text:
Meditation in day to day life
I lost my interest in things,I just do only day to day life.Is it depression?This  happened some months  back. I think it is related to my vipassana meditation. Now in meditation saw the sadness and negative  thoughts comes ,stays and goes. But only see the sadness not happiness. So what shall I do to pass this state?

Meditation is good, but also don't forget your daily outdoor physical exercises. Sometimes, the fix is as simple as getting out to the open air and start some cardio workout like running, jogging, biking, etc. Give it a try if you haven't...

I suspect this is one of the dangers of vipassana when it is the only practice.

Perhaps you should augment your vipassana with other meditations intended to cultivate virtuous minds. I would suggest meditations on the four immeasurables : https://thubtenchodron.org/2002/11/love-compassion-equaminity-joy/

Respected Buddhika,
I lost my interest in things,I just do only day to day life.Is it depression?
It's something that only your friends/near-by-ones can tell.
Although, there is a point in life, when almost everyone looses interest-- for some it remains temporary, for some it stays for merely a fraction of seconds, for some it can bring disasters by persisting.
Better, to consult with psychologist and/or your physical teacher(if any).
Now in meditation saw the sadness and negative thoughts comes ,stays and goes. But only see the sadness not happiness. So what shall I do to pass this state?
This in itself is a self-contradictory view. If it comes, stays(?) and goes, i.e. it is already passing-by then why do you want to do something to let this state pass?
It seems, when it stays then your intention is that of you wanna see happiness or where is happiness type of quest. This ultimately leading a conflicting state to persist in your body, desiring and craving for something(happiness). It leads you to subconsciously rejects/neglects the already happy moments or happiness in life.
Old-Geezer's advice is:: daughter, you are worrying too much.
Meditator's advice:: you have to work-up on your intentions. Some physical exercise and fresh-air may help by increasing circulation of blood&oxygen & hence rejecting negative thoughts. Try to laugh by watching some laugh-tv-series, playing games(outdoor games).
Remember, it's not mind always that affects body in bad/good manner rather sometimes body can also help in stabilizing oe destabilizing mind.
Be happpy.


text:
Are there suttas that recommend a specific order of the buddhist practices?
Every now and then i see claims that a particular practice of the noble eightfold path (or alternatively, the threefold division) builds on a specific preceding practice.
Two examples of claims (right or wrong) is that right view is a necessary foundation for the other seven practices, or that panna comes last building on the two other thirds in the threefold division.
I am interested in suttas as sources for claims like this, so my question is what specific references there are for describing this type of order of the practices. (Please note that i'm primarily asking for references, and not personal opinions).

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the
  forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In
  one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right
  speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In
  one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right
  mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In
  one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right
  knowledge, right release comes into being. Thus the learner is endowed
  with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.
MN 117

Bhikkhus, this is the forerunner and precursor of the rising of the
  sun, that is, the dawn. So too, bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu this is the
  forerunner and precursor of the breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths
  as the really are, that is, right view.
SN 56.37

Mendicants, the dawn is the forerunner and precursor of the sunrise.
In the same way right view is the forerunner and precursor of skillful
  qualities.
Right view gives rise to right thought. Right thought gives rise to
  right speech. Right speech gives rise to right action. Right action
  gives rise to right livelihood. Right livelihood gives rise to right
  effort. Right effort gives rise to right mindfulness. Right
  mindfulness gives rise to right immersion. Right immersion gives rise
  to right knowledge. Right knowledge gives rise to right freedom.
AN 10.121

There is this Chart of the Factors of the Gradual Training
It says it lists the (20 or 30) suttas which describe "gradual training".
That belongs with this document: The Gradual Gradual Training.
Apart from these there are other ways to sequence things -- e.g. there's putting a sequence to the noble eightfold path, which is usually with right view first, though when it's considered as the threefold training I think the doctrine usually starts with virtue (see Anupubbikathā).
Or there's MN 95 which lists a 12-step process (it lists it forward and backwards): faith, approaching the teacher, etc.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Mental States Versus Physical Substrates
If I'm not mistaken, the Abhidhamma mainly explains the mind as mental factors. Modern psychology tends to see the mind as neuronal substrates.
Buddhism's time didn't have the neuroscientific modern view, but in many respects seems more advanced. What are the benefits specific to seeing the mind as mental states, rather than as a physical substrate?
For example, I think maybe mental states allows one to simulate and extend what they mean. A person may be angry, very angry, and we can imagine the causes of anger. However, just saying 'dopamine increases in such region' could mean a million things.
Are any other advantages linked to seeing the mind as mental factors?

Is there any use at all in talking about dopamine? Conversely if a mother says to a child, "I can see you're angry" -- for example -- then doesn't that affect labeling help teach emotional self-regulation?

Or are you asking whether the Abhidhamma itself has an explanation for why it (seeing "the mind" as "mental factors") is useful?

I guess I'm trying to ask if understanding the mind through mental states could be more suited to the mind and permits thought processes that learning neuroscience doesn't provide. Also, I'm asking what these are.

Modern psychology does not see the mind as neuronal correlates but just tries to reduce it to such. If mind actually were a neuronal correlate there would be no need to speak of mind. Minds are mental, correlates are physical. I cannot imagine how to see mind as anything other than mental factors.   .

Related: Does it matter if the mind is neurologically originated or not?

What are the benefits specific to seeing the mind as mental states, rather than as a physical substrate?

I'm not convinced that buddhism sees the mind exclusively in terms of mental states, but rather taking both materialism and mental states into account. For instance, dependent origination details the relationship between physical properties and mental phenomena.
I guess it may seem that only mental states are relevant for buddhism while one reads those parts of abhidamma that deals with examining these things.
(On a side note, psychology is a field consisting of a great deal of different disciplines, besides neuroscience. Concepts like mental states are therefore also valid for psychological research).

Buddhism and the "neuroscientific modern view" emphasize different things... Buddhism has an ethical focus and the Abhidhamma classifies mental states as being "ethically-neutral", "unwholesome" or "beautiful". On the other hand, the "neuroscientific modern view" focuses on observables/measurables such as neurons and dopamine. If you want to develop yourself spiritually and escape samsara, the physical substrates model is not going to help.

Before the practitioner meditates insight meditation, he needs to meditate the concentration, mind-practice. People's views are bias and destroited by 5 hindrances and 7 anusaya, especially wrong views.
Understanding about Rūpa and Nāma processing can help the practitioner in concentration meditation.
Mainly, understanding about Rūpa and Nāma processing are base of Paticcasamuppada knowledge. And Paticcasamuppada knowledge is base of 3 characteristics. If the practitioner can't understand Abhidhamma (and can't attain Jhana), their Paticcasamuppada will be only conceptual, unrealistic. And their 3 characteristics will appear blur, conceptual. Many point of view of this practitioner still be the same although he meditates insight meditation.
Can you use first grade knowledge to build robot?
Insight meditation is not easy. It's harder than physic according to Patthana.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What do Buddhists think of leather?
I understand that vegetarianism goes with Buddhism. But what about leather? Leather car seats, leather handbags, leather this and leather that.
Is there some sutra on the permission to have them, since animals need to be killed to make these products?

Buddhists here (one) think that natural leather is not encouraged but can be tolerated out of necessity.

As far as as practicality of life is seen,
1.) Vegetarian food, now days is obtained by killing certain animal species but it is done unintentionally by farmer so no killing percept is preserved. I have even seen some farmers who remain sad, some even remorse for this doing.
2.) Even if vegetarian food involves killing, vegetables(other than garlic, onion) don't induce so much foil smell and don't generate so much heat within body like non-veg. do.
3.) When someone's livelihood is dependent on 'killing and selling animals', it increases too much killing instincts ... not good for someone aspiring to establish on dhamma.
4.) Others who buy leather or killed animals, simply help the killers in increasing killing instincts.
Conclusion:: Buying Leather or killed animals is not allowed.
Event:: If it is not allowed, then what about those seeking alms and allowing anyone to give meat of killed animal or human.
Conclusion:: They are simply encouraging anyone to directly or indirectly break no killing percept.

Not all Buddhists are vegetarian and the Buddha ate meat at times. Owning or buying leather is not prohibited. There are very good reasons to become vegetarian and abstain from eating meat or owning leather, but neither of these alone will lead to enlightenment. In other words, there are saints that ate meet and owned leather and there are very violent and awful beings who were vegetarian and never owned leather.

In the suttas, one finds simple directions such as this:

DN33:2.1.27: A mendicant with defilements ended can’t deliberately take the life of a living creature, take something with the intention to steal, have sex, tell a deliberate lie, or store up goods for their own enjoyment like they did as a lay person.

As you notice, there isn't anything about being a vegetarian or using leather. Those are details. Looking more carefully at the suttas themselves, we see that deliberately taking life is not acceptable. Therefore, if one finds a dead animal in a forest, eats it and makes leather, that is not deliberately taking the life of a living creature.
In modern society, that link between meat and leather is indirect. Others kill so that we may have meat and leather. When we buy meat and leather, we promote such practices, becoming complicit in the killing. Yet now we have oddities such as the Impossible Burger, which does not require the killing of a meat animal.
Not killing introduces us to love and compassion. Indeed, with limitless love and compassion, we simply cannot deliberately kill.
Practicing love and compassion is a start. For example, at the start of AN8.63, we see:

AN8.63:2.2: ‘I will develop the heart’s release by love. I’ll cultivate it, make it my vehicle and my basis, keep it up, consolidate it, and properly implement it.’  That’s how you should train.

