Split (1)

train · 95.7k rows

source stringlengths 620 29.3k	target stringlengths 12 1.24k
Someone has an illness which is inevitably going to kill them. Why? Imagine following situation: A person who thinks of themself as a good person, meaning they are mostly nice to people and act and think almost always morally. Said person is diagnosed with an illness that has no cure and is inevitably going to kill them in, say, a year. How would a Buddhist explain this? I already know about the four noble truths as well as the noble eightfold path. Also I know that one could explain it with the concept of rebirth. But I'd like a more in-depth explanation and I'm interested if there are other ways of explaining it or if I am wrong with the information I already have. <Q> The way my teacher taught me, he said most (but not all) illnesses are karmic results of attachments. <S> In his explanations, these attachments are often tendencies that are passed from generation to generation - from parents to children. <S> So most diseases have roots in attachments that ran strong in previous generations of the family. <S> If a given member of the family has a problem with attachments that were passed on, and this time can spiritually evolve enough to abandon the attachments and grow beyond them, then the karmic disease can be circumvented or quickly healed. <A> How would a Buddhist explain this? <S> There're different ways and different explanations, depending on who you ask. <S> Asking a doctor and s/ <S> he'll probably gives an explanation based the patient's history of smoking, alcohol usage, maybe some genetic/environmental factors, etc. <S> Asking a fitness instructor, maybe the explanation would be something related to the patient's exercise habits, etc. <S> Asking a Buddhist and the answer would appropriately be a combination of rebirth and kamma: <S> "Here, student, some man or woman kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. <S> Because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. <S> But if on the dissolution of the body, after death, he does not reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, but instead comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is short-lived. <S> This is the way, student, that leads to short life, namely, one kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings." <S> ~ MN 135 ~ <A> As used here, the question "Why?" has a bit of a foundation in Identity View . <S> There is an implied question of "Why am I suffering this kamma?". <S> A key assumption of identity view is that there is an essential self that exists in our body. <S> It would be this "self" that generates kamma through contact, feeling, craving, rebirth and suffering. <S> It would be this "self" that would travel between this life and that life intact like a passenger transferring to a new bus. <S> And yet that very body has DNA inherited from our ancestors, who in their lives adapted to conditions at that time. <S> There have been studies that some adaptations for a resistance to a certain disease such as cholera may make one susceptible to cystic fybrosis. <S> In other words, our ancestral selves sometimes survive at our expense. <S> In this case our current "selves" actually span generations of separate lives. <S> The illusion of a well-defined self starts to break down and not work so well. <S> And just as DNA passes from one generation to another, so do behaviors. <S> There are good and bad patterns of behavior passed down through generations. <S> Parent hits child and child grows up to be an abusive parent. <S> If one murders, one believes in murdering and that echoes forward into shorter lives for all (your example <S> MN135). <S> Here, too, one needs to consider where exactly the "self" boundary is. <S> In this way, asking "why?" spins off into more and more tangled considerations, the so-called " thicket of views ". <S> Instead of chasing the "why?", it is more productive and effective to simply observe that: <S> This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self. <S> --MN62 <S> For example, instead of "why?", we might choose to say: "This body suffers from cystic fybrosis, but this cystic fybrosis is not mine... <S> " <S> or "My father hit me <S> and yet this hitting is not mine,..." <A> The past lives effects continues in many ways. <S> People have countless of life-times before they born to their last incarnation. <S> Just because they have complete memory loss that makes them impossible to remember the past lives without using some special methods <S> doesn't make them free from the karmic effects of the past lifes. <S> Karmic effects of the past lifes can manifest in many ways. <S> And illness is one of them. <A> Someone has an illness which is inevitably going to kill them. <S> Why? <S> Because we all have to die of something. <S> Be it illness or accident or organ failure. <S> There is not problem here. <S> There is nothing wrong with dying or death. <S> Everything that arises ceases. <S> That's how nature works. <S> The body breaks apart and then a new mind-body-combo get's created due to clinging. <S> Or was your point the disease bit? <S> (It's possible I don't really understand your question.)In <S> that case, I'm not sure what good speculating about the causes for a certain disease would do. <S> I doubt anyone of us will ever know for sure. <S> Also, what does the cause of ones dying/death matter? <S> It's all just a process. <S> But, again. <S> I might completely miss the point of your question.	In my teacher's explanation, a disease is always a way to get rid of attachment, either voluntarily - through spiritual growths, or forcefully - through loss and death.
