what about buddhas view on occult science. did he accept or unaccepted these things ? I personally know some monk also do this things.

Wikipedia says: > **Incest** is human sexual activity between family members or close > relatives. This typically includes sexual activity between people in > consanguinity (blood relations), and sometimes those related by > affinity (marriage or stepfamily), adoption, clan or lineage. > > In some societies, such as those of Ancient Egypt, **brother–sister**, > father–daughter, mother–son, cousin–cousin, aunt–nephew, uncle–niece, > and other combinations of relations within a royal family were married > as a means of perpetuating the royal lineage. DN 3 appears to say the Sakyan Aristocrats were superior to Brahmans because the Sakyans Aristocrats slept with their blood sisters and thus keep the Aristocrat lineage pure. > Recollecting the ancient name and clan of your mother and father, > the Sakyans were the children of the masters, while you’re descended > from the son of a female bondservant of the Sakyans. But the Sakyans > claim King Okkāka as their grandfather. > > Once upon a time, King Okkāka, wishing to divert the royal succession > to the son of his most beloved queen, banished the elder princes from > the realm—Okkāmukha, Karakaṇḍa, Hatthinika and Sinisūra. They made > their home beside a lotus pond on the slopes of the Himalayas, where > there was a large teak grove. For fear of diluting their lineage, **they > slept with their own sisters**. > > Then, Ambaṭṭha, King Okkāka was inspired to exclaim: ‘The princes are > indeed Sakyans! The princes are indeed the best Sakyans!’ From that > day on the Sakyans were recognized, and he was their founder. > > For I also say this: > > "The aristocrat is best of those people who take clan as the standard. > But one accomplished in knowledge and conduct is best of gods and > humans.” It was only yesterday when an acquaintance was tell me how he was part of an Australian veterinary team that went to Thailand to rectify the birth deformities of in-bred goats by impregnating the Thai goats with sperm from Australian goats. Did the Buddha praise the practise of incest? Are there any Commentary apologetics for this above, seemingly, ignorant teaching in DN 3? I thought the Buddha was supposed to be omniscient? Or is DN 3 just another fake DN sutta composed to convert eḷamūgo to Buddhism?

So have few family members, including my mom, who are base in general and particularly nagging. For example my mom (she's uneducated) keeps nagging me on not eating out that I may get sick when she clearly doesn't understand, or at best misunderstands, health and nutrition. Or for example, when I am driving she will nag me on not taking this turn because the car will travel 100 feet more and this will burn more fuel. This is when my family is not at all poor : in fact we are rich from my country's standards. This kind of nagging happens repeatedly even after I explain the correct things, and she does this for almost everything to the point that my dad get super mad at her. I think her mind might be too base to understand simple things. Most of the time I say OK and ignore her, but sometimes I get pretty annoyed. So I was wondering today what would Buddha do with such people ? Would he simply ignore or would you try to teach them? Any advice on such people from the Suttas or personal experience? Thank you.

Meditation can bring peace to the mind. And meditation doesn't end after leaving the cushion, so the peace of mind should be brought into daily life. But I do not always want to feel peaceful, sometimes I seek excitement on purpose. For example, when I watch a movie, I know the characters on the screen are illusions, but I want to be deluded to enjoy the movie. Does this mean that I have strayed from the path of Buddhism? I'm curious if true Buddhists watch movies, play video games, and listen to rock.

I have been thinking to simplify my diet. The reasons are two-fold, first off, one, that I don't have to think about food, which automatically avoids getting entangled in cravings and aversions towards taste. The second being that it will be healthier for me and probably also cheaper. So I was thinking of some possible recipes for meal prepping which are both Healthy and easy to prep. I would like to eat that on a regular basis, and hopefully be done with this ever-present hassle of being concerned about food and focus on meditation/study instead. Needless to say, taste doesn't matter much but not extremely bland would be preferred. As of now I jsut came up with these options : 1) Brown rice+ frozen vegetables+nuts 2) sweet potatoes and rice-beans. 3) Tofu- vegetables-beans ( I am a noob when it comes to cooking ). So I was wondering if you guys have any great ideas on easy meal prepping or on eating/food in general for lay buddhists.

