I read the following on the internet: > Some rules assume the conceit, "I am". Importantly, Buddhist rules do > not. For example, take the first three rules of MN8: > > MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’ > > MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not > kill living creatures.’ > >MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will > not steal.’ What exactly is conceit? Does the above quote include conceit? If so, why? If not, why not?

Can anyone post a video of what a "bhamakāro" from ancient India would be doing? If not, can anyone explain very clearly what we are talking about in terms of the tool that would have been used, the process, and what the person would have been doing? Pali: > Seyyathāpi bhikkhave dakkho **bhamakāro** vā bhamakārantevāsī vā dīghaṃ vā > añchanto dīghaṃ añchāmīti pajānāti, rassaṃ vā añchanto rassaṃ > añchāmīti pajānāti, evameva kho bhikkhave bhikkhu dīghaṃ vā assasanto > dīghaṃ assasāmīti pajānāti. Dīghaṃ vā passasanto dīghaṃ passasāmīti > pajānāti. Translation of MN 10 from Thanissaro Bhikkhu: > Just as a skilled **turner** or his apprentice, when making a long turn, > discerns, 'I am making a long turn,' or when making a short turn > discerns, 'I am making a short turn'; in the same way the monk, when > breathing in long, discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing > out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long' Translation of MN 10 from Sujato: > It’s like a deft **carpenter** or carpenter’s apprentice. When making a > deep cut they know: ‘I’m making a deep cut,’ and when making a shallow > cut they know: ‘I’m making a shallow cut.’ ...

I have been doing buddhist practices and ***trying*** to keep the precepts for a few months, after an intensive retreat. I have been noticing recently that I have automatically started to avoid looking at any women that are potentially attractive. This is almost instinctive and I go out of my way to avoid looking at them as much as possible. Also, I can see that I do not find most women attractive now, like in the sense of having that primal urge to have sex with them. Instead there is a subtle judgement like 'Hey, she looks pretty' but mostly without any deeper lust. While watching porn (I do it compulsively unfortunately) I have just a few moments of actual lust during the whole session, and for the most part, even the prettiest women there have stopped appealing sexually to me. But there are some women though, in real life, for who I am like "MY GOD she is too beautiful!" and I feel that strong sexual urge (and suffering along with it) unlike with all others. I want to ask, is this normal and expected part of the practice? Not that I am complaining - I am pretty happy with it tbh coz when I don't jerk off for a few days I feel my mind stronger, calmer, happier and have energy to get stuff done. I am worried though if my avoidance is rooted in aversion to feel the sexual urge and the suffering? If this is indeed good, are there any other practical tips (other than meditation) on how to take this further - to remove all lust- and the slavery that it carries? Kindly give your insights. Please do not hold back on technical aspects, give me as accurate and precise answer as possible as I understand the formal terminology of the sutras etc. Any responses are appreciated. Thank you

I happen to come across the description of Cakkavala as per Buddhist Cosmology from the palikanon website in the link here . After going through the information in that link, I have below questions and thought of posting it here to get an answer from the experts here. 1. Where is Mount Sineru located, and can we see it with our eyes? 2. Does a Cakkavala constitute a galaxy or does it imply our observable universe or something else? 3. Are there finite or infinite number of Cakkavala's? 4. This link here mentions that the Buddha is only born in this Cakkavala, my question is why not in other Cakkavala's? 5. Is the physical universe a part of Cakkavala or is it vice versa? I get that these sort of questions are amongst the imponderables, but curious to know. Waiting to hear from the experts.