Study the suttas and don't get caught up in rules and observances. We have robots for that--they are programmed to mindlessly follow rules. Instead, open your heart to loving kindness and compassion and more. Study the suttas and decide for yourself each moment what Right Action results from Right View. Use the precepts to guide your awareness of what needs to be done moment by moment. This is why the precepts are non-specific. The precepts encourage us to be mindful.

Monks can use meat/leather, if it is coming from an animal who died naturally(without intervention of human or trained animals, for them). It's just that they need to enquire first about the meat/leather being received.
Vinaya has given monks choice, story goes like....... "when devdutta enforced for vegetarianism........ buddha allowed monks to have choice of food but they must meditate hard and enquire about human meat".
Personally, as per choice given by buddha in vinaya, I reject non-veg./leather for good reasons.

Afaik there is an allowance to use leather sandals but there is also a restriction on the thickness of the soles. Maybe someone can confirm with a vinaya reference.

A bhikkhu in the middle Ganges Valley may wear new leather sandals only if the soles are made from a single layer of leather. He may wear multi-layer sandals if they are cast-off, which according to the Commentary means that they have been worn (presumably, by someone else) at least once. Outside of the middle Ganges Valley, one may wear multi-layer sandals even if they are new.
  https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0042.html

Buddhism is not a place where giving permission to do things and prohibiting to do things. All it explains it is if you do this what would be the result in return plus it explains the whole world up to a greater extent.
To answer your question,
If you take that vegetarian goes with buddhism no it is not. But killing animals is giving a bad result in return, it can be instantly or in later birth. About the leather, again it is the same. You can use the leather without attaching to that, without wanting to kill animals and collecting leather.
If your problem is that you can't use the cars with leather seats. Because that makes you feel bad as it is not align with buddhism, no you are wrong. As I said earlier it's not about using the things, it's about attaching to things. Attachment is the core problem explained in Buddhism. But again if you kill you will get bad results, so don't think that you can kill without attaching :) Because thoughts in the mind is what matters, not what we do.

Although Buddhism does not per se advocate for vegeterianism or even veganism, to help the practise of kindness & compassion it might helpful to go full vegan.
Why follow the diet the Buddha used to eat 2500+ years? It makes no sense because most people live in a somewhat modern city with access to supermarkets, where we can literally choose the more compassionate food choice.
We can literally prevent one more massacre with that vegan meal at the dinner table.
There are plenty objections why, from a moral perspective, vegeterian might not be enough. It's a good step in the direct direction, but the dairy & egg industry are inherently cruel.
The suttas do not explicitly forbid the use of animal products, but you must ask yourself how that animal felt during the process, which is in essence an empathy practise right there.

I know, we should raise the male chicks for meat as well for making stock with. I have seen the machines used to kill the male chicks.

Ideally, we should stop seeing animals as products altogether, that are only here to benefit us; but that's just my take on it, & humanity will need its time until it realises this, in the same way it needed hundreds of years with rights for women, homosexuals, blacks, etc..

I am with you on this one. Let’s break the curse called hunger altogether.


text:
Can Buddhism be interpreted as a quest for the young?
I used to think that the beauty of Buddhism laid within the absence of rules and restrictions. That you won’t be condemned for foing what you think is right. That there is more to see than just “here” and now.
But seeing it as a quest also makes me sad that if it doesn’t make sense to my senses and comprehension anymore. I’m the kind of person who cannot obey as wanted blindly, there must always be a reason when it comes to rules rather than spirit. I don’t really stay if this is what is required of me. I don’t need rules, I need companionship, wherever they are or are not.
But I’m 35 this year and already I fear the setting sun. I too will haggle more poorly because I am beginning to know that my questing days will become shorter and shorter. I know that I too will need a house of my own, made of rules and rituals and security. How can I say anything against that, though I can’t muzzle my dread? I am beginning to understand why older people don’t change much, though I wish I can be their gentle mare.

If I feel above for me, only one thing comes to me... I am gonna break down old age's persitence-fear, ego and clumsiness through practice, observation, open-mindedness. I am gonna practice so much that body is old or young-- mind will remain healthy. Wishes

I don't understand the question. What have rules got to do with anything?  Buddhism is a game for all ages, and it only has rules in the sense that playing guitar has rules. I was a lot older than you when I discovered the teachings and the idea that older people do not change is very general and often incorrect. If some of it doesn't make sense to you then why not ask some questions?

Why is there only one Sidddartha but many fables about him, from which the rules were stipulated?

Not to, "kill, steal, drink, sex, lie" r the basic rules practicing which at body, u will be loyal; practicing which at speech, u will be sweet&kind talker; practicing which at mental level, u will achieve jitendriya(search web) state••• fixating on which, u will soon realize other rules that must be followed to attain peace within and same peace for others, respected @SinglemindedCompass.

One can speak of many rules but there are rules which are hard to break such as old age, disease and death. Those are the real rules and restrictions that most people obey blindly.

Even young people nowdays remain engaged in murder, rape, etc.
Calm down
Dhamma is not specific to age. Many old citizens acheived arhant stage during buddha's time, although they were guided by &under the powerful compassion of supreme teacher himself.
Learning dhamma has nothing to do with age. Although, old geezers tend to stuck in preception gained&maintained since young age, it doesn't mean that they can't learn dhamma and rectify their bad views.
Would like to suggest you to go for dedicated meditation(on daily basis) and see for yourself "Ehi Passiko".
I’m the kind of person who cannot obey as wanted blindly, there must always be a reason when it comes to rules rather than spirit.
rather than spirit:: why do you wish to blindly follow an unseen, unfelt thing? Why do you follow something whose body&mind effect remains undetermined? Even when it comes from those speakers who are not established in dhamma.
What would it benefit you to know those(spirits in your case), knowing whom your defiled behaviour remain same, knowing whom your tendency to reasoning doesn't stop, knowing whom all your misunderstandings haven't finished till now?
Story
There was once a man, a drunken man-- addicted to drinking, addicted to spending all his money on drinking alcohal. Nothing worked to stop him, god didn't help, angels fled away, tantriks bowed to him, meditators got tired of yelling at him,...
Then, a time comes when his health suddenly got deteriorated, he remained at hospital for 1 full month.
Later, doctor said, "If you don't quit drinking your daughter and wife will be on road, either for begging or for ***".
He never even thought about drinks again.
Last words:: Buddha's teachings are meant to remove bad-habbits, for one must first accept them faithfully, practice them faithfully, then test, judge and compare them with other philosophies. If find useful, follow them.
Still
It doesn't mean that, "accept them blindly" or "practice them blindly" or "test, judge and compare them blindly".
Faith must be on Buddha as a set of those qualities that guide us to dhamma, that guide us to liberation.
When we take refuge in buddha, we take refuge in these qualities not in god or angel or some unknown atta.
It's all about faith and dedication in righteousness, not about age-clumsiness.
Metta.

Can Buddhism be interpreted as a quest for the young?
I see it as guidelines for staying out of trouble, maybe helping out.
I used to think that the beauty of Buddhism laid within the absence of rules and restrictions.
What do or did you think that Buddhism is? What belief, what practice, what doctrine, what school/tradition? That's not evident.
That you won’t be condemned for foing what you think is right.
I think Buddhist doctrine is that each being inherits their own kamma.
For example, if you marry then you become "married" -- not "condemned".
That there is more to see than just “here” and now.
I used to think that too about Buddhism, and I didn't understand it.
But seeing it as a quest also makes me sad that if it doesn’t make sense to my senses and comprehension anymore.
I mentioned previously it might be the opposite of a quest -- perhaps it's how to stop questing.
Doubly so if "questing" implies a quest for something fictional (or impermanent, unsatisfactory).
I don't know but you give me the impression of being quite confused. Are you feeding your mind on an exclusive diet of pop songs at the moment?
I find it helps to consider -- "what is virtuous? what is good behaviour?"
And helpful to meet different people -- who are mostly-all adults now but otherwise of all ages, including older and younger.
I’m the kind of person who cannot obey as wanted blindly, there must always be a reason when it comes to rules rather than spirit.
I don't remember what tradition this is from (not Buddhist) but I read once that (I paraphrase), "Man is inclined to worship anything -- God; a woman; a child; gold; ...".
Buddhist doctrine maybe starts with something along the lines of, "Don't tell lies, be kind to people."
Or "All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill."
I see this as axiomatic (and agreeable). And doctrine like the Kalama sutta imply that Buddhism is meant to be (or, at a minimum, to include) good common sense.
I don’t really stay if this is what is required of me. I don’t need rules, I need companionship, wherever they are or are not.
That's perhaps a psychological need which Buddhism recognises.
Upaddha Sutta: Half (SN 45.2)

As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."[1]
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

Footnote:

As AN 8.54 points out, this means not only associating with good people, but also learning from them and emulating their good qualities.

