I know karma matures with the right conditions but does it ever force things to happen with the certainty that it will happen? Like for example can earning a specific karma say that it's going to force an effect, like when somebody does something good that means they'll become a private buddha in the future. Does it sort of "force" or push things in the direction of the karma to happen or is it still just waiting for the right conditions.

Like say that someone gets cancer which is caused by karma. Now is that cancer staying on that person also sustained by karma, so that if the karma ran out then they would lose the cancer. Or someone wins the lottery, is them having that money also sustained by karma so that if the karma was depleted they would lose the money. When something bad happens does it go away when the karma causing it is depleted? Is the effect sustained by the initial karma or is the effect sustained by other karma. As soon as a karma runs out are you free from its effects or can other karma continue it effects.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that Buddhists view enlightenment as a state of mind. As neuroscience progresses, we have more and more control over human brain, so inducing particular states of mind seems to be just a matter of time. Does it mean that at some point in the future, assuming that the science continues to progress, we will be able to cause enlightenment by neurosurgical means? Or is there something in enlightenment that would make it impossible? If we reach that stage, will it make all the Buddhist traditions and scriptures obsolete? After all, enlightened people can see things clearly for themselves, so there would be no point in relying on such very old sources with unknown reliability, which were heavily influenced by their cultural contexts.

That can be a very complicated point. Almost every work for a big corporation could be (potentially) seen as wrong livelihood! Hard to find a big corporation that works with good products, ethical conduct, respects the environment, the employees and is not involved in tax evasion, bribe or any other scandal... so what is more important from a Buddhist's point of view: What YOU do in your work routine or what your company does or sells?

As far as I know, the story of Khantivadi illustrates the perfection of Khanti by the Bodhisatta, and the Vessantara Jataka illustrates the perfection of Dana - on similar lines - is there a Jataka(s) which illustrates the perfection of Viriya in the Pali Canon ? Also , Could anyone point out references to other articles/suttas/commentaries etc. inside/outside the Pali Canon on the topic of Viriya Paramita and its cultivation ?

I read a couple of books on time, yet they all seemed somewhat incomplete, as if it was something simply tagged onto the rebirth / enlightenment doctrine. How important is *time* in Buddhism, not simple "impermanence" but how impermanence is housed. Or is there nothing to time beyond **impermanence**? I saw on philosophy stackexchange, something about this, but I'm getting quite a bad reputation there... Do "people" experience time? Is an experience of time actual time? Because I think that if so, that's where the biases and make believe of comtemporary science, collapses !! Thank you so much :)

Happened to watch Yuttadhammo's video on Life in a day project and also understood that Monks are not allowed to stay in a place with a woman. Was wondering how do they actually travel by air in a confined space for hours,worst case if they were assigned to be seated next to a female?

Forgive a (possibly) silly question - but I have a cat as a pet, and of course I purchase cat food for him and feed it to him. Being a pretty recent participant of Buddhist thought and practice, I also understand that eating meat (something I admittedly still do myself) is frowned upon, but the thought occurred to me the other day - is it also frowned upon to buy my pet meat-based products? By doing so I participate in the killing of animals. On the other hand, cats are pretty much carnivores by nature, and trying to get a cat to go vegetarian would likely harm him.

Hope that my question is pertinent here :) ? Can anyone here help me think about the difference between the two :) ?

I love the tone of this song, although not understand the meaning. Om Mani Padme Hum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FODfgCrSaw What's her name ? Why do people venerate the bow ?

