I'm under the impresion that Samsara is the natural state of things in this Universe, every being just "recycles" itself on and on, at the laws of randomness and karma. Eventually, beings figured a way out, and by gaining such control and power, could now model and reshape the flow of Samsara, therefore creating a force of spiritual evolution (spinning the wheel). So the wheel of Dharma was arficial, but at such scale and ingrained in the very fabric of the Universe that it could pass as a force of nature. The only difference is that it must be "kept spinning" by illuminated beings. Is my reading correct?

In [MN 22](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html) in the end of the simile of the raft the Buddha says that the arahant has relinquished both what is skillful and what is unskilful: > "Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go (pahātabbā) even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." Why is then the Buddha described in [MN 88:17](https://suttacentral.net/mn88/en/suddhaso) like so: > "The Tathāgatha great king has abandoned all unwholesome states and possesses (samannāgata) wholesome states"

This seems to be a very baffling Sutta passage where he describes a seemingly contradictory state where one is in a special Samadhi beyond neither perception nor non perception but is still percipient. What is this Samadhi attainment called? [AN 10.7](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.007.than.html) > Then Ven. Ananda went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "Friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?" "Yes, friend Ananda, he could..." "But how, friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?" "Once, friend Ananda, when I was staying right here in Savatthi in the Blind Man's Grove, I reached concentration in such a way that I was neither percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet I was still percipient." "But what, friend Sariputta, were you percipient of at that time?" "'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me, friend Ananda, as another perception ceased. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one flame arises as another flame ceases, even so, 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me as another one ceased. I was percipient at that time of 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding.'"

Right concentration supports wisdom(panna) if right mindfulness arises? If right mindfulness isn't there then does right concentration support ignorance?

According to this answer : > 31 Planes of existence coming together is one universe. There are > infinite similar universes according to the Abhidhamma. This may be > similar to multiverse but unlike in Sci Fi there are no duplicates of > beings and duplication of events as per my understanding. Generally > rebirth is within the universe but there are times beings can be > reborn in intergalactic space / hell which are the coldest places > every. Such being may end up in other universes. The universe we live > in is a lucky place since it is here a Buddha appears. So only the > lucky beings inhabit this universe through there are infinite such > being in the universe. There are infinite being in each universe. The > cycles of creation and destruction in each universe may not be the > same as in such universes may not be habitable. Generally I would > believe even with psychic powers you may not know the bounds of the > universe of see beyond this universe. Perhaps only The Buddha and a > few of the great disciples may have managed to do this. Can anyone expand on this, or simplify it?

Can you develop Samadhi (concentration) and Pañña (wisdom) exclusively from one another (according to the suttas)? I am under the impression that a meditator cannot develop one without developing the other.

>If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not. If he wants—in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not—cutting himself off from both, he remains equanimous, alert, & mindful. Or he may enter & remain in the beautiful liberation. > [SN 46.54](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn46/sn46.054.than.html) Could someone explain what all this loathsome and unloathsome business is?

Vesak Day is coming, some monastery offering a baby bathing during the event. What is the story behind about this? Is it appropriate?

As e.g. if somebody harms you, you don't feel because you know that the people is only harming this body, that is just a pile of cells, and the people is incapable to harm your mind. If yes, do have some teachings to contemplate the separation of mind and body, preferably some mindfulness technique?

> In the same way, my friend, purity in terms of virtue is simply for the sake of purity in terms of mind. Purity in terms of mind is simply for the sake of purity in terms of view. Purity in terms of view is simply for the sake of purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity. Purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision is simply for the sake of total Unbinding through lack of clinging. > [MN 24](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.024.than.html) Why is the purification of by overcoming doubt i.e purification leading to Stream Entry not already the doing the next two of the purifications subsequent to it? (excluding the purification leading to Nibāna without clinging). Why are those other two purifications needed before stream entry? Surely if one has purified any one of these three it would imply the the other two?

