It seems like these days, teachers are looking down to Samatha meditation, I would like to understand why, based on the suttas, this the meditation praised by the Buddha. Could someone explain why Vipassana is so much more present in Theravada tradition, eventhough the Buddha practiced a lot of Samatha? I'm sure there are good reasons. " And what kind of meditation did the Blessed One praise? Here, brahmin, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhana … With the stilling of applied and sustained thought, he bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the second jhana … With the fading away as well of rapture … he bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the third jhana … With the abandoning of pleasure and pain … he bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the fourth jhana … The Blessed One praised that kind of meditation." Majjhima Nikaya 108.27

I was reading through the sutra (well, using global search in my kindle) to find references to the word mathematics. In at least two places the author suggests Bodhisattvas should study all manners of topics to be of benefit to others, including mathematics. And in at least two places, the text goes on and on naming extremely large numbers and describing how to calculate them using powers of ten. These chapters seem to have been written by the same guy-- an interest in large numbers and their application to Buddhism can't be that common. The last chapter, the Gaṇḍavyūha, even wikipedia says it used to be a suttra separate from the rest of the book.

This thought occurred to me after reading the following question and top answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5249/how-to-refute-the-idea-that-buddhism-might-be-actually-too-extreme The questioner thinks the logical conclusion of Buddhism is to abandon all worldly goods, including the family, resulting in the elimination of the human race. > Let's say if this is the appropriate thing to do, and everybody in the > world does that, then the world, in 100 years or 200 years, will not > have human beings any more (because if no marriage and no children, > then there will be no new life on earth, while the existing people > pass away). I can't say that it will be "good" if on earth, there is > no more human beings, but lions, wolves, foxes, rabbits, and other > animals remain on earth. The answerer stated this is taking Buddhism to the extreme, and rather Buddhism is to avoid extremes and to take the middle path. > Did Buddha teach "self-sacrifice"? No, he taught middle-way: by > looking after ourselves we look after others, by looking after others > we look after ourselves. However, this is exactly what Aristotle said in his definition of virtue. He defines virtue as the mean between extremes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)#Aristotle > His constant phrase is, "… is the Middle state between …". His > psychology of the soul and its virtues is based on the golden mean > between the extremes Is there any essential difference between Aristotle's definition of virtue and what Buddhism teaches? It seems there is only a difference in details, how specifically Buddhism teaches to seek the middle way, but the overarching principle is the same. Or are there extremes in Buddhism's teaching?

I understand Karma as describing habitual mind patterns which cause one to behave impulsively according to certain mental predispositions conditioned by previous actions and intentions. My question is how does Karma work in situations of violence/abuse. I understand how a perpetrator of violence or abuser is more likely to commit violence or abuse towards another person later in this life or in the next life. However, I do not understand how the abuser would through this violent behavior be more vulnerable to become a victim of this type of violence. In short, how does the Karma (habit energy) one builds up as a perpetrator cause one to fall on the other side of the equation (to become a victim)?

I've heard two speculations: 1) Onions & garlic are used to flavor meat, so they are guilty by association. I've heard the Jains have a similar prohibition for this reason. 2) Onions & garlic incite the "passions"-- in other words, its a Indian herbal viagra. Does anyone know the real motivation for prohibiting onions and garlic? Is the real motivation lost to the mist of time? This is the 4th minor Precept in the Brahma Net Sutra .

its a pretty straight forward question. facts only please, no opinions, and i request that only an experienced and well practiced zen buddhist answer this question (to avoid speculation). thanks.

I only have knowledge of Ñāṇamoli's translation which is not available for free. Does anyone have knowledge of an English translation available for free?

I am currently casually reading various things, and Ocean of Reasoning is one of those things. I've began to feel that I should pick a challenging reading to focus on, but I'm thinking I might want to read Ornament of Reason before Ocean of Reasoning. Is one or the other traditionally studied first? Or is there some other commentary before these that I should study? I am already well acquainted with the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā itself.

I've recently started to research Buddhism, and one of the first area's I've been looking into is that of attachment. I found this quote - "Seeing through the delusion of separation means we no longer give "external things" the power to make us miserable." So does this mean we are supposed to feel emotionless to everything around us, only relying on ourselves for our emotions?

When the Buddha said: "Censured or praised by the wise?" In a few suttas, when talking about right actions, who exactly were those wise?

I actually had a lot of respect for Buddhism, and studied it a few years ago. But it made me feel that it might be too extreme (and it could be that most religions are too extreme, because they tend to think what they believe is right, and the other beliefs are wrong). I say that because, for example, it tend to teach self-sacrifice and letting go, and that do not hold onto anything, and to the point that do not marry and do not have any children -- what the deep believers -- monks -- do. Let's say if this is the appropriate thing to do, and everybody in the world does that, then the world, in 100 years or 200 years, will not have human beings any more (because if no marriage and no children, then there will be no new life on earth, while the existing people pass away). I can't say that it will be "good" if on earth, there is no more human beings, but lions, wolves, foxes, rabbits, and other animals remain on earth. Could somebody present a calm and rational argument to suggest otherwise? I am open to any idea, as I am, like many of us, always learning new things along our life time.

