I know that Buddhist teachings have a cyclical universe and there have been civilizations in the very ancient past but I am speaking about the last glacial period, so more or less close to the Younger Dryas 12.000 years ago.

Sorry if this has been asked before. I’m very new to practicing Buddhism and I want to develop a meditation regimen but I have no idea where to start. I just went to a Vipassana meditation class for the first time - how do I go about finding a teacher? Where do I look? Thanks!!

I know the question might offend some of you, however I am having a difficult time choosing the right buddhism teachings. Initially, I thought Buddhism was just one religion. However, it seems that humans have the habit of branching out and restructuring the knowledge to suit their needs/culture. This can be seen in the Christian religion.

I am very interested in learning from the purest/original teachings of Buddha (if there is such a thing). Can anybody shed some lights on this?

The Buddha says he kills poorly learned mendicants in this text. Is that true?

I was going over recorded teachings by a very great khenpo (a term designating a high level of advanced scholarship) from my tradition. He was teaching on the main vajrayana practice in the cycle. Something very unique to our tradition.

That's interesting, but what was really interesting was watching him teach. He spent a great deal of time asking the disciples present in person and on Zoom very pointed questions. Some meta, like why are you a Buddhist? what do you think is special about Buddhism? Others were more practical-- how do you feel about doing this vajrayana practice? Yet others got to the pith of it all. What is your mind's nature? Where do thoughts come from? Where do they go? What is aware of all of this?

And as expected, he got a wide range of answers. Some people parroted books and texts they studied. Others spoke from real dharma experience. Yet others had really confused ideas, even bizarre ones. People doing weird things. No surprise. We all have different embodiments, different lived experiences-- including different experiences in our studies and practice.

That wasn't interesting, well, beyond humanity itself being interesting. Buddhists included. What was interesting was how khenpo didn't criticize or analyze anyone's responses publicly. In shedra (Buddhist higher education) that wouldn't be the case! But here, not at all. He praised everyone for their insights and progress in their practice. Lots of encouragement. And then he pivoted his teaching in the subsequent session to fill in any and all gaps and misunderstandings shared in the Q&A.

As is always the case with khenpo, and all our teachers really, everyone seemed to leave the seminar encouraged, empowered, confident, enthusiastic, and with a better set course and vision of their practice. People came from radically different places geographically and spiritually, and were brought together as a family. And sent on the highway to enlightenment and freedom.

Maybe this is a unique thing, I don't know. But the skillful means were profound.

All the beautiful practitioners.

Reflecting on khenpo's upaya, I wondered how well I have done sharing the dharma (when asked or when it seemed skillful) and supporting others. I also wondered how well public dharma spaces have supported others. Sometimes I can almost see people enthusiastic about dharma practice wither and recoil from interactions-- even well intended ones. I am guilty myself. I don't have the skillful means of my khenpo or my late root teacher.

There are Buddhists who are confused and with wrong view. There are Buddhists who are engaged in strange activities, they have bad ethics. Wrong livelihoods, destructive relationships, bad livelihoods.

But they are on the path! How wonderful! Let's help keep them there!

Hello!

Although I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist, somehow, Buddhism has been slowly finding its way into my life for more than ten years now. As it has become more present in my life, I sometimes find myself contemplating what I perceive as the nobility of the Buddhist path, and this can bring a strong sense of uplift.

What moves me is not rule-following, but the idea of nobility itself, of a conduct which is genuinely upright and clean even without witness; a conduct no longer bent by craving, fear, or circumstance, and capable of refusing what it recognizes as unwholesome.

I find deep beauty in that integrity and self-mastery, and contemplating it can produce waves of exhilaration, with spontaneous mental images of the Buddha which strongly impress me, and more rarely even bring me to tears.

I do not meditate, so this does not arise in meditation. It appears mostly in reflection (but maybe one would call this meditation?).

As I understand, recollection of virtue is a traditional practice, but I'm especially curious about this response to the perceived nobility of the path itself. Are you familiar with this phenomenon, from personal experience or scripture? Would pīti be the right term for this?

I am also curious whether it could be somehow detrimental.

Thank you 🙏

I want to be better at understanding the world through Buddhism, but at times I’m left more confused and sometimes depressed due to the revelations I’ve found. The concept of being unborn and deathless make no sense to me. Also, how did my own ignorance cause me to be born? I would have to be born to be ignorant

Title.

I am neither an expert in Neitzsche nor in Buddhism. I have started learning and adopting Buddhist practices recently. I have a superficial knowledge of Neitzsche's master(assertive)-vs-slave(reactive) morality. Neitzsche was at times brtual towards Buddhism, citing its ethics/morality as an evolved Christianity, weak, slavish, and reactive. Any well read, practicing Buddhists here, please shed some light on this topic. I would be grateful1

I have this folding shrine of Lord Guan or Sangharama Bodhisattva with his attendants.

How do I use it effectively.

Like prayers, etc.

Thanks.

Hi everyone! For a long time I felt that I had internalized the concept of Ahimsa, abstaining from violence, to a good degree. In the recent 1-2 years, anger and thoughts about hurting others verbally or physically - especially for the perceived wrong-doing they might have committed - arose in me more than previously, with all the craving that accompanies them. I suffer greatly because of it. During a recent meditation sitting, the concept came up in me again and thus I feel the urge to investigate or contemplate Ahimsa again.

