I do both samath, vipssana for like 4 years, but without a time schedule. When I have time I do. Few of my hobbies are reading books, learning damma, watching TV series etc. But for few months now, I have lost interest in almost everything. I don't know what to do. I feel like I have seen it all and nothing to do. It's hard to do even daily life stuff. Please give some directions. 🙏

I find it difficult to assign a meaning to the word 'rebirth'. Here are some hints that rebirth might not be real: - Views regarding one's past and future existence are included in the "62 false beliefs" - Those views are ascribed to non-Buddhist ascetics - Views regarding the future of the Tathagata (after death) are in the 10 or 14 "unanswered questions" - The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth? - If rebirth happens that seems difficult to prove by personal experience; is it an article of faith, not something one can verify by direct experience? If so isn't that (faith instead of experience) unusual in Buddhist doctrine (isn't doctrine meant to be measurable against one's experience of the world)? Or if it is experience, what kind of experience (of other lives) is it, how are you supposed to know that so-called experience is not just a dream? - [This web site](http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm) (which seems to be Thai) says that rebirth is a "parable" for "simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha". It says that "Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person" and "This notion of the transmigration of the soul definitely does not exist in Buddhism." The end of that page suggest that people "lower themselves into hell" or "rise to the Enlightened state of the Buddha" *in this life*. I think I remember reading, sometime in the distant past, than when someone asked the Buddha about the afterlife, he replied "I'm not here to talk to you about the afterlife: I'm here to talk to you about *this* life." Is it OK to believe, is it OK to say that a belief in rebirth isn't important to Buddhism? Not a big part of the historical Buddha's teaching? That when he mentioned it at all, it was to say that it didn't exist ("anatta" and "anicca"), that he didn't expect to be doing it himself, and that it wasn't worth talking about? And/or is it a non-core part of Buddhism: something which some Buddhists believe and other Buddhists don't, a local/cultural viewpoint? The article [Two Main Schools of Buddhism](http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/59.htm) says, > The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows: > - Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher. - The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools. - The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. - The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the same in both schools. - Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world. - Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference. A belief in rebirth (even Karma) isn't especially on this list. I think I agree that the above are essential: that the historical Buddha talked about them, and that they're a necessary part of Buddhist belief. I agree that tales of rebirth and of other lives feature in some Buddhist literature, e.g. Mahayana literature seems to have the Buddha being reborn. I don't know a lot about Buddhism so, please, if you answer with a paraphrase of scripture, please include the name of the scripture you're quoting so that I could look it up.

>It goes without saying that alcohol makes you mindless. Theres debate about pot creating conditions for enhanced mindfulness in SOME individuals. My question is not "is it okay". I know what to expect. Are there any specific stories involving Buddha on the subject of someone ingesting an herb or something, specifically to be mindful... and how that is bad. I'm asking for the story or stories.

What are the teachings and books that are good for inspiring the sick and soon to be dying? If your brain is getting eaten away, what are the best practices for that? Anyone know of any doctors who would understand all this insight meditation stuff? Doctors often seem to me far too smart to be wise.

Is there any convincing interpretation of [Vessantara Jātaka](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j6/j6013.htm) that isn't in conflict with morality? Vessantara gave away his children to serve as slaves for no particular reason; it is not clear how not giving them away would hinder his own awakening. I can see how one might argue from the Buddhist perspective that attachment to one's children and anger towards their oppressors is a bad thing. One can, however, protect one's children from oppressors in a completely detached way, without generating any attachment or hatred. Moreover, it's not that he just didn't resist; instead he actively looked for his children when they had run away, in order to give them away to Jūjaka. All in all, Vessantara's behaviour caused a lot of suffering to his children for no reason whatsoever, and he not only didn't get condemned, but was even presented as the one who did the right thing. Is there any way to reconcile this story with morality?

