Does any Buddhist school teach about False (fake, hypocritical) Virtue (goodwill, goodness)? What it is, how common it is, how it differs from the true authentic virtue, perhaps its causes and its results - those kinds of things. Is virtue in Buddhism *objective*, so that we can speak about true authentic virtue as something definite and timeless, or is all virtue always necessarily subjective and partial? Or perhaps there are two kinds of virtue, mundane virtue - partial and subjective - and supramundane virtue of non-attachment and non-identification? If so, is there continuity and/or a single principle in common between both the worldly virtue and the supramundane virtue, so that we could simultaneously behave in line with both, or does behaving in line with supramundane virtue require going against or leaving behind the worldly virtue? Is the authentic virtue something we can side with, against both *the vice* and *the false virtue* or is it something that requires going beyond the dichotomy and accepting all virtues and vices (or rejecting all virtues and vices)? Basically, can we side with the Virtue&Truth in opposition to Vice&Hypocrisy, or is juxtaposing the two a wrong way to look at it, according to Buddhism? What do the Pali Canon, the commentaries, and the Mahayana texts and commentaries teach about all this, if anything?

Sometimes i am keeping some mental object in mind, free from anger or greed, and for a moment i feel piti and sukha over my entire body. Sometimes this piti and sukha keep with me for a long time. But even in first jhana i keep my mental object in mind, like blue kasina (whondering world all blue) or parts of body. Sometimes the piti and sukha leaves. I read that after the first jhana we need to abandon the vitakka and vicara. But how? I need to keep my focus in some mental object or just let the things go at their own pace, in my mind. How to i reinforce the upper jhanas if i need to abandon the mental objects? Ps: sometimes i feel piti and sukha, when concentrate into the kammathana, both in public and in my cave (bedroom).

My person thought it's possible good to count and remember the reaction of Dhammikas when "fellows" get in conflict. Not taking side, what are the useful supports in regard of conflicts in other single relations? While common fools, group-identifying, increase conflicts, how does a wise give helpful support for all? How do faithful householder, faithfull Brahmans, wise recluse, pull out nourishment of heat?

I was reading the wiki page about Akashic records and in 'See also' there is link to [Glossary of Buddhism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Buddhism), so it seems like it's connected. Therefore do you believe in akashic records or something similar where all events and our experiences are stored?

How is it that militant monks can justify waging war or violence? Is nonviolence not necessarily an absolute value for the Buddha? What scriptures are militant monks interpreting to justify war or violence? Are the militant monks making more or less suffering? Is it right to make more suffering than you have to? Do they have to? Is there groups that are a threat to Buddhists or the Buddha's teaching? >Do Buddhists have a country to defend? > >Do Buddhists have a religion to defend?

I am interested in knowing how buddhism diminished in India. 1 year back, I read this book: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/History_Of_Hindu_Imperialism.html?id=51dWPgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y But the author is not a historian. Can you tell me references by Historians about how Buddhism diminished from India?

I have a 108 bead mala (Rudraksh) which I use to chant a single mantra. I also have another bodhi seed mala which I use to chant a different mantra. I've always wondered what the difference was between a physical, 'authentic' mala versus using something like a digital counter. I get that there is some kind of tactile/memory related property to using a physical mala, but is it really significant? Is a mala simply just a tool to help one keep count, or is there more to it? I've heard explanations that the physical make of the mala actually matters, confers some kind of energetic benefit to the user, stores the power of the mantra depending on the material, so on and so forth. I ask because I recently saw an Asian electronics company release a set of 'smart prayer beads' which are a lot more portable than your traditional 108 bead mala and it got me thinking about whether the make of it really matters more than its ability to keep count.

I have recently been learning Pali, and have heard that Sanskrit is somewhat similar. With a decent knowledge of Pali, is it possible to read Nagarjuna, for instance, perhaps with just some of the basics of Sanskrit? Or would it be more or less unintelligible?

After finishing the last meal before attaining enlightenment, the Ascetic Gautama threw the golden bowl into the river and said: > "If I am to succeed in becoming a Buddha today, let this bowl go > upstream, but if not, let it go downstream." (source ) Gautama was not yet a Buddha and I don't think he had psychic powers to make the bowl go upstream. Even if he had the power, it seems he was not doing it by himself. Was Gautama expecting some divine being to answer his request? Did a Deva or god make the bowl go upstream? If not, how did the Golden Bowl go upstream?