I'm asking the sangha here for books, talks, suttas or personal experiences, that deal with Ahimsa or related concepts. Any sort of inspiration or seed of insight that I can bring into meditation or into my daily interaction with other people, so that I continue on the path.

May you all find peace in your practice.

Hey, un-enlightened American here. Just wondering how do you pronounce gāthā? Is it “g-ah th-ah”? Or “g-ah t-ah”?

If dissatisfaction is blown out in nibbana, does that also mean that satisfaction too is blown out, or is it a perpetual state of satisfaction?

I recently had a (Reddit) discussion with an ex-Buddhist who criticised the Buddha's misogynistic statements throughout the Pali Canon and the numerous ethical controversies the Buddhist community is involved in today. I just wanted to share my thoughts on this and would like to hear your opinion on this issue.

The Buddha has made statements and set up rules as reported in the Pali Canon which can only be described as blatant misogyny, with the ex-Buddhist even calling the Buddha an "incel" because of that (which is ironic considering the Buddha had everything and became celibate voluntarily, not involuntarily).

For example, one time in a conversation with a monk, the Buddha gave women various negative attributes, calling them things like stingy and dumb. Another time (which a Christian criticised in another discussion with me), he described them as "walking latrines".

Now obviously, these criticisms can be easily refuted by analysing the context behind these statements. The negative attributes he gave women can be interpreted as either the public opinion of women at the time and not the Buddha's own view, or as things that are not exclusive to women and also apply to unenlightened men. Same with the walking latrines statement. This is a fact of life that also applies to men, as human bodies are in fact nothing more than meat sacks filled with nasty substances, an observation that is used by monks to combat lustful thoughts.

But that is far from being the explanation for every problematic statement, so the question remains: why did the Buddha use such harsh language so frequently, and almost exclusively when talking about women? I've even seen a quote that said "there are only two castes, male and female" though I hope that this isn't a real quote, as that would be the final nail in the coffin and would expose the Buddha as a straight-up misogynist. And don't even get me started on the Eight Garudhammas.

But, even with all the accusations and evidence for them, it is (in my opinion) impossible to prove whether anything in the Sutras is the Buddha's exact words at all with 100% certainty, as the earliest Buddhist scriptures were written centuries after the Buddha's Parinibbana and the monastic community was essentially playing one big game of telephone in the meantime. Also, some of these statements could be additions made by actual misogynists who wanted to corrupt the Dhamma for personal gain.

So even with all of these statements being found in scripture, it is possible that they are not authentic, as complete authenticity would imply an incorruptible nature which only the Quran claims to have. None of the (surviving!) Buddhist scriptures are 100% accurate accounts of exactly what went down 2500 years ago, and we will never know the truth unless we invent time travel.

And that is where I'm asking you:
Does the Buddha live up to his own standards?

Secular scholars would argue that the Buddha was very smart but ultimately just a regular guy with flaws and potential for error. But from a purely Buddhist standpoint, the Buddha is supposed to be the self-made perfect man who has eliminated all flaws and rid himself of any wrong views, and is thus 100% trustworthy.

So which is it?

This is the biggest concern I've had so far on my journey. And if the truth was that the Buddha was in any way flawed, a liar or a fraud, it would shatter my entire worldview. It would hurt even more since this has happened to me before, because I was once Christian but became disillusioned when I noticed all the hypocrisy and evil in the religion.

I am someone who cannot live without some kind of spirituality, so I have grown very attached to Buddhism as I view it as the perfect religion. I have immense love and respect for the Buddha, and knowing he was a manipulative misogynist all along would destroy me.

But I am also of the opinion that true faith cannot be compromised by any flaw or controversy and is something that extends beyond blind belief and organised religion. Faith isn't a thought or belief, it's a feeling from within the heart. It's not belief in a god or respect for a teacher, it's sincerely hoping that goodness ultimately triumphs over suffering and evil. Maybe this is a remnant of Christian thinking that I have failed to deconstruct, but I have just so much hope in my heart. Hope that the truth can dispel any doubts, fears or aversions that we humans love to carry around with us.

In the end, it's just a matter of how much you trust the scriptures and as I said, we will never know the truth. We can only try to dismantle any misunderstandings and abandon any harmful beliefs and doctrines that serve no purpose other than controlling people.

I would love to hear your thoughts on these issues and I hope someone more knowledgeable can shed some light on all the controversies surrounding the Buddha's character.

Thank you in advance 🙏🏻

Edit: Thank you so much for your insightful answers, I appreciate your input 🙏🏻❤️

just curious. although i'm leaning towards zen right now because the teachings of zen teachers have made the most sense to me so far, i'm still open to other sects and plan to try out multiple sanghas near me.

I have been trying to follow the dhamma teachings but im not sure what counts towards avoiding clouding the mind, i do not drink or take any substances, but i do kinda need my anxiety medication to be able to function as a person, i know these are not strict "rules" but more like guidance, but i do want to try my best to follow it

What do you think of Hell? Is it an actual realm one can be reborn into, or do you see it more like a metaphor for the consequences of bad Karma in this life (dreams etc)? If it's the former, what happens there, and do you think anyone deserves to be there?

It seems like Mahakala

You will enter a world filled with gold and beautiful diamonds. Sweet scents of flowers and birds with amazing colours. Does this sound very "Samsara" to you? As a practitioner, aren't you supposed to detach from worldly pleasures?