Where does it say 'You Are Already Enlightened'? I've heard Zen Buddhism characterised by the notion of 'Everyone is already enlightened'. Is that correct? - does Zen Buddhism actually say that and if so can someone give a reference to a text where it actually says that or something like it. Many thanks as always <Q> Hongaku is an East Asian Buddhist doctrine often translated as "inherent", "innate", "intrinsic" or "original" enlightenment... <S> It is first mentioned in the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana scripture. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongaku <S> Wikipedia also says it can be traced back to sayings of the Buddha in the Anguttara Nikaya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature#Earliest_sources <A> It's the most standard Mahayana teaching. <S> The references are too numerous to cite, almost every other text has statements to this effect. <S> However, it should never say "You are already Enlightened" (or anything naive like that), the phrases are more nuanced and the meaning is more subtle. <S> For example, it may say, "Our nature is fundamentally pure" or "Your original nature is no different from that of the Buddhas" etc. - in an attempt to turn our attention to the existential conflict between our dualistic mind of "this is wrong and I need to be something else" and the perfect suchness of Nirvana in the here-and-now. <S> Now, if you speak with an actual Zen (or another Mahayana) teacher, they will be quick to point out that even though our primordial nature is indeed Nirvana, the habits of craving and clinging are extremely difficult to overcome on the spot, which is why we must cultivate Sila/Prajna/Samadhi. <S> So in some sense the teaching has two sides and which one your teacher will drum depends on which way you lean in your particular state of confusion. <S> If you are inclined to be complacent they will drum the Path and if you are obsessed with the goal, they will drum Buddha-Nature. <S> It's kinda frustrating because you end up being wrong no matter which position you take. <S> It's only when you mature beyond positions is when this contradiction resolves. <A> So I heard, Don't let anyone tell you that you're not enlightened. <S> Not formal Zen lineage, but as Andrei wrote, "the phrases are more nuanced and the meaning is more subtle".	It's a basic Mahayana doctrine, important in other schools as well as Zen.
In which tradition Om Ma Ni Pad Me Hum mantra is used Mahayana or Thervada? It is Tibetan mantra. In which traditon Om Ma Ni Pad Me Hum mantra is used Mahayana or Thervada? Or it is used in all three traditions, since this is Buddhism teaching? <Q> The back cover of the book " The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra " by Alexander Studholme states: <S> Om Manipadme Hum, perhaps the most well-known and most widely used of all Buddhist mantras, lies at the heart of the Tibetan system and is cherished by both laymen and lama alike. <S> This book presents a new interpretation of the meaning of Om Manipadme Hum, and includes a detailed, annotated precis of Karandavyuha Sutra, opening up this important work to a wider audience. <S> The earliest textual source is the Karandavyuha Sutra, which describes both the compassion of Avalokitesvara, the bodhisattva whole power the mantra invokes, and the mythical tale of the search and discovery of the mantra. <S> Through a detailed analysis of this sutra, Studholme explores the historical and doctrinal forces behind the appearance of Om Manipadme Hum in India at around the middle of the first millennium c.e. <S> He argues that the Karandavyuha Sutra has close affinities to non-Buddhist puranic literature, and that the conception of Avalokitesvara and his six-syllable mantra is influenced by the conception of the Hindu deity Siva and his five-syllable mantra Namah Sivaya. <S> The Karandavyuha Sutra reflects historical situation in which the Buddhist monastic establishment was coming into contact with Buddhist tantric practitioners, themselves influenced by Saivite practitioners. <S> The mantra "OM mani padme hum" seems to be found only in Tibetan Buddhism. <S> However, Avalokiteshvara can be found in other non-Tibetan Mahayana traditions like Pure Land Buddhism. <S> Avalokiteshvara is officially not found in the Pali Canon of Theravada Buddhism, even if you can find images of him in some Theravada temples. <A> The mantra is not used in Theravāda. <A> According to this article <S> it is said; The mantra originated in India; as it moved from India into Tibet, the pronunciation changed because some of the sounds in the Indian Sanskrit language were hard for Tibetans to pronounce. <S> and The mantra Om Mani Padme Hum is found written in two different ways in (and on) Mani wheels and on jewelry, etc.: in the ancient Indian Ranjana script and in Tibetan script. <S> So it should be belong to either Tibetan Vajrayāna buddhism or Mahāyāna buddhism. <S> One reason I would say so is, Rañjanā script can be mostly found in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna monasteries. <S> Usually buddhists in Theravāda school of buddhism don't use mantra. <S> Note <S> : This is what I understood. <S> I may be wrong but not Dhamma.	Mantras or some kind of phrase for chanting can be found in almost all Buddhist traditions like " namo amitabha buddha " in Pure Land Buddhism, " nam myoho renge kyo " in Nichiren Buddhism and " namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa " in Theravada Buddhism.
