I want to work on the Koan,**'What was your original face before you were born'** and '**Who am I**',How do I go about it. Should I constantly ask myself this question? Should I write it down? How is the Koan practise done?

A few months ago I bought a four volume set of The Shobogenzo, translated by by Gudo Nishijima and Chodo Cross. In this set there was not only a translation of the Shobogenzo, but an interpretation of each chapter of the text in modern language. I found these interpretations extremely helpful in actually understanding the text, as a lot of the original language was quite obscure. Recently, I also picked up The Blue Cliff Record, translated by Thomas Cleary. However, in his text there are no direct interpretations of the chapters, and so I'm having trouble understanding some of them. I largely understand Zen itself, but the original language of The Blue Cliff Record often just doesn't seem to get to the point, or make that point clear. **So I'm wondering if any modern, English interpretations of The Blue Cliff Record exist?**

I often see the Abhidhamma referenced as a framework for interpreting the teachings of the suttas. However, opinions vary widely: some say it is essential for proper interpretation, while others argue that it is a later analytical system not required for understanding the early discourses. How exactly does the Abhidhamma function within Buddhist hermeneutics? Do canonical or commentarial texts explicitly state how the Abhidhamma should be used to interpret other teachings? And if yes How do traditional commentaries justify its authority? Furthermore Are there examples where Abhidhamma exegesis diverges from sutta usage? If so How do scholarly commentators resolve such differences?

Early Buddhist history shows a rapid diversification of viewpoints, lineages, and monastic communities, eventually producing schools such as Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Mahāsāṃghika, and many others. What historical, doctrinal, social, or organizational factors contributed to this early schism? To what extent were these divisions driven by philosophical disagreements, regional spread, monastic discipline (Vinaya) issues, or broader political and cultural influences in ancient India?

As a lay person, I’d like to find resources online to practice phowa because of a lack of masters I can meet in person where I live. Are there any good resources on the internet to achieve phowa? And has anyone here done the phowa practice?

As per title. I read the English translation of the heart sutra recently.If Karma is part of the Dharma, or is the Dharma, does this mean that Karma is not created or destroyed, and it neither decreases or increase, according to the heart sutra?

In reading this answer to another question I came across this link which is seemingly a Tibetan Buddhist site proclaiming the following: > In Buddhism the two beings that are often confused with the Christian > concept of the devil, Yama and Mara, are also Bodhisattvas. Lord > Yama’s job is to make sure beings receive the appropriate karmic > retribution in the appropriate hell realm. Which strikes me as completely antithetical to Buddhism, the Dharma, the Bodhisattva way of life, and well in just about every sense wrong and even *dangerous* idea about how karma works. This is certainly never been taught to me in the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and I would be quite shocked if any of my teachers (in the lineage of His Holiness the Dalai Lama) accepted any of this. As a student of Tibetan Buddhism, but not specifically the Vajrayana I would like to know if there is any defense of this from the viewpoint of Vajrayana? Does anyone follow this way of thinking? Personally, I would file this under *don't believe everything you read purporting to be Buddha Dharma on the internet.* There are ignorant people out there making all kinds of bellicose claims and surrounding themselves in the iconography and material trappings of Tibetan Buddhist culture all the while being shockingly ignorant of Buddha Dharma. This seems to me to be one of them.

Wikipedia says this about Vajrayana Buddhism : "According to several Buddhist tantras as well as traditional Tibetan Buddhist sources, the tantras and the Vajrayana was taught by the Buddha Shakyamuni, but only to some individuals." What precisely is the claim here? What rationale is given for the Buddha reserving teachings for "only some individuals"?

Two questions that may have an overlapping answer: - How and why the Buddha would praise simple living, the simple life of monastics? In which sutta (or vinaya texts)? - Are there any sutta in the Pali canon where the Buddha explains the advantages of a simple life (a life without too many material comforts)?

Udāna 8.1 describes what appears to be a radically transcendent “dimension” — one beyond the elements, the formless attainments, and even beyond movement, time, and dualistic perception. It is characterized entirely by negation, culminating in the phrase: "just this is the end of stress/suffering."- > There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; > neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, > I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither > passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support > (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress. Have any advanced practitioners, past or present, claimed to have directly realized this dimension? If so: - How was the realization described? Was it marked by total cessation, a kind of knowing without content, or something altogether ineffable? - Was there awareness during the experience? Or did it resemble the cessation of perception and feeling (nirodha-samāpatti), with no consciousness during and only retrospective insight after? - How was the transition into and out of this dimension understood? Did it feel like a gradual absorption, a sudden drop, or a shift beyond all experience? - Did practitioners interpret it as a momentary event or as the uncovering of a timeless truth? In other words, is this dimension entered, or is it recognized as always already the case? - What changed after the experience? Were there shifts in perception, identity, or sense of reality that aligned with the description of “no coming, no going” and “no this world or another world”? ---------- I understand that language may fall short in describing such a realization, but I’m curious whether any teachings or testimonies exist that give practical or phenomenological insight into what this “dimension” might entail — and whether realization is framed as a momentary insight or an ongoing mode of liberation.

I have read some early Buddhism sutras where the Buddha says birth doesn't make one noble, conduct does. Is there any sutra in Mahayana Buddhism that explicitly rejected "noble" status just by birth? Or at least rebuking casteism? I have found verses that conform to the caste based society like for example Lalitavistara Sutra that says Bodhisattvas are only born in upper two castes (Priest and Warriors). It does not say a person who rises to become a king, no, he should be from a "royal lineage" (caste). I have found no which eases the caste tension.