Since the Buddha said everything is impermanent (*anicca*) '*yan kinci samudaya dhammam sabban tam nirodha dhammam*' and ignorance (*avijja*) is something, won't it be the case that ignorance (*avijja*) will cease for everyone (ordinary folk (*puthujanas*) and those-in-training (*sekhas*) alike) eventually? The Buddha did say that ignorance (*avijja*) is impermanent (*anicca*) actually. >*jarāmaraṇaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ saṅkhataṃ paṭiccasamuppannaṃ khayadhammaṃ vayadhammaṃ virāgadhammaṃ nirodhadhammaṃ. jāti, bhikkhave, aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā. bhavo, bhikkhave, anicco saṅkhato paṭiccasamuppanno khayadhammo vayadhammo virāgadhammo nirodhadhammo. upādānaṃ bhikkhave…pe…. taṇhā, bhikkhave… vedanā, bhikkhave… phasso, bhikkhave… saḷāyatanaṃ, bhikkhave… nāmarūpaṃ, bhikkhave… viññāṇaṃ , bhikkhave… saṅkhārā, bhikkhave… avijjā, bhikkhave, aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā.* > >Ageing-&-death, bhikkhus, is impermanent, determined, dependently arisen, its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease. Birth, bhikkhus, is impermanent, determined, dependently arisen, its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease. Being, bhikkhus, is impermanent, determined, dependently arisen, its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease. Assuming, bhikkhus… Craving, bhikkhus… Feeling, bhikkhus… Pressure, bhikkhus… The six domains, bhikkhus… Name-&-matter, bhikkhus… Consciousness, bhikkhus… Determinations, bhikkhus… Ignorance, bhikkhus, is impermanent, determined, dependently arisen, its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease. > > paccayasuttaṃ (SN 12.20)

So correct me if im wrong samatha and vipassna are the goals of all forms of meditation. Anapanasati can be either for the goal of samatha or vipassana (or both). Vipassana is very cognitive, contemplative, and samatha is often the exact opposite, one pointed focus? Im curious how it works. How does it connect to doctrines of tanha and clinging? Is the samatha concentration lead to deep state of non-reactivity? Like this is how it leads to tremendous results (samatha anapanasati is the meditation used in psychotherapy as just pure stress reduction) . But despite it's results it's not sufficient for the Buddhist path because serious stages of enlightenment require real understanding and insight. And vipassana on the other hand from what i understand is for insight. it doesnt mean tranqulity and mental strenght cant come from it, in fact the true peace and strength does come from understanding eventually, but thats not the point. vipassana on death is generally not that happy go lucky an experience... So while insufficent samatha is a good powerful tool for overcoming barriers? If someone is consumed by hatred or anger or anxiety or impatience and they are too frenzied to really practice so it would be good to tranquilize them first? If I'm dealing with a lot of stress samatha would be the place to go? Tell me if everything I've described is correct. :) thanks

>Take another case of a mendicant who lives close by a jungle thicket. As they do so, their mindfulness becomes established, their mind becomes immersed in samādhi, their defilements come to an end, and they arrive at the supreme sanctuary. But the necessities of life that a renunciate requires—robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick—are hard to come by. That mendicant should reflect: >‘While living close by this jungle thicket, my mindfulness becomes established … But the necessities of life are hard to come by. But I didn’t go forth from the lay life to homelessness for the sake of a robe, almsfood, lodgings, or medicines and supplies for the sick. Moreover, while living close by this jungle thicket, my mindfulness becomes established …’ After appraisal, that mendicant should stay in that jungle thicket; they shouldn’t leave. Take another case of a mendicant who lives close by a jungle thicket. Their mindfulness becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come by. That mendicant should reflect: ‘While living close by this jungle thicket, my mindfulness becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come by.’ **That mendicant should stay in that jungle thicket for the rest of their life; they shouldn’t leave.** > MN 17 Am I interpreting this correctly in saying that for an Arahant, it is forbidden for him to leave the place where he became enlightened? Also, if so, how large is the area around this spot, where one can go to without breaking this rule?

The Buddha in this sutta describes the gradual training of a Bhikkhu step by step. I have a difficulty understanding some of the steps in precise detail because of the statement at the end of most of the steps pescribed: 'Bhikkhus I inform you, I declare to you: you who seek the recluse status, do not fall short of the goal of recluseship while there is more to be done'. I am not sure how the step of purifying conduct and livelihood in the way he describes it does not the imply restraint of the senses from all the way up to the abandoning of the hinderances i.e how can one do it without doing the rest? Same with restraint of the senses until the abandoning of the hinderances and mindfulness and full awareness until the latter. So Why is it then that in these three steps one is not cultivating any of the other steps subsequent to it?

According to the Suttas, how do I practice Vipassana and how do practice samatha? Are these practices differentiated or not?