[This is a double question. I am unsure of Buddhism.SE in relation to posting to questions vs one per post] So today, Like many teenagers, I went to school, a place where I am surrounded by friends and challenges. Today there were many pleasant moments, both mentally, emotionally, and sensually. One thing that isn't unique to this day, is simply getting tired. Over the past few years, I've noticed that getting tired usually makes me more interested sexually, though I think this is either a longing for intimacy, or (more likely) experiencing normal sensory experience as more sensually, ever so slightly. During such episodes of routine tireless that occasionally arise, as is natural I crave sleep. Sleep seems like a pretty blissful state, in that it does not really experience any highs, nor lows. I've read that to not experience any desire is greater than fulfilling ones desires. Is this equality 'simply' achieved through mindfulness? How would you recommend pursuing this? I noticed that a distinctive attribute of pleasure is that generally, I don't want it to stop. Not that moderation is impossible, but its hard to draw a line with pleasure that is truly satisfying. Are some pleasures more satisfying? Or is the only path to satisfaction enlightenment, being detached from desires?

I would like to know if, in the pali canon, there is any practice for purifying karma, such as: Using mantras, prostrations etc... I know there is the concept of using good Karma, like dana, to balance the results (vipaka) of bad Karma, however the question is focused on rituals or practices.

It is very easy to find *lots* of information on the internet about Buddhism and the concepts. However I struggle to know where or how to start becoming a Buddhist, if that is the correct way to state it.

Could someone provide a brief (good-SE-answer-size) description of the three terms: Lamrim, Dzogchen, and Mahamudra. Specifically, are they different examples of one particular thing, are they progressive or parallel stages, etc. Also, if there was a way to "map" them against other traditions (e.g. "Lamrim is similar to the Visuddhimagga" etc) that would useful. I've read about all three using the usual sources (Wikipedia etc) but it's like wading through mud trying to get a clear picture.

This is some sort of meal gatha. > ОМ А ХУМ САРБА АМРИТА СИДДХИ ХУМ ДЗА > Om Ah Hum Sarba Amrita Siddhi Hum Dze I'm stumped on translating it. Source .

I often look up images of the Buddha online to use as desktop backgrounds for pc or phone. I've seen quite a few images that show a symbol that looks like a swastika on the Buddha's chest. What is the meaning of this symbol?

If I recall correctly, I once read (in a book which I no longer have) that: - The Fire Sermon happened (soon) after the Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion - The Buddha spoke it to a believer/theorist/priest-like person of a non-Buddhist sect - The other person spoke first, giving their theory first - When the Buddha replies, the book said, > "The fire of life must be put out!", he thundered. [This version of the Fire Sermon](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.than.html) isn't like that at all: - Delivered to 1000 monks - No thundering Is there any text (including e.g. Mahayana) that you know of, that's like what I quoted above? Are there any reports, any reliable report, on whether or how much the Buddha [displayed emotional affect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_display) ? Did he seem cheerful? Angry? Did he pretend to get angry? If this question cannot be answered about the Buddha (e.g. because it was too long ago and not recorded), is there other people more recent who are "like the Buddha", about whom this is known? It's usually difficult to judge how much affect a person displays (so it's useless to be judgmental); I'm wondering whether the Buddha is known to have "displayed affect" to an unusually high (very obvious) or to an unusually low degree.

The accepted answer to [What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1492/254) includes Compassion, the Triple Jewel, the Four Noble Truths, the Eight-fold Way, Dependent Origination, the Three Marks of Existence, the 37 Factors of Enlightenment, and more. It also implies that Mahayana acknowledges one Path of Purification (visuddhi-marga): - Is that one Path the same (or basically the same) as [The Visuddhimagga](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visuddhimagga) which Wikipedia says is "the 'great treatise' on Theravada Buddhist doctrine written by Buddhaghosa approximately in 430 CE in Sri Lanka"? Furthermore, accepting that there's one "Path of Purification", the Wikipedia article titled "[Buddhist Paths to liberation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Paths_to_liberation) " seems to suggest that there's almost a different Path for each tradition. - Is this a reliable article? - Does it properly list the various schools/tradition and accurately summarize their paths? When I've read elementary/contemporary/English-language introductions to various schools (e.g. *Zen Flesh Zen Bones* for zen), or visited a Chinese-in-Canada Mahayana temple, or dimly remember a Westerner writing a century or more ago about Tibetan/Mongolian beliefs and practices, they seem to have little in common with each other: e.g. Zen seems to be about being spontaneous or 'original', Chinese about things being better in the Pure Land, Tibetan about the cycle of rebirth. - Is it true, as stated in [these Notes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Paths_to_liberation#Notes) , that for all Buddhist traditions, the "Noble Eightfold Path is considered to be the essence of Buddhist practice"? The article on [Tibetan Buddhism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism) begins, "Tibetan Buddhism comprises the teachings of the three vehicles of Buddhism: the Foundational Vehicle, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna" where 'Foundational Vehicle' links to the article on "Hinayana". - Do the practioners of various schools know, are they taught, what the Hinayana doctrine is, and do they accept it a "foundational"?

I took a friend interested in Buddhism to a centre. This person is Catholic and doesn't want to change that; she is very satisfied with her religion. However she was curious about Buddhism and specially meditation. At the end she was a bit disappointed because there were 2 mentions of other religions (catholics and other buddhist schools) that she thought were driven by a big "pride", for example: "Here we don't do this...in other centres they do"; "We value this, catholics don't". I didn't have the same interpretation, however I agree one should be very careful on talking to an open public about other religions and traditions, as it can be very easily misunderstood. We don't need to use other religions to make a point. So, the question is: Is there any Buddhist code of ethics on that? In the Vinaya maybe?