Difference between "perception" and "view"? What is the difference between view (as in "right view" in the Noble Eightfold Path) and perception (as in the 3rd of the five Skandha's)? Grateful for help! Peace, Tord <Q> Perception is making memory. <S> Everytime we are making memory. <S> One is touching (construction), feeling (feeling), and making memory (perception), while seeing (consciousness) a color at same moment. <S> Perception must arises everytime, except asannasatta-brahma and sannavedayitanirodhasamapatti, with a wholesome aggregate, unwholesome and neither wholesome nor unwholesome. <S> View is understanding of relations. <S> It is a kind of construction aggregates, sankhara. <S> It can arise only with wholesome and neither wholesome nor unwholesome. <S> Wrong view is misunderstanding in the relations of aggregates in the dependention origination cycle. <S> It is a kind of construction aggregates, sankhara as well. <S> It can arise only with unwholesome. <S> See the path of purification chapters: aggregates, and dependent origination. <A> Perhaps if you search this site for "What is perception?" and "What is a view?" you will answer your question in two steps. <S> To summarize very briefly, in my understanding, Perception is what happens when (for example) you look at some visual features and from them recognize the whole object, then you take the more abstract features of the object and recognize situation, then you take the more abstract features of the situation and recognize your position and so on. <S> It's a cyclic process of recognition and association, from features to a higher-level concept. <S> View is an entirely different thing altogether, it's your philosophical framework, the basic structure according to which you see life and choose course of action. <S> As Bonn said, both rely on accumulated tendencies (sankhara), what we could, perhaps superficially, call memories or imprints left by previous experiences. <S> But even though both rely on the same foundation, they are entirely different-order phenomena. <S> Perception is momentary, view is permanent or at least long-term. <S> Perception is the result, view is the source. <A> 'Perception' in the suttas (MN 43; SN 22.79) is described as something very basic, namely, the perception of different colours. <S> 'It perceives, it perceives': <S> Thus, friend, it is said to be 'perception.' <S> And what does it perceive? <S> It perceives blue. <S> It perceives yellow. <S> It perceives red. <S> It perceives white. ' <S> It perceives, it perceives': Thus it is said to be 'perception. <S> MN 43 <S> Thus, on its most primitive level, it seems perception perceives differences in shape, colours, sound vibrations, smells, etc. <S> 'View' is views & opinions that are made up many accumulated ideas or experiences. <S> For example, in Dependent Origination, views & opinions are a type of attachment (which is 'sankhara'). <S> 'View' is also the ignorance or wrong view <S> people are born with; which is unrelated to experience. <S> This is an in-born underlying tendency. <S> For example, that a small child expects to permanently get what it wants is unrelated to experience. <S> Its mere ignorance. <S> Thus in AN 7.11 , both ignorance (avijjānusayo) & views ( diṭṭhānusayo ) are included as underlying tendencies. <S> In terms of 'khandha' ('aggregates'), perception is <S> sanna khandha and views are sankhara khandha. <S> Perception does not rely on accumulated tendencies (anusaya; sankhara). <S> That a small child feels the shape, warmth & taste of its mother's breasts is unrelated to accumulate tendencies. <S> That sugar tastes sweet to a small child and tastes sweet to <S> basically all people shows perception of sweetness is unrelated to accumulated tendencies. <S> If accumulated tendencies determined perception then all people would not perceive 'blue', 'green', 'red', 'round', 'square', 'bitter', 'sweet' <S> the same and basic communication could not occur. <S> Therefore, would be chaos!	Perception is objective content, view is subjective frame of reference. Right view is understanding in the relations of aggregates in the dependention origination cycle.