How did the practice of one in-training (*sekha*) differ so that he became one attained-to-view as opposed to one liberated-by-faith and vice versa? In MN 70 the Buddha describes them like so: > And what person is attained to view? It’s a person who doesn’t have > direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations that are > formless, transcending form. Nevertheless, having seen with wisdom, > some of their defilements have come to an end. And they have clearly > seen and clearly contemplated with wisdom the teaching and training > proclaimed by the Realized One. This person is called attained to > view. I say that this mendicant also still has work to do with > diligence. Why is that? Thinking: ‘Hopefully this venerable will > frequent appropriate lodgings, associate with good friends, and > control their faculties. Then they might realize the supreme > culmination of the spiritual path in this very life, and live having > achieved with their own insight the goal for which gentlemen rightly > go forth from the lay life to homelessness.’ Seeing this fruit of > diligence for this mendicant, I say that they still have work to do > with diligence. And what person is freed by faith? It’s a person who > doesn’t have direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations > that are formless, transcending form. Nevertheless, having seen with > wisdom, some of their defilements have come to an end. And their faith > is settled, rooted, and planted in the Realized One. This person is > called freed by faith. I say that this mendicant also still has work > to do with diligence. Why is that? Thinking: ‘Hopefully this venerable > will frequent appropriate lodgings, associate with good friends, and > control their faculties. Then they might realize the supreme > culmination of the spiritual path in this very life, and live having > achieved with their own insight the goal for which gentlemen rightly > go forth from the lay life to homelessness.’ Seeing this fruit of > diligence for this mendicant, I say that they still have work to do > with diligence.

The following sutta quote suggests that under the stated conditions, an Arahant should forcibly remain an unwanted burden or guest to a specific individual caretaker, even if sent away (or dismissed - according to Ven. Suddhaso's translation). Is this really the case? If that specific individual caretaker is unable to care for that Arahant any more due to personal circumstances e.g. due to financial reasons or family reasons or health reasons, what should he do? > Take another case of a mendicant who lives supported by an individual. > As they do so, their mindfulness becomes established, their mind > becomes immersed in samādhi, their defilements come to an end, and > they arrive at the supreme sanctuary. And the necessities of life that > a renunciate requires—robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and > supplies for the sick—are easy to come by. That mendicant should > reflect: ‘While living supported by this person, my mindfulness > becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come > by.’ That mendicant should follow that person for the rest of their > life. **They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away**.” > MN 17 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

How do I become a Saddhanussari or Dhammanussari and how do I know if I have attained it? I think that the question above is clear enough. Just to add I have read their descriptions in the Suttas but from them, the answer to these questions are still unclear. He describes them as such: MN 70 > And what person is a **follower of the teachings** (**dhammanussari**)? It’s a person who > doesn’t have direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations > that are formless, transcending form. Nevertheless, having seen with > wisdom, some of their defilements have come to an end. And they accept > the teachings proclaimed by the Realized One after considering them > with a degree of wisdom. And they have the following qualities: the > faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom. This > person is called a follower of the teachings. I say that this > mendicant also still has work to do with diligence. Why is that? > Thinking: ‘Hopefully this venerable will frequent appropriate > lodgings, associate with good friends, and control their faculties. > Then they might realize the supreme culmination of the spiritual path > in this very life, and live having achieved with their own insight the > goal for which gentlemen rightly go forth from the lay life to > homelessness.’ Seeing this fruit of diligence for this mendicant, I > say that they still have work to do with diligence. > >And what person is > a **follower by faith** (**saddhanussari**)? It’s a person who doesn’t have direct meditative > experience of the peaceful liberations that are formless, transcending > form. Nevertheless, having seen with wisdom, some of their defilements > have come to an end. And they have a degree of faith and love for the > Realized One. And they have the following qualities: the faculties of > faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom. This person is > called a follower by faith. I say that this mendicant also still has > work to do with diligence. Why is that? Thinking: ‘Hopefully this > venerable will frequent appropriate lodgings, associate with good > friends, and control their faculties. Then they might realize the > supreme culmination of the spiritual path in this very life, and live > having achieved with their own insight the goal for which gentlemen > rightly go forth from the lay life to homelessness.’ Seeing this fruit > of diligence for this mendicant, I say that they still have work to do > with diligence. How does one 'accept the teachings proclaimed by the Realized One after considering them with a degree of wisdom.'? Or 'have a degree of faith and love for the Realized One'? And how does one know that one has fulfilled this?

My husband’s parents are very abusive now and in the past. Recently they’ve started bringing me into the mix, and so my husband decided to cut them out of our lives. They still text me to curse our marriage and say awful things about both of us. I know that filial piety is very important, but what if it’s an abusive situation? Does Buddhism teach anything about this?

Carpe Diem or Memento Mori? Which of these two approaches did the Buddha recommend for your benefit?