Why are Concepts not Impermanent? I found the below explanation in another forum. Are they Permanent? or not both? > Conventional reality (sammuti sacca/ pannatti) is just a concept and > not real. Non-real dhammas don’t exist and therefore cannot be anicca > or dukkha. > > According to Abhdhamma: > > - dhamma = paramata + pannatti > - paramata = sankhata + asankhata > - sankhata = citta + cetasika + rupa > - asnkhata = nibbana > - dhamma = citta + cetasika + rupa + nibbana + pannatti > > All the dhammas are anatta. Anatta means devoid of > essence/self/ownership/hegemony. > > Only the sankhata (compounded) is anicca-dukkha. Nibbana and Pannatti > are anatta only. > > Nibbana is real but not compounded. Therefore not anicca-dukkha. > Pannatti is non-real. Therefore not anicca-dukkha. > **In Theravada, Concept is an object (unreal object).** It is not the > Concept-formation of our mind. Mind and mental factors that form a > concept do arise and cease, but not the Concept. > The conceptualizing in mind is the impermanent one, but not the > Conceptual-object of Conceptualizing-mind. **Pannatti is an object.** This > fake object is perceived by the impermanent mind. > The colors that the eye sees in a movie are real, but not the concept > of “movie”. What is fake is the Object pointed by the Idea of “movie”. > **What “Conceptualizing” points to, is the Concept.** It is a fake object > that “Conceptualizing” points to. > > **The pointer exists, but “what is pointed” doesn’t exist.** > > So Concepts are not considered as anicca or dukkha. Conventional Reality is not Impermanent! Introduction to the Ultimacy (International Institute of Theravada)

Assuming that in a hypothetical multitude of so-called "enlightened masters", a future Buddha would actually arise and we were alive at that time, how would we be able to recognize him? The question could also be valid for acknowledging an Arahant or any enlightened person not necessarily a Samma Sambuddha, but would be much more interesting to answer it in the context of just before a new Sangha is formed, assuming a person declared that the Dhamma has been discovered again.

Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "*I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do*" when this seems to contradict anatta? **Isn't thinking "*I am X*" contradicting the teaching of anatta?** There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. SN 22.93 . **Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "*owner of kamma, heir of kamma*" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?** Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "*there's no self in this body and mind doing anything*"? What's the consequence of this view? From AN 5.57 : > “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a > householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of > my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my > relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, > good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech, > and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct > is either completely abandoned or diminished.

I remember the 1st book I read on Buddhism was about 'dharma' and that this has a few meanings, including, at least 'teaching' and 'element' (I suppose both of these are English glosses). > (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) The natural order of the universe; > natural law, cosmic order. > (Buddhism) The teachings of the Buddha as a practice to > be promulgated and taught. These are different senses: teaching / reality. Would you say that the teachings explain the elements? By "explain" I mean show how they are caused. ---------- Follow up question (I'm posting enough!) is whether *either* the teachings are about something real, *or* what they are about the elements in the present.

In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause? I'm not asking if the effect makes the cause, which I think would amount to "ontic" dependence; but if the effect can exist without the cause. I can't remember the word for this, but take smoking. It causes cancer, and some people's cancer is caused by smoking: but not all cancers are from smoking. And what has that got to do with 'emptiness', in any Mahayana tradition?

Some texts speak of 'compounded' phenomena etc. - What does it mean for something to be 'compounded' or 'uncompounded'? For the former, does it just mean 'things that are composed of other things, which themselves are composed of smaller things, ad infinitum? For the latter, something 'indivisible'? - If something is uncompounded, how can it exist as a 'thing'? - Why are some things compounded or not? What makes them that way

Bearing in mind that ignorance is in opposition to knowledge and the starting point for all the suffering, it seems still unbelievable that there were people contemporary to the Buddha that contradicted and refused his teaching. Considering that he was the culmination of human intellect and the embodiment of pure knowledge, how is it possible to be in such stubborn opposition with the truth?

What is the interpretation of parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation? This seems to have different interpretation and translations? What are the different interpretations and translations and what might be the most correct interpretation according to different line of practice? How is the particular interpretation rationalised?

Compassion seems to be a central insight in Buddhist thought. When someone truly grasps Buddhist ideas they find themselves de-emphasizing their own ego, and understanding that they're interconnected with the world and everything in it. I've lived this way for a long time and have become very effective at helping others, serving others, cultivating meaning in the lives of others. However, lately I'm realizing that this compassion is often not reciprocated, and at worst is taken advantage of as others know they can count on me to help them. So I'm wondering if Buddhist thought has ever touched on this issue? How do we reconcile striving for unconditional compassion toward others, when many of those around us are happy to cheat, steal, and take from us?