Is meditating when tired a waste of time? I like to meditate sometimes just before bed. Invariably I end up drifting off into dream type states and ending the mediating early. Is it a waste of time to meditate when tired or conversely are there some particular benefits to doing it then? Many thanks as always <Q> Sariputta discusses this in DN33 . <S> Here is the problem: <S> Eight grounds for laziness. <S> Firstly, a mendicant has some work to do. <S> They think: ‘I have some work to do. <S> But while doing it my body will get tired. <S> I’d better have a lie down.’ <S> They lie down, and don’t rouse energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized. <S> This is the first ground for laziness. <S> Here is the solution: Eight grounds for arousing energy. <S> Firstly, a mendicant has some work to do. <S> They think: ‘I have some work to do. <S> While working it’s not easy to focus on the instructions of the Buddhas. <S> I’d better preemptively rouse up energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized.’ <S> They rouse energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized. <S> This is the first ground for arousing energy. <S> DN33 is a long sutta. <S> It is two hours long. <S> I listen to it as much as I can. <S> And when I am tired of walking, tired of listening, I hear the above verses. <S> They come late in DN33, just when I need them. <S> Perhaps they may work for you as well. <A> Meditating when you're tired will just reduce the effectiveness of meditation. <S> Just like unless the meditator enters to a continous strong awareness, their awareness naturally reduces at every night. <S> But it is beneficial because you still create many moments of awareness for yourself. <S> So part of the meditation would be for overcoming the tiredness. <S> Only physical sickness tiredness is different <S> so you may choose to not meditate when you're sick. <S> Some meditators don't go to sleep for many days and continue meditating all night <S> so there are benefits in meditating at night for few minutes, half an hour, an hour or more. <A> Before giving a definite answer, it is important to know in which posture you normally are when meditating, and what you are habitually thinking, feeling & behaving minutes to hours before. <S> If When you're lying down then obviously your body will think it's time to sleep. <S> If you ate a lot, you will become sleepy due to the dgestive activity. <S> You also have to realize that practise is preferably done as much as possible, that is, (i) to prevent & to abandon unwholesome state of minds; and (ii); to bring to existence and to strengthen wholesome state of minds. <S> This is right effort. <S> Rigjt effort is that important because whatever you think and ponder upon frequently, of that will be your inclination of your mind. <S> "Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. <S> If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with sensuality. <S> If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with ill will, abandoning thinking imbued with non-ill will, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with ill will. <S> If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness. <S> MN 19 <S> So if you have been negligent in your daily life regarding the five hindrance (no offense here, it happens to all of us), then naturally the hindrances will be quite strong during a formal sit. <S> This is precisely the reason why kammatthana ('place of work') refers to the continous work of weakening of the five hindrances, and the strengthening of the seven factors of enlightenment. <A> Ajhan brahm recommends to ''meditate'', meaning sati sampajana, samadhi, when you wake up, but have not yet got up. <S> SO you wake up in bed, at this point you do not have much mental masturbation, and you are comfortable and not tired. <S> You do that for 1 hour before getting up. <S> People do not care enough about lying meditation, because they are weak at avoiding falling asleep (which is the hardest thing to avoid). <S> However, lying mediation avoid pains, which is the thing that people fail to deal with. <S> This is because people try to push away thoughts (without even knowing why, without even discriminating between good thoughts and bad thoughts) and concentrate on an object, they try to get the citta to sit in samadhi, before they do sati sampajana. <S> Then they claim that samadhi is too hard. <S> Again, they fail to understand that it is the good thoughts that make sati sampajana and samadhi easy. <S> A mano full of nekkamma and metta brings the citta into samadhi. <S> THe suttas expose a few tricks against drowsiness https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel263.html#fnt-3	Also especially when you're tired during morning or afternoon, you can overcome tiredness by insisting to continue the meditation.