In the teaching of dependent origination, ignorance is presented as the initial condition from which the entire cycle of birth, suffering, and death unfolds. This raises a subtle but profound question: why is ignorance placed at the very beginning of this chain? Does this imply an absolute beginning in time, or is it pointing to a structural relationship in how suffering arises? In exploring this question, it may also be worth considering whether ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge, or if it refers to a deeper mis-perception of reality that underlies all conditioned experience. Clarification on how early Buddhist texts and later traditions understand this foundational role of ignorance would be appreciated.

I came across a gallery of Stupas from around the world and it made me wonder why some of them differ in shape considerably. Do they express different aspects of Buddhism or is the source of difference rather cultural/historical? I am aware that in Tibetan Buddhism there are 9 types of Stupas and they have a rather uniform shape. What I am interested in is why the ones found in, for example, Sri Lanka or India, have a much different shape and style.

Across early Buddhist and later scholastic sources, sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa refers to the awakening of an arahant/Buddha during life, while the five aggregates continue to function. Parinirvāṇa (or nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa) designates the complete cessation of the aggregates at death. However they raise several questions - If the liberated mind is already free of defilements at sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa, what exactly “continues” until parinirvāṇa? Is it- - merely biological life-supporting karma? - non-karmic causal processes of the aggregates? - a conventional designation with no metaphysical content? - or something else depending on doctrinal school? Furthermore, 1. What specific causal theory does each major tradition (Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka) use to explain why the aggregates continue to arise after sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa? 2. If the arahant produces no new karma, what prevents the aggregates from ceasing immediately at awakening? 3. Do any schools argue that the distinction between sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa and parinirvāṇa is ultimately conventional rather than reflecting two ontologically distinct states?

Please give a clear simple example of how this looks in a practical way without quoting suttas. I just want a practical example. Thanks > The object of consciousness, or mind-object, that arises has to be of > ultimate reality, not conventional reality. We must be able to > differentiate between what is absolute reality, or paramattha dhamma > and what is conventional reality, or sammuti.

Finding resources to better understand the meaning of the 12 links of dependent origination has been challenging for me. The best resource I've been able to find to decipher the meaning thus far is this dharma talk. 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination In it, the first 9 links are described in a fashion that makes sense and rings true but the last 3 are still fuzzy to me. 1: ignorance the choice to ignore that which is uncomfortable (i.e The biological purpose of "pain" is to provide the sensory motor brain with feedback that its predictive model of the world is incorrect. It contains a wrong view about the world which leads to unskillful movements in the world. This wrong view should be investigated and replaced with a more skillful view which makes more skillful movements in the world possible. e.g. You burn your hand on the stove. Within this context, the choice to IGNORE the discomfort, to cling to views, gives rise to suffering. Suffering is the persistent pressure by the sensory motor brain to pay attention to the feedback and correct the wrong view in its sensory-motor predictive model of the world.) ignorance is the condition for 2: unwise intention is the condition for 3: unwise attention is the condition for 4: unwise mobilization of body and mind is the condition for 5: the 6 sense bases directed to receive and interpret sensory input (perhaps unwisely) is the condition for 6: contact the sensory experience. which may be interpreted unwisely is the condition for 7: feeling tone (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) is the condition for 8: craving (to pull towards or push away) is the condition for 9: clinging is the condition for 10: becoming is the condition for 11: birth is the condition for 12: old age and death The speaker suggests that “birth and becoming” refer to the creation of an identity associated with suffering and that “old age and death” is a synonym for suffering. This is too fuzzy for my liking and I desire a clearer and more precise understanding. I *think* this means The wrong view that “happiness depends upon the satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience”, when clung to, gives BIRTH to an identity whose mission is to attain that sensory experience by BECOMING the identity required to attain it. So “birth and becoming” kind of make sense to me, though I am still somewhat uncertain if this is the meaning the Buddha intended. “Old age and death” however does not make sense to me. If this is just a synonym for suffering, why didn't the Buddha just say “suffering”. My impression is that he chose his words very carefully.

I have been a Vipassana meditator since 2001 and had a very strong practice and very good concentration. Last 2-3 years I started feeling a physical violation of space and then hearing voices. What interacts with me is some kind of demon or demons that have started harming with negative gross vibrations of all kinds and use very harmful language. They also harm physically and hurt around the spine and different organs of the body and the nervous system- to get your energy -some kind of energy vampires. They harm continuously and never stop. It is impossible to meditate or do anything else. They seem to know how to connect to human mind and body and somehow gain control the nervous system. I asked a lot of people for help including meditators even teachers but so far havnt found anyone who knows about this or wants to help. I don’t even know where to get the help. No drugs or medicines have helped so far, even tried to get some mantra tantra help. I have also read and listened to Ratana and Atanatiya sutta. Written to monasteries..I cannot give metta or practice Vipassana at all because I am constantly under attack. I am not delusional and these are not illusions. Really looking for some help or inputs that refer to any success stories through monks or healers or Vipassana teachers. Someone who really knows about this well.

Are there visual representations of the Tripitaka? Its threefold division suggests a correspondence of vinaya to "body", sutta to "soul", abhidhamma to "mind", a rather broad correspondence that could be linked to many "threefold divisions" of symbolic language.
So I am asking for artistic works that focus explicitly on the Tripitaka, especially in Tibetan art.

This is the mother who carries: Sankha, Chakra, and Gada. I am confused whether she is Mahalaxmi, Kamakhaya, Tripura Sundari, or some Buddhist Goddess.

Owen Flanagan in this podcast argued while Buddhism has an extremely well developed notion of compassion, it doesn't have a significant notion of justice. He contrasts this with ancient Greek philosophies which he states have a strong notion of justice and weak or absent notion of compassion. So is this correct? Does Buddhism really not have decent (or any) notion of justice. Can anyone perhaps provide examples of justice from the texts (Pali Canon, Mayahana etc..). Or is Owen right - no justice in Buddhism?