But I’m 35 this year and already I fear the setting sun.
We're warned that "self-views" are an occasion for suffering to arise.
I wish I could explain that, it (together with the noble truths) is one of the more helpful bits of Buddhist doctrine, and apparently difficult to really understand. There are a lot of questions and answers more-or-less related to that on this site.
I know that I too will need a house of my own, made of rules and rituals and security.
Again, I don't know what you think Buddhism is.
According to the suttas, the first three fetters abandoned on the way to liberation are:

belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)[7]
doubt or uncertainty (vicikicchā)[8]
attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa)[9]

See also "house-builder".
How can I say anything against that, though I can’t muzzle my dread?
Read or listen to the doctrine? Talk with a teacher or a good friend?
I am beginning to understand why older people don’t change much, though I wish I can be their gentle mare.
Um, yeah, I'm not sure that's a good generalisation either.
About a gentle mare if that's your wish, another thing I read once (though again not Buddhist), "To have a friend, you have to be one." There are a lot of older people about.


text:
What Buddha's techniques I can use to uproot deep craving for a woman's love?
I am not geographically close to this woman, nor do I ever talk to her, she's just my teenage obsession that lingers on my mind. I am too much attached to my perceptions about how she is, and because I cannot be near to her geography nor can I talk to her because of a past issue, I feel emptiness inside me. I feel lonely and I crave presence. I satisfying this craving my visualisations and fantasies. How can I get rid of this from deep inside. I have gotten rid of this from conscious thinking, but deep inside it still exists. Currently I am practicing 32 Body part meditation, Vipassana and Anapana Meditation. Can you suggest any specific exercise that would help me with this particular issue?

This recent question seems relevant; the answers are about understanding love from a buddhist perspective

"The surest way to miss enlightenment is to seek it." and it applies here to. As @yeshe-tenley said: "let it be", with a caveat that you can't.

Mix kaya-vipassana, sensation-vipassana and citta-vipassana from Satipatthana. Making these 3 as 1 and practicing in alternate(random) manner will let you know the reasons deep inside.
Some of them will be::
1.) Sexual desire deep within/behind thoughts about her.
2.) Too much coldness on 2 particular lining area(in lines) between navel and privates.
3.) Heat within body, especially in bum-area, chest-area, face-area.
4.) Gaseous pressure in intestines.
5.) Some tingling type sensation on head part(just below hair). This tingling will seem to be from navel to head, as sexual desire increases.
6.) Might see some whiteness within closed eyes-- a state of ignorance-dominance. Anapaan and sensations-awareness will help. During this state, stop thinking, remember wholesome activity... as in sallekh sutta, determination after 8th attainment part.
7.) Visualizations about her are the most troublesome part. These may seem to be actual, remain aware that these are due to your creations and appear whenever you think about her or crave for her presence which is not moral(doing it without approval of a 'loved-one' whom you respected the most, once) and unwholesome.
8.) Food- Eat only that much amount which is sufficient enough to keep this body alive to do daily activity-- you might have to do some experiments of different quantity. Stop eating food that generates too much heat in body.
I am too much attached to my perceptions
This in itself shows, how much aware you are and you are perfect to do citta-vipassana.
Don't hate these feelings, don't even entertain them, just neglect them as you would do for some other during those teenage times, i.e. tackling thoughts with same amount of reverse.
Be silent within whenever she appears, start seeing visualizations as a 'ghost-memory'.
If you did too-much one-sided-love within mind, there might be a need to maintain above wholesome presence regarding these ghost-visualizations&thoughts within center of brain.
To reach inside brain, 1st note that pressure in forehead is-- when we want to control our desires within to make decisions which might seem beneficial to us(not 8 fold noble path).
Once you are aware of such, start accepting whatever the situation is just like a stranger.
Slowly-slowly, that barrier of pressure will stop and you will be able to accept every situation as they are.
Just inside skull, sensation will be seemingly nothing or soft or never sensed before. Another way to reach brain-centet is also through inside-of-neck, still pressure of wrong decisions can only be sensed in forehead.
But remember one thing here, even a tiny bit of unwholesomeness during brain journey will make you run like tiger in wrong path-- very critical area.
Atlast,
Stay in touch of strangers(!) nearby your home
Physical fitness and exercise is important
Depression  might result, if you don't stop visualizing and fantasizing.
Metta.

First, know that you are not alone. Nearly every person experiences something like this to varying degrees and intensity at some points in time.
Second, realize that this has nothing to do with her. This is about your own internal emotions and desires and fantasies. You are experiencing self-cherishing. In all of these obsessions and fantasies it is not an external person who is the focus of your thoughts - although I am sure it absolutely feels like it - it is actually yourself that is the focus.
Third, to really get a good sense for this ask yourself whose wellbeing are you truly concerned with when these thoughts come up? Is it this far away person who is probably quite different from your internal idea of her? Are you concerned with her day-to-day well being? Or is it yourself?
Fourth, realize that this self-cherishing is unsatisfactory and is leading you to suffering. You already do recognize this to some extent and that is why you are asking this question. Rejoice that you have recognized it! Now deepen it. It is you that is suffering with this.
Fifth, let it be. These negative self-cherishing emotions arise based on countless karma and habits that you have been acquiring for a very very very long time. You can’t just make them or force them to go away. So let them be and don’t give them added energy. When they come up try and recognize them for what they are: self-cherishing thoughts that lead to suffering.
Sixth, practice other-cherishing. When you are not beset by these thoughts, try to establish the habit of truly caring for and working toward and wishing for the well-being of others. The only way to truly rid yourself of those self-cherishing thoughts is to create the habit of other-cherishing and gradually replace one habit with another. This will take time.
Seventh, be honest with yourself and the whole situation. You have established a very bad habit that is hurting and it will take time and effort to replace it. Be gentle with yourself and cherish others.

We have twice as many female ancestors as male. Why? Because, in each generation, half of the men have their genes exterminated. This is scientific fact. Just because sexual selection favors the zero sum game does not mean that allowing this situation to continue is skillful. Cultivate virya! Cultivate an aversion to weakness. The Buddha was warrior caste and he opposed the Brahmin caste.

I also had a girl that I loved so much and her presence is always on my mind till now .Its actually not a problem ,its beautiful ,because her idea in my mind was actually a discovery of myself ,her idea in my mind is not her ,its what I receive from her but it isn't her.Once you grasp this ,every time here presence ,her picture shows in your mind,her smile ,laugh ,closeness shows up ,you will celebrate the love, the beauty ,it will be like receiving candies .You are cerebrating the manifestation instead of fighting it by vipassana ,yoga ,32 or 42 part meditation.
You can do something creative like drawing her or writing a song or poetry to express your emotions .

These bonds are hard to break. What you want to is basically doing away with the lower fetters, it would entail becoming Ariyan.
The technique is to hear the true Dhamma, memorize the teaching, evaluate the teaching, come to agreement, get the desire, become willing, contemplate and finally exert yourself to realize the true meaning and experience the Dhamma with your body.


text:
What is the correct meaning of dhamma, dharma, atta, anatta?
I am unable to understand different meanings of words dhamma, dharma, atta, anatta...
Does dhamma means as "path" or "truth" or "teaching" as in Ariyapariyesana Sutta or as "phenomenon" or as "things? Is dhamma and dharma same?
Does atta means 'self' or 'soul' or 'ego' or 'eternal-self' or something else?
I have read  anatta meaning as 'not-self', does this means as 'not-I' or  'not-me' or  'not-mine' or something else? It is because I have read it's use as different meanings...confusing.
What could be the correct translation of "Sabbe dhammā anattā."?

I think that "atta" and "atman" are the same words, two different languages (Pali and Sanskrit).
That in a Buddhist context, "atta" (and its converse, "anatta") are related to ideas like upādānakkhandha (from SN 56.11) and sakkāyadiṭṭhi ... and furthermore that (according to doctrine) any/all theories about self (or "self-existence"?) are unsatisfactory or cause suffering.
And that "dhamma", there, should be understood there as in contrast to "sankhara" -- i.e. that, "all sankharas (all constructed/compounded things) are impermanent and unsatisfactory", conversely, "literally everything (including for example nibbana) is anatta (although nibbana, which is a dhamma and not a sankhara, is neither impermanent nor unsatisfactory)".

Thank you for your answer.

from an EBT (early buddhist text) perspective:
http://lucid24.org/tped/d/dhamma/index.html#dhammamsutva
☸Dhamma, dhamma

☸Dhamma = The Buddha's Teaching.
Dhamma = Natural laws of the universe, like impermanence, death, illness, etc.
dhamma = idea/thought cognizable by the mind (6aya):  manasā dhammaṃ viññāya.
dhamma = thing. A broad term that can mean anything.

There are two languages, Pali and Sanskrit. Pali sounds like a mumbled version of Sanskrit, basically. Many of the consonants found in Sanskrit words are skipped in corresponding Pali words.
So Dharma is Sanskrit and Dhamma is Pali.
Atma is Sanskrit and Atta is Pali.
Anatma is Sanskrit and Anatta is Pali.
Sarva is Sanskrit and Sabba is Pali.
Nirvana is Sanskrit and Nibbana is Pali.
And so forth.
As for the meaning,
Dharma/dhamma comes from the root "to hold" - so it means "that which is (up)held" - either an Order of things at large (a system, a tradition, a law, a teaching, a way of living)  or an individual element of such order - "a thing", "a phenomenon", "a happening".
Atma/atta is something like "core" or "kernel". For living beings it is their innermost "spirit" aka "agent" and "subject" - that presumed homunculus inside of us which watches through eyes, listens through ears, thinks thoughts, and makes the impulse to act. For inanimate objects it is their unalienable identity, that which makes them what they are.
Anatma/anatta is simply a negated form of the above. It means ontological absence of any such innermost agent, subject, unalienable identity.
Based on all of the above, the Pali phrase

Sabbe dhammā anattā.

