Is there a difference in karma of giving someone $ 1 and giving someone $ 1000, or its same for anything given? and Is there a difference in karma of killing a small animal (like mosquito or small fish) and killing an big animal (like a cow or an elephant), or the karma is same for all killings ? If there is a difference what makes the difference?

Prior to around the 1st century CE, Buddhist art tended not to depict the Buddha himself, instead preferring to depict relics/symbols of the Buddha, such as his footprints, or the Bodhi tree. That period (the so-called "aniconic" period) yielded works like these: However, after around the 1st century CE, we have depictions of the Buddha in human form from all over the Buddhosphere (so to speak). What changed around the 1st century CE that led to creators of Buddhist art starting to depict the Buddha in human form? Was this change accompanied by a related change in doctrine or belief, e.g. declaring that it was now permissible to depict the Buddha as a human? (This question is sect-agnostic, as far as I know, since I am not aware of any sect-specific differences in the way art was produced c. the 1st century CE.)

The Buddha (siddhartha, as per me) was a human being. He felt pain, happiness, dullness, recession for himself, his family(age-wise) and other one's and etc. How he retained his awareness? Was there some moments when he (himself) got distracted by worldly behaviour ? Please consider tags while starting wishing to answer my question.

Can I focus on the link between birth and aging, death, suffering, in dependent co-arising in my own mind? Or do I have to know how birth leads to aging etc. intellectually. Does birth in dependent co-arising appear in the mind?

During my day to day life experience, i imagine myself with wisdom. That imagination make me take a turn to some other scene where i exist as an ultimate supreme seer and i feel touch of realisation i.e, i can even touch (or hug) that scene, things, people, everything there. I enjoy that alot. But i forget what was the most satisfactory imagination and i keep remembering that. I want to know : 1. What is forgetting an experience ! It is science or spirituality at the basic ? 2. is it like if i can control my imagination, i can get the understanding of the state of nirvana and Nirvana is already in me ?

Do we focus on suffering as the suffering we're experiencing in the present moment or do we focus on suffering how the Buddha and Sariputta put forth and analyzed the four noble truths like: "Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." Do we just have to notice the actual mental experience of suffering as cause by craving or can we notice all its different manifestations, like the stress of the body or the stress of impatience?

I'm just reading about dependent origination and wonder how different individuals have different feeling even if contact is the same? It only makes sense if condition for arising of feeling is not only just phassa (contact). Let's say if I hear a sound and feels unpleasant. Others might not necessarily feel the same. So what would be the other factors in arising of feeling?

I often struggle with feelings of despair about not so much that I will die but my mortality, my insignificance in a time as time never ends. But it also occurred to me that actually everyone is in the same boat (so to speak) and so as long as we don't let **things** define our value, then maybe life has meaning and value. Is that anything to do with emptiness, or is emptiness more an ontological doctrine than anything about value and meaningfulness ?

Where there is a group of people, there will be politics and organizational dynamics. This should be no different with the Sangha. For example, monks trying to cause dissent or schism, monks who disobey instructions, monks trying to gain power over others, monks who are envious of others, monks trying to get the attention of the Buddha or their abbot etc. How did the Buddha handle such situations in his time? How are such situations handled within the Sangha today?

Having attempted to understand the actualization of Anatta, i am at a complete loss. The more i endeavor to understand the meaning, the more confusing it seems. I have read; 1. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2500/what-is-the-best-translation-of-anatta-into-english 2. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1891/what-is-the-precise-meaning-of-anatta 3. No-self Not self My understanding to date is that it not-self is to detach from the 5 aggregates. So to use an example. If i express anger or sadness, i should look to detach or disassociate myself from such emotions. This may be through meditation or mindfulness. 1. Is my understanding correct? If incorrect, please use lay person examples that will allow me to relate or understand. 2. Are meditation and mindfulness the only methods of actualization?

Is absent-mindedness, the opposite of Mindfulness? If someone forgets to buy grocery on the way home despite having planned, does it necessarily mean he is very less mindful? Do these qualities somehow affect each other? More generally, Is there a way to notice in practical aspects of life how mindful someone is? If some one is sharp, is he necessarily mindful? If contemplative? Does any out worldly character indicate mindful nature or the lack there of?

