I have questions regarding hospitalization and its morals 1. Are monks/nuns allowed to be hospitalized and can they go to a hospital or doctor if sick? (because aren't they not allowed to request anything according to the vinaya?) 2. Can a monk/nun take painkillers or will that be a breach of the fifth precept? 3. If there is a parasite or other being inside of someone, can they take medicine to cure themselves of it, or would that break the first precept, or is it not if the being isn't sentient?

I am writing an essay on Buddhist nonattachment, in which I argue that nonattachment is compatible with a wide range of affective states and intimate relationships (contra some popular philosophical conceptions, which are greatly influenced by Stoicism). The account of Buddhist nonattachment I offer stresses an attitude of open-minded acceptance of whatever mental state arises, without attraction or aversion -- without indulging or suppressing it. In more than one place I have heard mention of a sutta in which the Buddha describes his mental states and attitudes when he teaches the Dhamma, and his audience either understands or fails to understand. From what I've heard, he says something along the lines that he is pleased when people understand the Dhamma and displeased when they do not; however, his is not overcome by those mental states. This is not a direct quote, only the impression left in my memory. Does this sound familiar? Can anyone help me find this sutta?

Again another passage from Ñanavira's Notes on Dhamma, Cetana: > It will be seen that intentions by themselves are a purely structural affair, a matter of negatives; and when the question is asked, 'What are the intentions upon this occasion?' the answer will be in the positive terms of nāmarūpa and viññāna. What are the positive terms of nāmarupa and viññana?

During meditation can path attainment be identified? How ? Is it gradually progressing of the path in first path attainers?how this is differ from a meditative commoner?

Beyond householder-equanimity is recluse-equanimity. Yet - equanimity being the highest factor of the factors for awakening - does this factor then result in a further kind of equanimity, or does equanimity fade into something else, once highest, aim, is reached? What's higher than equanimity? And where and how could the stages of equanimity be mapped on the ten-fold path?

I always read piti: joy is mental happiness and sukha is physical. But lately i have been reading pīti is physical, sukha is emotional. At first i thought this didn't matter but now for Jhana training I'm reading move from the piti physical sensation to sukha emotional sensation, which completely throw me off. Any help?

Very often when I meditate, or in everyday life, there are times when I get bored. I don't have to do anything. And often I go on YouTube to get busy. It is the same in meditation, very quickly I get bored, I feel the time passing and it becomes heavy. How do you manage all this?

Every cita has an Object associated with it. when we meditate on breath then the object of attention is breath.. and after some time suddenly a past memory image pops up.. can one explain in terms of abhidhamma mind-moment model.. How the object of attention changed. and compare it with new, medium and adapt practitioners perspective. -------------------------------------- **EDIT** There are 3 answers and yet there is no answer. I myself did some more research and concluded as following. I think abhidhamma, or buddhism as such has no explanation for attention Shift from one object to another. As each mind moment has object which can be different from previous and each mind moment has cetasika called manaskāra. I never understand what kind of cetasika it is. 1. Is it yes / No to current object. 2. Is it intensity of attention like 0% to 100 %. 3. Is it pointer to object of attention. It could be current object or another object altogether. However **Patanjali yoga sutra has more clear answer** to this. they attribute it to unconscious activity. and called that 'manasa'. 'Manasa' is organ of body which travels to any location of body. and then only objects of that part are thrown to consciousness. It filters the data of all sense door... This is quite close to modern neuroscience too as hypothalamus in brain. This manasa can be instructed to change its filters . I am giving a link to a **PDf document which compares buddhism and patanjali yogasutra only around this question** .. Its too good. [Contrasting_Nyaya_Vaiseika_and_Buddhist.pdf ][1]

I am indian. And in all indian languages Priti means love. And even in abhidhamma I found a statement that it's towards the object. interest in object. Whereas sukha is from the object. I sometime feel my breathing so comfortable that i just love/like that effortless breathing. Isn't this pīti? Why we made so difficult word like rapture? And making it more complicated.

I know that killing virtuous beings is a grave bad karma. But when it comes animals, virtue is irrelevant. I have heard from monks that bigger the animal greater the sin it is to kill it. How is that so? Why does physicality matter at all? Isn't it just a matter of your intention when it comes to karma?

Some people said to me that , Gautama Buddha ***never made claims*** about himself that he had gained ***enlightenment*** and on the other hand, some people say that's not true. Some people have also said to me that this ***news of enlightenment*** was probably initiated by one of his disciples after his death. Here is ***my question***: Who claimed that ***Lord Buddha said that that "he obtained enlightenment"***?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/#AnotHist Buddhism is sometimes compared to solipsism. Discussions on this topic can be found on the Internet. I do not understand why Buddhism is sometimes compared to solipsism. As far as I know, in all schools and sects of Buddhism Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana there is a doctrine of anatman (no-self), and in all schools and sects of Buddhism a special role is played by compassion (in the Mahayana there are Bodhisattvas who swear to deprive all people of suffering). Also, all schools of Buddhism say that each person consists of skandhas. How then can this be solipsism? As far as I understand, Buddhism cannot teach solipsism at all. Do Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana teach any form of solipsism? Or is it just that someone doesn't understand what they are talking about?