Would mean All (Sabbe) Things or Phenomena (Dhamma) are Without A Fixed Core (Anatta).
In other words, the living beings do not have any central core where all experiences come together and all action is initiated. And the inanimate phenomena do not have key pieces that would alone define their identities. For example water does not have one key ingredient that makes it water, it is a particular combination of elements working together is what gives it its specific qualities.

The word dhamma in these passages has multiple meanings and can only be understood in the context of the passage they come from as you seem to understand. This is difficult for most Buddhist students and anyone who does not speak the original language of these ancient texts. That is why it is important to rely upon good translations and on good spiritual mentors to explain and expand upon the context.
Of course, it is wonderful that you are trying to piece together the meanings and different contexts of how the word dhamma is used in these passages! But even more important is to try and figure out the underlying teaching without fixating on individual words.
I would encourage you to see if you can't paraphrase each passage yourself in plain english or whatever your native language is and try no to worry too much about what the word 'dhamma' really means as it is not (like all words!) a real and substantially inherent thing. What it means is entirely dependent upon the context it is used. What's important in all these teachings is the heart or spirit of the teaching and not any individual words and to get at them we must consider the context.

In one of our conversation, you wrote that you are from nepal... So here I will use some hindi language too. Don't confuse from various representations of dharma, dhamma, atta.
Dharma( धर्म ):: This word was already there in India even before buddha. Even Aghoris used to use this word. This also includes the wrong views of attaining liberation and/or gaining merits through sacrificing ( बलीप्रथा ) animals and humans( नरबली)--even  nowdays these are being practiced.
Dharma was/is referred to all the principles that govern this universe.See Hinduism part
Such sets of principles were/are considered to be right view. Eg., dharma of a kshatriya is only to fight&rule, dharma of various castes, dharma of fire is to produce heat, and so on, dharma of deva/ghost/... is to eat material food, and so on...
Note as to how dharma is generalized to meanings of behaviour, duty, karma, requirement_for_satisfaction of celestials,...
Now, buddha arrived::
After attaining enlightenment, having Right view, he sees that dharma of human has nothing to do with caste, satisfaction_dharma of celestial beings has nothing to do with materials,...
So, a new term has been given, simply because it would be too much troublesome to waste time on teaching right_dharma without an appropriate word.
Dhamma:: Set of all the right principles governing universe, so simple.
These principles are also concrete cause they are being told through Right View in righteous way(8 fold Noble path).
Atta:: This is a generalized word for 'self'. It can be used to mean inner-self and outer-self. Atta, when used to indicate seemingly 'I' means 'inner-self', when used for other things means 'outer self', i.e. self of other things.
Sabbe dhamma anatta:: It means that all the right governing principles are not-self(this self is outer-self), means that they don't have any permanence within them.
This statement was specifically given for those people who declared buddha to be God( परमात्मा/parmaatma/eternal-self ) and hence principles given by him as his child( आत्मा )  buddha as vishnu...to remove wrong view among people.
Along with this, dhamma states it's permanence in sense that from infinite past-time, these principles are true&right, at present these are true&right and in infinite future time these will be true&right.
Buddha also states it's permanence as,"Whatever principles have been given were, are and will remain true&right".
So, to avoid any misunderstanding, he simply said, " I have no atta, dhamma also has no atta".
That's it. No confusion.
Metta.

The word 'dharma' means 'that which supports'. The following things support life & spiritual life:

natural things or phenomena, such as food, oxygen, trees, people, mind, Nibbana, etc
knowledge of natural law or truth
practise or duty or spiritual paths
results of pactise or duty

All of the above are meanings of the word 'dharma' dependent on context.
The phrase "sabbe dhammā anattā" means "all things/phenomena are not-self", which includes Nibbana.

As for the word "atta", it means "self" rather than "soul". If "atta" meant "soul" then the Buddha would not have been required to teach "the body is anatta" (given most people distinguished between the body & the soul). "Atta" refers to the sense of possessiveness, which ultimately creates suffering, namely, "I", "me" & "mine".


text:
Emptiness and physical pain
How can an understanding of emptiness help when experiencing physical pain, i have some understanding of emptiness from a mental viewpoint, and I understand that I can direct my mind to perceive the physical pain as karma ripening or that I have a choice of perception of my physical pain, I don't have to experience it as something to have aversion to. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Here is similar topic (with some answers): Experiencing physical pain

One of the things I've noticed in meditation is what I can best describe as physiological latency. If I'm sufficiently deep, and there is a sudden event — a loud, startling noise; a sudden muscle twinge; a bright flash of light — there is a distinct space between the registration of the event as a mere sensory event and the reactive impulse to respond to it. If that space is clear enough, the impulse to respond can disappear into it, or fail to arise at all. Nothing is left except the perception of the event having occurred, and emptiness reactions would have filled.
Pain is a signal from the body that something is out of whack and ought to be looked to. In and of itself, it is nothing more than a 'mere' sensory event. Of course, almost all of us are conditioned to respond to pain with a mental activity: fear and worry, thoughts about how best to avoid or quickly relieve pain, self-recriminations (because pain is often associated with punishment; the 'reopening of karma' as the question puts it). But it is perfectly possible to find that space between the sensory experience of pain and the reactive mental impulses we are habituated into. And when we do, pain is just a lighthouse shining out over clear, empty waters, telling us where we might go next or what we might avoid later, but troubling nothing directly.

Pain is just pain, it is empty of a self, it isn't a self; does not belong to a self; is empty of an owner
Seen as being empty of the quality of self or belonging to a self; there does not come to be an 'I am' in regards to the pain; there being no 'I am' in regards to the pain there is no 'I am experiencing pain'; there being no 'i am experiencing pain' there is no 'i am bad because i am experiencing pain'; there being no 'i am bad because i am experiencing pain ' there is no 'may i not be experiencing pain'
Understanding emptiness in this sense removes the basis for aversion that could arise in regards to a painful feeling

If you start doing meditation and if you are lucky to have a good teacher, it is possible for you to have what we call a mind/body experience, meaning that you will feel that you are conscious of knowing that your mind is a separate entity to your body, you will not feel pain when that happens, but there is no way that you will experience 'Sunyata' ie. emptiness, even at 'Sothapanna state', you will only experience 'Three Universal Characteristics' but not 'Emptiness' that is totally a different experience altogether,  about the cosmos where there are no particles/material phenomena (Rupa kalapa) and no formations (nama) other than the natural cosmic primary force which has been experienced as the ultimate truth by Buddha.

Understanding emptiness logically is not sufficient. This has to be experienced practicing Satipathana.
Seven days without pain killers.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=16532&p=235526&hilit=

Thankyou Sarath

"How can an understanding of emptiness help when experiencing physical pain?"
The doctrine of emptiness or shunyata is an extremely advanced topic and not applicable for most lay practitioners. It is among the deepest and most subtle of the Buddha's teaching and extremely hard to understand intellectually even trivially let alone to actually meditate on it and perceive emptiness directly.
I would advise to let go of this doctrine for right now and focus on more accessible teachings of the Buddha which indeed might be able to help with your physical pain.
"I understand that I can direct my mind to perceive the physical pain as karma ripening..."
When you are experiencing physical pain you can try to bring to mind the law of cause and effect and understand that your current predicament is caused by past actions. With this in mind you can resolve to try and steer clear of future actions which lead to suffering and look to the Buddha's teachings as to what are fruitful actions that lead to happiness and what are unwholesome actions that lead to suffering. However, just bringing to mind the law of cause and effect will not stop your current painful physical sensations.
"...or that I have a choice of perception of my physical pain, I don't have to experience it as something to have aversion to."
Having an aversion to physical pain is a shared trait of all physical sentient beings. You are not alone! Unfortunately, you can't just wish this aversion away. Knowing that it is an aversion is good though and in the future you can try to concentrate your mind and activities on cherishing others.
Here is a meditation you can try that might not help with the physical pain, but it will help you use the physical pain to deepen your practice.

Thankyou Yeshe Tenley,  very helpful.

Whenever there is feeling physical pain, in the moment you can identify the feelings/process of being aware of and identifying pain and at every single moment you feel pain, that same moment you felt pain it means you felt the absence of what was there before that pain. Whenever there is feeling there is something that was unfelt. Pain here means relief there. This is how i deal with physical pain while focusing on voidness and emptiness. For me, voidness is a place in space. It is where i go for the refuge of the immense pain here in samsara. Here where there is nothing but dukkha and pain and cold loneliness. I pray your pain subsides. I pray you learn to harness the power available to us in the void.

