Apparently Q.T. is derived from quiet and originated in the 19th century, although its provenance is not certain.

From phrases.org.uk: The slang term 'qt' is a shortened form of 'quiet'.

There's no definitive source for the phrase 'on the q.t.', although it appears to be of 19th century British origin - not, as is often supposed, American.

The longer phrase 'on the quiet' is also not especially old, but is first recorded somewhat before 'on the qt', in Otago: Goldfields & Resources, 1862:

I found an earlier (1874) appearance of Q.T. that shows its origin is most likely from the British side of the pond.

This clip appears in an American publication of short plays, but this particular farce, My Husband's Secret by Walter Devereux Whitty, Esq., shows on its title page (scroll up four pages) that it played first in London.

Here's the clip : A note on the date: Google Books lists this publication's date as 1876.

The play's title page has its copyright date as 1873.

I cross-checked the date of the play at Open Library , where it has 1874.

Edit: Found an antedating of on the quiet , mentioned in @Robusto's answer, from a horseracing story in New Sporting Magazine , 1847:

"Q.T." is an odd abbreviation for "quiet." Since it is of British origin, I would think it would derive from schoolboys' abbreviations, often derived from Latin.

The Latin taceo means "not to speak" and has solemn meaning sometimes, referring to "passing over in silence."

Thus quae tacenda, or q.t., would refer to "things about which one should not speak."

Cf.

Horace, Epodes, 5.49, where Horace speaks of Canidia and quid dixit

et quid tacuit, what she said and what she left unsaid.

Edit: That in "My Husband's Secret" Straps says that "Q.T." is an abbreviation for "quiet," as one "should have larned at Hoxford," is a pretty good indication that Q.T. for "quiet" is a false etymology.

At Oxford and elsewhere schoolboys' lessons in the classics would have occasional obscene expressions.

I can imagine a teacher explicating a classical text, and then coming to the obscene part, and stating that "here there are quaedam tacenda [certain things about which one should keep silent].

These would be frequent enough that schoolboys' notes would refer to these as q.t.

Then the term would be brought into ordinary conversation, e.g., referring to a master—"he drinks too much, and there are q.t.

[i.e., he chases underage boys].

Then the term would be used for schoolboys' pranks:

"I'll join you on this, but only on the strict q.t.,

" i.e., we won't brag about this even to our fellows.

All this just a guess,

but I think a good one.

According to The Phrase Finder , the origin, while somewhat uncertain, is most likely 19th-century British.

Daily Writing Tips , on the other hand, puts forth some argument for the US origin since the phrase is documented to have appeared in print in 1884, and was in a song in 1879.

World

Wide Words cites the use of "QT" as an abbreviation as a clear sign that the origin must have been US, based on abbreviationism being a known linguistic feature of late 19th-century American English.

All three are clear that the QT is short for "quiet" and the phrase means "confidential" or "off the record".

Oxford English Dictionary

The OED says it comes from the first and last letters of quiet, and is chiefly used as on the (strict) q.t. .

Their first quotation is: 1885

G. Moore Mummer's Wife ix.

It will be possible to have one spree on the strict q.t. Victorian music

I found an antedating.

The University of Reading's Spellman Collection of Victorian Music Covers lists a song called You should see us on the strict "Q.T." from 1877 illustrated by Alfred Bryan, composed by Walter Redmond and written by Geoffrey Thorn.

The description is: Caricature portrait, full length, of G H Macdermott; the titles of some of his songs around his feet.

And it includes the text: (Chorus)

Oh my!

what a pious world this is And how very good we all seem to be What a duffing lot

you find If you only raise the blind And see us on the strict "Q T." The Facts on File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins

The Phrase Finder says: As to on the q.t., in The Facts on File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins , Robert Hendrickson states: "A British broadside ballad (1870) contained the line 'Whatever I tell you is on the Q.T.'" It would be good to know the name of the ballad in order to follow up this assertion.

Unfortunately, the author doesn't give it, from which we can only suppose he didn't know it himself.

Without some supporting evidence that claim has to be in doubt.

Question: I was watching the movie L.A. Confidential last night, and was reminded of the phrase "on the QT", which Danny DeVito's character says several times.   Off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush...   I was wondering if anyone can shed any light on the origin and meaning of this phrase.

Origin of "on the QT"?

It appears that the term "QT" is a shortened form of quiet. There is no definitive source for the phrase, but it appears to be of 19th-century British origin.

Q.T. is  derived from "quiet"  and originated in the 19th century, although of uncertain provenance. Phrases.org.uk:  defines is a the slang term 'qt' is a shortened form of 'quiet'. There's no definitive source for the phrase 'on the q.t.', although it appears to be of 19th century British origin - not, as is often supposed, American.he longer phrase 'on the quiet' is also not especially old, but is first recorded somewhat before 'on the qt', in Otago: Goldfields & Resources, 1862:  There is a potential Latin source from  quae tacenda, or q.t., would refer to "things about which one should not speak"

QT is often said to be an abbreviation for 'quiet', so 'on the QT' would mean that something should be kept confidential. It is possible that the term comes from the Latin 'quae tacenda', meaning things not to be spoken about.

Q.T. is an abbreviation for "quiet."  It is British origin from the 19th century, possibly deriving from schoolboys' Latin abbreviations.

The term "Q.T." most likely originated in 19th-century Britain and means "quiet".

Daily Writing Tips , on the other hand, puts forth some argument for the US origin since the phrase is documented to have appeared in print in 1884, and was in a song in 1879.

The provenance of q.t. Potentially abbreviation and Latinate root

The term "Q.T." is supposedly shortform for "quiet".

"Q.T." most likely originated in British English in the 19th century.


There are a couple confusions at work here.

First, there are different " lexical sets " the word could fall into: TRAP, LOT, BATH, CLOTH, PALM, THOUGHT, NORTH, FORCE.

For the most part, most speakers and dictionaries of English agree that mall is either pronounced with the vowel for THOUGHT or with the vowel for TRAP, the TRAP pronunciation usually only in the context of pall-mall .

No dialect pronounces all those lexical sets with distinct vowels, but each dialect may merge them in different ways.

American English generally merges TRAP-BATH, LOT-PALM, CLOTH-THOUGHT, and NORTH-FORCE.

This means that Americans use the same vowel for TRAP as for BATH, the same vowel for LOT as for PALM, and the same vowel for CLOTH as for THOUGHT.

British English generally merges LOT-CLOTH, BATH-PALM, THOUGHT-NORTH-FORCE, and keeping TRAP in a distinct group.

Furthermore, the cot-caught merger in some varieties of American English merge the LOT-PALM group with the CLOTH-THOUGHT group, making a single lexical set LOT-PALM-CLOTH-THOUGHT, all pronounced with the same vowel (/ɑ/)—for some speakers of American English (me included).

So, a British English-speaking person would think they might hear me say mall thinking it sounds like moll (that is, to be in the LOT set), and that I am pronouncing it "wrong", but not realize that I pronounce all LOT words with the same vowel as THOUGHT words—that is, for me the words LOT and THOUGHT rhyme.

In conclusion, the vowel of mall should be the same as the vowel for thought , however you pronounce it in your dialect.

If you want the original prononciation, it would be the one that rhymes with "pal", from the shopping street

The Mall in London, which in turn got it's name from the game pall-mall once played there.

1737, "shaded walk serving as a promenade," from The Mall, broad, tree-lined promenade in St. James's Park, London (1674), formerly an open alley that was used to play pall-mall, a croquet-like game involving hitting a ball with a mallet through a ring, from

Fr. pallemaille, from It.

pallamaglio, from palla "ball" (see balloon) + maglio "mallet.".

The modern use of the word for a shopping centre has of course lost most of it's history, thus the Americans simply pronounce it as other similar words like fall, hall, ball and call.

There is not a correct pronunciation.

As you said, American English and British English speakers give to the word a different pronunciation (/mɔl/

in American English; /mal/

/mɔːl/ /mɒl/

in British English); even inside the same English dialect, different regions can possibly have different pronunciations.

This is also a word that's subject to strong regional variations in the U.S.

In Brooklyn English, which is where I, a non-native speaker learned it, it's more like 'mawwl'.

In my native tongue, the word for "mall" is "קניון" (transliteration "canyon" and also means "canyon") which leads to puns like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon_%28mall%29

nohat gave a great answer.

There is just one more point, to make about the word mall.

The pronunciation of it is usually different, in American and British English.

In the UK, it's normally pronounced as "morl" (rhymes with the words or and more).

Except, when pronouncing Pall Mall and The Mall.

Those are normally pronounced "mal", like the letter a in the words trap and hat.

Therefore, the pronunciation depends on the context.

It depends if you are pronouncing just the word mall or, you are pronouncing Pall Mall or The Mall.

On a related note, the word mall, is not normally used in the UK.

In the US, it means a shopping centre.

In the UK, it is normal just to say, shopping centre.

The American cigarette brand, "Pall Mall," is pronounced "pawl mawl," and that's the name of that tune.

In American English, it's /ˈmɑ:

l/ http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/mall

Question: In America, it's pretty much universally pronounced "moll" but in the UK, I have heard a few different ways of pronouncing it:   Mall (rhymes with pal)  Maul (rhymes with ball and hence the American pronunciations match up)  Moll   It may depend on accents but which is the correct way?

How do you properly pronounce 'mall'?