I'm searching for a Sutra (or possibly a commentary) but it has escaped me. My recollection is hazy, but it is about one of the Buddha's monks (most likely Ven. Ananda or Ven. Sariputta) asking the Buddha three times to teach an elderly lady. The Buddha finally entertained the request, but as he approached the lady it is said she turned the other way. The Buddha then approached the lady from the other 9 directions but she always turned away from the Buddha. I would like to be able to reference the source as I think it is relevant to illustrate the role or importance of positive affinities when teaching living beings. Here is how someone else remembers the story: *So Buddha walks up to her, she turns away. Buddha repeats this in every direction, and even multiple directions (by using his powers) and she just turns to the direction she can't see him. He floats, she just looks down. Then Buddha sends Ananda to talk to her. She greets him warmly, and accepts the Dharma from him. So the disciples ask why the lady rejected the Buddha so. Buddha explains that both Ananda and the Buddha met this lady in a past life. She was just about to send-off her dead husband and was grief-stricken. Buddha was a wandering scholar who told her about impermanence and that grieving is of no use. She was affronted at his blunt advice. Whereas Ananda consoled her by hugging her and saying reassuring words. Therefore the lady has favorable affinities with Ananda instead* (sic). BTW I'm a Mahayana Bhikkhu. In my study and teachings I reference both Theravada and Mahayana texts equally. My fellow bhikshus know of the story but not the origin either. I've been looking out for this in my many years of practice. I have not been able to find it in my studies of the Pali Tripitaka nor in major Mahayana texts. Thank you in advance.

I was thinking about whether the goal of a wholesome action is to reduce suffering (dukkha) or to "shrink" the roots of suffering, namely craving, desire or aversion (the three poisons). In fact, there are actions that temporarily create more suffering with the ultimate goal of eliminating its roots---This is the case with exposure therapy, where a psychotherapist exposes a patient to the object of their phobia in order to train them to let go of the aversion towards it. This leads me to three questions: 1. Is it sometimes wholesome to perform actions that can temporarily lead to suffering with the goal of "shrinking" its roots? 2. If so, how much suffering is allowed in order to "shrink" its roots? For example, can a Master lead someone towards a path that includes a lot of suffering in this lifetime if they know it to be necessary to eliminate the roots of suffering in the next? 3. Do wholesome actions always lead to a "shrinking" of the roots of suffering (ignorance, craving, and aversion)? It seems possible to me that this is not the case. Take for example the case of a Master who---with the best of intentions---exposes someone to an advanced insight. Two scenarios: - This person was not ready for the teaching and ends up developing more ignorance, craving and aversion. Did he perform an unwholesome action? - He didn't realize that five other people were listening to this teaching through the door and they were not ready for it. Unwillingly, he ends up creating more ignorance, aversion, and desire in these five. Did he perform an unwholesome action?

In the Theravada tradition is the Pali Canon viewed as the final truth? In other words, are the Buddha's teachings viewed as the final authority which cannot be revised or are his teachings subject to possible enhancement or even revision by later enlightened ones in the way Newton laws were later made even more accurate by Einstein's work?

According to Visuddhimagga, focusing on breath does't require repeating "inhalation, exhalation..." in mind (at least it seems that the book doesn't explicitly tell that) . However, the 10 Kasinas and the 10 foulness may need repetitive words in mind. For example: > "Anyone else should use that same kind of circle of luminosity just described, developing it as “luminosity, luminosity” or “light, light.”(Vm. The Remaining Kasinas.The Light Kasina) I think that the principle of the 10 Kasinas is focusing on concepts of meaning. So maybe repeating the concepts of word isn't necessary. Many modern experts also imply repeating words when meditating but give no further explanation.

I was thinking about taking vows and I had a few questions: 1. does cannabis and magic mushrooms count as intoxicants? 2. does masturbation count as sexual misconduct? if cannabis and magic mushrooms are in fact intoxicants, can I use them one last time before taking the vows. Just to have that experience one last time

I am a bit confused about what is the difference between 'witnessing meditation' as taught by Osho, which can be found here , here , and here , and 'silent present moment awareness ' (*page number 11*) as taught by Ajahn Brahm in his book, 'Mindfulness bliss and beyond'. At first, they both seem identical to me, but as I practice with Osho's instructions it's difficult to get to that point He describes. I would appreciate if the commentary is provided along with the answer from practice point of view.

I have read in a Buddhist sutta that one should meditate on the deathless state. What does this mean? What is it?

In this video clip you can see renowned Tibetan master Chögyal Namkhai Norbu saying that life is unreal and that the Buddha taught it is just like a dream. Is he correct? I've transcribed below: > Sometimes we have very nice dream. Fantastic dream... And we enjoy. We > are very happy. We are dreaming, for example... ...I'm looking and > someone is selling... lottery ticket. Very, very big lottery. I am > taking and buying from someone and I am returning home. And I am > seeing the television. And when I am looking at my number... The > television is saying that number! Then I feel very happy. "Oh, what do > I do now?" All this money. I am really happy and then I wake up. When > I wake up, I discovered that is a dream, unfortunately. I am not > happy. Or sometimes... very, very bad dream. There are many people > that want to kill me. They are arriving in my house. Then they are > starting to kill me. I feel very afraid. That moment I wake up. And I > discover, "Oh, that is only a dream!" I am very happy. **You see, good > or bad. Even good or bad. A dream is a dream. Unreal. So Buddha is > saying, our life is just like a dream. Big dream.** Dream of night is a > very small dream, but... Our life's dream, it has many day and night, > day and night etcetera. When we discover that... Dreams, we discover > when we wake up. But big dreams, we discover... When we are dying and > being in a state of Bardo (transitional state). Emphasis mine. A closely related question (with answers) is here.