Christianity says sin is when someone does something bad. In Buddhism, people are reincarnated for karmic reasons, but they say this without reference to sin causing bad karma. Does sin preclude karma? What is the difference then between sin and karma (or what ever that causes bad karma)?

SN 12.35 says: > “Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “Bhikkhu, whether one > says, ‘What now is aging-and-death, and for whom is there this > aging-and-death?’ or whether one says, ‘Aging-and-death is one thing, > the one for whom there is this aging-and-death is another’—both these > assertions are identical in meaning; they differ only in the phrasing. > If there is the view, ‘The soul and the body are the same,’ there is > no living of the holy life; and if there is the view, ‘The soul is one > thing, the body is another,’ there is no living of the holy life. > Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata > teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With birth as condition, > aging-and-death. ’ Why is there no living the holy life when there is the view, ‘*The soul and the body are the same*,’ and if there is the view, ‘*The soul is one thing, the body is another*’?

Do Buddhist teachings or scripture say anywhere whether or not a reincarnated soul has memory of their past lives? Referenced passages are encouraged.

SN 12.35 is translated by Bhikkhus Sujato, Bodhi & Thanissaro as follows: >Mendicant, if you have the view that the **soul** and the body are the same thing, there is no living of the spiritual life. > >Taṁ **jīvaṁ** taṁ sarīranti vā, bhikkhu, diṭṭhiyā sati brahmacariyavāso na hoti. > >If you have the view that the **soul** and the body are different things, there is no living of the spiritual life. > >Aññaṁ **jīvaṁ** aññaṁ sarīranti vā, bhikkhu, diṭṭhiyā sati brahmacariyavāso na hoti. Is there an explanation why the translation of "soul" is used here for "jiva"?

Regarding reincarnation, I have a few questions: 1. Unfortunately, because of a big mistake and peoples' interference, I lost the love of my life to another woman almost 30 years ago, but still love him deeply. He's moved on. But I am stuck and can't stop thinking about him every single day of my life. Can I be finally united with him in my next life? 2. Will my parents be the same in my next life? 3. I don't like to study too much in this life. Can I be what I dream of being in my next life? I would love to be a doctor, to be part of *Médecins sans frontièrs* and cure people for free, but in this life I didn't succeed in doing so, as my IQ was not perfect in many fields of study. I appreciate your answer. -Farah

If reincarnation were true, in that a soul takes on different human bodies across several different lives during that soul's existence, have philosophers, theologists, scholars or any scriptures ever indicated whether one of those lives is the true identity of that soul? Or is it implicitly always assumed that the first life or incarnation of that soul is its true identity?

Almost twenty years ago I did a meditation on death that catapulted me into a Near Death Experience the likes of which I could not even have imagined possible. This 'mini enlightenment' allowed me to let go of some but not all attachments. Over the years, I have tried (in vain) to recreate that experience via the same method and by trying other techniques from a variety of traditions. But since I did not get results and living in a world of phenomena competing for my attention I ceased seeking after 15 years. Recently however it occurred to me that there might be some resource out there, such as a book, that lists all of the techniques developed by the monastic tradition within buddhism, and that I might profit from systematically trying all of them that I am able to. I'm aware that it is folly to seek such experiences as ends in themselves. Does such a book exist?

I am a 25 year old who has become interested in Buddhism due to personal reasons. > Are there any good websites which have material to understand Buddhism from the start? Can you please recommend them if there are any?

MN 26 describes the Buddha after his awakening, as follows: > *If I were to teach the Dhamma, others would not understand me, and > that would be wearying and troublesome for me.’ Thereupon there came > to me spontaneously these stanzas never heard before:* > > *‘Enough with teaching the Dhamma That even I found hard to reach; For > it will never be perceived By those who live in lust and hate. > Those dyed in lust, wrapped in darkness Will never discern this > abstruse Dhamma Which goes against the worldly stream, Subtle, deep, > and difficult to see.’* > > *Considering thus, my mind inclined to inaction rather than to teaching > the Dhamma.* MN 116 says: > *Once upon a time, five hundred Buddhas awakened for themselves dwelt for a long time on this Isigili. **They were seen entering the mountain, > but after entering were seen no more**. When people noticed this they > said: ‘That mountain swallows these hermits!’ That’s how it came to be > known as Isigili.* It seems when the world is completely saturated with 'thicksters' (Buddhadasa translation of 'puthujjana') & 'drooling idiots' (Thanissaro translation of 'eḷamūga') the Buddhas decline to teach. So what is MN 116 about? Do the silent Buddhas enter the mountain to end life, such as starving to death?

How is the fetter "Identity View" destroyed by confidence in the triple-gem and ethics ([\[DN 16, see "Dhamma-Mirror"\]][3] )? The concept of identity view also seems to be a bit fuzzy. In [\[SN 55.21\]][1] the stream entrant Mahanamo wonders about his future abodes. I assume that Mahanamo was familiar with the term Sotapanna and its implications. The buddha assures him that by his ripened confidence in the triple gem and his steadfast ethics, he is saved. I make the following conclusions: 1. "I am worried about **my future births**" does not imply identity view. 2. If I doubt my attainment of SE, I do not disprove my attainment. Point 2 is mentioned, because often I see the argument "you worry about sotapanna, then you are not sotapanna due to identity view". By the above reasoning, I know that identity view must be something else, as it seems to tolerate some thoughts about **myself**. I also conclude that there are two sufficient conditions for stream entry: 3. No self view, no skeptical doubt and no clinging to rites and rituals implies Sotapanna[ \[MN 25\]][2] . 4. Confidence in the triple gem and good ethics implies Sotapanna,[ \[DN 16, see "Dhamma-Mirror"\]][3] . If point 4 describes the "conviction follower", then Thanissaro Bikkhu disagrees about 4, saying > [...] conviction-followers are apparently those who are following the path > to stream-entry but have yet to reach the fruit of stream-entry. This leaves only point 3 as possibility to stream entry and contradicts the Dhamma Mirror, given by the Buddha.