Why would existence remove my knowledge after reicarnation? Avidyā and moha which can be translated as confusion or ignorance are sources of suffering. The western term for the study of reality and knowledge is called "philosophy" which an be translated from the Greek as "the love of wisdom". Rāga is also a term for attachment which is another source of suffering that is to say Buddhism tells you not to attach yourself to material or mental objects (including Buddhism) otherwise you will suffer and won't attain enlightenment. If knowledge gives you a deeper understanding of reality and existence and makes you understand other beings and their need to escape suffering and knowledge makes you attain compassion, why would nature be so cruel to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation after reincarnation to make you step on the same stones again? Christian Gnostics believed that it's because this world is controlled by Satan and only holy knowledge can give you salvation. Is karma (which is a religious belief) the only answer Buddhism has to this matter? <Q> why would nature be so cruel <S> "Cruel" sounds like dukkha -- as if nature were ill-willed and unkind, and we were averse to that. <S> So I guess that's among the many kinds of view or perception that we should overcome (in order to do away with dukkha ), craving things to be other than they are -- though maybe also acknowledge whatever truth there is in it to become dispassionate about whatever is impermanent. <S> " <S> He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me. <S> " <S> Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred. <S> to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation <S> I suppose you're not supposed to see them as "your" memories and "your" wisdom. <S> They are memories, perhaps they are wisdom, but they are, "not mine, not me, not my self". <S> To some extent wisdom isn't removed -- from the world -- by death, in that the Dhamma continues to exist. <S> I think that's similar to the view that there's a dharmakaya . <A> maybe my English is not good enough, but I think your question is possibly based on a misconception. " <S> Rebirth" – not re-incarnation as Brian Diaz Flores clarified – ist not a kind of "reset", so that you start as a blank paper again so that you step on the same stones again? <S> Which would make Buddhism indeed very sadistic. <S> In fact this is the aim of all Hinayana-Teachings: <S> Personal liberation due to ethical discipline. <S> It's not like having a "memory" as a mental factor. <S> (Remembering past learnings). <S> It's more like a healthy attitude <S> you are strengthen life after life due to collect "merit". <S> So some stones will vanish. <S> (Hopefully) <A> Nature is not a personal entity, as far as we know. <S> There are laws of nature, and those laws function independently of any moral or axiological <S> (judgements of value) consideration. <S> Reality is what it is, and it does not care about your evaluation of it. <S> It makes no sense to judge it as "fair" or "unfair", mainly because those are subjective concepts. <S> Kamma is just one of those laws: any action has its consequences -in the mind and in the external world-, and the most important factor, especially when talking about suffering (and its perpetuation and cessation), is intention.(By the way, 'kamma' just means "action", and it is not necessarily a religious or superstitious concept; it depends on your definition and understanding of it). <S> Think about this situation: one you were a child, you took a lot of decisions and made a lot of choices, and <S> it is likely that most of those choices were made without major consideration or analysis of the potential consequences. <S> And as a product of those decisions, you experimented some of those unreflected consequences, some of them probably until this very day. <S> Would you say that it is unfair that you "suffer" the consequences of unreflective deeds made by a child years ago, considering that you are not that child anymore? <S> Consequences, and laws of nature in general, all happen whether you like it or not, and the wisest thing you can do it to understand and accept those unavoidable laws, and learn how to act according to their influence. <S> Also bear in mind that "rebirth" (and not "reincarnation", because since there is no permanent self/soul, this latter concept is not part of most buddhist doctrines) <S> is a controvertial topic, whether some buddhist like to accept it or not. <S> So not everyone would agree with the idea of something (consciousness, memories, tendencies, etc.) <S> continuing after biological/clinical death. <S> Kind regards!	Due to applying buddhist teachings in your life you will lay good foundations in your mind, which will bear fruits in next life.