Emptiness in lay man terms - > pain occurs from desire (dukkha) or life over expectation. i.e. over craving for big house/money/power/public recognition/lover or fancy car that outside of your capability. When empty your mind with something impossible or get rid of target that very less likely happen then pain is slowly gone. i.e. in exam, normally your kid scores 20/100 and in 2 weeks in final exam expected kid to score over 80/100 then it's probably creating more pain.
Practice inner self understanding then set a target base on your capability. Slowly adjust your target and expectation that realistic, balance up to yourself and beneficial to surrounding sentient if possible. example on how to understand more about yourself i.e https://truecolorsintl.com/the-four-color-personalities/

Let's say you own a beautiful shiny red car that was recently purchased.
You park your car at an outdoor car park next to a tall building, then you enter the building. There are other cars parked at that car park too.
Outside, it starts to rain heavily and winds become strong. Inside, you take the elevator to the tenth floor.
An hour later, you hear a loud sound like something big and heavy came crashing to the ground. Someone tells you that a giant billboard with lighting was just blown by the wind, and it came crashing down and smashed into a red car. The car is totally obliterated.
You hear this and instantly panic - "oh no! could it have smashed into my red car?" You rush into the elevator and press the button to go to the ground floor. While the elevator goes down, many thoughts run through your mind, like "Would my insurance pay for this? What about my car loan? How do I get to work daily if I don't have a car? How do I send my kids to school?" Your heart races.
At the ground floor, you rush out to the entrance to look at your car.
Phew! It was another red car that was destroyed by the giant billboard. Not your car. The unfortunate red car was on another side of the building.
Instantly, you calm down and feel relieved. Why? It was not YOUR car that was destroyed. The many anxious thoughts instantly evaporate.
Similarly, when you feel physical pain, you also feel mental pain and anguish - like being struck by two darts when only one hit you (SN 36.6). Why? Because it's YOUR body, YOUR health, YOUR life, YOUR future, YOUR family - that is affected.
If you get admitted to the hospital for breathlessness and chest pain due to Covid-19, you may have a lot of thoughts running through your mind like "Will I get better? Would I get pneumonia? Would I be put on the ventilator for months? Somebody I knew died this way. If I don't make it, what would happen to my family? Who will take care of my kids?" You feel distressed and panic.
This is explained in SN 22.93:

“Bhikkhus, suppose there was a mountain river sweeping
downwards, flowing into the distance with a swift current. If on
either bank of the river kasa grass or kusa grass were to grow, it
would overhang it; if rushes, reeds, or trees were to grow, they would
overhang it. If a man being carried along by the current should grasp
the kasa grass, it would break off and he would thereby meet with
calamity and disaster; if he should grasp the kusa grass, it would
break off and he would thereby meet with calamity and disaster; if he
should grasp the rushes, reeds, or trees, they would break off and he
would thereby meet with calamity and disaster.
“So too, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling … regards form as self,
or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.
That form of his disintegrates and he thereby meets with calamity and
disaster. He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional
formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing
consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in
consciousness. That consciousness of his disintegrates and he thereby
meets with calamity and disaster.
“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or
impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus
… He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’”

It's because you consider yourself as having a self, and the body, health, life, family, future etc. as belonging to the self, that it causes you mental anguish and panic to realize that you may lose them.
What if the body, health, life, family, future, possessions etc. are empty of a self?
Then it will be like the red car. You will not feel mental anguish if the destroyed red car is not YOUR's. Similarly, if the body, health, life, family, future and possessions do not belong to you, you will not feel mental anguish.
If you realize that the body, the mind, the health, the life, the family, the future and the possessions are not the self, do not belong to the self, not in the self, not part of the self etc. then you will not feel mental anguish or mental pain.
Then as stated in SN 36.6, you may feel physical pain, but you will not feel mental pain because of the physical pain, because you're not taking something which is impermanent and subject to disintegration, as belonging to the self. In another words, it is empty of a self.
And that is the relationship between emptiness (SN 35.85) and physical pain.

How can an understanding of emptiness help when experiencing physical pain

Understanding how physical pain is "empty" can drastically reduce the intensity in which it is perceived. I have an analogy that hopefully illustrates the dynamics of how this happens.
Imagine you are watching a horror film on television. A monster pops out on the screen suddenly and gives you a fright. Now lets look at this scenario from two perspectives.
If you are absorbed in watching the film, the monster jumping out at you could be extremely scary! If you are invested in the story or put yourself in the shoes of the main characters, you observe this creature as a great threat. And by doing so, your fear response to it can be very large.
On the other hand, if you observe the "true nature" of what is occuring, you would have a very different perspective. You would realize that there is no monster, there is simply a series of pixels being displayed on a television. Although there is an image of a monster on the screen, the monster itself is "empty." It is simply an image. There is no "real" physical monster or any actual threat. Because you understand the monster is simply an image, any "realness" or "substance" is known to be inaccurate. Your understanding of the monster's "emptiness" has the consequence of changing the effect of the jump scare. Now that you don't see the monster as a threat, you may be surprised, but not afraid.
In the same way as the monster, physical pain can be seen in this light. Physical pain's true nature is empty. By this I mean we observe its appearance, but it does not harm or cause any affects. If you believe yourself to be the physical body, then you have the first perspective. You see pain as real and a threat and something to be avoided, for physical pain has real tangible effects on the body. But if you have seen through the grand illusion, and know that what you are is not the body, then you know that physical pain is of no consequence to you, for it can not touch you.

i have some understanding of emptiness from a mental viewpoint, and I understand that I can direct my mind to perceive the physical pain as karma ripening or that I have a choice of perception of my physical pain

Unfortunately, the understanding of emptiness that is required to lessen the effects of physical pain is an experiential one, not intellectual. You can not think your way into lessening your pain. In order to gain this benefit, you have to experience not being the body firsthand, and see through your own experience the lack of substance behind everything we call "the world."
I hope this explanation shed some light on the answer to your question. I know from personal experience that it can be very difficult to rationalize how something we believe so strongly to be harmful in reality is not. It is only through meticulously observing your own experience that this seemingly unbelievable statement can be verified.

There is no such as physical pain arising in what the Buddha called "dwelling in emptiness" and one would be wise not to follow householder's desired practice of "pseudo-emptiness" as the most actually teach and practice, just developing the most dangerous "household-equanimity". If one wished to come to this state one has to walk the path correct which starts in leaving world/house, as understood, first.
There is no physical pleasure or pain for one who had left world, the five strings of sensuallity, beyound.
So what do you thinks would be good to progress wishing for pleasant dwelling of the Arahats?
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange and other "free/empty" trade-bonds but to escape from this wheels]

What is emptiness ? It is the realisation that none of the five aggregates are me , mine or myself. When none of the aggregates are me , myself or mine then will there be a craving for the existence or non existence of those aggregates ? No. When that is realised your mental agony immediately goes away and your physical pain reduces manifold. You are calm and content... Will the physical pain go away completely? I am not sure but you will have the ability to withstand any physical assault once you have attained Nirvana. Many monks in the past and Buddha himself demonstrated the ability to withstand any misfortune.


text:
What do Buddhists think of the premise that power is a necessary good and a necessary evil?
I have been through 34 years of life and am beginning to understand some things I couldn’t before. Not everyone is good and not everyone is bad, at least some of the time. Time is a tourniquet for scars but what heals the injury?
Is power good, bad or necessary for both?
If you feel lost, you can just answer the title question, no problem.

Not sure this question is on topic or applicable for this forum.

Ask yourself
Who is more powerful?
Someone who can kill millions of wrong-dwellers or someone who can divert/show the billions of wrong-dwellers to right-path.
Who is more powerful?
One who can steal things from anyone , one who steals milk-products or One who never ever claims&steals anything.
Who is more powerful?
One who can marry 16108 girls, still not satisfied and going for others too or One who has destroyed lust within completely.
Who is more powerful?
One who lies in fear to protect images within self and others mind or One who, being detached to everything doesn't lie even if someone kills all those images including himself.
Who is more powerful?
One who drinks alcohal, weeds to satisfy his cravings or One who has won over all cravings/aversions.
Now I ask you
Who is evil?
Those who worship and practice teachings of liar, killer, Sex(ist), thief, drug-addict.
OR
Those who keep faith and practice teachings of not to lie, not to kill, not to sex, not to steal, not to intoxicate.

Meta-answer
I find the premise abstract and distant and unrelated to the matter at hand (perhaps aka "daily practice"). What's the good of asking about "power" as an abstract -- how can that help anything?
Answer -- re. political power
I think it's Buddhist doctrine that people have the power -- i.e., the ability -- to do good and evil.
And that good and evil acts have consequences.
And that power isn't as worthwhile as morality and self-control (as you might find summarised in the Dhammapada for example -- or perhaps role models from later traditions).
A vivid or extreme example of that was illustrated in this answer about the Holocaust.
And as well as like "good and evil" there is also "ignorance" (see Three poisons) -- and "good" might be subdivided, into "virtuous" or moral, and, "skilful".
Answer -- re. psychic-powers
...
In conventional life you might want to distinguish between a so-called "power" and a so-called "disability".
I'm reminded of a story -- in the pre-20th-century States (North America), somebody claimed to be Jesus come again, and attracted a following. Eventually he met some immigrants from Germany who asked that he speak to them in their own language -- and then, they reproved him saying, something like,

You claim to be the Son of God, but you can't even speak German? Bedlam is the place for you.

Personally, I once reckoned that a supreme being can or even should also be conventionally well-behaved and socially ept (otherwise the condition is, perceived by others, a disability).
Time is a tourniquet for scars but what heals the injury?
The better injury is none, and maybe the best behaviour should cause no injury.
From an earlier answer, this might help with injury:

Remove oppression (expectations and demands). Provide a safe environment, where a person can't easily hurt themselves. And the necessities of life. And age-appropriate toys or tools. And good friends, some enjoyable group/social activities -- role models.

And loving-kindness -- the brahma-viharas.
But there's more -- Buddhism might identify the injury as caused by the cycle of birth and death, unwise attachments and views and pursuits. And there are a lot of traditions and doctrine, words, about the cure -- perhaps including the Flower Sermon.


text:
Can a Buddhist mix Buddhism with other religions?
Is there any authoritative sourced that a man can have more than one religion if he pleases?

None of the current answers attempt to provide an answer from "authoritative source" so I suppose they should be deleted as non-answers?