There is no agreed "correct" pronunciation for the word "mall". However, most speakers and dictionaries of English agree that "mall" is either pronounced with the vowel for "thought" or the vowel for "trap". The differences are largely regional, varying between the US and the UK.

The pronunciation of "mall" in the sense of how it is actually pronounced can vary between US and UK speakers as the pronounce words based on lexical groupings that follow a pattern. The word should be pronounced as similar to "thought" but this pronunciation varies across the two groups. There are many local variants. In American English, it's /ˈmɑ:. A point to note that UK English speakers use the word "shopping centre" and rarely "mall" anyway.

English has several possible pronunciations that could be used, and since the word is came to the US mostly without context, the pronunciation there is different. While the name originally comes from Pall Mall in London, most British English speakers pronounce a shopping mall differently from The Mall or Pall Mall.

The pronunciation of Mall is usually different, in American and British English. It is also a word that's subject to strong regional variations in the U.S. There is not a correct pronunciation.

It is generally accepted that there is no one correct pronunciation. Firstly, pronunciation will vary depending on the regional dialet. Secondly, it will also depend on the context, with pronunciation varying depending on what you are referring to.

thus the Americans simply pronounce it as other similar words like fall, hall, ball and call.

The American cigarette brand, "Pall Mall," is pronounced "pawl mawl," and that's the name of that tune.

The pronunciation is based on lexical patterns, and mainly is pronounced like "thought" depending on how this is pronounced. There are local variants and either party may think the other is pronouncing it incorrectly, but this is due to their lexical patterns for these specific vowels.

The pronunciation will vary depending on the regional dialect of English.

The correct answer will depend on the context.


There's also refectory : A refectory (also frater, frater house, fratery) is a dining room, especially in monasteries, boarding schools and academic institutions.

One of the places it is most often used today is in graduate seminaries.

It is derived from the Latin reficere: to remake or restore, via Late Latin refectorium, which means a place one goes to be restored.

[Wikipedia] the root of which it shares with restaurant : Modern restaurants ... emerged only in 18th-century Europe, although similar establishments had also developed in China.

A restaurant owner is called a restaurateur; both words derive from the French verb restaurer , meaning "to restore".

[Wikipedia]

Oh, and of course beanery , hash house , greasy spoon , & automat .

Maybe you're looking for the word " eatery ".

One of the best eateries in town.

Also the phrase " eating place " is very common.

There are some other words that I don't think you're looking for them.

But you can also check them out.

Other words: cafe , self-service , diner , bistro , cafeteria , canteen , brasserie

There are lots of words for "eating place": dining room, cafeteria, restaurant, mess hall (military), galley (Navy), and so on.

Be aware that "dormitory" has a specific meaning, and is usually associated with schools, especially colleges.

There are other words for sleeping place, including bedroom.

If you're wondering if there are any words for eating place that are derived from the Latin meaning "eat" (as dormitory is from the Latin word for "sleep"), I'm not aware of any.

Some common "eating place" words are: bar, cafeteria, café, canteen, chophouse, coffee shop, diner, dining room, dive, doughtnut shop, drive-in, eatery, eating house, eating place, fast-food place, greasy spoon, grill, hamburger stand, hashery, hideaway, hotdog stand, inn, joint*, luncheonette, lunchroom, night club, outlet*, pizzeria, saloon, soda fountain, watering hole src

A restaurant, a diner, an eatery, and a café are all places where people go to eat meals.

There is no single word for eating place, there are many.

Restaurant Diner Cafeteria Eatery

You have to make a choice.

Question: The word "dormitory" means "sleeping place". Is there any similar word for "eating place"?

What word means "eating place"?

There are a number of words that mean "eating place" and indeed the phrase "eating place" is itself quite common. Some of these terms include "refectory", "eatery", "restaurant" or "canteen". However, there does not seem to be a single agreed term.

There are numerous words for "eating places" that range from "cafeteria" to "refectory", "brasserie", "eateries".  The word the closest to the format of "dormitory" is probably "refectory" from Latin origin.

Eatery', 'café', 'diner', bistro', 'canteen', 'dining room' and other words can be used for this purpose. 'Refectory' is also used, especially in monasteries, and academic institutions.

There are lots of words for "eating place": dining room, cafeteria (cafe), restaurant, canteen, brasserie, self-service, chophouse, coffee shop, dive, doughtnut shop, drive-in, eatery, eating house, fast-food place, greasy spoon, grill, hamburger stand, hashery, hideaway, hotdog stand, inn, joint*, luncheonette, lunchroom, night club, outlet*, pizzeria, saloon, soda fountain, watering hole. Also mess hall (military), galley (Navy),  There's also  refectory: A refectory (also frater, frater house, fratery) is a dining room, especially in monasteries, boarding schools and academic institutions.

There are many different terms for "eating place", including "refectory", "eatery", "dining room" or "diner".

There are lots of words to denote "eating places" and the use will depend on context, the closest to the format of "dormitory" is probably "refectory" from Latin origin.

There are many words also used for "sleeping places" but "dormitory" does not have an equivalent in English


Fastidious can have the sort of connotation

I think you're looking for.

fas·tid·i·ous ( adj .)

Possessing or displaying careful, meticulous attention to detail.

Difficult to please; exacting.

Excessively scrupulous or sensitive, especially in matters of taste or propriety.

"He was the sort of guy who might ring you at 4 in the morning to repay sixpence; the chap was fastidious about his debts."

Perhaps punctilious would be the word you are looking for?

I would call such a person overly or obsessively proud , or possibly haughty .

But it would depend on the culture.

Such a practice is considered normal in Japan, for example, where the concept of on ( face ) requires it.

I think the word stickler fits very well here, in the sense of a person who's obsessive about making sure customs and rules are followed to the letter.

If I were to use it in a sentence, it would go something like this:

He was a stickler for making sure that even the smallest and most insignificant debt was repaid in full.

It carries a connotation of following a rule to the point of being slightly annoying about it.

I'd go for "stubbornly independent, even in the face of generosity".

I would say this person suffers from an aversion to generosity .

That's not an adjective, but I think the phenomenon may be too complex to boil down to a single word (cultural factors?

fear of indebtedness?

fear of not being able to return a kindness?

feelings of inferiority?

etc).

Maybe generosity averse ? :)

I would call him a nitpicker, after revieing this

I'm not sure whether it would be approriate: nitpicking

How about compulsively reciprocal ?

Someone who is " anal retentive " is a good fit and conveys the speaker's annoyance quite effectively.

Wikipedia describes it thus: The term anal retentive (also anally retentive), commonly abbreviated to anal, is used to describe a person who pays such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, potentially to the detriment of the anal-retentive person. .

Many Danes are familiar with a concept that also seems to be in play in the case of the OP's obsessive debt-repayer.

They call it millimeterdemokrati ("millimetre democracy").

It is typified by phenomena such as the scrupulous analysis of a restaurant bill to calculate who owes how much, the maintaining of a log in order to track whose turn it is to wipe down the fridge door or rinse the tea cups, and the cutting of a cake into slices of precisely equal size (with the help of kitchen scales, in the worst case).

You could say that individuals afflicted with this impulse are applying an ethos of egalitarian reciprocity/responsibility taken to an extreme degree.

(I hasten to add that most Danes are not quite this silly.)

Looking over the other suggested names for this attitude, I don't think any of them quite capture the nitpicking quality of millimetre democracy at its finest.

Question: Let's say you paid for a friend's bus ride, and he insists on paying you back rather than just let it be and stop worrying about it. You even find it rude on his part that he won't just forget about it. Is there an adjective or a phrase for such kind or a person, or for such kind of a behavior?

What would you (negatively) call a person who insists on repaying even a small amount of money?

There are number of terms or phrases that might describe such a person or behaviour. These include "difficult to please", "excessively scrupulous", "punctilious" or "anally retentive". You could also say that this person suffers from an aversion to generosity.

There are numerous adjectives that can apply including "careful", "meticulous" meaning someone who pays extra attention to detail. An alternative is "punctilious" or "stickler" which has a slight annoying connotation. Another option is "stubbornly independent" or "obsessively haughty". However, the trait described could be a cultural trait and a fear of becoming indebted in some cases; one suggestion is "adverse to generosity".

Fastidious, punctilious, nitpicking or compulsively reciprocal could carry this meaning. Other descriptions like being a stickler or 'stubbornly independent, even in the face of generosity' could apply in some contexts.

A person who insists on repaying even a small amount of money could be called a stickler, a person who's obsessive about making sure customs and rules are followed to the letter. Or stubbornly independent, even in the face of generosity. Or obsessively proud, possibly haughty. Punctilious, excessively scrupulous or sensitive, especially in matters of taste or propriety.

There is no agreed term for this concept, but some potentially acceptable terms include "exacting", "haughty", "stubbornly independent" or "compuslively reciprocal".

It can mean paying extra attention or care to detail or be difficult to please.

Possessing or displaying careful, meticulous attention to detail

"stickler" is another term, someone annoying regarding detail.

"stubbornly independent" is another alternative


On a pilot-vs-FBW system perspective, as mentioned in the comments to the question, the most notable difference is the authority priority: Boeing trusts more the pilots:

they can supersede the Fly-by-wire automatic commands by exerting enough force on the controls Airbus trusts more the FBW system: if the system is fully functional ("Normal law") it will always have priority over the pilots to protect the aircraft and keep it in the envelope, but they still have room for "non-standard" maneuvers, e.g. commanding bank angles between 33° and 60°.