Or is it more complicated than that? i.e random?

Is it bad to do my mantra backwards? I say it normally, just I have been moving the beads backwards. Should I move them forward?

With intent being so important, would the karmic benefit of saving someone's life because they were in danger be the same as doing it because you thought you would be rewarded for it?

MN 122 says: > Ananda, there is this abiding discovered by the Tathagata: to enter > and abide in voidness internally by giving no attention to all signs. > If, while the Tathagata is abiding thus, he is visited by bhikkhus or > bhikkhunis, by men or women lay followers, by kings or kings' > ministers, by other sectarians or their disciples, then with a mind > leaning to seclusion, tending and inclining to seclusion, withdrawn, > delighting in renunciation, and altogether done with things that are > the basis for taints, he invariably talks to them **in a way concerned > with dismissing them.** Was the Buddha unsociable? If not, what is the meaning of the above verse?

Are there any commentaries in the pali cannon on The Iddhipāda-Vibhaṅga Sutta -- An Analysis Of The Bases Of Power (SN 51:20). And in general, what are some sources for the commentaries, obviously in pali but also in english. (If only in pali, a preference to be able to locate and navigate without knowing much pali.)

I read the following on the internet: > what ever deed opposing and harming the Noble truth. What exactly is the Noble Truth? How is the Noble Truth opposed & harmed?

There are two suttas, SN 46.26 about destruction of craving and SN 46.27 about the cessation of craving. I was thinking that destruction of craving is same as cessation of craving but the pali word for each of them is different(destruction of craving - taṇhakkhayāya ;cessation of craving -taṇhānirodhāya) . However I am not clear what difference does it make when we say cessation of craving instead of destruction of craving? In both the cases there should be cessation of suffering. My question is : What is the difference between destruction of craving and cessation of craving?

While meditating today, I realized that I am very very far away from attaining any kind of relief from suffering. In particular, I am referring to suffering from the endless/insatiable human condition of wanting something else/new. I kind of see how me wanting to feel better about this goes in opposition to the realistic view proposed by Buddishm, in which suffering must be accepted as a inherent part of life. Nevertheless, there is something still not clicking in my head, which makes me feel at constant unease. I saw this answer , in particular the part > Existence is dukkha is not a decree, it's a diagnosis, and you can smile that it's already been diagnosed, and there is a cure and **many people have already gotten cured.** but I can only think that getting "cured" may take decades and is only attainable by monks and people devoted solely to getting cured. How can I approach this situation? Thanks in advance. For context, I am new to meditation and Buddhism.

I read "Anatta and Rebirth " by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (let's call this explanation B) and I also read similar explanations by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu from this answer , this comment and this answer (let's call this explanation Y). First I need to make some definitions and assumptions, before asking my questions: 1. The birth and death of a moment in Y is equivalent to the birth and death of selfhood in B i.e. a moment of selfhood. 2. The definition of birth (jati) and existence (bhava) comes from SN 12.2 , while the definition of being (satta) comes from SN 5.10 . 3. Sammuti-marana or conventional death or conceptual death is equivalent to the event of physical death (according to this answer ). 4. "*At the moment of conceptual death, this process of momentary birth and death continues unimpeded unless one has experienced 'death by cutting off'*" in Y is what I will call "continuity of suffering beyond physical death" (that is, without rebirth). 5. The fact that the Buddha taught that there is no rebirth whatsoever is proven in the story of Bhikkhu Sati in MN 38 , where Sati describes his understanding of rebirth, "*it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another*" and consciousness as "*it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions*". This is a kind of self view associating consciousness and self. 6. The fact that the Buddha taught that suffering can continue beyond physical death is proven in many suttas: MN 4 ("*with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared*"), SN 15.3 (ocean of tears), SN 44.9 , Dhp 400 (last body), MN 57 , SN 42.3 , DN 2 , Dhp 153-154 and many more. 7. Explanation Y supports both #5 and #6 above. 8. Explanation B supports #5 above, but does not explicitly reject #6 above. 9. There are some Buddhists (sometimes describing themselves as Secular Buddhists) who reject rebirth and also reject continuity of suffering beyond physical death. They claim to reconcile Buddhism with science using explanation B, and say that any kind of continuity beyond physical death is superstition. 10. Those who support (Bhikkhu Sati's version of) rebirth are eternalists, while those who reject continuity of suffering beyond physical death are annihilationists according to DN 1 and SN 12.17 . Both are false views. Questions: 1. Am I right to say that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in "Anatta and Rebirth " (explanation B), while correctly rejecting rebirth, did not explicitly reject the continuity of suffering beyond physical death? 2. Are there any other sources, from speeches or writings of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, that prove that he had explicitly rejected the continuity of suffering beyond physical death? 3. Am I right to say that those who support (Bhikkhu Sati's version of) rebirth are eternalists, while those who reject continuity of suffering beyond physical death are annihilationists according to DN 1 and SN 12.17 ?

I read the following on the internet: > It all started by harming the Noble ones. How can Noble Ones be harmed? Does the Buddha's Noble Path lead to increased susceptibility to being harmed?