in life, if a fatal accident is often understood as a result of kamma then what about other relatively small things such as forget to turn off the stove, not preparing oneself well enough before attending a job interview, etc.. Is everything not kamma until it becomes a big event? What are they if they are not kamma?

Humanism is defined as, > Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). Would you say that the teachings (the Dhamma) of the Buddha are 'humanistic' in character, and if so - why? I have heard many people using "humanist" in connection with the teachings. To me the teachings look more introvert with a guidance in social navigation in human society - a form of adaptive camouflage to avoid conflicts - but certainly not for humanistic purpose. To me it is seems more like the Buddha was teaching at a universal level including all mass. But I might be mistaken, hence the question.