I have come across the term 'conditioned phenomena'; what is meant by the qualifier 'conditioned'; are all phenomena conditioned, or are some phenomena unconditioned?

I've heard the Yogācāra school of Buddhism called 'mind only'. What does that refer to? Does this school believe that the mind has a real inherent existence but nothing else does? Alternatively is it a more metaphorical designation or perhaps a provisional description of a deeper notion or maybe a name given to it by other schools (in the same way as Hinayana was used by Mahayanan schools)?

During daily activities it is ok to do a mental note when thoughts arise saying "thinking thinking" just in like the sitting meditation? I try to label every physical and mental phenomena during the day and nothing strange with that but with thinking it seems that sometimes I block it straight away when arise so I was just wondering if is too much and if I should stop noting.

What are the main texts that are studied in the Tiratna Buddhist Community? Is there a generally recommended core set of books to read, and what are the main canonical texts studied?

I was reading that early Buddhist art doesn't actually depict the Buddha. Instead it shows an empty space, a dharma wheel or a footprint where you would expect the Buddha to be shown. It was only later (maybe 1st century CE?) that the Buddha was represented in art. I would be really interested to see any examples of this kind of art. Could anyone post some links or the images themselves of this kind of early Buddhist art.

I read in a book by Amartya Sen 'The Argumentative Indian', (link ) that Buddhism was the dominant religion of India for about a 1000 years, and that foreigners referred to India as a Buddhist kingdom. Is it true? map from wikipedia shows that Buddhism was influential only in a small part of North-East India, and not at all in the southern or western part. Kindly provide online references, if possible.

This google books link indicates that there is a version of the Bodhisattva Precepts with 4 major and 43 minor (as compared to 10 major and 48 minor in the BNS Bodhisattva Precepts). Does anyone know what these are? I will also provide a link to google to demonstrate that google does not provide an answer since that seems to be a common answer here.

Does anyone have an explanation as to how Buddhism explains the reason(s) as to *why and how* humans are born as men and women? What governs the gender?

Is there a particular reason(s) for a Buddha to be only of male gender? I'm interested in any explanation in scriptures as well as your interpretations and opinions.

I'm working on the subtitles for a YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxKbO4bLDQM) and could use some help transcribing the chant at the beginning. I suppose it's one of the relatively common ones? Thanks!

Are some of the Suttas we have today different from the original Suttas as taught by the Buddha? Are there any surviving pre sectarian Buddhist sources and commentaries? What research has been done on pre sectarian Suttas?

[This comment](http://buddhismnow.com/2012/08/17/compassion-without-drowning/#comment-3274) says, > True the world becomes more SPACIOUS when we focus on the moment and thus see that to save one life is to save the world. This is why it is important to translate spaciousness as spaciousness and not emptiness. Are "spacious" and "empty" words that are confused or mis-translated? Is "spacious" a word that has a use in Buddhism? A search for "spacious" on Access to Insight suggests that word is used, but is not used often and not used canonically. I think "empty" usually means "empty of self", am I right? I.e. when people say "empty" do they mean [Anatta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence#Anatta) ?