I've read that Jainism is one of the oldest Indian traditions, that Buddhism somewhat derived from it and that at some time they rivaled (I'm not sure if this was a political thing). Can you explain what are the connections between this two in terms of philosophy and practice?

I'm a 16 year old girl and at a time in my life,I have been used to watch inappropriate things. When my parents found this out,my mom got me promised to her in front of Buddha to not to do it, and I promised her with pure intention of keeping it. Then by the time, when I just turned out to be a teenager I just got and urge and curiosity to see them and I watched them again. Is this even a promise, if it is a promise according to Buddhism then have I done a sin?

This question could comprise of many examples but here I will choose one and only four aspects of this one example. The Abhidhamma says: > Rūpakkhandho anārammaṇo. 530.2Cattāro khandhā sārammaṇā. > 530.3**Viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ**. 530.4Cattāro khandhā no cittā. 530.5Tayo khandhā cetasikā. 530.6Dve khandhā acetasikā. 530.7Tayo khandhā > cittasampayuttā. 530.8Rūpakkhandho cittavippayutto. > 530.9Viññāṇakkhandho na vattabbo— 530.10“cittena sampayutto”tipi, “cittena vippayutto”tipi. 530.11**Tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā**. > 530.12Rūpakkhandho cittavisaṁsaṭṭho. 530.13Viññāṇakkhandho na vattabbo— 530.14“cittena saṁsaṭṭho”tipi, “cittena visaṁsaṭṭho”tipi. > 530.15Tayo khandhā cittasamuṭṭhānā. 530.16**Viññāṇakkhandho no cittasamuṭṭhāno**. 530.17Rūpakkhandho siyā cittasamuṭṭhāno, siyā no > cittasamuṭṭhāno. 530.18Tayo khandhā cittasahabhuno. > 530.19**Viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū**. 530.20Rūpakkhandho siyā cittasahabhū, siyā no cittasahabhū. 530.21Tayo khandhā > cittānuparivattino. 530.22**Viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti**. > 530.23Rūpakkhandho siyā cittānuparivatti, siyā no cittānuparivatti. 530.24Tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānā. 530.25Dve khandhā no cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānā. 530.26Tayo khandhā > cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānasahabhuno. 530.27Dve khandhā no > cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānasahabhuno. 530.28Tayo khandhā > cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānānuparivattino. 530.29Dve khandhā no > cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānānuparivattino. > > 531.1Viññāṇakkhandho ajjhattiko. 531.2Tayo khandhā bāhirā. 531.3Rūpakkhandho siyā ajjhattiko, siyā bāhiro. > > The aggregate of form has no object. Four aggregates have objects. **The > aggregate of consciousness is consciousness**. Four aggregates are not > consciousness. Three aggregates are volitional activities. Two > aggregates are not volitional activities. Three aggregates are > associated with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not associated > with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said > to be, associated with consciousness or not associated with > consciousness. **Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness**. The > aggregate of form is not conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate > of consciousness should not be said to be, conjoined with > consciousness or not conjoined with consciousness. Three aggregates > are generated by consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness is not > generated by consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes is > generated by consciousness; sometimes is not generated by > consciousness. Three aggregates are co-existent with consciousness. > **The aggregate of consciousness is not co-existent with consciousness**. > The aggregate of form sometimes is co-existent with consciousness; > sometimes is not co-existent with consciousness. Three aggregates > accompany consciousness. **The aggregate of consciousness does not accompany consciousness**. The aggregate of form sometimes accompanies > consciousness; sometimes does not accompany consciousness. Three > aggregates are conjoined with, generated by consciousness. Two > aggregates are not conjoined with, not generated by consciousness. > Three aggregates are conjoined with, generated by, co-existent with > consciousness. Two aggregates are not conjoined with, not generated > by, not co-existent with consciousness. Three aggregates are conjoined > with, generated by, accompany consciousness. Two aggregates are not > conjoined with, not generated by, do not accompany consciousness. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila If we ignore the literal translation, the above appears to say: 1. Consciousness aggregate is citta (viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ). 2. Three aggregates (feeling, perception and mental formations) are conjoined with citta (tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā). 3. Consciousness does not co-exist with citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū). 4. The aggregate of consciousness does not accompany citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti). Are there any suttas that support the above Abhidhamma and also are there any suttas that refute the above Abhidhamma?

