In the west it's more or less common knowledge that when you try to suppress something, it arises stronger. For example, in this Psychology Today article , it is written: > This effect was shown with the classic “white bear” study. In the > study, people were told not to think of a white bear. Simply being > told not to think about a white bear—to suppress these thoughts—led > these people to think of white bears far more frequently (Wegner, > Schneider, Carter, & White, 1987). This research helped us see that > suppression is an ineffective way to decrease negative emotions. Even in buddhist circles, it's often said that walls shouldn't be built internally, referring to the cognitive behavior of shunning certain aspects of ourselves. Yet, in Suttas like mn19 , the Buddha says: > Whenever a thought of sensual desire arose in me, I abandoned it, > removed it, did away with it. How to reconcile?

It’s a plate from the shambhala dragon tibetan book of the dead (fremantle & trungpa, 1975). the caption says > the central figure is the supreme dharmakaya buddha and represents the dharmata. he is surrounded by the mandalas of the peaceful deities, the vidyadharas and the wrathful deities represented by their mantras could anyone help me find a legend/source for which deities are represented by which mandalas, and what deities are represented by the mantras (and also a translation of the mantras) ?

In MN 19 , the Buddha advises us to contemplate on whether thoughts cause harm. > I understood thus: ‘This thought of sensual desire has arisen in me. > This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the > affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and > leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I considered: ‘This leads to my own > affliction,’ it subsided in me; Does this also apply to emotions like fear or anger (non-thought mental formations)? Example: This emotion has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction [...] Would appreciate relevant Suttas.

Can Buddhism or the Buddhist's way of life solve all our problems?

Considering the development of embryo technology, who does Buddhist Dharma consider as your mother and father: is it the biological parents, or the legal parents? The reason I ask this question is that killing your mother and father is a heinous kamma. One of the monks said that heinous kamma is applicable only for biological mother and the father (i.e. donors of the sperm and the egg). Is this so, and why?

I know that according to Buddhism there is not a self and emotions are something by themselves, a condition, an aggregate. Let's say that after we die we go to a spirit world, and we find love, not **our** love but **some other** love. What is that? An aggregate too? Or is there someone feeling it? Thanks

In meditation practice how to recognise a faith follower, dhamma follower and sothapana?when fetter of personality view is broken whether there is a different ofstream of thoughts?

Is this fake Buddha quote, 'Everything that has a beginning has an end ', synonymous with Dhammapada verse, ‘All conditioned things are impermanent', the Buddha quote from the Dhammapada, verse 277? If it's not synonymous, can somebody explain to me, how it's semantically different?

Is there any sutta about how actions should have conscious intention (that we should not be on autopilot)?

What does Buddhism say about the random stuff (sankhara?) that just comes into mind when I am meditating? And I mean random, like I'll be meditating and a memory just comes out of nowhere, sometimes a half-visual, half-felt scene of a place I travelled 20+ years ago. Or I'll just start thinking of a person I haven't seen for a long while. This is while meditating, so there is no sense input ~ it's not like I heard a song that reminded me of someplace. It's like my mind has a mind of its own! Is this kind of material related to the "storehouse consciousness"? I think of it as like sitting on a cauldron, because this material just continuously bubbles up ~ sometimes it is an angry boil, sometimes a gentle roil. I would love to learn more about what Buddhism has to say about this phenomenon.