The autopilot can be activated and de-activated at will by the pilots, and it sits on top of the FBW envelope protection.

One of the most famous examples where this comparison emerges (and the subsequent debate about which approach is better) is the China Airlines 006 accident.

I won't go into detail, there is the accident report that will provide much more information that I can remember, but suffice to say that this 747 was recovered from a quite unusual attitude As mentioned in the wiki article, the report states that the passengers were subject up to 5 gs during the maneuver and the stress on the horizontal tail surface has been so great that as a result it was damaged: The usual argumentation goes along the lines that, would this had been an Airbus, the pilots would not have been able to save the aircraft.

See for example this PhD thesis at page 184 of the pdf, section 6.2.3 "Pilot Authority at the Boundary":

It is likely that if the aircraft had prevented the crew from initiating control commands that would lead to aircraft damage, the aircraft (and passengers) would have been lost.

The problem with such a comparison?

It focuses on the recovery after the unusual attitude was achieved and totally forgets about the sequence of events that lead to it or, to the very least, assumes that an Airbus would have responded in the same way to the preceding events (then why make a comparison at all?)

An honest comparison would take into account this and acknowledge that an Airbus in Normal Law would not enter a spiral dive in the first place, even with an engine out, as bank protection/attitude-hold would prevent it.

Boeing aircraft primarily feature a traditional "yoke" system, which allows pilots to directly control the plane:

In contrast, Airbus aircraft use a "fly-by-wire" system via a joystick which transmits electrical signals to control the plane: Airbus aircraft limit pilots' capabilities in situations that require extreme action to be taken; the computer may prevent the pilot from pushing the plane past its safe ranges, which could be necessary in case of an emergency.

Boeing aircraft leave ultimate control mostly to the pilot.

Big difference is on Boeing with a yoke, it is like two linked steering wheels in a car.

The pilot not flying can easily see what the other pilot is doing with his controls, as the yoke in front of him moves along with the other pilot's inputs.

On the airbus models with a side stick, the pilot not flying cannot see what the other pilot is asking of the controls.

This contributed to the situation where Air France stalled and fell into the sea without the pilot in the left seat realizing that the pilot in the right seat had his controls calling for full pitch up.

(The opposite of what would get them out of a stall.)

Airbus (A320+; A300 and A310 have traditional controls) uses flight control laws .

In flight, the side-stick input does not indicate desired position of control surfaces, but desired wing loading and roll rate.

The flight computer takes care of trimming the aircraft for straight flight at current speed and balance.

Boeing uses traditional controls, where the position of control column corresponds to position of control surfaces and force on the control column corresponds to force on the control surfaces.

This means that the pilot has to adjust the trim manually when not using autopilot.

The Airbus system is more convenient, but it has its disadvantages.

The neutral stability means that the aircraft won't tend to maintain speed by changing pitch, so the pilots have to monitor speed more carefully.

It really needs the flight envelope protections to be considered safe.

Boeing has flight envelope protections since 777, so that's not a difference any more.

I don't think they are adding them to new versions of 737 though.

My 2 cents:

There are a few things mentioned here .

The sidestick and autothrust systems of the Airbus are different than the conventional yoke and autothrottle system on the Boeing.

The Airbus technology and quiet cruise was great; the Boeing's tactile feel and crosswind capabilities were very good.

There is a difference in the length of the fuselage, making taxiing different.

The handling characteristics in flight are very similar.

Question: What are the main differences in flying a Boeing vs an Airbus aircraft?  Ignoring cosmetics, e.g. nose/window shape (see  How can I tell apart an Airbus from a Boeing? )

What are the main differences piloting Boeing vs. Airbus aircraft?

It seems that the Boeing planes trust their pilots with more control over them. Whereas the airbus planes use electrical signals from a joystic to fly the plane, giving less control in an emergency.


First of all, there isn't one agreed upon definition about when you are truely a Buddhist.

Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher.

Personally I like the view of Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche who has written a book on the topic called " What Makes You Not a Buddhist ":

It’s whether you agree with the four fundamental discoveries the Buddha made under the Bodhi tree, and if you do

, you can call yourself a Buddhist ( ref ).

If you want to mark your decision to become a Buddhist you can ' take refuge '.

This ceremony or commitment can be found in many Buddhist traditions.

More info also here

Anyone can become a Buddhist or you can just practice without any formal conversion.

You do not need to give up Hinduism.

To quote Khenpo Kartar Rinpoche: ...

it is not necessary to give up any religious affiliation to practice Buddhism unless that religion demands actions that contradict Buddhist principles. ....

Also, it is not generally necessary to change your diet, dress or relationships, though some people choose to do so.

( ref ).

Ceremonially, you can take Refuge.

In many traditions, this is the entry or acknowledgement of being dedicated to being a better person.

Kagyu.org has this very nice talk from Kalu Rinpoche about what taking Refuge is and the Three Jewels: http://www.kagyu.org/kagyulineage/buddhism/bec/bec04.php

It finishes with this wonderful thought:

It should be understood that the taking of refuge is not a process whereby the Buddha takes those who appear to have devotion to him and leads them to his side.

Through taking refuge, one begins a process oneself which, going through various stages, will lead to one's own realization of the same state, the same experience as the Buddha.

And I believe Buddhism is open to all, with some gray areas around the insane and mentally handicapped.

If you are not in "your right mind", it is difficult to understand deeply what Buddhism is.

That is probably a different question though.

Conversion into Buddhism from a Zen Buddhist perspective, initially requires the initiate to take refuge into the “Triple Jewels” in a formal ceremony headed by a religious leader.

The “Triple Jewels” consist of three things: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.

This link on Buddhism Stackexchange explores the nuances of “taking refuge” into the “Triple Jewels” from various Buddhist perspectives.

In Zen Buddhism, which includes the Mahayana Buddhist traditions of East Asia the following vows for taking refuge are used:

I take refuge in the Buddha, wishing for all sentient beings to

understand the great Way profoundly and make the greatest resolve.

I take refuge in the Dharma, wishing for all sentient beings to delve deeply into the Sutra Pitaka , causing their wisdom to be as broad as the sea.

I take refuge in the Sangha, wishing all sentient beings to lead the congregation in harmony, entirely without obstruction.

After the initial ceremony, the initiate follows the basic tenets of Buddhism by applying them to their circumstances along with various forms of meditation.

However, the Zen Buddhist tradition generally considers the terms: Buddhist, Buddhism, and Triple Jewels as methods to help the initiate along the path to enlightenment but are not an end in themselves.

So, converting to Buddhism from the Zen Buddhist tradition is more about starting a life long process rather than being a member of an in-group versus an out-group .

Buddhism Plain and Simple by Steve Hagen

It depends.

I suggest you study the essential points of Buddhist teaching, especially the teaching on the three characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self, and the teaching on dependent origination.

These teachings are incompatible with some ideas in Hinduism (Hinduism is very diverse, so I don't think there is always contradiction.)

The main ideas that are common in Hinduism which conflict with Buddhism is the teaching of Brahman, an absolute reality which all of the world derives from.

That doesn't fit, and it would also be problematic if you believe that the Gods are eternal beings who have always existed and always will exist.

However, if you just have love for the Gods and feel devotion towards them and preform Pujas to them, from a Buddhist perspective there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

In the time of the Buddha people venerated all sorts of beings, even including Yakshas and Nagas and the Buddha never spoke against it or forbade his followers from it, and in South East Asia today, some Hindu Gods (such as Brahma and Ganesh) are worshiped by faithful Buddhists and no one thinks there's a problem with it.

If you don't feel a contradiction, by all means, consider yourself to be both a Buddhist and a Hindu.

The Buddha himself had lay followers who where Brahmin priests and it wasn't a problem.

Buddhism is by practice.

There is no conversion.

When you take refuge in the Triple Gem you take refuge in the qualities of Buddha, Dhamma and Sanga through this now has turned into a ceremonial outlook.

You can call your self a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

but still practice Buddhism as at the core of the Buddhist practice is Vipassana.

This can be done by any one.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

For me personally, things really changed once I joined a sangha.

I view the joining of a sangha (Taking Refuge in the sangha) as the moment I became a Zen Buddhist.

You can practice Buddhism without converting.

You convert to Buddhism by reciting the Three Refuges and the Five Noble Precepts.

Question: I am a Hindu, but I like Buddhism. How does that work? Does one need to convert to practice Buddhism? If so, how does one convert to Buddhism? Can anyone convert to Buddhism? Or can I just practice without converting?

How does conversion work in Buddhism?

First of all, there isn't one agreed upon definition about when you are truely a Buddhist. Buddhism is by practice. There are no conversion rules, you do not have to give up another religion to practise Buddhism, anyone can practise Buddhism. If you wish to mark your conversion, you can do so by taking Refuge. You convert to Buddhism by reciting the Three Refuges and the Five Noble Precepts. However, this is not obligatory.

There is no agreed upon definition about when you are truly a Buddhist. Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher. Adopting Buddhism is about starting a way of life and practicing. People may choose to ceremonially mark their decision to become Buddhists by "taking refuge" into the "Triple Jewels" in a ceremony presided by a religious leader, after which the initiate follows the basis tenets of Buddhism.

