Does anyone interpret karma to mean that the future itself arrives twice, "now" and again in the future? Is there any reason to think that karma itself is that movement of impermanence, so that it cannot be entirely dissolved?

I have heard from the Vimalakirti Sutra that Vimalakirti was a householder who drank and visited prostitutes; but he was foremost in wisdom and Buddhist practice?! I heard the Buddha sent monks to him to observe and study under his guidance?! Is this true?! Why would the Buddha do this?!

I am speaking of a state of mild but persistent agitation in which one notices the arising of the habit of (1) sorting through the current collection of unresolved discomforts with the intention of picking one to latch onto, (2) orienting oneself towards the desired sensory experience and (3) re-entering the cycle of greed, hatred and delusion with respect to that desired sensory experience BUT chooses not to re-enter the cycle. I am speaking of a very unusual state in which the cycle of samsara is not entered but neither has the agitation to re-enter it ceased. Kind of like “craving without a target”. Kind of like an inner conflict between (1) a part which wants to relieve the agitation by latching onto a target for craving and (2) a part which wants to find a more skillful means of extinguishing the agitation. Kind of like being in a hinterland between suffering and the end of suffering. I have a vague intuition this state *might* be related to “stream entry” but I am not certain about that. Does this sound similar to anything the Buddha spoke about?

I have a vague recollection of a Dhamma teacher saying that, in the process of awakening, the practitioner eventually reaches a stage of development where they either awaken fully or they die. I'm not sure if my memory of this is correct or not. I have a vague recollection of the Dhamma teacher treating this as a myth which is not to be taken seriously. For this reason, I may have discarded it. However, I am intensely curious. Is anything like this mentioned anywhere in the suttas?

Question is in the title. I remember reading that statement in a Theravada Buddhist book or PDF file but now I can't seem to find it. Help would be much appreciated.

According to this website , it says... > The Buddha classified persons into four kinds on the basis of one’s attitude towards one’s own interest and one’s attitude towards the interest of others. I started source text research and I found this website , using the search word of > attahitaya ca patipanno parahitaya ca The website says its source text is > Sutta Pitaka Vol 13 : Sutta. Aṅ. (2): catukkanipāto 96 But I could not find such text on SuttaCentral . Does anyone know the correct index of the text?

Do Buddhas and Bodhisattvas care and have compassion for all sentient beings equally. On the one hand, my question is a little facetious (if only because, at least within the laity, not doing so is impractical in the extreme: why would spiritual help be any different?). On the other, it may raise some interesting riddles. What does "the one taste of the dharmadhatu" mean except that? And, wouldn't that mean that a Buddha could in principle approve of hells, at least if the suffering in them is, like I believe it kinda is in Christianity, to assure the good and beneficent that virtue is loved, via granting us "free will" (don't quote me on that).

It seems impossible to have goodwill in certain situations. Is it enough to be tolerant and forgiving of other's faults?

I was reading through a history of Buddhism recently, which led me to a famous title called the Shōbōgenzō by Eihei Dōgen, written in the 13th century. I highly recommend this book. I know there is a great deal of writing on Zen from the 20th century and beyond, but for my purposes I'm interested in literature that was written prior to the year 1900. Either explicitly about Zen Buddhism, or a closely related precursor to Zen. Were there any other important works on this subject dating back to it's inception? What were they?

From the Penetrative Sutta, Nibbedhika Sutta, AN 6:63, translated by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu: *“And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later (in this lifetime), and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma."* The translator seems to be trying to help the reader here when he adds *(in this lifetime)*, but these are not the Buddha's words. I'm wondering if the *three sorts* are mentioned elsewhere in the teachings, possibly less ambiguously than here.

I would like to know if the following premises are well stated and if their content is true. Also, I'd like to know if the conclusion/answer makes sense: 1) In the aggregates, 'sankhara' are kammic formations. 2) Kammic formations are any phenomena that have an underlying intention, and therefore create new kamma. Question: Is intention (cetana) a sankhara? Thanks in advance for your time. Kind regards!

As per buddhism what is the difference between volition and intention? If there is any difference what is right pali word for volition and what is right pali word for intention? I presume sankhara is volition. and cetnā is intention. There are other word also that we should throw light. they are Chanda, and Sankappa, vaci sankhara. kaya sankhara. And If you answer is that they are same then. (1) the wastrn philosopher descriminates that. (2) Moreover There is volition in every feeling/phassa as said by buddha. When we do breath observation.**There is intention to observe breath and that is boosted time and again. But at the same time there is volition to scratch/move my body** or to suffer my bodily pain.. there must be different between this two volition. isn't it.? I guess one of the two(volition/intention) is conscious and **other is unconscious**!!