When it is matter of Pleasure will lead you to the Dukkha so it doesn't make sense to be Buddhist to cling to Pleasure.

It seems significant that HHDL advises us not to abandon the religion of our birth yet also encourages us to strive for realisation. This is the view that religion is a vehicle, not a destination.
All those I know who endorse more than one religion also say, equivalently, that they have no religion. It depends whether we see our religion as a proscribed set of beliefs or a set of methods and practices for transcending belief.
And then, talk to any three Christians and they will probably have three different religions, such is the game of Chinese Whispers.

I guess you're referring to this -- Where does the Dalai Lama say '… be a better whatever you already are'?

Buddhism doesn't accept false views such as those listed in DN 1.
Many religions with soul and God reinforce the self view, the view of eternalism or other false views.
As such, it is not compatible to mix other religions with Buddhism, if they have false views according to DN 1.

I don’t think this answer is wrong, but I will note that many self-proclaimed Buddhists and people who have taken sole refuge in the Triple Jewel still harbor these views from time to time.

Personal conclusion::
Dhamma gives me wings, free me from blind-faith, free me from sensual-pleasing-tradition-bounds, ... enable me to be more powerful.
Religion whether it be Hinduism or buddhism or sikhism or christianism or jainism or muslim etc. binds me to blind-faith, binds me to sensual-pleasing-tradition-bounds,... makes me weak.
To quest for authoritative sources
All the suttas were composed 100s of years after buddha. So how much originality is still left, can't be claimed.
Still, you may see this pre-sect-buddhism which is considered to be original teaching, still it is also considered to be mix of vedic, jain and sramanic schools of thoughts.
Along with above, you might be interested in Mahayana, which in itself is a mixture of various thinkings, rituals, traditions, worships etc.
To get to know how people, who call themselves to be on the path of dhamma, are engaged in various practices which can be easily found in other religions also which were either developed far from dhamma-touch or before buddha or after buddha can be seen here too.
So now it's up to you whether you wish to remain within traps of religions or want to live freely under dhamma's guidance...
Still, it's the practice and right understanding through which you will be able to claim dhamma.
::::::::
To give a kick-start, you may go for Majjhima Nikaya.
My ego-satisfying-view claims that Mulpariyaya, sabbasava, dhammadayada's 2nd half, bhaybhareva, Vattha, sallekha, sammaditthi, satipatthana, are as per dhamma.
It is because my ego thinks that, "1st half of dhammadayada considers self-respect-issue(1 of the 8 worldly concerns), anangana lacks compassion, aankhankheya depicts somewhat maintain/gain-respect-issue. These might encourage some to practice more dedicatively but it will start with either greed or fear and work started for worldly concern is not a Noble path.
::::::::

Buddhism is not a religion. What Buddha revealed to the world is, how the world exists, how the things happens. And also interestingly, since the world is not a place which gives you ultimate happiness, Buddha has shows us the way to uproot the existence of this life.
So if you want to have other religion and buddhism there's no issue. But when you realise the core of the buddhism, you start to move away from all the religions as those are useless to the ultimate happiness or the Nirvana

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Whether Buddhism is called a religion or not, the thing to consider is do the two systems of thought contradict each other? If there is contradiction then one cannot follow at least one of the religions. For example, Buddhism and Christianity contradict each other so you could not be a Buddhist-Christian. But you may be able to be a Buddhist-Quaker (in the liberal since) depending on what you took from Quakerism, since they have no creed. There are plenty of examples of how Buddhism has absorbed ideas from different countries. However, there are no texts which grant or deny the possibility of having multiple religions. I think it is just not probable since Buddhism is so much different from what we normally call religions.

@CFugate would, can, you identify or name a form or tradition or school of Buddhism which is "in the liberal sense", in the same way that you mentioned specifically Quakerism? Or is that unnecessary?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

By "Christianity" I meant orthodox, Nicaean creed. In mentioning liberal Quakers, I was thinking about Jodo Buddhism, that is true. But also Zen. The point is that it is possible to mix religions. I don't think Buddha would disapprove given how he reinterpreted various Hindu concepts, and given how Mahayana has evolved. But it is not an easy thing.


text:
In Yogacara Buddhism, is discontinuity an illusion, and does change arise?
Buddhists talk about discontinuity

ordinary consciousness consists of the discrete cetas

and illusion

all is illusion and the external objects are nothing but the creations
  of our mind

In Yogacara, are all moments discontinuous -- the idea that nothing is ever the same thing twice and no two times meet -- and an illusion?
Does that mean that durations -- even-though consisting of impermanent events -- only seem to arise persist decay or cease? Why?

I can intuitively see a link between 1 and 2, and I am in effect asking about that. Put another way: is the flow of time we psychologically experience itself permanent?

just editing this now

I don't know Yogacara, and maybe it's already obvious to those who do, but just perhaps this question might be clearer with a reference -- i.e. quoting "Buddhist talk about discontinuity and illusion".

Thanks. I notice that the first reference is to the Theravada Abhidhamma. The Yogacara Abhidhamma is sufficiently similar on that subject, is it? Or anyway you confirmed that you are asking about cetas, which seemed probable but I wasn't certain. "Nothing is ever the same thing twice" sounded like Heraclitus, and English words (translations) are only approximate sometimes.

i believe the same point is carried across -- see the first question here

AFAIK discontinuity is a Theravada doctrine, I don't think dragging it into Yogacara to juxtapose against its representation-only doctrine is valid. They are two ideas coming from two different traditions.

What Yogacara school you're talking about, Nagarjuna? Many later interpretations are incorrect interpretation of Nagarjuna: the Prasangika/ Candrakirti, Santideva; the Svatantrika/ Bhavyaviveka, Śāntarakṣita. If you can only read English texts, you are likely being poisoned

I find the question contains awkward assumptions. For Nagarjuna nothing would really exist or ever really happen. This would seem to be his answer to Q2 and maybe Q1 also.

@PeterJ not sure what you're getting at. i don't mention Nagarjuna, nor things really existing or happening. what awkward assumptions?

Yogacara is associated with Mahayana thus with Nagarjuna, as Mishu notes, In this case N's teachings are relevant.here. Assumption built into the question are a multiplicity of moments and the idea they have a duration. These make the questions tricky to answer directly. Or, they do for me anyway.   . . .

true, and also disassociated. i believe that there are a multiplicity of moments, and that these appear to have continuity. this is not unique to mahayana buddhism [and all mahayana buddhism kinda "began" with nagarjuna]

Your belief is not consistent with Mahayana.or mysticism in general. You might enjoy this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW8CwGUW8vk

obviously if i agreed i would not have posted the question

Like Andrei says, this isn't something normally taken up by yogacara.  Nevertheless, if you wanted to pull this system into the discussion, it would seem that yogacara argues in favor of continuity at least in respect to the unenlightened mind.  One of the characteristics of the alaya vijnana is that it gives a false notion of consistency to the self and the thrice transformed objects of consciousness.  Specifically in regards to mind consciousness, the cetas are superimposed by the alaya in a consistent way.   I don't know of any instance where yogacara makes the argument that all consistency is vacated upon enlightenment, but it stands to reason that once the transformations are abandoned, each sense object and mental construct becomes fully discrete and not warped by residual mental seeds in the alaya.

The teaching that we should regard all phenomena as like an illusion is not exclusive to Yogachara. In fact, this teaching can be found extant in the canonical texts of all surviving Buddhist traditions including both the root texts of the Mahayana and Theravada.
I would suggest dropping this line of inquiry or at least treading very carefully as you seem quite confused about what is being taught by the differing traditions and their soteriological aims. The Yogachara tradition really does not enter into this specific question.

thank you for the concern, but i'm not sure what your point is. yogacara does talk consistently about illusion, arguably more than any other tradition. there's nothing especially confusing about buddhist scholasticism, only what to believe

what is your aim in such scholasticism? your moniker implies you are 'sorta' buddhist. what does this mean? it is a major fault for someone to teach emptiness doctrine to those whose minds are not ready for it and for very good reasons.

oh, i'm trying to work out what is a reasonable / rational belief, that's all. before -- i hope -- practicing [more].

have you taken refuge in the three jewels? do you work on the method aspect of the path? where are you getting your ideas from? i think a lot comes from western academics, no?


text:
Looking for help for Practise / Method to overcome distubring external sounds
Can anyone recommend a practice to overcome disturbing sounds. Many times when I meditate or turn inwards I am disturbed by a neighbors loud barking dogs or other loud sounds.
I've tried doing visualization, clearing the space energy, Feng Shui mirrors, ear plugs (help to some degree), even talking to the neighbor but I seem to be often in irritation by this. The external disturbance is affecting my inner-commune.
I also find my attention goes to that external sound and I feel tense/disturbed by the energy of it.
I'd appreciate any ideas / thoughts on how to stay centered and undisturbed in the face of external disturbance / inconsiderate neighbors.
Thanks in advance.
Rich

Just a small suggestion:: may be you can try either to meditate at different place or by observings thoughts regarding sound. Wishes.

You got to get to the bottom of this "disturbance" thing. Try changing the thing you are focusing on to the experience of the external "disturbance".
There is a sound(the dog barking) and then there is a feeling of disturbance? The more you just witness  the sound of the dog barking as it happens, the less disturbing is happening. If you only witness the sound then how could you witness the disturbance?  how could there even be a disturbance?