Anyone can become a Buddhist and there is no formal conversion. Buddhism can be practiced without giving up other religious affiliations. No dietary, dress or relationship changes are required. Anyone can become a Buddhist and there is no formal conversion. Buddhism can be practiced without giving up other religious affiliations. No dietary, dress or relationship changes are required.


(Bear in mind, I don't have mastery over the language

but I've been swimming in it continuously for the last two years.

The following advice is based on this experience.)

There is a whole list of books about learning Pāḷi .

Some of them you can find here .

I suggest applying the grammar that you learn from them, in Yuttadhammo's Digital Pali Reader (DPR) which will help you learn the vocabulary.

DPR has an easy-to-use interface, dictionaries & various helpful tools including one of the grammar books mentioned in the first link.

These are the resources I use

and I complement them with the available translations on ATI , SC & in secondary literature.

I also confer this Sanskrit dictionary.

I hope this information will be useful.

Good luck.

Courses Partiyatti Learning Center offers two free online Pāli courses.

Pali Online School at the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies is a very intensive 3-week online Pāli course, that involves live instruction by prof. Richard Gombrich , a well-known scholar of Theravāda.

The aim is to enable students to read original canonical texts in Pāli, with the aid of dictionares and grammars.

The course is expensive, but I've taken it and can wholeheartedly recommend it.

I doubt there is any other way to learn a good deal of Pāli in such a short time.

Dictionaries

Pali-English Dictionary (PED) by Rhys Davids and Stede is the most comprehensive fully published Pāli dictionary available to date.

It is freely available online, but the search interface has some strange bugs (the anusvara needs to be typed as ŋ instead of the standard ṃ, and the first letter of a headword must be written in uppercase if it contains a diacritic, e.g. Āsana instead of āsana ).

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/ Several Pāli dictionaries, including the PED (though not all the entries), are available here .

The search interface is much more user-friendly, but lacks more advanced features of the aforementioned one (it's not possible to search for words in definitions, words that start/end/contain a particular character sequence, etc.).

https://palidictionary.appspot.com/ A PDF version of the PED is freely available, as well as a text version in a single big file.

Dictionary of Pali by Margaret Cone is an improvement over the PED, with more usage examples, but only volumes I (A-Kh) and II (G-N) have been published (note the different alphabetical order in Pāli).

Books

A Pali Grammar by Wilhelm Geiger, revised by K.R. Norman Describes phonology (the sound system) and morphology (how words are inflected), but has no information about syntax (how words are combined together) An Introduction to Pali by A.K. Warder generally regarded as the standard Pāli textbook teaches about compounds (samāsa) and about some aspects of syntax and idiomatic language use, that is, the topics that are absent in Geiger's grammar however, according to prof.

Gombrich, the book cannot be relied on, because it contains strange mistakes, and sometimes is unclear or misleading If you follow a tradition that involves chanting in Pāli (by the teacher and/or by the students), it may be useful to take a look at the chanted texts and their translation.

In such case you are already familiar with the pronunciation and rhythm of the text, so learning should be much easier.

For example, this book may be useful for people who follow S.N. Goenka's tradition: Gem Set in Gold ,

Dhamma Chanting:

English Translation with Pali and Hindi by S.N. Goenka General Access to Insight provides a list of resources for learning Pāli .

The Pāli Canon and its translations are obviously important learning resources, available on SuttaCentral and Access to Insight .

See also answers to this question .

Here is a nice set of well-known Pāli chants on YouTube, with their transcription and translation into English.

It's a good starting point for learning Pāli pronunciation.

For learning vocabulary, I recommend making flashcards in a spaced repetition program (the most popular one is Anki ).

Spaced repetition is a general way to memorise things in the long term, and it is tremendously useful for language learning.

It is especially useful if you don't read Pāli texts regularly and don't want to forget the words.

The techniques for learning Pali are much the same for learning any language.

Something unusual about Pali as a language of Buddhism is that the language is a little different from country to country, especially with respect to pronunciation.

Flash cards, although sometimes boring, are the most effective way to learn enough words in a language to become proficient in it.

ref: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/7151/pali-flashcards

Because people don't like flash cards, there are a million and one other techniques for learning a language, this is a website with lots of people with good advice .

It would be better to enroll yourself and learn Pali from any university or institute but if you feel that you can manage to do it on your own then you'll have to depend on reading and understanding books etc..

Apart from that you'll need to be in contact with a Pali teacher who may guide you step by step, which will be fruitful.

There's An Introduction to Pali over ZOOM

A Summer Intensive Course

No prior knowledge of Pali is required.

The course will start with the basics, showing students how the alphabet is organized and how to find words in a dictionary.

Basic grammar will be covered in depth.

Students will begin to read passages of the Pali canon themselves.

This course will use two textbooks.

The first, Lily De Silva’s Pali Primer, is available in print as well as freely available on line.

This text starts with very simple sentences that introduce the noun and verb forms of Pali.

Once this book is worked through, A New Course in Reading Pali: Entering the Word of the Buddha by James Gair and W.S. Karunatillake will be used to begin reading the Pali canon.

Additional materials will be made available for students via dropbox.

The first lesson was two days ago, the next starts in a few hours from now.

This answer will be rapidly out of date -- the course is 5 weeks, 2 days a week, 75 minutes per day, via Zoom and with a live (not being recorded)

overflow on YouTube.

Question: I have asked this considering the importance of Pali in Buddhism.   I want to learn Pali. I want to learn it individually on my own.   Is there any relatively simple way?   Can anyone suggest me anything?  Any free learning sites will be appreciated.

A good source to learn the Pali language?

S0: The techniques for learning Pali are much the same for learning any language.  There are many books to help people learn Pali if the student wishes to study on their own. Flashcards are recommended for vocabulary. Partiyatti Learning Center  offers two free online Pāli courses. Pali Online School  at the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies is a very intensive 3-week online Pāli course, that involves live instruction by prof.  Richard Gombrich , a well-known scholar of Theravāda.

The techniques for learning Pali are much the same for learning any language.  A variety of books about learning Pali is available, including dictionaries and grammar books. Examples include A Pali Grammar  by Wilhelm Geiger, revised by K.R. Norman  describes phonology (the sound system) and morphology (how words are inflected), but has no information about syntax (how words are combined together).  An Introduction to Pali  by A.K. Warder  is generally regarded as the standard Pāli textbook. The Pāli Canon and its translations are obviously important learning resources, available on  SuttaCentral  and  Access to Insight. Some free Pali courses may also be available.

There is a wide range of books available about learning Pali, including dictionaries and grammar books.  A Pali Grammar  by Wilhelm Geiger, revised by K.R. Norman  describes phonology (the sound system) and morphology (how words are inflected), but has no information about syntax (how words are combined together).  An Introduction to Pali  by A.K. Warder  is generally regarded as the standard Pāli textbook. The Pāli Canon and its translations are obviously important learning resources, available on  SuttaCentral  and  Access to Insight.

Flashcards can be a boring, yet effective way to learn vocabulary. Spaced repetition if a good way to learn things over time.


First of all, lay Buddhists are not required to shave their heads, only the monks and nuns.

In most Buddhist traditions it is a custom/rule that when you become a monk or nun

(a.k.a. Bhikkhu)

you have to shave your head.

There are also monastic rules that say that a Bhikkhu is not allowed to grow hair beyond a certain length or time.

The hair of the head should not be worn long.

It should be shaved at least every two months or when the hair has grown to a length of two fingerbreadths — whichever occurs first, says the Commentary.

The beard should not be grown long, although — unlike the hair of the head — there is no explicit maximum length, unless the two month/two fingerbreadth rule is meant to apply here as well.

( source: page 14 and 15 of the Buddhist Monastic Code II )

Several reasons have been given as to why these rules exist: One of the first things Gautama Siddhartha (who became the Buddha) supposedly did when he left his palace and started looking for a way to defeat old age, sickness and death, was to shave off his hair and beard.

Bhikkus show their commitment by doing the same.

Shaving our head symbolizes cutting off confusion, hostility, and attachment ( source )

Shaving your hair removes the risk of vanity and allows you to focus on more important things than combing and fixing your hair every day.

Hygienic reasons By looking less attractive, celibacy (another monastic rule) becomes easier (at least that's what this author claims, I'm not sure about the validity of this myself).

I believe they shave their heads because they don't want to have attachments to the body or self image.

They also don't use cosmetics, perfumes and so on...

This is a very old practice, including the robes they wear, since the time of the Buddha Lay people don't have to do it, only monks.

One reason with hair is you can use it for beautification like having a hair style.

Monks are not allowed to use mirrors or look at once face unless it is for medical reasons or contemplating of aging and impermanence.

Long hair was the style many people had during Buddha's time

some this prevents any styling and beautification.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

It is an act of renunciation of the beauty or attractiveness of the human body or human appearance (Four Foundations of Mindfulness).

Once a person sees and understands the suffering caused by societies obsession towards outer perfection (whatever that is) then shaving ones head is not a big deal!!The act of shaving ones head is very profound and liberating.

It's a statement made by the individual.

that they no longer wish to be part of such worldly ignorance!!Metta.

(I can't comment on this "...

it is interesting to note that once you become enlightened you don't worry about such small things.

Although Siddhartha cut his hair, Buddha kept long hair himself.

TheDarkKnightRules

Nov 15 '14 at 9:48...

" because of some silly rules of this website.

But I would like to clear up a point that 'Buddha kept long hair himself.')