In Udana 8.3 , The following passage is to be seen- > There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks > there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could > not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. > But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, > therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and > conditioned. I have seen many individuals on the internet quote this passage from the sutta to state Buddha directly affirmed the existence of A Theistic God. For Instance, A Non-dual, Vedanta Leaning Blogger Claims here - > **A closer reading of the Buddhist texts reveals that the Buddha did > actually acknowledge in many places the existence of what in Vedanta > would be called ‘The Self’ (Sanskrit: Atman) and what others may even > call God. Here is just one example from the Nibbana Sutta verse 3 > (Udana 8.3), which is from the Pali Canon:** > > There is, bhikkhus [monks], that which is unborn, that which is > unmanifest [or has not come into being], that which is not > fabricated/created, that which is unconditioned. > > If there were not, bhikhus, that which is unborn, that which is > unmanifest, that which is not fabricated/created, that which is > unconditioned, there would not be escape from that which is born, from > that which is manifest, from that which is fabricated/created, from > that which is conditioned – that therefore would not have been clearly > known/experienced/seen. > > But because, bhikhus, there is indeed that which is unborn, that which > is unmanifest, that which is not fabricated/created, that which is > unconditioned, therefore escape from that which is born, from that > which is manifest, from that which is fabricated, from that which is > conditioned, is [or can be] clearly known/experienced/seen. > > **We can clearly see that the Buddha is categorically stating that there > is something that is beyond birth and creation, beyond manifestation > and that which is conditioned (ie. all objects).** Similiarly A Baha’i writer uses Ud 8.3 to argue Buddhism implies a transcendent God behind liberation here > **The understanding that God chooses us echoes throughout every > religion. In Judaism, it is God who carries His people on eagles’ > wings and brings them to Himself (Exodus 19:4). In Christianity, it is > God, who with His amazing grace, “saves a wretch like me.” In Islam it > is God who brings us out from the depths of darkness into light: and > it is He who is full of mercy to those who believe (Qur’an 33:43). In > Hinduism, the greatest proponent of Vaishnavism to the West in my > lifetime, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami wrote: “We can only understand > Krsna by acquiring the grace of Krsna,” and in Buddhism, it is very > clear that God, the “unborn, unarisen, and unconditioned” is the One > who frees us, for as Buddhist scripture says:** > > Were there not an unborn, unarisen, and unconditioned, there would be > no escape for those born, arisen and conditioned. Because there is > the unborn, unarisen, unconditioned, there is escape for those born, > arisen, and conditioned. – Udana, 8.3. > > **Salvation is not something we achieve on our own; it is given to be > achieved.** Is there any merit to these claims? Is this Sutta really implying the existence of an Unborn Theistic God, Without whose grace we cannot attain liberation?

"Was Angulimāla, the bandit-turned-disciple of the Buddha, a historical figure or a purely symbolic character in Buddhist literature? What evidence supports either view?"

If my neighbor is real loud, I focus on the noises. It's a sort of involuntary focus. I would like to be able to detach myself from this focus. Until now, I thought focus is part of the 'perception' aggregate, but that doesn't seem correct. Is this sort of focus even part of any aggregate?

I read this: 'Nama-rupa' is simply the aggregates: > And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, > contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and > the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. > Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form. > > SN 12.2 Why is attention not one the aggregates?

What are the kammas resulting in missing opportunities or seizing opportunities ?

I was refreshing myself with some stuff on Madhyamaka. I don't understand how the difference between Prasangika and Svātantrika can be svabhava. How can svabhava exist without changing anything else about conventional entities or ultimate reality? So what other claims does this entail about conventional entities by Svātantrika? Or does Prasangika show their ultimate reality cannot be empty?

In theory, many ways of meditation have been given to stop cravings and aversion. What about practical life? During day to day life, it has often been seen and experienced as well that, "we tend to lean towards comfortablity", whether it be of body or brain. Let's take a basic example: one living in a rented house tend to go for a own-home(whenever possible).... even monks of modern era tend to go for own-kuti/monastery. For this one needs money. Reason being given is, "i feel more freedom inside my own-home instead of rented one". Another eg. : Using technologies, more resources for making life easy-going. Resaon being given as: we have less headaches, more respect, easy-flow of society. Even if i properly give time to analyze, realize, etc. bhlabhla, stay *disconnected* to this modernized life, there is definitely no need for me to ask this question! If one doesn't go for maintaining status, using hi-fi techs, spending money(either for dana purpose or for anything else..), ........ It's more likely to be 99.99% that such person would be physically and mentally **behind** from others. One simple solution came is:: live like a bpl(below poverty line) person but this will definitely decrease morale and enthusiasm of nearby-ones, decreasing their chances of learning dhamma. (If possible, kindly don't include advice for meditation to a freak and too-ignorants) i am more concerned into balancing the life(middle path for householders) such that both nearby ones and me can have less possible crave, more possible dhamma! **Edit::** Maybe, this answer is somewhat talking about balance in last 3 paragraphs. But it is also saying to re-engage in earning money to get approval of others.....getting approval is ok but how would money change someone's behaviour, confusing to me?

I am looking for companies who operate in resonance with the ideas of right livelihood. I have looked for them, but don't seem to be finding any. Does anyone know how to find companies that practice right livelihood? Kind regards, Timothy

I was reading that the Zen monk Hakuin suffered a debilitating condition called zen sickness before his enlightenment. This seem to be a direct result of his practice. Does anyone know what this was? Has there been a retrospective medical diagnosis of this? Are there equivalent stages of the path in other traditions? Should I be worried? Thanks

If there's no specific purpose in life, If we have to give meaning to life by ourselves, then why doing good and bad matters ?