What is the Classical Theravādin view regarding the taking of psychedelics Bhante? I don't know of any explicit mention of psychedelics, but I think they're implicitly included in the fifth precept by the term majja . Whereas surā and meraya are defined as two kinds of alcohol, majja is defined as ...

While this may work for you this is not really a standard or normative path for a lay follower at all. Why "not really... normative"? The Mahāvacchagottasutta (MN73) speaks of both kāmabhogī householders and brahmacarī householders, and states that in both camps ariyasāvakas can be counte...

So which one of the 7 do you favor for the sati formula? simultaneous, sequential, causal? Pubbakālakiriyā-uttarakālakiriyā . Did that list of 7 also include an imperative? That wouldn't be possible. The imperative is a grammatical mood, but non-finite verb forms (of which the absolutive is one) ar...

orval wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 9:47 pm Interesting. Just to confirm though, the spelling is the same?

Yes. In the PTS dictionary you'll find the participial noun and the participial adjective covered in the same entry.

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/p ... y?page=196

But what do you think of not accepting Dana from a soldier? If you mean the Myanmar episode where a section of the sangha carried out an "inverting of the bowl" action against the entire military, then I don't think it was a lawful procedure. To be lawful the target has to be an individua...

I think Budhha specifically mentioned the incidents where a monk could turn the bowl upside down, it appears that there are only eight reasons to do so. In all other circumstances, monks have to accept it. That's not so. The part in bold should say: "In all other circumstances, when a monk is ...

Does this exist in Theravada Buddhism? "Third eye" isn't a literal translation of any term found in Theravada Buddhist texts. Rather, it's an outdated and vulgar way of referring to the uṇṇa , which is the 31st of the 32 marks of a great man, as described in the Lakkhaṇa Sutta. The mark i...

Does " vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ " refer to what happens prior to kāye kāyānupassī or after? There are a couple of old threads by Assaji (Dmytro) which go into the grammar of the term. A short thread on vineyya itself. https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=245680 And a long th...

Am I correct in saying that "karaṇāya" is the dative of karaṇa ? No, not here. When we are using karaṇa as a participial neuter noun then its dative singular forms would be karaṇāya and karaṇassa . Here, however, we're using it as a participial adjective and so it has to agree with the ge...

Can Theravadists not use the word soul? Theravādins can and do use the word "soul" ( jīva ) when critiquing certain wrong views. In particular, it crops up in connection with the two views, "The soul and the body are the same" and "The soul and the body are different"....

BrokenBones wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 12:56 pm As a former leading light in the Vipassana Research Institute demonstrates (possibly the No.2 after Goenka)...

Gaikwad was acquitted of all charges.

https://indianexpress.com/article/citie ... d-6243418/

A simple question: Can a sutta translator avoid his own interpretations of the teachings while translating? No. In his letter [G] remarks that I explain too inductively, that I tend to look for my ideas in the Canon instead of deducing from the passages what they mean. This criticism, however, supp...

I'm a little unsure about using the instrumental ending for both samaggakaraṇi and vācā. Do you think this makes sense? Yes, you can say it that way if you want. But I think a better way would be with the participle karaṇa : samaggakaraṇāya vācāya The meaning is the same but it's more euphonic and ...

That answer would not be my choice. That’s because the Dhamma is not at all summarised in that sentence. Actually it is. It's not surprising, however, that you can't see it, for to do so on a first encounter with a teaching-in-brief is only possible for an ugghaṭitaññū . For the vipañcitaññūs and t...

There is a section in the Majjhima Nikaya where someone approached the Buddha and asked him whether he could summarize his teachings in, one phrase and, if he could, what it would be. The sutta you're referring to is the Cūḷataṇhāsankhayasutta, MN37. What is requested, however, is a Dhamma teaching...