In vasala sutta (story heard) in the Tipitaka, a brahman said this to the Buddha "“tatreva, muṇḍaka; tatreva, samaṇaka; tatreva, vasalaka tiṭṭhāhī”ti.

(Stop right there shaven-head, stop right there monk, stop...)The

Pali word "muṇḍaka" means "a shaveling; shaven-headed".

There we have it.

The Buddha had his head shaven too.

No exception for Himself!

Another reason is the connection to the Divine.

Hair stop energy moving, and in meditation practices they need to connect the Sahasrara as best as possible with the Divine, thus shaving the head allows for better "connection".

There are also specific rituals and procedures for that part of the body that take place after death, but that's another story.

Question: I have noticed when I look at Buddhists, or Buddhist monks, that they have shaved heads. Is there any significance to that?  If so, then is it an obligation for Buddhists, or at least Buddhist monks to shave their heads?

Is there any significance to shaving the head?

First of all, lay Buddhists are not required to shave their heads, only the monks and nuns. Several reasons have been given as to why these rules exist:   One of the first things Gautama Siddhartha (who became the Buddha) supposedly did when he left his palace and started looking for a way to defeat old age, sickness and death, was to shave off his hair and beard. Shaving your hair removes the risk of vanity and allows you to focus on more important things than combing and fixing your hair every day.   Once a person sees and understands the suffering caused by societies obsession towards outer perfection (whatever that is) then shaving ones head is not a big deal!!The act of shaving ones head is very profound and liberating.

Lay Buddhists are not required to shave their heads - only monks. Buddha shaved off his hair and beard as part of the quest to defeat age, illness and death. A monk is not allowed to grow hair for over two months or to a length of over two fingerbreadths. A shaved head symbolises being cut off from confusion, hostility and attachment. It also prevents an obsession with self-image and vanity. It is also considered that hair may be seen as a barrier to energy, and shaving the head allows for a better connection.

A Bhikku is not allowed to grow hair beyond a certain length or over a certain period of time. It must be shaved every two months or before it grows to a length of two fingerbreadths. Beard should not be worn long either.

Gautama Siddhartha (who became the Buddha) supposedly shaved off his hair and beard  when looking for a way to defeat old age, sickness and death.

Shaving the head symbolises cutting off confusion, hostility and attachment. It also prevents an obsession with self-image and vanity.

Another reason is the connection to the Divine. Hair may be seen as a barrier to energy, and shaving the head allows for a better connection.


kamma doesn't actually go on.

kamma means action, and it is finished after it is performed.

Nothing actually goes on from one moment to the next; the effects of one moment are felt in the next, and have potential repercussions far into the future.

It is these repercussions that do indeed create a sense of continuity from life to life;

a person who ended their life with a certain nature will be reborn with a similar nature, simply due to the causal nature of reality.

"Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind."

MN 19 (Bodhi, trans)

I've heard this issue described as one of the major philosophical problems for Buddhism.

How does rebirth make sense in the absence of a fixed self?

The problem is akin to the problem of evil for Christians - how does a good God allow bad things to happen.

And as fitting this kind of problem there's been a lot of historic opinion and arguably no definitive answer.

The thoughts and analogies that I have found useful have been One position is that there is rebirth but no-one is reborn.

I fit this satisfying mystical to be honest.

The analogy of the candle.

A new candle is lit from an old one and the flame passes from candle to candle.

We can't say it's the same flame

but then we can't say that the flames in the candles are unrelated.

The contention is that this is an instructive way to think about rebirth.

Another analogy of a pile of coins versus a string of beads.

Reincarnation (with a soul) can be viewed as a string of beads.

There is something (the thread/a soul) that runs through all beads.

A pile of coins is like rebirth (no soul).

There is nothing running in the pile of coins that gives them their location in the pile.

However it is the positions of all the previous coins that gives the uppermost coin it's elevated position.

If none of these work then there is always the Buddha's advice about n ot worrying about such metaphysical mechanics .

Knowing this stuff won't help you get liberated.

I am aware that Tibetan Buddhists will have a far more definite idea about how these things happen.

The perspective of this answer is probably more Theravadan but the book that I've sourced this from is more eclectic and even secular ( Exploring Karma and Rebirth by Nagapriya ).

Looking at it from another angle, what would it mean to be reborn without your nature?

In what sense would the reborn being still be you?

Rebirth without persistence of nature is indistinguishable from no rebirth at all.

Everything is impermanent, even one's nature.

If you look at the span of your life, your year, your month, or even a single day in your life you will see that your nature is in a constant state of change.

Agree with @Christopher Lee on this but with a small addition.

Some strong habits can persist over may lives and even after enlightenment, but in the long run they can also fade away.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Nature doesn't move.

Your thinking is moving.

You cannot think about your nature, you cannot speak about it, because your thinking is a "product" made from the nature by your tendencies which again raise from your habits.

We need to perceive our nature to understand it.

Not to think about it.

It's like to think about meals instead to eat.

Your nature appears when you stop the mess in your head.

Right now!

Enlightenment

Helping others Congratulations! :-)

Question: Imagine a person that is very calm, generous, doesn't like to harm others etc. If this person gets a rebirth in the human realm will he/she develop the same characteristcs?   The point is that Kamma and the last mental state can go on, but according to Anatta I'm not sure about the rest.

Does the "nature" of a person move with her to the next life?

Nothing actually goes on from one moment to the next; the effects of one moment are felt in the next, and have potential repercussions far into the future. Some strong habits can persist over may lives and even after enlightenment, but in the long run they can also fade away.

Karma does not move on, as it is finished as soon as it is done. However, the effects of one moment have an effect on the next. Strong habits can persist over many lives and even after enlightenment. A person who ended a life with a certain nature will be reborn with a similar nature, due to the causal characteristic of reality. Whatever a bhikkhu ponders upon will become the inclination of his mind, with potential repercussions far into the future. However, everything is impermanent, even nature.

Karma does not move on, as it is finished as soon as it is done. However, the effects of one moment have an effect on the next, with future repercussions. Everything is impermanent, even nature.


UPDATE :

These seem to be the first Buddhist texts ever translated into English, published in 1693: THE LIFE OF THEVETAT , Translated from the Balie (i.e. Pāli)

An Explication of the Patimouc, or Text of the Vinac More information can be found in A philological approach to Buddhism by K. R. Norman, p. 4: Simon de La Loubère [...]

in 1687-88 went to Siam as an envoy ofthe king of France (King Louis), and on his return wrote a book about theKingdom of Siam, which was published in France in 1691.

Two years later anEnglish translation was published in England.

La Loubère gave a fascinatingaccount of many aspects of Siam and Siamese culture, and he also included anaccount of the Siamese religion — Buddhism — and the sacred language of theSiamese.

He noted the differences between that language, which he called Balie,and the Siamese language, and noted, correctly, the relationship between theformer and Sanskrit.

He also gave French translations of a few Buddhist texts.

Here is the English edition of Loubère's whole book, which contains the above-mentioned texts: A new historical relation of the kingdom of Siam by Monsieur De La Loubere ...

; done out of French, by A.P. Gen. R.S.S. London: Printed by F.L for Tho.

Horne ...

Francis Saunders ... and Tho.

Bennet ..., 1693.

Some other translations that can be regarded as quite early, include: The History and Doctrine of Budhism :

Popularly Illustrated: with Notices of the Kappooism, Or Demon Worship, and of the Bali, Or Planetary Incantations, of Ceylon by Edward Upham (London, 1829): contains translations of some Jātakas The Catechism of the Shamans (London, 1831) by Charles Fried.

Neumann :

contains translation of portions of a Mahāyāna Vinaya from Chinese Fragment of the Lotus Sutra translated from French by Elizabeth Peabody in 1844

(Wikipedia incorrectly calls that the first English translation of a Buddhist text) None of these publications seem to have made a big impact.

In 1844 the magazine published Peabody's translation of a portion of the Lotus Sutra from French [...].

The publication ceased shortly thereafter in April 1844.

As to the first notable translation, I would give this honorary title to Max Muller's translation of Dhammappada , first published in 1869 , later included in Muller's Sacred Books of the East series published around 1880s .

Beside Dhammapada, the series included important suttas such as Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion, Mahaparinibbana, and others, all of Sutta-Nipata, most of Vinaya, one of the earliest post-canonical texts Milinda-panha, a Chinese version of the Life of Buddha by Asvaghosa, and some of the most important Mahayana texts such as Heart Sutra and Lotus Sutra.

Arguably this was the most notable early publication of Buddhist texts into English.

It depends somewhat on what you mean by a Buddhist text.

The book of “Barlaam and Josephat” is a famous Christian reworking of the life of the Buddha.

It was translated from Latin to Middle English in the 15th century.

Sándor Csoma de Kőrös (Hungarian: Kőrösi Csoma Sándor) was a Hungarian-Szekler orientalist who went to Asia around 1820 looking for the ancestors of Hungarians, but ended up in Tibet instead.

He is well known among Hungarians for his journey and for compiling the first Tibetan-English dictionary and grammar .

He spent considerable time in Tibet studying Tibetan and Buddhist philosophy between 1827-30.

He was declared Boddhisatva in 1933 in Japan.

While I do not know if he translated Buddhist texts into English, it is plausible that he may have, as he immersed himself in Buddhism.