What is sex without attachment to sense pleasure actually like? Does it feel different? Do you only ever have sex to please the other person? I'm asking both about the relationship and the act itself. Clearly, you don't need celibacy to achieve jhana (some zen monks have wives). What is being renounced if we continue to engage in sexual relationships? Would engagement in sex with oneself (only) be proof that one cannot obtain the jhanas? etc.. ---------- > For achieving these absorptions, the overcoming of the five > hindrances [including sensual desire], at least temporarily, is a preliminary condition. It is > especially in the context of achieving the absorptions that the Buddha > often mentions the five hindrances in his discourses.

From a purely Theravada perspective, how much important is it to read and know Abhidhamma? Is the knowledge of Sutta Pitaka enough to realize nirvana?

I appreciate that religion can be many things but I want to consider the more soteriological aspects of religion. If we can take as a premise that religions including Buddhism have a strong concern about salvation - this would mean that Buddhism and other religions have competing views on this matter. Do Buddhist texts and Buddhist teachers think that other religions are wholly wrong in this regard or maybe partially right or even perhaps everyone is correct in some sense? I'm particularly interested in references for reasonable authoritative texts or quotes from teachers either ancient or contemporary. Also are certain schools of Buddhism more open to other religious views and perhaps other ones more exclusive in their views?

I consider the profession unwise and harmful to all. But I'm looking for a compelling argument against it. PS. Maybe "compelling" is too strong a word.

I've been recently observing that I am surrounded by a lot of narcissistic people which include all kinds of relationships friends, family, coworkers and acquaintances. Having been surrounded by these people I believe I have developed a relatively weak ego/low self-esteem over time -which of course translates to suffering. I also have been doing some meditation related work which has made me stronger/confident and also I believe it is the reason I've been recently having clashes/fights with these kind of people. Thus I wanted to understand narcissism from a deeper perspective of Dhamma. Modern psychology has it already in the dark triad personality traits, namely, narcissism, machiavellism and psychopathy. I watched and analyzed some videos from Jordan Peterson and some others; but I am shocked to find such a surprising lack of material and insights about this phenomenon from any good spiritual gurus, and even here on forums like stack-exchange, reddit etc. Thus I am making this post! So I would like to plead here - kindly contribute any deep/thorough analysis of this trait both from classical sutras perspective and from your own understanding: giving arguments/analogies/reasonings for any assertions. Possibly include the following topics - deconstructing what narcissism actually is, what kind of mental states and defilements are involved, how to overcome those as a person who has narcissism and how to minimize the bad karma recieved while dealing with such people. It may be a little bit of effort to write up properly, but I believe you sharing such valuable insights will be very helpful - for both people like me who have to deal with narcissistic people and also for others who want to fix their own narcissism and corresponding defilements. If anyone does contribute here, your efforts and insights are greatly appreciated, Thank you!

If we have no desire or aversion, how can we get up and clean our home, our body, eat more than is needed, or go to work? If one has indifference towards experiences and/or is equanimous to experiences it would make no difference if ones home or body was dirty. If we were in poverty, or if we had any more food than the immediate needed to subside the pangs of hunger. It seems to me that these unwholesome mind states are actually needed to function as a person in society (a householder) just to do the above things that one generally needs to do to maintain themselves and a householders life. Like one needs to have aversion and be disgusted at ones own filth to clean ones home/body or needs to have desire to be clean and to be seen as clean by others (vanity or desire for reputation). Same with finances, one needs to have desire for material possessions or hopes/desires for a "better" future to actively go out and do more work to earn more wealth than what is actually immediately needed. Kind of feels like functioning in society itself is the maras trap. Realistically all one really needs to do to function as a human is ones daily ablutions, have shelter from the elements and enough food to stop the suffering of hunger, which is pretty much what an ordained person does. Water is needed too of course but except in dire places in the world water is abundant everywhere.

This question is motivated by a comment from another user . Highlights in the quote are made by me. It's written: > "**You have no reason to believe that any words of the Buddha are preserved except uncritical acceptance of traditional narratives. There are some Buddhist words, but to attribute them to the Buddha is simple, blind religious faith**. If your criteria is practical application, then your question is meaningless in any case. You can verify the truth of the quotations by putting them into practice. Why have you not done so?". My questions are: - What reasons are there for believing that the words of the historical Buddha are preserved? - What reasons are there for not believing that the words of the historical Buddha are preserved? - Do these reasons apply equally to all "words" or, for example, is it more believable of the suttas than of the Jataka tales, or of some suttas more than others?