If I see the clinging and the stress going on at the five clinging aggregates can that propel me into stream entry? Like say I see that clinging is going on at the five clinging aggregates and I see that it's causing stress can that take me to enlightenment or is another method needed like seeing the rise and fall of the aggregates, or practicing the silavant: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.122.than.html sutta. Is it just a good overall practice anyway?

Lots of questions on stream entry here. I have practiced Mahayana Buddhism without a huge success - for sure. But still, I was of the opinion that such attainment as stream entry was rare in the extreme. Perhaps 1/1000 monks, and much less even in the devout laity. How common is it? I have a somewhat devout Theravadin friend, is he a saint :o !

This is a very common dilemma. If you go look for some Buddhist books here in the west (I guess the same thing happens in the east) you will easily find books written by monks and general authors, it is not common to find the suttas. That would be equivalent to look for books on Christianism and don't find the Bible, curiously it doesn't happen, it is easier to find the Bible than books written by priests for instance. The point that I'm trying to make is that sometimes those books, unfortunately, ignores or even contradicts some of the basic Buddha's teachings, they can create misconcepts in people's minds. I'm not talking about different schools, I'm talking about the original teachings shared by most of them, the suttas. When a Buddhist faces this situation, when he finds someone with a wrong concept, something that clearly has no basis on the Buddha's teachings, either Vinaya or Sutta Pitaka, what should he or she do? Should he/she correct the person or just let it be? I would go with "correct" however you will see that most Buddhist leaders don't do that, they prefer to ignore misconcepts and focus on what they believe to be right, there are lots of precautions to avoid long debates in Buddhism... this is why it becomes a dilemma! What to do?

Is Buddhism something that you should consider as a field that you should endeavour to study and develop a deep understanding of or is it enough just to simply sit, just as the Zen tradition seems to suggest? To elaborate a bit more, is it worthwhile to study the Sutras and other Buddhist texts or would someone be able to attain enlightenment by simply sitting without developing an in-depth knowledge of Buddhism?

One thing that is very easy to see in Buddhism is how respect is important. Respect for books, statues of Buddha and monks. At the same time we learn that attachment and aversion are bad things. Can't this respect for monks and traditions (sitting in a lower place, not pointing, etc) become an attachment to rules and reputation? At the same time, can't the disrespect for such rules become aversion?

How does one live a life with multiple relationships (family, girlfriends, friends, pets, etc) while not being attached to them(being aware it will end eventually and therefore do not dwell in Dukkha when such thing happens)? Thank you very much! :)

What would you recommend as a short-term fix for someone in serious psychological/emotional pain? If meditation, what kind? I feel pretty angry/powerless/frustrated right now, or "unenlightened". I don't want a long-term solution, as any long-term goal requires short-term will which I don't feel I have. I find that the problem with overcoming powerlessness is that the process of "overcoming" in itself requires power, which by definition is not present in the powerless person. So, in other words, how do things ever change or break out of their self-creating cycles? How are these cycles created to begin with? And, more specifically, how the hell do I get out of the cycle I've suddenly found myself in? How do I go from CONCEIVING of it as inescapable, to at least getting to the point where I CONCEIVE of it as fixable by me, and in other words, create something out of nothing, and not stay in this rut? Is it just by not thinking altogether, and deprogramming my mind to the point where I (or God, or the powers that be) can reprogram it again from scratch, but this time with superior software? I know this is a terrible SE question as it's so general, but I just really wanted to vent. I got out once, but apparently fell back again. I have no real clue how either happened right now, as I am totally, totally in the shit. Feel free to judge away, or not. As a side note: AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EDIT: Ok, I've had some time to cool down and am feeling better now. Thanks to both Ahmed & jitin for hearing my rant; I will most definitely give the body scanning/observation technique a try.

I read that the buddha had not wrote anything. He was used to speak Magadha language. Then sanskrit and pali language appeared when his disciples wrote down his life & experiences. I have already asked a question on language. This time i have a question that states 'why buddha didn't wrote anything ?'.

Does every tradition, especially ones descended from the lotus sutra and the Buddha's immeasurable life, claim that parinirvana is a conventional existent? Assuming that it's not a dharma, I don't know.