Unfortunately it is unlikely that this will be easy to research on the internet, you may need to go to dusty old libraries to get definitive information

Nevertheless, I thought that this was a good lead which is worth mentioning (since the dates are similar but a bit earlier than in the other answers).

Some of the earliest translations are covered in the Sacred Books of the East ( Dhammapada by Max Müller based on a Latin translation by Viggo Fausböll and Sutta-Nipata by Viggo Fausböll ) series by Max Müller in which some of the books are Buddhist books as per the Theravada tradition .

More notable translation work (in the Theravada tradition ) has been done by Thomas William Rhys Davids who founded the Pali Text Society .

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Question: What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into English? When was it translated and by whom? Was it reasonably available to those interested and did it have much of an impact within academic circles and perhaps to the wider culture?

What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into English?

These seem to be the first Buddhist texts ever translated into English, published in 1693:   THE LIFE OF THEVETAT , Translated from the Balie  (i.e. Pāli). As to the first  notable  translation, this honorary title GOES to  Max Muller's translation of Dhammappada , first published in  1869 , later included in Muller's  Sacred Books of the East  series published around  1880s .

The first Buddhist texts to be translated into English appear to be "The Life of Thevetat", from 1693. Other early translations include "The History and Doctrine of Buddhism", "An Explications of the Patimouc" and "Text of the Vinac". The first notable translation is credited to Max Muller's translation of Dhammappada, first published in  1869, later included in Muller's  Sacred Books of the East  series published around the 1880s, including some important suttas. Other notable translation work (in the  Theravada tradition ) has been done by  Thomas William Rhys Davids,  who founded the  Pali Text Society.


Ostensibly, yes, I can't imagine why it wouldn't be technically possible for the body to trigger an orgasm without any kind of mental attachment.

Of course, it may be that there is some necessary mental trigger involved, but I doubt that is true.

In the vinaya there are several cases that seem to suggest involuntary (physical) sexual arousal involving heat and motion; it seems reasonable to suggest that certain conditions could result in an involuntary ejaculation.

Simpler would be the case where one was intending to bring about an orgasm but then suddenly became mindful, only to find that it was too late

(the point being that any attachment created would be in relation to the prior stimulation, not the orgasm itself).

Either way, it is important to clarify that intentionally bringing about an orgasm for the purpose of pleasure invariably leads to the cultivation of attachment.

Incidentally, IIRC, this is one of the issues that led to a split in the sangha, though I can't remember which one.

One group thought that the fact that arahants can still experience orgasms meant that they were still not free from defilements; the other claimed that the orgasms were just physical processes with no mental counterpart.

I have experienced ejaculation without it feeling "pleasant".

When ejaculation does not feel pleasant, it feels more like semi-painful spasms.

There is no attachment to this experience.

It is not that ejaculation has changed, or even that the experience changed.

It is my perspective that has changed.

If you look at pleasant sensation very very very carefully, then you will see it as is -- and it will loose it's luster.

The same with pain, if you look at it really close, you will see it as information .

No pain, just information.

As Buddha taught, we must learn to see pleasant in non-pleasant and non-pleasant in pleasant.

When we can arbitrarily control our evaluation of sensory experience, then we are free from it.

Does the Buddhist breathe?Does

the Buddhist drink

water?Does the Buddhist eat food?Does the Buddhist exercise?

If all of these needs can be met without attachment, why should sex be any different?

Sex can be entirely to meet one's biological urges, the way we eat and drink and exercise.

I'm not saying it is easy to do so, but it seems to me that clearly the possibility exists.

No.

All healthy humans are biologically addicted to dopamine.

"The brain includes several distinct dopamine systems, one of which plays a major role in reward-motivated behavior.

Most types of reward increase the level of dopamine in the brain, and a variety of addictive drugs increase dopamine neuronal activity."

Dopamine is the hormone that makes you feel good.

If you can orgasm without it feeling good then, yes.

You can never feel anything good without attachment.

Humans are hardwired to like dope just as they do sugar and for the same reason; need.

The need to procreate the species and the need to consume calories.

To experience an orgasm you need some form of active arousal.

If arousal is involved you are attached and goes against the precept.

If it is from other causes like bed wetting then it may be OK as long as you don't fantasise.

If there is fantasy then again there is attachment.

Main thing to remember is sensation is involuntary sometimes but seeking sensations is not without attachments, and seeking sensations can be very subtle.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Here is the thing about Sexual activities....

We do not admire it like the western culture,But the eight fold path is not a hammer on your marriage life.

You can still have sex but with her only.

And if you are single there is a set of guidelines established din Buddhism in finding the correct type for sex (Please refer a good source about Five precepts).

You can very well feel anything without getting attached to it, How do i know it?

well arahants still felt the heat,coldness,soft touch of clothes,the comfort of a breezing wind,the beauty of a jungle.

But still they had no disturbance from it

they even admired the beauty of nature.

But in the examples you are presenting in your question

we can't agree that it can be felt without the addiction to it.

Basically the main reason for sex is the attachment that you have for it.

Sex is not a huge deal for a beginner but alcohol is an addiction with no virtual benefit,it is that simple and under n o circumstances can be justified as something a Buddhist would do.

You can have some help from meditation to fight the urge to drink and some therapy or rehab would also help.that is something you will have to fight on your own.

Remember what Lord Buddha said This is an individual's fight against himself,in it he will need good friends,Knowledge of dharma and courage.

But he must fight alone.

Well we are here to help so start with one day without alcohol and let's see what happens from there.

According to Alagaddupama Sutta , it isn't possible: For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible.

The commentary makes it more precise: According to the Commentary, "indulge in sensual pleasures" here means indulging in sexual intercourse; the Sub-commentary adds that other acts expressing sexual desire — such as hugging and petting — should be included under this phrase as well.

Question: I used orgasm as an example because it is usually the strongest sensation one can feel due to everything involved and all the chemistry released in the body.  Also, I would say that sexual activity and drinking are probably the two biggest challenges one has to overcome when following the 8 precepts for weeks or months.  So, can one feel it without attachments?!

Is it possible to experience powerful sensations, such as orgasm, without getting attached to it?

Ostensibly, there is no reason why it wouldn't be technically possible for the body to trigger an orgasm without any kind of mental attachment. In the vinaya there are several cases that seem to suggest involuntary (physical) sexual arousal involving heat and motion; it seems reasonable to suggest that certain conditions could result in an involuntary ejaculation.   However, aAccording to  Alagaddupama Sutta , it isn't possible:   For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible.

Opinions and beliefs vary in this matter. There are several cases in the Vinaya that suggest sexual arousal. Some people believe that an orgasm can be experienced without feeling pleasure or having any mental attachment. On the other hand, Alagaddupama Sutta says it is not possible for a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking. If arousal is involved, there is attachment and that goes against the precept.

According to  Alagaddupama Sutta , it is not possible for a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking. If arousal is involved, there is attachment and that goes against the precept, and one of the main reasons for sex is the attachment that people have for it.


Causes of False Speech

The root causes of false speech are greed, hatred and delusion.

Greed is the root cause when false speech is used to obtain material gain or status for oneself or someone dear to oneself.

Hatred is the root cause when false speech is used to cause loss and bring harm and suffering to others.

Delusion is the root cause when it is used neither for one's gain nor to cause loss and harm to others, but for the sake of enjoyment such as lying for the sake of a joke, exaggeration to spice up a story, or flattery to please others, etc.

Lying to get a job falls under the 1st category.

So yes, it does break the fourth precept.

If you have intention to deceive, you know what you are going to say is false and then say it then it is lying.

In a job interview you might be asked questions you are not very sure about.

Making an intelligent guess in those instances in fine.

Not attempting may look negative or as a lack of confidence.

Also interviewer will not expect you to know everything but an attempt will be appreciated.

Much like in an exam.

Lying about your experience may not be fine.

Also spin doctering / white lies with a intention to deceive is not fine.

Otherwise putting a positive spin is fine.

Facing an interview is an art in itself which you can master without breaking your ethics and morality.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

In addition to the excellent answers already given, it's important to also keep in mind the effect of one's actions on oneself.

So even if the lie you told had no ill effect on the interviewer or company for which you were applying for a job; (say for example, they didn't hire you anyway), you still know you stated something untrue and that stays with you.

We work to keep our sila good (by following the 5 precepts) because of the good it does for our own minds.

Lying occurs when four elements are present.

a.

The speaker must not be mistaken about what he or she wants to say.b.

The speaker must have the intention to deceive.c.

The lie must be consciously pronounced.d.

The hearer must be deceived.

Associated with lying are all attempts to twist the truth by deceptive means and the concealment of the facts in order to cheat people.

source: Treasury of Precious Qualities , commentary by Kangyur Rinpoche

I listened to a talk by Ajahn Punnadhammo some days ago.

In here he talks about why the Buddha had put a great emphasiz on right speech .

Ajahn Punnadhammo says that by using the speech faculty we can directly input dhammas into other beings mind-stream.

So by misusing the speech faculty (by lying for example) we can directly input delusion into other beings mind-stream.

That is a heavy kammic thing to do since delusion is what binds us in Samsara.

When he said that i really understood the depth of the 4th precept.

is there ever a time to not look and think carefully about an actual situation? suppose one were the sole provider for a large family and lost their job.

one looks and looks and finally an opportunity arises.

and the person can actually do the job.

and do it well.

but!

a degree is mandatory.

the person lacks that.

what to do?

see if they can be hired by demonstrating ability might be on choice.

if jobs are.scarce and the family has begun to starve tho?

me, I would accept that some negative karma would be incurred.

