Is there are sutta in which the Buddha says if bathing in Ganges River could purify beings; then the fish, turtles, crocodiles, etc, would be purified?

There are a number of texts explaining **how** to live in a community, what rules to follow, what activities, etc. For instance, the classical Vinaya texts, or the "Standards and Rules of Purity" genre in China and Japan (ex.: Chanyuan qinggui, Dogen's Ehei Shingi, etc). However, I am looking for traditional texts that explain **why** to live in a community. It could be aimed at monks, lay people, or both. The denomination does not matter much. I'm looking for commentaries or treatises rather than sutras. It is to use the material as a basis for giving lectures.

I've heard of a Buddhist story in which the Buddha just holds up a flower and one monk in the audience understands then becomes instantly enlightened. I believe it is a foundational text for Zen Buddhism. Where does this text originate from? What canon or collection of texts is it from? When was it wrote and which tradition(s) does it derive from? Generally I would just like to know a bit of background to the history, authoring and authority of the text. I have only ever hear to it referred to in secondary sources and never giving a primary reference.

I read the following in the worldly internet: > What exactly is the suffering of self views? What exactly is the suffering of self views?

What is the Sublime Buddhas approach in regard of judging a certain community and it's governing? What makes a community conducting badly? Which kind of community can only fail (in regard of good deeds, benefical in long terms) by democratic means? Which kind of community allows democratic ways? Which kind of community requires authority? ...

In SN68 Pihitasutta ; > Kenassu pihito loko, > kismiṁ loko patiṭṭhito; > Kenassu uḍḍito loko, > kenassu parivāritoti. > > Maccunā pihito loko, > dukkhe loko patiṭṭhito; > Taṇhāya uḍḍito loko, > jarāya parivāritoti. Translation : > By what is the world shut in? > On what is the world established? > By what is the world ensnared? > By what is it enveloped?” > > “The world is shut in by death; > The world is established on suffering; > The world is ensnared by craving; > It is enveloped by old age. What is meant by 'dukkhe loko patiṭṭhito'? **why is it said that *"The world is established on suffering?"*** ---- EDIT: The same is repeated in, SN67 Uḍḍitasutta which may be much clearer. > Kenassu uḍḍito loko, > kenassu parivārito; > Kenassu pihito loko, > kismiṁ loko patiṭṭhitoti. > > Taṇhāya uḍḍito loko, > jarāya parivārito; > Maccunā pihito loko, > dukkhe loko patiṭṭhitoti. Translation > By what is the world ensnared? > By what is it enveloped? > By what is the world shut in? > On what is the world established?” > > The world is ensnared by craving; > It is enveloped by old age; > The world is shut in by death; > The world is established on suffering.

What is world (*loka*) in the context of SN 12.44 ? Why is it called "world"? Is it related to "The All" (SN 35.23 )? > “And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world? In dependence on the > eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is > contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling > as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with > clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; > with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, > displeasure, and despair come to be. This, bhikkhus, is the origin of > the world. > > “In dependence on the ear and sounds … In dependence on the nose and > odours … In dependence on the tongue and tastes … In dependence on the > body and tactile objects … In dependence on the mind and mental > phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is > contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling > as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging … existence > … birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, > lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. This, > bhikkhus, is the origin of the world. > > “And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world? In dependence > on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the > three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with > feeling as condition, craving. But with the remainderless fading away > and cessation of that same craving comes cessation of clinging; with > the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence; with the cessation > of existence, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, > aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair > cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This, > bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world. > > “In dependence on the ear and sounds … … In dependence on the mind and > mental phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three > is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with > feeling as condition, craving. But with the remainderless fading away > and cessation of that same craving comes cessation of clinging … > cessation of existence … cessation of birth; with the cessation of > birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and > despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. > This, bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world.”

> According to the Brahmajala Sutta, Ajita propounded Ucchedavada (the > Doctrine of Annihilation after death) and Tam-Jivam-tam-sariram-vada > (the doctrine of identity of the soul and body), which denied the > separate existence of an eternal soul. Annihilationism is usually thought of as one extreme, which assumes an atman. But if atman is permanent, I don't easily see the error here. 1. Why is it a self view? 2. Can you support Ucchedavada as well as anatman? 3. If not why not? if it's because Ucchedavada explicitly posits a self, what happens when you remove that from the teaching, and is it still Ucchedavada?