At 2:48 in this video of the acceptance speech, a Tibetan prayer is recited. What is its translation into English? I think it's something like "Gautama, the true Buddha... free from all precept". I once saw a translation in a YouTube comment but have lost it.

This question arises from a recent post . There is a related question on the difference between knowledge and wisdom but this is more on how wisdom (insights) can arise from knowledge. The [definition of wisdom](https://www.wordnik.com/words/wisdom) is given as an ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight. Therefore, learning and gaining knowledge of the Dharma without insights would not constitute wisdom by this definition. How do you gain insights so that knowledge of the Dharma becomes wisdom? What are the signs of wisdom? Sharing from the sutras or personal experience/insights are welcome.

People sometimes qualify their statements, by adding the word, "conventionally" — and people distinguish between Conventional Truth (*Sammuti Sacca*) versus Ultimate Truth (*Paramattha Sacca*). 1. When (historically) does this distinction begin: if the distinction is made in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, is there also doctrine like that in the Sutta Pitaka (and if not, do we know *why* not)? [This Wikipedia section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine#Pali_Canon) says that the "two truths" distinction is *not* made in the suttas, though there are some "suttas of indirect meaning". 2. Is "ultimate" in some way better or more right than "conventional"? Or are they both mere views or descriptions of reality, more or less equal (like a left hand and a right hand) and it's important to select (perhaps, I guess, by using 'wisdom') whichever of the two may be the more appropriate? Is it OK to regard them both as "views" instead of as "truths"? Is there an important difference between e.g. *sacca*, *vacana*, *dhamma*, and *ditthi*? 3. If/when/after people have made a distinction between "conventional" and "ultimate", do people subsequently try to recombine these views? I'm thinking of the Zen-like aphorism, "after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water": is that something to do with "two truths"? Does it imply a continuation of or a return to the conventional? Or does it differ/vary a lot from school to school? I imagine these questions could be answered with a paragraph each; but please tell me if any of them need to be separate questions, to allow a longer or more detailed answer.

I have struggled with serious chronic asthma all my life. I started meditating and in general felt very relaxed. However a few years into the practice my asthma became very serious. One night I fell asleep and dreamt of crawling under a rock and falling asleep forever. I said to myself (in my dream), 'no, I must carry on'. I then woke up only to find myself hardly breathing. I think I almost died that night. I want to keep meditating and dedicate myself to 'the way'. I feel great happiness and peace this way. I also don't want to be so at peace as to lose my life. I have allowed myself a level of anxiety ever since and wake up at night regularly which is important in order to take medications when I need it however I feel the anxiety of course means I'm no longer at peace. I have also tried to increase medication and move to a better environment but my health has not improved. What is the buddhist way in this situation? Possibly another way of phrasing this question is how much should I struggle to stay alive. I'm not scared by death but also I don't want to die. I'm happy to hear perspectives from different practices and lineages.

To me asrava (asava) is 3 things: desire for worldly things, desire for becoming, desire for ignorance. given my understanding, i formulate asrava is generally an *influx* of desire. assuming i am right, how is desire for ignorance make sense? who desires ignorance?

I had rather severe melancholia for some time and I still feel deep despair occasionally. For example, today, just after the workout and a good meal, I felt severe, yet inexplicable, mental suffering. No one offended me or anything bad happened recently, but I could not relax or concentrate on something. I just felt anger (not to anyone particular), self-pity and deep dissatisfaction. I wanted to pop tranquillizer firstly but instead decided just to sit down and practice open-monitoring meditation. I cried a bit, but these feelings have largely gone and I feel calmer now (though not happy for sure). Every day I feel this subtle dissatisfaction and it often progresses to those hysterical outbreaks (uncharacteristic for males, I know). Despite that, I feel mostly drowsy during the day, not nervous, but this is quite another problem for which I think meditation on breath is the main solution, as it helps you stay awake and more concentrated. Is open-monitoring meditation the best idea when you feel you are about to cry? I thought about Metta meditation, too, but wishing yourself or anyone else happiness sounds like a joke during those outbreaks. I often practice Metta before sleep though. So what would you recommend on preventing and "treating" these hysterical reactions? You know, psychiatrists and psychologists have nothing to offer to deal with it, except for the drugs...