I have a problem with that -in my feeling- contradictory translations of a remark in MN26. While K.E.Neumann uses an expression like *"(...) **not even** Alaro Kalamo has (...), but I have (...) "* Kay Zumwinkel translates: *" **not only** Alaro Kalamo has (...), but also I have (...)"* The Zumwinkel's version is also compatible with the english version by Thanissaro Bhikku at AtI.org (still the focus of the sentence is a bit shifted). But the two other versions suggest that Neumann has an error here. But of what type is the error with respect to the original? Is the expression in the original ambiguous (look at the additional tiny discrepancy between Zuminkel and Thanissaro)? Or is there some other reason why Neumann could possibly have made that translation which could be a bit more sensical than a simple error? Palikanon.com, MN26, K. E. Neumann > Da kam mir, ihr Mönche, der Gedanke: 'Nicht einmal Alaro Kalamo hat > Zuversicht, ich aber habe Zuversicht; nicht einmal Alaro Kalamo hat > Standhaftigkeit, ich aber habe Standhaftigkeit; nicht einmal Alaro > Kalamo hat Einsicht, ich aber habe Einsicht; nicht einmal Alaro Kalamo > hat Selbstvertiefung, ich aber habe Selbstvertiefung; nicht einmal > Alaro Kalamo hat Weisheit, ich aber habe Weisheit. *"(...) **not even** Alaro Kalamo has faith/conviction, but I have; **not even** Alaro Kalamo has persistence, but I have (...)"* Palikanon.com, MN26, Kay Zumwinkel > "Ich erwog: 'Nicht nur Āḷāra Kālāma hat Vertrauen, Energie, > Achtsamkeit, Konzentration und Weisheit. Auch ich habe Vertrauen, > Energie, Achtsamkeit, Konzentration und Weisheit. *"(...) **not only** Alaro Kalamo has faith/conviction, persistence, mindfulness... Also I have faith/conviction, persistence, mindfulness... (...)"* Access to Insight, MN 26, Thanissaro Bhikku > "I thought: 'Not only does Alara Kalama have conviction, persistence, > mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. I, too, have conviction, > persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment.(...) > Palikanon.com, MN26, Pali (I hope I managed to extract the correct, relevant record below.... ) > Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi – > ‘na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi saddhā, mayhaṃpatthi saddhā; > na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi vīriyaṃ, mayhaṃpatthi vīriyaṃ; > na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi sati, mayhaṃpatthi sati; > na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi samādhi, mayhaṃpatthi samādhi; > na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi paññā, mayhaṃpatthi paññā. > (...) *(If in fact that is the relevant Pali-expression, then at least the form kalama, me seems to be preserved by the translation of K.E. Neumann as far as I can regognize the pattern of sentences)*

Considering this definition of blasphemy > the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a > God, to religious or holy persons or things, or toward something > considered sacred or inviolable Does Buddhism have this kind of concept of blasphemy in the canonical texts and associated commentaries. I appreciate that there are now cultural sensitivities in certain countries around Buddhism and Buddhist iconography but I'm interested in references from the texts about this rather than modern interpretations.

What are signs of the dharma-ending age according to the sutras and is there a solution?

Christians have *The Holy Bible*, Muslims have *The Noble Quran*, Hindus have *Bhagavad Gita* and many more. Do Buddhists have sacred scripture(s) to read?

Was there an incident in the Buddhist scripture where the Buddha said of the indebtedness of the unenlightened monks to the laity that they should at least generate metta?

I'm new to Buddhism. I was familiarizing myself with the "Four Seals" in [This Article](http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3025) . The article connects the first truth, that all compounded things are impermanent, to charity. He said that giving our things to others is a good way to practice coming to terms with the fact that all things don't last. I was wondering if time is included as one of those "things" that we should disconnect ourselves from and give to others? Is time a "compounded thing?"

In some of Ryōkan's poems such as this one he mentions the Buddhas of the three worlds > While I gather firewood and wild grasses on this hill, > > the Buddhas of the three worlds > > Are also celebrating Who are the Buddhas and what are the three worlds?

One of the questions / answers recently posted here was about "storing" mental states for later. Of course this isn't Buddhist, in the sense that it does not literally describe a selfless person. But it could be metaphorical, couldn't it? The idea that the mind is ***like*** a computer, even though there are dis-analogous elements to that term, there are overlaps - like the way that persons have access to the past in memory, **as if** they were "stored". So my question is: are any of the Buddhas actual teachings only metaphorical?

Following on from this question... Is everything (according to Buddhism etc etc) that is empirically adequate a "unique particular". If we found something "empirically adequate" that could not be expressed in those terms, then would it make Buddhism pure myth etc.? And if not, we can pick and choose doctrine or at least not always take it on face value, how would you reconcile it with Buddhist doctrine. I'm not asking about practice, but philosophy :) Thanks !

I understand that according to some "schools" at least historical ones that the historical Buddha didn't teach the Mayanaha. Is that true?