Vietnamese sentence: Như nói có linh hồn người chết, nói có Phật tánh, có thế giới siêu hình là nói dối, vì đó là cảnh giới tưởng, cảnh giới không có thật. - AI version 1: For example, asserting the existence of souls after death, Buddha-nature, or supernatural realms is false speech because these belong to imaginary realms, which are not real. - AI version 2: For instance, asserting the existence of souls of the dead, Buddha-nature, or metaphysical worlds is lying, as these belong to the realm of imagination, an unreal realm. - Thu: For example, saying there is the spirit of the deceased, saying there is Buddha-nature and a metaphysical world is false speech / lying, because there are realms of imagination, realms that do not truly exist. - Loi: For example, saying that there are spirits of the deceased, that there is Buddha-nature, or that there are supernatural worlds is false speech, because these are imaginary realms that do not exist. - Nhan: For example, saying that there are spirits of the deceased, that there is Buddha-nature, or that there are metaphysical worlds is false speech, as these are imaginary realms that do not truly exist. - Lin Đa: For example, saying there are spirits of the deceased, saying there is Buddha-nature, saying there are metaphysical worlds is false speech, because these are imagined realms, realms that do not exist. As a native-English speaker, you read an English sentence and you can understand the meaning of it translated by Vietnamese people. Does that help you understand the same Vietnamese text? I mean the structure, grammar and other things. You can get the Buddhism terminology and C2 and it will help you practice and understand Buddhism easily. Thank you very much for your reading.

Vietnamese paragraph: Nếu không có Tăng Bảo thì không bao giờ chúng ta giác ngộ chân lý được, không giác ngộ chân lý thì biết gì mà hộ trì chân lý, chân lý không được hộ trì thì làm sao chứng đạt được chân lý. There are two options, which one is better? 1. Without the Sangha Jewel, we can never realize/comprehend the truth; without realizing the truth, we do not know how to uphold the truth, (if the truth is not upheld, it cannot be attained) (not having been upheld, the truth cannot be attained). 2. Without the Sangha Jewel, we can never realize the truth; without realizing the truth, how could we possibly uphold it; and if the truth is not upheld, how could it ever be attained? Thank your for your reading. Please consider and correct the translation related to Vietnamese Buddhism.

I was listening to a podcast featuring Alan Watts and he stated that Buddhism was Hinduism stripped for export. He also says it at more length in his book Buddhism the Religion of No Religion .... > Hinduism [..] is a religious culture. Being a Hindu really involves > living in India [...]. You cannot be a Hindu in the full sense living > in the United States or India. > > Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export. The Buddha was a reformer in > the highest sense: someone who wants to go to the original form or > reform it. There is a sense here of Hinduism being a culturally specific religion and Buddhism being it's universal equivalent. Is there any sense in which that is true or is 'Buddhism is just Hinduism stripped for export' just a pithy soundbite that actually doesn't mean very much?

Can lying be the correct action in certain situations? Bhikkhu Bodhi gave an example of a situation where lying might be appropriate: In World War II some nice people would hide those oppressed by the Nazis. If Nazis come and ask these nice people if they are hiding Jewish people, would it be the appropriate action to tell the truth?

I hope you are all well. I have been studying Buddhism for a few months and I am very grateful for the teachings. I've visited this website frequently for similar questions and this is the first time I am reaching out to this community. Since bringing Buddhist practices into my life, my relationships have improved, especially with my mother. However, I am finding it difficult to navigate what would be the most helpful or skilful actions for myself and my mother during the suffering she is experiencing at the moment. A bit of background on my mother: she has narcissistic tendencies and since my childhood, has leaned on my siblings and I for her emotional needs especially in times of suffering. I am now 20 years old and the relationship we share I feel is much healthier than even a year ago, as I struggled to understand my own suffering and suffering of others before I began studying Buddhism. My mother is in the midst of a break up with her ex-fiancé and I am the only one she has shared this with in our family unit (I live with her and my younger sibling who is 17 years old). While sharing with me her feelings about this and having my shoulder to lean on, she began sharing things she dislikes about my father and his family (ex-fiancé and my father are different people). I understand the importance of boundaries and I am not sure how to lend a compassionate ear for her during this time while communicating that I cannot be a therapist for her. I recognise that everyone is in care of their own suffering and that it is not your responsibility to alleviate the suffering of someone else, only they can do that. I would like to share compassion with her in a healthy way for both of us as our past had no boundaries, and I had felt that her emotions were my responsibility. In other words, I want to do what I can to support her during her suffering in the most healthy and skilful way for both of us. How would one go about this? I appreciate all comments and advice and I'm happy to go into more detail if you would like. Thanks for reading.