The Gelugpa Lam Rim says that someone who practices for benefit in this life alone is not even practicing Dharma -- the minimum Dharmic motivation is to achieve better rebirth (and there are two levels above that, which I am not concerned about here). Here is Pabongka Rinpoche, *Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand* (Wisdom Pubs, Kindle Edition, location 2937; same spot in the 1991 paper edition from Wisdom begins on p. 154): > The difference in our motivation makes an enormous difference to the > sort of virtuous karmic results we will receive, and to the measure of > strength of these results. Suppose four people are reciting together > the Praise of the Twenty-One Tārās. One has bodhichitta as a motive. > Another is motivated by renunciation. The third yearns for a better > rebirth. The last only aspires to the concerns of this life: long > life, good health, and so on. Although all four recite the same amount > of words, there is a great difference in the sort of karmic results > they will obtain. ... The fourth’s recitation belonged only to this > life and so was not even Dharma. And it would even be difficult for it > to have any of the the hoped-for effect on his life. So, my question -- can folks point me to similar material in the Pali Canon, Visuddhimagga or other non-Tibetan sources. Likewise in Tibetan lineages other than Gelug. ---------- Added 11/25 -- Or, is this a Mahayana teaching, and therefore not found explicitly in the Pali Canon. The distinction between bodhicitta and renunciation as motivation is certainly Mahayana -- initially taught in this "three scopes" form in Tibet by Atisha in *Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment*. So maybe even this pre-three-scopes teaching is not only Mahayana, but a Tibetan addition not found even in Atisha. If so, then I'd be interested to at least find other Tibetan sources, or hear that this is strictly a Gelug teaching. ---------- More still 11/25 -- Looks like Tsongkhapa, contra Pabongka, includes motivation for this life only in the lower scope, thus making a general motivation for better samsaric life apart from the rebirth distinction: > Furthermore, the scriptures mention many ways of positing a least, a > medium, and a superior person. Like Atisha's Lamp for the Path to > Enlightenment, Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa Auto-commentary > (Abhidharma-kosa-bhasya) defines the three types of persons. Among the > persons of small capacity, there are indeed two types — those who are > intent on this lifetime and those who are intent on future lifetimes. > However, here I am speaking of the latter, whom I will identify as > those who engage in the unmistaken method for attaining high status. (*The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Volume One. The Lamrim Chenmo*, Wisdom Pubs, pp. 131-132) So maybe this teaching is actually post-Tsongkhapa Gelug.

Buddha mentioned that happiness is the greatest wealth. When going through the TED Happiness Topic , The habits of happiness , Depression, the secret we share , The struggle of mental health , All kinds of minds , How does my brain work? , What makes you happy? , etc. this left me wondering what exactly is happiness, moods and metal states in a Buddhists perspective. So what exactly is happiness? How is it the greatest wealth? How can happiness analysed using the Suttas and the Abhidhamma? How can this be extended to analyzing all moods and states of the mind?

I've heard this quote attributed to the Buddha > You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your > anger Does anyone know where the quote comes from? Also the The notion of punishment seems a bit non standard to me. Does anyone know the orginal term (Pali etc...) translated here as punishment and if this is an accurate translation. I do like the quote though hence the question.

Not necessarily spontaneous, but any type of spiritually assisted healing. If so, can you elaborate? If not, can you offer a reference?

If I understand correctly, the Buddha never wrote anything but some Buddhist texts quote him by describing meetings or situations where he was present. Is there a comprehensive list of all scripts where he is directly and textually quoted?

I want to learn sanskrit so that I'll have an easier go at learning pali

I have been practicing meditation, reading and listening to Buddhist teachings and I undertake the five precepts for about year now. This is the first time that I actually ask a question about my practice. I meditate every morning and then during my daily activities I try to be mindful watching the physical and mental phenomena. I can be mindful quite well but as soon as I experience an unpleasant mental state such embarrassment or awkwardness fear and aversion come up and I feel kind of lost. It is like I forget what to do and I am not able to be mindful anymore. This happens even if I am well prepared to experience an unpleasant mental state. It happens when people are around and very fast too and even if I am not scared to experiencing them when they come up, it seems that I lose track and I forget everything. So what can I do in these situations? Sorry for my English. I hope that this make sense. Thanks for your time, may all beings be happy and free from suffering.

There is a Buddhist monk from Theravada tradition that only follows Vinaya and the 4 Nikayas, he avoids talking about Abidhamma or other sources like Jakata Tales, he said some later stories contradicts the Buddha's teachings and gave some interesting examples, he also avoids the commentaries. He claimed the true Dhamma the Buddha spoke of before dying (to be the teacher) were the Vinaya and suttas in the 4 Nikayas. I would like to know, is there a tradition inside theravada that follows this logic? I couldn't ask if he was following a particular tradition/school or if it was just his personal view. I would like to understand and explore it.