It is well known that there are periodic crises in Buddhism, usually - it seems - involving sexual misconduct. I also know that e.g. Vasubandhu claimed that aryans - even if they could still have sexual desire - were incapable of sexual misconduct. Does that mean that everyone involved in these crises are complete fakes or have retrogressed? Quite famously, an important Tibetan llama was even convicted of child rape : can anyone defend the claim any a "tulku" of this sort is a Buddha behind bars?

I try to do abit of chanting everyday, and I have tingling feelings in my upper body (spine/arms) the moment I begin chanting starting with Namo Tassa, Itipiso, homage to Dhamma, homage to Sangha, when I chant other suttas like bojjhana sutta I get the tingling feeling too. However when I do reading of the suttas, I do not get the tingling feeling. I'd like to ask if it happens to everyone who does chanting, and what is the cause for this tingling feeling.

I just started Buddhism, and I made a mistake. I forgot about my Buddha statue I just got, and I ate a 2 marijuana brownies in front of the statue. How bad is that? I’m going to not take any more marijuana until the same day I disrespected the Buddha. Am I a bad person for that mistake?

Is it plausible or possible in Buddhist thought for a being to experience nirvana, enlightenment, without adhering to Buddhist thoughts or viewpoints? It it possible for people to receive true dharma from a not-Buddhist framework? From my standpoint, there are many people in the world from various traditions who practice deep meditation and live virtuous lives. It seems reasonable to me that in their practices they, too, come into the presence of the deepest grounds of being, and achieve profound realizations and transformations. Yet, if they are not Buddhist, they may not report back things like emptiness of self and all phenomenon, or reincarnation. They might instead discuss the soul, the self, God, for example. Hence my questions. In some Mahamudra texts, I have read things like “one must recognize the emptiness of the mind” in order to get to the most advanced levels. Is that really so? What happens if we get to the deepest levels in meditation, and we decide that there is not emptiness of the mind? I would imagine the answers are different for different schools of Buddhism. I am interested in specific schools’ thoughts, and general Buddhist perspective as a whole.

What are the main differences between the Rinzai and Soto Zen schools? Is it right that koans are only used in one of the schools? Also are there other Zen schools and if so what distinguishes those schools from the other Zen schools?

How is Buddhism structured? All I really know if you have lay people, priests, monks, and in some places masters or grand masters (I don't know if these are the same), and there are various different variants of the religion, each with their own clergy etc.. So, by analogy, Britain has the arch bishop of Canterbury , and he's the principle "head of the Church" of England. What equivalent formal positions exist in Japanese Buddhism? Google wasn't much help! All I found out was that e.g. Soto zen has two principle temples, Eihei-ji and Sōji-ji. Do they have heads? Soto's - democratic - head is the "Shūmusōchō"; where can I read about this position? Are the other subsets of Buddhism structured similarly?

In the literature we generally read that the Koliya clan, a neighbouring clan of the Sakyans, had two capitals - Devadaha and Ramagama. Moreover, the Buddha's mother Mayadevi and foster mother Mahapajapati Gautami were Koliyan ladies from Devadaha. But the following few facts cast doubt on whether Devadaha was actually a Koliyan town and whether the Buddha's maternal relatives were actually Koliyans. 1. We read that the Sakyans and the Koliyans resided on the opposite sides of the river Rohini and they often quarelled with each other over the water of that river. Now, the Sakyan capital Kapilavatthu is on the west side of the Rohini. In keeping with this, the Koliyan capital Ramagama is on the east side of the river. In contrast, Devadaha is on the west side of the Rohini. 2. In her Apadana, Gautami says that she was born in Devadaha and her father was Anjana Sakya. 3. In the opening of the Devadaha Sutta (MN 101), Devadaha is mentioned as a Sakyan town. These facts strongly point to the possibility that only Ramagama was the capital of the Koliyans. Devadaha was actually a Sakyan town and the Buddha's maternal relatives were also Sakyans. There are few additional points that strengthen this conclusion: 1. Since the Sakyans and the Koliyans were opponents, it is unlikely that they would make marrital relationship with each other. 2. We know from Bidudabha's story that the Sakyans were so proud about their nobility that they were unwilling to make relationship even with the mighty king of Kosala, Pasenadi. So how could they make relationship with the small clan Koliya? 3. The Koliyans, being a small clan like the Sakyans, were unlikely to have two capitals. Is my conclusion correct? If so, I would like to know how the ideas that the Buddha's maternal relatives were Koliyans from Devadaha entered the literature. Are there any evidence in support of this in the Pali canon or commentaries?