I would accept some delay on reaching enlightenment.

I would lie.

if hired, I would get the degree quietly, over time.

there is no absolute thing to do.

it depends on the situation. to save the lives of others, especially others who are children or otherwise dependant on you, I don't see how I could make any choice that ignored that (but again, a situation could arise in which I acted differently).

to me it seems the essence of Buddhism is awareness.

generalizing or adhering to preconcieved ideas of what to do and not do seems a bit robotic and not a way to further the habit of actually percieving.

it also gives no room to listen to ones inner voice, intuition or whatever you want to call it, which I've always understood to be also perception just not always at the level.of conscious intent.

Question: Since lying is not really directed at a person, can it still be harmful? I have had multiple jobs before when the companies I worked for had no issues lying to me(on a organizational level)   I can see how lying(when done successfully) can make myself believe I am something I am not and hence inflate my ego but what if this is not the case and the lying is only done with a sense of wanting to get a position and work hard and achieve something?

Is lying at a job interview breaking a precept?

We work to keep our sila good (by following the 5 precepts) because of the good it does for our own minds.  So even if the lie you told had no ill effect on the interviewer or company for which you were applying for a job; (say for example, they didn't hire you anyway), you still know you stated something untrue and that stays with you. Moreover, if you have intention to deceive, you know what you are going to say is false and then say it then it is lying.

It is not acceptable for a person to intend to deceive. However, facing an interview and presenting oneself in the best possible light is acceptable. If someone tells a lie with no ill effects, that person still knows that he said something untrue, which stays with him. We follow the precepts to keep our sila good and because of the good it does for our minds. However, it may depend on the situation.  Some people may find it acceptable to lie to protect children or people who are otherwise dependent on them.

It depends on the situation.  Some people may find it acceptable to lie to protect children or people who are otherwise dependent on them.


Dr. Ian Stevenson did research on rebirth, and most of his subjects were children.

As I remember he said during the first 5-6 years of a child's life some of them would remember how they died.

Most of them who remembered their previous life have had some sudden tragic death.

Hence, these incidents seem to be deeply carved in their minds, but this memory would slowly fade away as they grew old.

Most of these incidents were reported from families having Hindu or Buddhist backgrounds because their parents believed in rebirth and believed their child was saying the truth.

In some cases, when the researchers traced the child's past routes based on their stories, they had actually found that the person had existed.

Also in some cases it turned out that the parents have been lying to gain some popularity from local media.

But I think this research is not so popular among other scientists, claiming it has no clear evidence that backs his theories.

Upon his death I think his student continues this work.

Here's link to their work.

(Edited the previous reference according to Ven.

Yuttadhammo's comment)

First and foremost account is the Jataka stories .

These are generally the account of Buddha himself.

Also there are some records of his disciples.

In modern times a famous person who did research in this area is Edgar Cayce .

Also there has been Parapsychology research in this area.

Keep in mind if it is a monk who has developed Abhijñā , they do not openly say they have such powers.

(I know and seen some monks with these abilities who I have been very close to, but they will not come out to the open and show this so if I way so and so has it there is not way to ascertain my claim.)

As a final note, what I can say is Ehipassiko.

Come and see for yourself.

Develop the 4 Jhanas and see for yourself.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Stevenson has published a summary of his work at the end of his life, see Medical Hypotheses (2000) 54(4), 652–659

I add the summary of his paper:

Several disorders or abnormalities observed in medicine and psychology are not explicable (or not fullyexplicable) by genetics and environmental influences, either alone or together.

These include phobias and philiasobserved in early infancy, unusual play in childhood, homosexuality, gender identity disorder, a child’s idea of havingparents other than its own, differences in temperament manifested soon after birth, unusual birthmarks and theircorrespondence with wounds on a deceased person, unusual birth defects, and differences (physical and behavioral)between monozygotic twins.

The hypothesis of previous lives can contribute to the further understanding of thesephenomena.

Well, I am buddhist.

I am from Sri Lanka.

I told my story of past life when I was 2yrs old.

I have seen many others who have told.

The famous claim of Bridey Murphy 1923 - 1995 to have previously lived in 19th century

Ireland is in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridey_Murphy which has references to variously sceptical reports and evidence.

The book "Have you Lived Before this Life" by L. Ron Hubbard (1968) reports uncritically on 43 cases of remembered previous lives.

It expressly contains no evaluation of the truth or falsity of the data, and each investigation was done as an "auditing" session or scientology confessional, where the investigator prompts the subject to recall usually painful, lurid episodes.

Hubbard himself reported an expedition to verify his own claimed past life memory in "A Test of Whole Track Recall" (1968) republished in 1972 as "Mission Into Time" http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Mission_Into_Time .

These books may not be in print now but Knud Eriksen, a Dane who is not an uncritical scientologist, has investigated http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/pastlife.htm

the claimed past lives of Hubbard - there are several!

- and "finds no good reason to doubt" them.

Buddhists must continue to have doubts about Ron Hubbard's claim in "Hymn of Asia" to have been Buddha (Siddharta Gautama).

Question: Although the vast majority of people will not remember past lives, are there reliable accounts of people who have? Specifically are there accounts of Buddhists who have remembered past lives and whose experience can be (even partially) verified in some independent way? Or do people with past life memories generally come from other religions and traditions such as Hinduism?  I appreciate that reliable is a very ambiguous term. If possible could people perhaps note the quality of the evidence when answering. Is it anecdotal, statistical significant etc...?

Are there reliable accounts of Buddhists who have remembered past lives?

S2: The book "Have you Lived Before this Life" by L. Ron Hubbard (1968) reports uncritically on 43 cases of remembered previous lives. Hubbard himself reported an expedition to verify his own claimed past life memory in "A Test of Whole Track Recall" (1968) republished in 1972 as "Mission Into Time" http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Mission_Into_Time. In addition, there is the famous claim of Bridey Murphy 1923 - 1995 to have previously lived in 19th century.

There is anecdotal evidence of people telling stories of past lives at 2 years of age and the famous claim of Bridey Murphy 1923 - 1995 to have previously lived in 19th century. The book "Have you Lived Before this Life" by L. Ron Hubbard (1968) reports uncritically on 43 cases of remembered previous lives. Hubbard himself reported an expedition to verify his own claimed past life memory in "A Test of Whole Track Recall" (1968) republished in 1972 as "Mission Into Time".

Anecdotal evidence of people telling stories of past lives at 2 years of age and the famous claim of Bridey Murphy 1923 - 1995 to have previously lived in 19th century.


Buddhism has the idea of the three jewels : Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.

You said "I believe in Buddha and his philosophy" so that's two of them, i.e. Buddha, and Dharma.

There are parts e.g. in the Dhammapada which suggest it's better to be alone than with a fool:

If for company you cannot find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, then, like a king who leaves behind a conquered kingdom, or like a lone elephant in the elephant forest, you should go your way alone.

But Buddhism might also support (or encourage or recommend) friendship .

For example, the Upaddha Sutta says, I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Sakyans.

Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara.

There Ven.

Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side.

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.

And how does etc.

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

As a zen buddhist in Florida of the United States, taking refuge in the three jewels is the ceremony in which one will often consider themselves becoming buddhist.

Taking on the precepts can be seen as the threshold one makes to become a Buddhist.

Afterwards one often gets a "Dharma name" and formally calls themselves a Buddhist Practitioner.

Of course this is all merely ceremonial but the point of taking on a title is very tied to ceremonies.

I graduated college with a ceremony.

I grew another year with a ceremony.

I became a man with a ceremony.

Ceromonies help define ourselves to ourselves and to others.

However in my personal experience one becomes a Buddhist when they join a sangha.

It is in a sangha where I feel the practice really comes alive in my life.

I doubt you'll find a good answer as to whether Buddhism is a religion or a way of life, simply because there's a ton of stuff that's called Buddhism and not everyone agrees as to what constitutes a religion anyway.

Many Buddhists consider taking the vows to be the thing that makes you a Buddhist, so if you want to make it "official", you can take the vows at your friendly neighborhood Buddhist Temple.

Outside of that, I imagine you can call yourself a Buddhist if you believe in the Buddha and his message.

Do keep in mind that Buddhism is just a label; it's really about how you live.

You need not identify yourself as a Buddhist to live a Buddhist life and many people who identify as Buddhists do not live a Buddhist life.

Can I call myself Buddhist?

I'm going to quote parts of my answer on this question :

There isn't one

agreed upon definition about when you are truely a Buddhist.

Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher and/or have ' taken refuge ' (which is a formal or informal ceremony which marks your decision to become a Buddhist).

Personally I like the view of Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche who has written a book on the topic called " What Makes You Not a Buddhist ":

It’s whether you agree with the four fundamental discoveries the Buddha made under the Bodhi tree, and if you do

, you can call yourself a Buddhist ( ref ).

So yes, you can call yourself a Buddhist.

Whether other Buddhists agree with you may depend on the tradition they follow.

Is Buddhism a religion?

Most Buddhists

I know regard Buddhism as a lifestyle rather than a religion.

However, most non-Buddhists see it as a religion, probably because it shares many aspects commonly found in a religion.

BTW, you may find that the answers on this question 'Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?'

give more insight in this matter.