Is it during deep meditation when the mind is completely stilled that one experiences anatta? Is the conviction in anatta gradual or abrupt? This question would be connected to the 4 stages of enlightenment, too. Regards

I am not entirely new to Buddhism, but I am new to it from a perspective of an academic path. I have an academic background in another field (Ph.d level) and where I live there is zero buddhists within a 100 miles of the theravada tradition which interest me both. I have begun a practice in insight and concentration meditation, but my skill is relatively weak. While I am building up my practice I wish to study the theoretical background of the Theravada system. I have access to many of the major treatises of the Pali canon, but since none of this is organized in a linear fashion it is quite a complicated matter to dig into these texts. Where should one begin, so far I pick up a book on the Noble eightfold path by Bikkhu Bodi, and its great but I am finding myself stopping frequently to look up many of the topics there in this little text alone. Is there anything straight forward, linear that deals with the theoretical topics for a beginner who wishes to expand into a higher level understanding? Thank You, jwe

I'm looking for a quote by Pema Chodron. In my memory, she's having a discussion with a Zen master, and the quote goes something like this; Pema: "what do you do when things fall apart?" Zen Master: "I stay" I seem to remember it being in her book When Things Fall Apart, but I searched it for the word 'stay' and I couldn't find this anywhere. Does anybody recognise where it comes from? Maybe it's from a video or an audio recording of an interview with her? Maybe it exists only in the recesses of my memory?

I have been meditating (samatha-vipassana within the Theravada tradition) for many years now, and I see myself always falling in the same pattern: (1) I have periods of very high motivation, which can last 2-6 weeks, and in which I make lots of progress and develop good levels of insight and concentration (good access concentration, experiences of pity and sukha, more lucid insight on impermanence, etc.) I also read and watch lots of content on practice and get closer to people who share this "interest". (2) When these phases wane, my sittings get increasingly filled with thoughts related to other life matters, especially things that demand high levels of engagement and to which I am somewhat attached (work projects, a new hobby, a new life development). I keep my regular practice (2hrs daily: 1hr in the morning, 1hr in the evening) but my concentration quickly decreases, and I struggle to stay with any object of meditation for long periods. Mindfulness in daily life also gradually disappears. (3) This goes on until a reading, a conversation, a film or something apparently random brings me back into state (1). Going through these phases, insight and understanding of practice is the only thing that very slowly accumulates, and gradually increases, but concentration and mindfulness really oscillate and always seem to get back to where I started, whenever I experience state (2). I have observed this for many years, with many eyes and from many viewpoints inside myself, while sitting and while mindful in action. And what stands out to me is a certain quality of motivation (for lack of a better word) which manifests as a cluster of perceptions, emotions, physical patterns and thought processes. This motivation (like the so-called dopamine cycle, to which it is probably linked) seems to go through a growth phase to a peak, and then decrease. I have tried to voluntarily trigger the growth of this motivation factor during the descending phase (2), by reading books and create commitments that relate to the practice, even though obviously part of me develops aversion or neutrality to the whole thing. This has rarely worked. How do you deal with motivation swings on a scale such as this? What can I do to change this pattern and boost my progress? Observing all of this does not seem to have much of an impact, at least so far.