I am spending some time alone in a day (in solitude). During that alone time and during the rest of the day i am feeling itching and tingling. I can ignore both by just watching it as someone described in the below article about itching. However, both are really annoying and feels like i'm unable to focus on anything, as my focus then turn to the itch/tingling. Reference: https://zenhabits.net/itchy/

With all due appreciation for all positive interventions and with apologies for a seemingly dilettantish question, does anyone have any insight on the differences as well as on the commonalities of living long-term inside a meditation center compared to a monastery?

Is there buddhajayanti sinhala translation of tipitaka for Kindle device? Pdf format is not good with kindle. Is there any other format of buddhajayanti sinhala tipitaka for kindle. Please let me know..

Quick question. How do I deal with the kind of people who do not know THE first thing about a topic and they would pretend as if they are experts in it; and **impose** their opinions on the conversation while ignoring mine even when I am indeed an actual expert there. Eg: my father will assert things about physics (sometimes absurd and laughable), which is high school level at best. When I tell him calmly "the correct thing is actually not this because so and so... ", he refuse to believe/listen ( doesn't even inquire into it). This is even though I am a current PhD student, in physics no less. Similarly a cousin and some friends, not knowing a thing in that field try to be experts when I actually for a fact know those things. This kind of gets me mad and I become passive aggressive. What is a way to deal with these people and avoid bad karma simultaneously. In general we are supposed observe the feelings, but then physically, am I to always remain quiet? If I don't, there's no way I don't get subtly angry. Other option is to stop hanging out with people like that? But then isn't that coming from aversion - we are aiming for harmony and remaining undisturbed in the face of things rather than avoiding them? This is one of those things where I am quite unsure of the path. Please give insights and practical tips, other than 'just meditate more' - that I know. Any responses are appreciated, Thank you

What terms are equivalent to 'meaning' in Sanskrit, or Buddhist thought more generally? Especially in terms of, how to live a meaningful life, and what is considered meaningful in Buddhist philosophy. Thanks

While preparing the huge online-conference "Life of the Most Worthy" on the topic of the life of the Buddha, we came across information that Gautama Buddha, in his spiritual aspirations, was looking for contact with Shambhala. And also that in the end his search was crowned with success and he was accepted by the Bodhisattvas of Shambhala. However, no documentary evidence of this has yet been found. Have you met ancient sources in any language of the world that speak of this? Maybe you know what direction to look for?

Is the world itself intelligent? They say everything happens for a reason. Coincidences are prevalent. Is nothing private? The world seems godless but there are all these hints. Perhaps the human has created a way for this to occur. Is it magic? are coincidences a corruption of insight ? what does Buddhism have to say about this? example of coincidence per request: two customers in a pizza shop: the first customer says to the cashier while paying, "get your tips". the next customer in line **does** tip on his order and although he overhead the previous customer's comment, he **did not** notice the first customer giving tip. finding it slightly strange, since he was already planning on giving a tip. a strange feeling overcame the customer and cashier as he leaves the shop. example 2: is it not a coincidence that Buddha sculpture made from stone is like the real ones, like very still and stuff?