Does the relinquishing of views prohibit belief in the permanence of buddha nature? > I prostrate to Gautama, who, out of loving compassion, taught the > excellent Dharma in order to relinquish all views. The dedication to Nagarjuna'a MMK > In the opening of the Buddha nature book of Sbobogenzo, Dogen quotes > the following passage from the Nirvana Sutra: — H > Qnai no sbujo wa > kotogotoku bussbdoyusu; Nyorai v>ajdjuniibite benyaku arukoto natbi), > “All sentient beings without exception have the Buddha nature: > Tatbdgata (Buddha) is permanent with no change at all.”8 This well > expresses the fundamental standpoint of Mahayana Buddhism. In the > passage two important themes are emphasized: “All sentient beings have > the Buddha nature,” and “Tathagata abides forever without change.” > These two themes are inseparable from one another. Against this > traditional reading, Dogen dares to read as follows... Masao Abe, Dogen on Buddha Nature.

**Let's go through the logic first. The following statements are suppositions that must be chronologically accepted.** 1) Matter is neither created nor destroyed. 2) Matter is made up of atoms. 3) I am made up of atoms. 4) I am matter. 5) Therefore, I cannot be created nor destroyed. **Now here's the philosophical (or perhaps, ideological) part:** With respect to statements 3-5 above, what defines "I"? Am (or Is) "I" the atoms that compose my form or am (or is) "I" the identity that I have created for myself? If "I" am my atoms, then when "I" die, I will continue to exist because my atoms will, albeit in a different form - a different incarnation hence, *reincarnation*. If "I" am my identity, then when "I" die, I will cease to exist. I think the former highlights a type of belief common in eastern philosophy (we are the universe) whereas the latter is common is western philosophy (We live in the universe, or we observe the universe). Perhaps one's identity is linked with their atomic structure (i.e., the chemical processes of the brain)? Do you think my reasoning is sound? Edit: to make it clear, I am supporting the idea that if one believes that "I" is based on the existence of atoms, then reincarnation is in fact real.

How do Buddhists who believe in a non momentary conventional self during life account for karma without enlightenment? Specifically, what happens to "my" karma when I die, if I am not enlightened and my karma has not been exhausted? I'm not asking how to think of cause and result if the lack of self identity extends from moment to moment in this life, because then "my" karma would face a similar obstacle in this life (there being no personal identity from moment to moment means it cannot be "my" karma at all). Clearly most historical Buddhists believed that karma did not just exist in the suffering I cause others, but that what comes around goes around. So if my life does not, automatically without enlightenment, generate a new one, why doesn't "my" death cut off that cycle?

So e.g. kensho is usually thought of as beginning realisation in zazen, and is into our true nature as Buddhas. Does enlightenment in all teachings amount to a progressively deeper realisation that I am already enlightened, or is that only true in hongaku theory? Is it the case in any / all Theravada Buddhism, in Tibetan Buddhism, etc.? Not asking about gradual / sudden polarities, or about any other scheme to think about enlightenment, only whether **every single enlightenment we can have in Buddhism is *of our intrinsic enlightenment***. ---------- I seem to be attracted a lot of off topic answers about whether anyone say they themselves are enlightened. I have confirmed through google that the Buddha did say "I am to be enlightened", at least, and Huineng did say "I am enlightened". Also in Mahayana sutras he claims "The Tathgata... chants these words: I am the Tathagata (etc.)". Isn't the "conceit of I am" a specific thing, the idea that I will either exist forever or be annihilated, that I am the same from moment to moment, or that anything can truly belong to me until I am a Buddha? > Conceit is developed with regard to one's possessions when there is > misconception that they are enduring and permanent. The material qualities of eyes, ears, visible forms, are wrongly held to be permanent and consequently vanity is built round them.

Should a lay Buddhist teach the Dhamma in a dhamma centre? Can a lay person teach just as a monk does? If so, are there any differences (e.g., should they sit on a different level, should the audience pay respect in a different way, etc.)?