You can call yourself a Buddhist.

Other people can call you a Buddhist.

But it is only words.

Buddha is real, Buddhism is only idea.

Some respectful people can say that Buddhism is a religion, but again it is only words and ideas.

If you want to go this way, go without unnecessary words.

You can call yourself a Buddhist if you give fair trial to the Buddhist teaching.

You should have some faith the the Buddha, the Community and the Teaching unless you will not try the Dhamma.

Buddhism is not a religion in the sense that a religion accepts a higher power.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

You can call yourself a Buddhist if you like, but that is just a name, much like your own.

Does changing your name change who you are?

Don't worry so much about what you should call yourself, just focus on studying and practicing Buddhism.

If you are not into the academic of philosophy studies, I don't think this is an important question you need answer to.

But if you need to classify what Buddhism is for now,just take Buddhism as a way to help you understand yourself and the world around you.

Question: There are differences of opinion on the question of whether or not Buddhism should be considered a religion. Many sources commonly refer to Buddhism as a religion.  If yes then in which region? Can I call myself Buddhist? If I believe in Buddha and his philosophy?  But it is still confusing! Need precise answer if possible!

Can I call myself Buddhist? Is Buddhism a religion?

Some people believe you can consider yourself a Buddhist just by deciding to, others that you need many years of practice. Buddhism is not a religion as others that simply believe in a higher power, it is a practice. Therefore, if you practice, you are a Buddhist.

Many Buddhists consider taking the vows and taking refuge to be the thing that makes you a Buddhist. Others believe it is when they join a sangha. You can call yourself a Buddhist if you believe in Buddha and his message. Buddhism is often described as a religion, but not in the same way as religions that accept a higher power.

Yes, you can call yourself a Buddhist if you believe in Buddha and his message.


I think I remember a story told of the Dalai Lama walking through a crowd, and meeting someone in the crowd who had some mentally illness.

According to the story, the Dalai Lama took that man's hand in his own and held it for a while, and the man (who had been unhappy) relaxed.

The story was told as an example of His Holiness's compassion (and communication).

I suppose there are several different types of language barrier:

Doesn't understand written language ("illiterate") Doesn't understand spoken language ("deaf") Understands one natural language but not another (e.g. understands english but not chinese)

Doesn't understand technical vocabuary (for example Pali words such as dukkha ) Sensory barriers (e.g. different people are in different rooms) Learning disability (e.g. someone didn't learn to communicate when they are an infant child, etc.)

Mental barriers (e.g. someone is drunk, drugged, mentally ill, etc.)

Language is a "system of communication".

It might be like "a bridge over a river" or "two people holding hands".

There might be a limit to what or how much can be communicated, but language can be as much "bridge" as it is "barrier".

On the other hand, the part of one's mind which communicates using language can (I guess) be mistaken as the 'self' or 'ego'.

Language is a sensory (conditioned) phenomenon.

Some meditative practices (e.g. "guarding senses" etc.) may be intended to reduce one's dependence on communication.

As for literacy in general-- you have to remember that the Buddha didn't write anything down.

I'm not sure that he was literate.

There weren't books, instead people did incredible feats of memorization.

Or did you mean you personally?

So far this community is full of people who really want to help you people with their question.

If you just keep throwing words at people, some will stick.

Usually if it is an interesting question, people will edit your question to clean up the English.

In the old Pali texts, the speaker often uses many words with similar meanings in a row, as if they are trying to make sure that if you don't understand one word, you'll understand one of the next near synonyms.

If you keep throwing words at us, we will eventually get the point and in turn, we will keep throwing words at you until we reach an answer.

(This isn't true on all StackExchange sites, on some sites, like StackOverflow, questions get closed if they aren't coherent and reasonable.)

Language is a means of communication.

When it comes to the Dhamma the role of language is the elaborate the techniques and provide guidance.

The realisation should be at the experiential level.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Language or the word, is a barrier in a sense that it can not present the totality of an experience.

Language is linear and fixed.

Experiences are fluid.

It is not like taking a photograph or making a duplicate.

When one uses language or words to describe an experience what happens is the experience itself is transformed.

Language is a way to solidify the vague feelings and sensations and thoughts as a means to organise reality ( or our impressions of reality).Though language, like thinking has its uses, it is also a way for the ego to solidify experiences which are impermanent.

First we think then we churn our thoughts using words then before we know it we've built a solid wall of concepts around us imprisoning ourselves from the world of sensing or experiencing or just being.

This is why its said that Language shows and hides their meaning at the same time.

So like everything else in life language should be used skillfully and not as a substitute for reality.

I was looking through the answers for the most famous Buddhist story about an illiterate person...

the 6th patriarch, Huineng.

He was illiterate yet

(he could not read or write) but due to great past merit and cultivation, when he heard a Buddhist sermon he Awakened.

Afterwards he just worked in the monastery and the head, the 5th patriarch, did not know of his Awakening for a long time until he did a poetry contest to find the most Awakened student.

Huineng was born into the Lu family in 638 A.D. in Xinzhou (present-day Xinxing County) in Guangdong province.

His father died when he was young and his family was poor.

As a consequence, Huineng had no opportunity to learn to read or write and is said to have remained illiterate his entire life. from Wikipedia I reccommend reading the full story from The Diamond Sutra Explained by Master Huai-Chin Nan.

Question: If I am an illitrate of all (this worldly languages) and I am aware of all the unanswered doubts, then how come i'll explain you 'what I have asked or answered ? There are so many bars in putting questions or placing answers people. Ahh.. Nt easy admin.

is language a barrier?

Language is a means of communication. Language or the word, is a barrier in a sense that it can not present the totality of an experience.  Language is a way to solidify the vague feelings and sensations and thoughts as a means to organise reality ( or our impressions of reality).Though language, like thinking has its uses, it is also a way for the ego to solidify  experiences which are  impermanent.

Language can be as much "bridge" as it is "barrier".  When it comes to the Dhamma the role of language is the elaborate the techniques and provide guidance. Language may be considered to be a barrier in a sense that it can not present the totality of an experience. It is a way to solidify the vague feelings and sensations and thoughts as a means to organise reality ( or our impressions of reality).Though language, like thinking has its uses, it is also a way for the ego to solidify  experiences which are  impermanent.

Language is a barrier in a sense that it can not present the totality of an experience. It is a way to  solidify the vague feelings and sensations and thoughts as a means to organise reality ( or our impressions of reality).Though language, like thinking has its uses, it is also a way for the ego to solidify  experiences which are  impermanent.


As @ChrisW linked above, there are many representations of the Buddha in his emaciated state, such as and .

From the book Buddhist Art and Architecture by Robert E. Fisher, a brief mention of this style of portraying the Buddha is found on page 47

when discussing contrast between Roman and Indian styles of portraying the Buddha in art in the Gandhara region where Alexander the Great had just ended his campaign.

The Roman love of portraiture and dramatic realism appeared in the form of images of the emaciated Buddha, a favorite subject of the region but one seldom found in Indian art.

So while the Romans liked this style, it certainly wasn't as popular then (or now)

as depictions of the Buddha while not in an emaciated state.

As mentioned, the Buddha taught the middle way, so neither his period of luxury nor his period of austerity seem as important or as inspiring as the period of his enlightenment, most popularly depicted with the Buddha looking healthy and serene.

Because it is not the middle way.

Representing the Buddha as emaciated is likely to lead others to fast like the Buddha, thereby repeating his follies.

The representation of the Buddha is not primarily a representation of the human or of history alone, but of the realized wisdom of a Buddha.

Because people often wish to deny that starvation and illness exist.

Even Buddhists find these facts challenging

The fat, bald, laughing"buddha" is a chinese monk named Ho Tai (or Mi Lo Fa) .

Beautiful answer by Robin111.

But I believe the question is why isn't Buddha represented as

emaciated?Specifically why do people have the fat Laughing Buddha statue everywhere especially at the front of business buildings ?

Mainly this is because it represents wealth, commerce, and overspending, something businesses like .

Most when asked say "it's luck.

" These people feel it attracts abundance .

Other reasons this trend has remained so is because: the Buddha did not attain Awakening until he "fattened up" a little, taking the milk curds from the woman, and taking care of his physical form the obesity/fat belly represents happiness and physical health [ironic because I feel much happier on successful fasts than I do overeating!].

Remember that happiness (a result of the 2nd training) is a foundation for Awakening (the 3rd training).

obesity is representative of wealth in earlier times (actually all times, except this past century)

which in reference to Buddha perhaps represents spiritual wealth.

Question: Surely The Buddha appeared quite emaciated when he realized full enlightenment. Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art?

Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art?

The Buddha taught the middle way, so neither his period of luxury nor his period of austerity seem as important or as inspiring as the period of his enlightenment, most popularly depicted with the Buddha looking healthy and serene.  Representing the Buddha as emaciated is likely to lead others to fast like the Buddha, thereby repeating his follies.

Buddha has often been portrayed in his emaciated state in art. The Roman love of portraiture and dramatic realism appeared in the form of images of the emaciated Buddha, a favourite subject of the region but one seldom found in Indian art. The Buddha taught the middle way, so neither his period of luxury nor his period of austerity seem as important or as inspiring as the period of his enlightenment, most popularly depicted with the Buddha looking healthy and serene. It is also thought that representing the Buddha as emaciated is likely to lead others to fast like the Buddha, thereby repeating his follies.