Ok, so i am kind of an outsider on this topic, so i assume i got something basic wrong. But even if thats not the case, please try to explain this to me: As i understand it at this point, Karma works somewhat like this: Person A has bad/negative karma so Person B does something bad to them. Through this, Person As negative karma is quasi removed and Person B aquires negative karma for their bad deed. Reaching nirvana requires one to reach karmic neutrality, having neither positive nor negative karma. This setup leads me to one conclusion: Once basically everyone has reached nirvana, in the end there has to be one individual being that holds all the combined karma, and this one being has thus no chance of ever reaching neutrality and thus nirvana. Now, i am pretty sure something in my setup is false, so can someone please explain it to me?

I am a Buddhist and during the Eight Precepts Observance Day, am I not allowed to keep money, but after 24 hours, I can use money, but the money on Observance Day must be transferred to my cousins or my spouse or my relatives? I mean how can I show that I keep the precept, particularly with respect to Early Theravada?

Vietnamese sentences: Thánh tăng, Thánh ni và Thánh cư sĩ còn ăn thịt chúng sinh thì Thánh đó là Thánh gì? Câu hỏi này để tự quý vị suy ngẫm trả lời. English sentences: If Noble Monks, Noble Nuns, and Noble Lay Disciples still consume the flesh of sentient beings, then what kind of Noble person is that? This question is for you yourselves to reflect on and answer. Do you think this is a good translation for our international Buddhists?

The three kinds of suffering as mentioned in SN45.165 : 1. > Suffering caused by pain 2. > suffering caused by the formations 3. > suffering due to change Does the EBT (and elsewhere) suggest, or give examples of a mixture, or juxtaposition of the three types of dukkha? Sallatha Sutta: The Arrow might fit the bill, but where else?

I’ve been reading quite a bit about both Pyrrhonism (from ancient Greek philosophy, particularly Sextus Empiricus) and Madhyamaka Buddhism (especially Nāgārjuna’s teachings), and I’m curious about how deeply their approaches to knowledge, doubt, and emptiness might align. Here are some specific points I’d like clarification on: - Both traditions seem to question the possibility of arriving at certain knowledge. Do Madhyamaka philosophers use skeptical methods purely as a strategy, or do they endorse a form of suspension of belief like Pyrrhonists? - In Pyrrhonism, the goal is ataraxia (tranquility) that arises from suspending judgment. Is this comparable to the nirvana that results from realizing śūnyatā (emptiness)? - Do Madhyamakas arrive at any “ultimate” view, or is even that view deconstructed like any other? - Are there any Buddhist responses to skepticism that help clarify the boundaries between constructive doubt and nihilism? ----------

According to SN 51.10 : > So at the Cāpāla Tree-shrine the Buddha, mindful and aware, > surrendered the life force. When he did so there was a great > earthquake, awe-inspiring and hair-raising, and thunder cracked the > sky. Then, understanding this matter, on that occasion the Buddha > expressed this heartfelt sentiment: > > “Comparing the incomparable with the creation of prolonged life, the > sage surrendered the life force. Happy inside, serene, he shattered > self-creation like a suit of armor.” Why did Buddha surrender his life three months in advance, or was it a foregone conclusion? Is perfection of concentration, the four bases of psychic power , mandatory to surrender it? What is required?

The Jagannath temple of Puri currently is one of the most notable Vaishnava hindu temples, wherein the deity is worshipped as Vishnu or Krishna. Many puranic texts such as brahma purana and skanda purana too mention the site as a Vaishnavite pilgrimage. However it is worth noting that certain authorities, religious or non religious have been at many occasions been pointing out that the jagannatha temple was originally buddhist which was later hinduised and given its present form. Even Swami Vivekananda, A hindu saint admits this in one occasion. Quoting from the Complete works of Swami Vivekananda ---------- Questions - 1. Are there any ancient historical mentions, preferably in buddhist literature that assert that the site was originally a buddhist temple? 2. Are there any archaeological evidences that point out that the site was originally buddhist and was later hinduised as Swami vivekananda says?

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) ?

People who have done wrong to me remain in my memory and continuously stay in my mind. I have feelings of ill will and hatered towards them...to revenge...how do I get out of the feelings of ill will...

When a person or a group of people identify themselves with "the good" (in opposition to "not so good" or even "the evil" of others), quite often this can lead to "the good" getting overly aggressive in its pursuit of the goodness and de-facto turning into evil. Is this an inevitable problem arising due to identification/reification or is there a way to keep it under control and identify with the good without becoming the evil? If so, how can that be achieved? What guidelines do various Buddhist schools offer on this topic, if any? P.S. by "to identify with" I mean "to consider themselves to be affiliated with, or to be representative of, the true *something* (in this case *the good*)"