We find plenty of similar discussions in the Theravada tradition, cf. (for example) kv6.1 or kv5.5 kv5.5 https://suttacentral.net/kv5.5/en/aung-rhysdavids?lang=en In my answer to the following question https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/45940/ I mention in passing that (fantasy) hobbits are non-existents. Why? Because they are not subject to cause and effect, because they do not momentarily disintegrate, and because they leave no trace on the world. 'Unreal' and 'non-existent', to me, are synonyms. This leads onto a thread of comments discussing the putative existence of hobbits, hypotheticals, and whether or not one can distinguish the existence of hobbits from, for example, chairs. My grounding in this is presentation of the divisions of the selfless in as found in volume three of Jam-yang-shay-pa’s (1648-1721) "Great Exposition of Tenets" (there is a commentary on this in Chapter 1 of Hopkins "Meditation on Emptiness"). While the text itself is a Mahayana text rooted in Madhyamaka, volume three enumerates some important aspects of Buddhist reality, primarily following Abhidharma stemming from the Sarvāstivāda. What do we find? The first is the division into that which is (skt: sat), and that which is not (skt: asat). The word that describes this dichotomy is 'reality' or 'truth', or 'existence' (skt: satya, pali: sacca) - but 'existence' here is not to be confused with 'bhava' - because permanents (Pali: nicca) are sat, while nicca are not bhava (Bhava are things - compounded, while nicca are absences, and are uncompounded. Both nicca (as absences) and things can be found, therefore they are 'sat'). If we deny nicca, then we deny cessations - if we deny cessations, we have denied the third noble truth. Classical examples of non-existents are a hare's horn, turtle hair, clothing made from turtle hair. Things like a reflection's laugh. Also, inherently existing phenomena, or a self-created god, or an omnipotent being, or permanent products, or souls. So, the questions are: Are fictional hobbits 'sat' or 'asat'? Are hypotheticals 'sat' or 'asat'? How about a chair, or an elephant? What about the constant, π (pi)? I might be wrong - and am happy to be corrected, but I would consider hypotheticals, hobbits, constants, abstract objects (platonic abstracts) to be **asat**. Why? Because they are fabrications, narratives, stories - the stories they belong to are **sat**, and the stories themselves can instruct and inform us, but the objects in those stories are **asat** : they do not exist, they are not true, they are not real. If we allow for hobbits to exist, and if our rationale for such allowance similarly pervades all non-existents then we must also allow for omnipotent, self-created gods to exist, and souls. If we do that, then we cannot differentiate between what is a noble truth and what is not, and Dharma no longer holds truth, but is merely another story. Non-existent things, being unreal, they are both selfless, and are uncompounded. Being uncompounded they are neither able to create causes nor suffer them: They are not dependent arisings (as they are not subject to cause and effect) but they are dependent designations. Am I wrong? How so? **Addendum** - My question is concerned with conventional truths. I'm not attempting to establish or discuss objective/intrinisc truths. - If we allow for (fantasy) hobbits and if such rationale similarly pervades all non-existents, then we must allow for souls (because our reasons for how hobbits can exist do not exclude how souls can exist). - If we have allowed for souls, we do not have the three marks of existence. Because: anatta - If we do not have the three marks, we do not have insight into anattā / anātman - If we do not have insight then we do not have the three higher trainings (tisikkhā/triśikṣā). - Without the three higher trainings there is no noble truth of the path. - Without the truth of the path there is no Buddha dharma. - Without Buddha dharma there is no refuge, nor is there the awakening of enlightenment. *(amended in light of a good point made by Yeshe Tenley below)*

I have started facing a weird problem which I wouldn't earlier. While meditating during daytime, I sometimes doubt whether I am actually experiencing *nimitta* or my *vittaka* has waned and, instead of making way for *ekaggata*, my closed eyes are in fact picking up ambient light. This inevitably keeps me from attaining stable *anapana-nimitta* in that session and the progression plateaus, irrespective of how effortless maintaining concentration has become. That leads to restlessness and I either don't feel like keeping my *aditthana*, or if I can nullify that I emerge from the session somewhat disappointed that I didn't utilize the session well. I'd like to clarify that I not seeking any *jhanic* factor or for *anapana-nimitta* to emerge, and I can attain *anapana-nimitta* and subsequently absorption for desired time period before progressing to the higher *jhanas* during night-time because I know I can't be confounded by ambient light... So, other than only sitting at nighttime, which isn't really a solution, what do I do? Any pointers?