You know, once I was leading a meditation group when a whole bunch of laughing, screaming children came running through the room.  Long story, that, but it wasn't an issue. Meditation happened. One of the things we have to learn, eventually, is that there are no external disturbances. There are only internal disturbances as our mind reacts to things with anger, outrage, irritation, or whatever. If it's not screaming kids or a barking dog or a low-flying plane, it will be a persistent itch or the hum of a fan or a cricket that's just a little bit off key. If the mind is looking to unsettle itself, the mind will find something to unsettle itself over, and it doesn't matter how big or small, how loud or quiet, how far or near that might be. The mind will seize on it and magnify it into a crisis.
The trick is to realize that the thinking mind wants to be unsettled, because when it's unsettled it has something to do. It can happily occupy itself complaining about or trying to solve whatever problem it has fixated on. When it does that, all we can do is sit with it like a parent with a child, and let it fuss itself to sleep. Part of what we're trying to do in meditation is teach the thinking mind that it doesn't have to fuss over every little violation of its expectations: that a dog can bark or a child can scream and it does not necessarily call for any action or reaction on your part at all. Of course, that equanimity doesn't come overnight, but keep it in mind as a standard for your practice.

The dog's bark has got to be the most distracting noise ever made. It is intended to get your attention.
Try thoroughly sound insulating the 'sitting' room.
When the sound is sufficiently reduced, it is possible to introduce distraction by concentration on something interesting and to generate 'friendly vibrations' towards the dog. The dog is usually feeling lonely, left in the house/apartment all alone all day. It will respond to projected friendly thoughts. Sometimes. Those are the worst because they can bark all day/night long; at least the dog that is protecting its home will stop when the danger is gone.
With most other noises remembering that transience is the nature of all things will help. It isn't going to last forever.
It will also help for you to know that with time and practice you will soon enough be able to ignore sound. See this as a sign of your current state; your ability to concentrate needs to be strengthened. When you see it as your problem and not that it is a problem that is likely to be solved by trying to change the nature of dogs or their owners, half the problem will disappear.
Lowbrow's answer is also helpful. It gets to the essence.

When the screams of the world intrude, it's hard to feel blissful. And in the beginning of practice, one does need peace to develop. One needs a focus for meditation. We can't all summon the forest as dogs bark and neighbors squabble. Those sounds irritate us with memories of our own daily struggles. We crave peace and seek it in meditation.
But meditation initially requires a focus. And focusing on something that isn't readily available is very frustrating. It's hard to focus.
Some remedies include:

Attend a retreat. Retreats leave us with a memory of peace that we can focus on in the noisy city.
Listen to suttas as you sit. Suttas are not silent, but they are a perfectly fine and wholesome focus for your mindfulness. In this way, your practice Right Mindfulness attending to the words of the Buddha. And Right Mindfulness precedes Right Immersion, which is the eighth step in the Noble Eightfold Path.
Listen to Buddhist chants as you sit. The chants are wholesome and you don't even need to understand them--they simply provide a wholesome focus.
Focus on your breathing. This is mindfulness of the body.
Use noise-cancelling headphones. These give a measure of distance so you can focus better. They are also a prop to be abandoned as your focus gets stronger.
Meditate with a group for mutual support.
Meditate on a koan or meaningful phrase as a focus.
Abandon resentment and focus on love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.

May you become an island of peace for the world.

Thank you for all your wonderful replies. I've been given something to work with here. I've been reciting a mantra (Om Man Padme Hum) which seems to help although not certain if it's the unending answer. Work in progress.


text:
What is admiration? How to stop craving it?
After a deep contemplation of why I couldn't move on from a relationship I found that it was because I am not getting admiration from anyone else. Actually, in past she admired me when no one else did. I was in great need of admiration and she showed me that just then. She filled a hole in me that time, made me feel good about myself. Now that we are not together, I am depressed, demotivated and not a man anymore. I am craving that admiration so much. I do not have any contact with any other girl in my life. I also realised why she admired me. But now I'd be foolish to seek the same admiration from someone else while I am not having those qualities that make people admire me anymore. Also she was my first love and soon I had developed sexual interest in her. So, admiration + first love + sexual interest made me feel on top of the world. I was teen back then. Now I can't move on. What do i do?

As per previous Q/A   b/w us, you are craving for her presence, respect her-- don't desire to use her for selfish purpose, admiration is nothing more than developing my image in mind of others, you must already know this, if you do vipassana. Metta.

You need to try and focus on yourself rather than her. Whatever qualities she admired in you, you need to show yourself these qualities. Let's say she admired your smile, every time you look in a mirror, tell yourself "I have a beautiful smile and this is all mine".
You need to accept yourself first and everyone else will take a back seat. It won't be easy and instant but it's a start. Tell yourself that you are in love with a version of her that you created up in your mind. The idea of her and "her" are two different people.
Also, writing down your thoughts help. Another technique is to realize the importance of people who love you like family and friends who are around. You need to understand that these are the ones who truly care about you and you need to get your life back on track for them. Everyday try and find something in people close to you that attracts you to them. This will help lower her importance in life.
Hope this helps!

With respect, I think it is quite clear that focusing on himself and his own well being rather than her well being is exactly what the poster is already doing and it is leading to much suffering and pain. He's looking for a way out of this.

Hello Equanimous_being,
It is good that you have been doing some deep inward contemplation and trying to identify these negative emotions! What precisely are these thoughts and where do they come from? What motivates them? What causes them and what can be done to stop them from arising? You've done well to see that they are unsatisfactory and causing you much grief.
You've identified that at least part of the lust for this girl comes from the way she made you feel about yourself while you were together. She admired you and found you desirable. This felt pleasurable to be seen by another as worthy of admiration. And now you find yourself desiring this admiration and find it's absence painful.
What you are describing is suffering that comes from preoccupation with what Buddhists call the Eight Worldy Concerns. They are four pairs of aversions/desires that preoccupy sentient beings and cause much suffering. Reflect and see if these describe in part what you are feeling:

Taking delight in having money and material possessions, and the other one in the pair is being disappointed, upset, angry when we lose them or don’t get them.
Feeling delighted when people praise us and approve of us and tell us how wonderful we are, and the converse is feeling very upset and dejected when they criticize us and disapprove of us—even if they are telling us the truth!
Feeling delighted when we have a good reputation and a good image, and the converse is being dejected and upset when we have a bad reputation.
Feeling delighted when we experience sense pleasures—fantastic sights, sounds, odors, tastes and tactile sensations—and feeling dejected and upset when we have unpleasant sensations.

Does this sound like what you are experiencing? You are not alone. Nearly everyone struggles with these cravings and desires.
It is important to note this has nothing to do with this girl. She is tangential to these thoughts. If it were not her it'd be someone else you'd be focusing on. Were a beautiful women to meet you tomorrow and shower you with admiration and physical sensation you'd likely forget all about this other girl don't you think?
You've noted that you met her in your teens and that you don't think you have the same qualities anymore. Well, nothing is permanent is it? Our bodies start out fresh and young and move through life until at the end they inevitably break down. Any physical beauty that we might have once possessed fades. Inevitably and inexorably so. There is nothing we can do to prevent this.
You are going to die. That is an absolute certainty and there is nothing you can do to prevent it. All the admiration from all the beautiful people in the world will do nothing for you as you lie on your death bed. Your body will break down and die and the eight worldly concerns will help you not one little wit when this happens.
Contemplation of our inevitable death is a very powerful way of turning our thoughts from the eight worldy concerns and focusing on that which is truly beneficial and can help us find what is meaningful in this very life. When you are lying on your death bed and can look back on all the love you gave and all the compassion and kindness you showed to others... that is what will count.
Again, the way out of this unsatisfactory predicament of preoccupation with lust and craving for this girl is to concentrate on other's well being when you can and to let these thoughts be. Just let them be. They will pass as all things do. Try to develop some healthy habits in their wake.
Maybe try and read more about the eight worldy concerns.

Hello Yeshe Tenley, this is accurate. This is what I am going through. Thank you. I will start my practice of contemplation of death

Great. Here is a another great resource about the Eight Worldly Concerns and how contemplations on death and impermanence can help us rid ourselves of these impulses. https://tricycle.org/magazine/parting-four-attachments/

Once blessed with love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity, one would quite certainly miss them. These are the brahmaviharas.
The interesting thing about the brahmaviharas is that craving them results in suffering as others depart or otherwise move on. But having been blessed as the receiver of brahmavihara, we also understand them and know how important it is to bring the brahmaviharas into the world.
If one has only one last drop of love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity, even just half a memory, one also has a choice. One can choose to share. One can choose to share whatever love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity one has left with oneself and others. In doing so, one can ease pain and suffering.
The giving and practice of love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity is limitless. To let go of craving, one simply has to count oneself wealthy enough to share and give love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity. So practice love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity towards yourself and others. Find the love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity inside yourself to share. And in the sharing, love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity will grow.

AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say. The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.  The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.  But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.


text:
What works analogous to works of mercy do Buddhist monks practice?
In Christianity monks and nuns practice works of mercy which include caring for the terminally ill or doing what St. Teresa of Calcutta did. What works analogous to what St. Teresa of Calcutta did do Buddhist monks practice?