I am Buddhist, but not a strict vegetarian. When new acquaintances discover this they are often shocked and wonder, "How can this be??!!" I'm going to try and explain my answer and see what others think. I contend that being a vegetarian can often act as a temporary hindrance for some Buddhists. They miss the forest for the trees. One of my own preceding factors for learning about the Dharma was a decision to look deeply at my own consumption of meat and to explore the ethical and moral implications thereof in an honest and heartfelt way that I had never done before. I made a choice not to eat meat and became a vegetarian for five years more or less in parallel to my discovering and contemplating the Buddha Dharma, but to be clear *I became a vegetarian strictly BEFORE I became a Buddhist* or began practicing Buddha Dharma in earnest. Over the ensuing years since then I have abandoned being a strict vegetarian and have continued and strengthened in my practice of the Buddha Dharma. At first, the two seemed to coincide completely, but over time I found myself dwelling on being a vegetarian and being greatly disturbed to find other Buddhists who were not. Upon hearing that another member of the Sangha ate meat I would tend to distrust them and look at them as hypocrites at worst and misguided or lower than me in their ethical understanding of Buddha Dharma at best. I was a proselytizer for becoming a vegetarian to my buddhist/ non-buddhist friends alike and worried about what more I could do to convince others. I grew despondent and anxious over my inability to convince others and suffered thinking about and empathizing with all the animals that were being killed on a daily/hourly/second-by-second basis merely to provide the flesh for the insatiable human demand for meat. When I looked at the scale of the problem, billions of animals dying and billions of people consuming their flesh in this carnivorous world I became hopeless that it would ever stop. I thought all of these thoughts indicated progress on the path as my heart opened up with compassion for all these animals. But there was this nagging thought that I was actually not at all happy and was actually suffering thinking about all this in a repetitive way day after day. It occurred to me that this seemed inconsistent with what my teachers said that progress on the path - on a coarse level - is seen commensurate with an increase in happiness and a decrease in suffering. Finally, it got bad enough that I more or less confessed all the above to my teacher and his response shocked me. He laughed with a deep and merry belly laugh and advised that I should get over being a vegetarian and the best way to do this was to eat a little meat. He asked me how many animals I had saved today suffering at being a vegetarian and how many I would save tomorrow. He contended that my choice of being a vegetarian had not helped even one animal to escape from samsara and that I had yet to even begin to reconcile with the scale of the problem of samsara as opposed to the *nearly insignificant in comparison* problem of the human market for meat. He told me I needed to let go of this attachment to being a vegetarian and congratulating myself on how ethical and moral I was compared to all those who were not and to get busy doing the actual work of becoming enlightened so that I may *actually* help all those animals. When I look back I think my teacher was entirely correct. Being a vegetarian had become a hindrance for me. And since that time I think of all the people (including fellow Buddhists) who react with outrage at the idea that I am not a strict vegetarian and wonder if they are not all on a similar path that will require them to put down this hindrance in the future in order to make progress. Of course, it is my responsibility to overcome this hindrance and make it temporary. No one can do this for me. It simply isn’t the case that being a vegetarian is necessarily a hindrance for some like there is some property of being a vegetarian that makes it impossible for some to progress. There is nothing inherent to being a vegetarian that makes one fall into the trap that I fell into. Rather, it was my own karma and ego that made it so and it is my responsibility to overcome this so that being a vegetarian will no longer be a hindrance for me just as it is not for OyaMist who has the most wonderful answer I could imagine and one I aspire to. So there you have it... a question I've been meaning to ask for awhile and inspired by activity in this related post and some of the excellent answers and discussion within. **Can being a vegetarian actually be a temporary hindrance for some?**

Does any extant tradition claim that the unity of samadhi and prajna^ is actual from the beginning of the bodhisatva path, so that it is available to the neophyte - just with less power of something similar to more advanced bodhisatvas? ^e. g. Chinul: >Samadhi being prajna, it is quiescent and yet always knowing. or Platform Sutra: >To argue whether prajna or samadhi comes first would put one in the same position as those who are under delusion... a lamp and its light. So you can see, they are one, yet - perhaps - not everyone realizes this in their practice? Just asking because I think it may be the meaning of human life etc..

In this Dhamma Talk, Venerable Ajahn Chan expound about Buddho the one who knows which is above the mind as quoted below, what is it? is it just part of the mind? I'm looking for further reference on this if possible from the Pali canon... Many Thanks > ... For us it's the same. Only this mind is important. That's why they say to train the mind. Now if the mind is the mind, what are we going to train it with? By having continuous sati and sampajañña we will be able to know the mind. **This one who knows is a step beyond the mind, it is that which knows the state of the mind. The mind is the mind. That which knows the mind as simply mind is the one who knows. It is above the mind. The one who knows is above the mind, and that is how it is able to look after the mind, to teach the mind to know what is right and what is wrong.** In the end everything comes back to this proliferating mind. If the mind is caught up in its proliferations there is no awareness and the practice is fruitless.

Did buddha said anything about upanishad. Did he consider upanishades teaching use full. Or did he rejected them like vedas.