I have been meditating intensively according to the Advaita tradition where self inquiry is practiced till realizing that I and effort are just feelings and that the watcher of even identity is the true self which isn't a phenomena that manifests. 2 days ago I had what I felt as a near death experience ,or maybe a great death of the ego ,at night I suddenly had an awakening in trance where there was a clear seeing of the "I" that I thought was me,then I woke up with a vibration feeling in my head and after lying on my back I suddenly felt as if a light was going to replace me as the identity of the body and me that I thought was my identity all my life was just an idea that was going to be replaced by that light ,I couldn't accept that happening and chose to stay as myself, and I actually cried cause I felt that I was going to die, not realizing that this "I" was more intimate that expected . Is this a paranormal experience or is it actually how enlightenment should occur ?

With deception as rampant as ever, what did the Buddha teach about it -- other than "let none deceive another" in the metta sutta -- especially how to discern and respond to deception?

I've read in several articles that the Lalitavistara identifies Krishna as leader of the "black demons" and is an enemy of the Buddha. I've only been able to check the 84000 translation from Tibetan, and haven't been able to locate the source of this claim. Am I overlooking something?

I am not a buddhist but I have a friend who is. He dislikes dogs and I have questioned him as to whether he is a true Buddhist. I believe that the Buddha is peaceful and nature loving, and so would love dogs.

In Osamu Tezuka's manga Buddha, Assaji was eaten alive by wolves or wild dogs. I always thought the manga artist came up with a lot of his own original stories. Because this story and others are not on wikipedia. But then I recently watched an old Hong Kong TV show Journey to the West II (1998) and it depicted the same story of Assaji being eaten alive. And that of King Bimbisara being killed by his own son, as predicted by Assaji. As influential as the manga was, it seems unlikely that a Hong Kong TV show would have picked a story from a manga. Is it possible, in Japanese or Chinese Buddhism, they have their own set of canonical stories? And they are unfortunately hard to find on the English internet?

This is a third attempt at formulating a question. This question and this question have been asked, but not formulated in a way that conveyed the question. So now, in a third attempt, the formulation shall be: **what is volition?** **EDIT:** The answers still do satisfy the question in the mind, although they are answers to the question on 'paper'. Apologies for the lack of skill in phrasing the question. Let us see if the following clears up what is being asked: *Imagine life as a series of moments; one moment after another in a line infinitely long. Imagine that there is a decision that must be made, to chose A or B, both equally likely to be chosen (for whatever reason, such as lack of understanding which is the right choice). This decision is present only in a single moment within the infinite series of moments. __What is that single moment of choice? What is that single moment made of, what substance, what phenomena? Who/What is doing the choosing? Why A over B, or B over A, if both are equally likely?__*

One of the five precepts is "Abstain from taking that which is not given". I am confused by this right now. Since this does talk about maintaining your sila. I believe that all knowledge should be free of cost , and charging for knowledge is what is leading to all the inequality in our society. The Brahmins in India have for centuries exploited women and lower-caste people by maintaining their strong hold on all spiritual knowledge and only sharing it with fellow Brahmins. Women and lower caste people were forbidden from learning the scriptures. This is the kind of exploitation that Buddha spoke strongly against. Today's society in the developed and developing world is no different. Students are paying enormous sums of money to gain knowledge and many leading miserable lives due to student debt. Textbooks are ridiculously priced. I hate the commercialization of knowledge because it is exclusive and not inclusive. That is the reason why a part of me does not believe that reading pirated books is morally wrong. All knowledge should be free .Every person must get the opportunity to improve themselves through education. I do not support the commercialization of education. This especially for Dhamma teachers , who sell Dhamma books. I absolutely do not support this. And by pirating books I am taking a stand ( I feel ) , and not allowing people to profit commercially by selling dhamma and spirituality. One only needs to look at the spiritual market place in India. However when I analyse what the Buddha said : "Taking that which is not given"-- I am doing that "The person to whom the copyright belong will not be happy knowing that I am taking their books via piracy" "The king a.k.a government will definitely punish me" Considering these , I am very sure I am breaking the stealing precept. Is my mind just making up excuses because it is "expecting to gain without giving " or ? I am so confused with these two opposing thoughts ! Please help me!

I have always been against lawsuits, but I live in America - and I have observed lawsuits being filed for many things. Suppose one's civil rights were in question, and it is a matter of being personally harassed and bullied upon by a larger organization that has clearly done wrong, would an American buddhist simply let it go?