This link might be of some interest... https://www.parami.org/buddhist-community-welfare-organisations/

I believe monks are enjoined to do the same for each other -- Kucchivikara-vatthu: The Monk with Dysentery
But  not to act as doctors for lay society in general -- reference

Thus, bhikkhus should not become doctors, full-time nurses or attendants to invalids. They were supposed to live a simple, unencumbered life sustained by sufficient nutriment, appropriate medicines and advanced health standards for the full-time pursuit of spiritual liberation."
"When the Buddha referred to tending the sick, he was referring to fellow monastics. The Commentary,... [has that] a bhikkhu may prescribe and supply medicine to... his parents, to those caring for his parents, to lay-attendants of the monastery and to those residing in the monastery preparing to ordain; a bhikkhu may also [etc.]

Some will act like chaplains occasionally, if invited to -- visiting someone terminally ill and their family in hospital.
Other "acts of mercy" are a fairly rigorous discipline of being harmless, including not killing animals or insects -- and accepting charity (on the theory that it's good for laypeople to practice charity) -- and teaching the doctrine -- and so on, carrying on the Buddhist discipline and relaying the doctrine.

What the Missionaries of Charity did or do is a bit unusual among Christian monastics, though as the French proverb says, "If they didn't exist one would have had to have invented them."
There may be some analous organization among Buddhist monastics, here for example -- Fighting addiction at a Thai monastery -- that's maybe a close parallel but unusual/atypical too though.

My teacher - a Tibetan Buddhist monk - is constantly visiting the sick and dying and consoling the relatives of those who are afflicted among the lay community.  I know other monks and nuns who minister in prisons, who counsel death row inmates, who work with struggling youth. You can find monks and nuns who work on social justice issues, who work with interfaith organizations, who are constantly busy teaching and spreading the Dharma to all those who could benefit from it.
It is not hard to find many, many examples of Buddhist monks and nuns both contemporary and throughout history doing such work, but few are as famous as St. Theresa of Calcutta. Generally speaking, Mahayana monks and nuns train there whole lives to be living Bodhisattva's working for the benefit of others.

Your Tibetan teacher: was he born and raised in Tibet and disciplined in Tibetan monasteries?

Yes, he escaped Tibet as a young adult and was trained at Sera Jey monastic university in India and received his Geshe degree and now lives in the West.


text:
Where is ignorance, and why does it not end with death?
Where is ignorance, and why does it not end with death? Can we experience it? Does it have to be actively conditioning formations for us to experience it, or can we know this nidana even when freed from it?
I'm interested in an answer from any tradition.

it's a "cause", i guess. do causes exist both inside and outside their effects?

Hi sorta_buddhist, I have seen some of your questions on this site and they seem generally oriented towards emptiness questions, but with a lot of western philosophical notions spliced in and without a lot of detail as to where you are getting your questions/notions/definitions from. I've been trying to think how to answer or help you in whatever you are looking for, but it is difficult when the notions and jargon are imprecise or unclear. Take this question: you seem to be asking where (as in physical coordinates) 'ignorance' is, but I don't understand this... are you looking for x,y,z coord?

yeah, i was asking if it had a location.

Buddha said we should investigate for ourselves and seek out such answers. Where is your ignorance? Does it have a location or not? Whatever answer you come up with... why would it be different for others?

that makes sense, thanks.

Where is ignorance, and why does it not end with death?

Ignorance is absence of right view. It's not tangible, as much as it is a lacking.
The buddhist notion of rebirth says that we're destined to samsara until sotapatti/"stream-entry" occurs to break the cycle.

Can we experience it?

The most tangible evidence of avijja/ignorance is dukkha/suffering.

Does it have to be actively conditioning formations for us to experience it, or can we know this nidana even when freed from it?

Regarding the first half of your question, ignorance is most likely conditioning formations in both a passive/and an active sense: Sometimes we end up in trouble without seeing it coming, and sometimes we end up in trouble because we deliberately ignore the consequences we have coming to us. These are two examples of how avijja may affect us.
Can't answer the last part of your question though. Sorry.

fair enough, thanks for the answer

Ignorance includes self-view. Similarly, "death", being the idea "a being" or "a person" dies, is also a self-view. Since "death" is a self-view, the idea/mental construct of "death" cannot end ignorance.
When there is no self-view, there is no ignorance and there is also no idea of "death", as follows:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
  at peace is not born, does not age, does not die....
https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/bodhi

Therefore, the 'Deathless' can end ignorance but 'death' cannot end ignorance.

i'm not sure i completely agree, but it's worth stating

i don't expect you to agree, based on the speculative nature of your question.

i mean "no idea of death", fwiw, not the rest of it

its all the same. you criticized me once for rejecting your "mind only" ideas and now you criticize me when i say "death" is a mind only phenomena

i'm not sure we disagree


text:
Does Buddhism have a notion of providence leading unbelievers?
Whenever an unbeliever starts inquiring regarding Buddhism or the Buddha's teaching, do Buddhists see this as providence leading the unbeliever to Buddha's faith or something else? Does Buddhism's notion of providence extend beyond karma?

Buddhists do not believe in a creator God nor in his or her divine providence. Buddhists believe in the law of cause and effect. When someone encounters the Buddhadharma it is because the causes of such a meeting are established and manifest.
There is no notion of divine providence and it is held that the law of karma is sufficient and necessary to explain how people encounter the Buddhadharma. Hope this answers your question.

How can Buddhism have a notion of holiness without God?

Hi BalancedTryteOperators, I see you changed your comment. Maybe open a new question, but please try and explain as I am not sure what difficulty you are having with contemplating holiness without God? Maybe you can start by defining what you mean by holy and how you see God as instrumental in this definition? Maybe it is just the case that Buddhism does not have a notion of 'holiness' analogous to what you have in mind?

Buddhists do NOT believe in "cause and effect". Sariputta said "One who sees dependent origination sees the dharma. One who sees the dharma, sees dependent origination." What is dependent origination? It is "emergence". Emergence is the opposite of "cause and effect".

Buddhism would say karma or volition (rather than an act of providence) brings people to Buddhism. This said, this kamma/volition is not always wholesome.
For example, a wholesome kamma bringing an individual to Buddhism is awareness of suffering and wanting to end this suffering. SN 12.23 says suffering is the supporting condition for faith.
An unwholesome kamma bringing an individual to Buddhism is believing the Buddha is like a god with unconditional love who loves you unconditionally, regardless of your unwholesome nature. In this situation, such an individual starts to believe their own unwholesome belief systems are what the Buddha taught.

I'm not sure what "providence" is -- perhaps a combination of foresight and loving care for man.
I think there are elements of foresight -- "wisdom" features highly as a virtue; and if you're looking for parallels with the divine there are some elements of doctrine like Abhijñā (though I don't see that as central to the doctrine nor relevent to most practitioners).
As for loving care, you might find that in the Brahmaviharas which I think are meant to be a feature of Buddhist society, for example --

In Pali, the language of the Buddhist scriptures, these four are known under the name of Brahma-vihara. This term may be rendered by: excellent, lofty or sublime states of mind; or alternatively, by: Brahma-like, god-like or divine abodes.
These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are [etc.]

As for karma that's sometimes associated with "intention", and I suppose that "inquiring" is a consequence of various intentions -- to a large extent, the student's intentions. But it could also (since this is what you're asking) probably be traced back to the Buddha's intentions -- who, according to scripture, having found nibbana (nirvana), decides to teach: for the sake of those who will understand, see and hear.
And parents' and teachers'.

Can I tell you joke? I was told that, standing in a shop in Wales, someone was listening to two people talking Welsh -- and heard the word "efficient" used in a sentence. Apparently there's "no exact equivalent" for that word in Welsh! So they used the English word.
Similarly, "unbeliever" sounded to me like a Christian term -- Chritianity, with its emphasis on "faith" -- or "infidel".
Not that there is no Buddhist vocabulary (there is), but that word -- "unbeliever", rich in history -- struck me as having maybe "no exact equivalent".
How to explain what Buddhism is?
I guess I also see it as a consequence of characteristics of the dhamma (the doctrine).

There is one word that is pretty close, I guess... Icchantika.


text:
Should we pay for buddhist teachings or retreats?
Good evening everyone.
I am a newcomer to buddhism, although i have been reflecting on and practicing many concepts very much ressembling to buddhism for a decade.
I understand that monks and nuns need to make a living, however it seems to be a tendency to ask for money during teachings. As someone who grown up around christians, i am used to giving money on a volunteer basis but i might just be totally wrong about this. Of course there are always expenses and it is normal that we participate.
I am however very sceptical when people ask for too much money, especially when they are supposed to teach us.
In my life, i have encountered greed many times, and i have been acting with greed in my mind on several occasions. It took me a few years to understand it was wrong and i don't consider myself so greedy anymore.
Retreats are also extremely expensive in some monasteries.
I am however far from a saint and still an outsider to buddhism in general, so my words might be missplaced.
It is my belief that money is indeed the root of all evil as some christians like to say. It tooks me years to realize it. So what do you think about paying for teachings, retreats, etc? Is this common practice in buddhism?

And see also -- Are there Theravada meditation retreats that allow one to work for room and board? -- (can't add more than 5 items in the list of duplicates above).

"Should we pay..." wasn't really asked so far, allthought it might be included in other questions answers. To answer short: if someone offers something for a certain exchange and one wished to receive it, it's proper to pay the deal, otherwise it would be against ones good observation of precepts. If right to wish something material back for Dhamma is the offerers issue and his Kamma an certain good not to approve, but wrong to demand something someone is not willing to give, although if not praiseworthy at all. Maybe good to do not mix pay and charge, one's deeds, that of another.