Is become a stream-enterer (sotāpanna) enough? I've quoted below from Ratana Sutta (The Discourse on the Jewels). Ye ariyasaccāni vibhāvayanti Gambhīrapaññena sudesitāni Kiñcāpi te honti bhusappamattā Na te bhavam atthamam ādiyanti Idam pi sanghe ratanam panītam Etena saccena suvatthi hotu ~ Cited from: Ratana Sutta (Pāli Text) which means; Those who clearly distinguish the noble truths, which have been well preached by the one with great wisdom, no matter how great they become in heedlessness still they do not take up an eighth existence— this excellent treasure is in the Sangha: by virtue of this truth may there be safety! ~ Cited from: Ratana Sutta \| The Discourse on the Treasures According to the above, stream-enterer will not have an eighth existence (re-appearing) no matter how great he/she become in heedlessness. Does it mean that a stream-enterer will become an Arahant within his/her next seven existences even without any effort? If so, why would someone put an extra effort to become an Arahant after becoming a stream-enterer? <Q> The Pali word translated as "existence" is "bhava". <S> "Bhava" is a mental asava (defilement) and not another life. <S> There are 10 fetters to break through for Arahantship. <S> The stream-enterer has broken three fetters. <S> Each fetter is a type of becoming. <S> Therefore, the sutta says " they do not take up an eighth becoming " because there are only a maximum of 7 more fetters to break.. <S> When there is the belief in reincarnation, it is the belief of " I will reincarnated or reborn seven more times ". <S> This is self-view. <S> The stream-enterer, in the suttas, has the realisation of: " All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation ". <S> The realisation of the stream-enterer is not: " All that is subject to cessation is subject to re-arising ". <A> Attaining Stream Entry is like attaining a black belt in martial arts (real deal black belt, not McDonald-style handout type). <S> Once one's practiced for that long and that consistent to be able to earn it, any subsequent task s/ <S> he has to do after that <S> is no longer a struggling tedious chore. <S> It's become his passion, his way of life. <S> Stream Entry is also like that. <S> No doubt there's still work to be done and effort to be made, but unlike us wordlings who still have to struggle to march forward <S> , the Stream Enterer has done it long enough and hard enough such that the practice has become second nature to him. <S> Hence the natural non-retrogression and the at-most 7 lives warranty. <A> Buddha enlightens Nibbāna as Arahanta by meditating Noble Eightfold Path, included the right effort in Dhammacakkappavattanasutta : <S> Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: <S> right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort , right mindfulness, right concentration. <S> So, the right effort to cease seven high-level fetters still required for the stream-enterer. <S> However, the stream-enterer already has the automatic effort of ceasing the three low-level fetters, it guarantees the stream-enterer going to enlighten as Arahanta inside seven rebirths. <A> The experience of Nibbana is an unique situation. <S> After the first experience, the person will continue to have that unique experience time to time. <S> Experiencing Nibbana starts the process of involuntary and natural process of purification of this person's mind. <S> It's generally not a very fast process. <S> But after the first experience of Nibbana there is no turning back. <S> The person is guaranteed to become completely free from suffering and attain Arahanthood in the future. <S> It's like being sucked to a black hole. <S> Even you want to turn back, you can't do it. <S> So yes, become <S> a stream-enterer is enough. <S> Either in Seven Life times or in a shorter period of time, Arahanthood is guaranteed. <S> But that max. <S> Seven Life times can be in Heaven Realms too. <S> So effort is obviously not necessary for a Stream-Enterer to make progress in freedom from suffering because s/ <S> he is in an involuntary and spontaneous process of purification and disidentification. <S> Also effort and "trying mode" can be harmful for a Stream-Enterer because s/ <S> he is in the transition period. <S> A Stream-Enterer already involuntarily and spontaneously meditates every moment in his/her daily life. <S> But after the transition from Sotapanna to Sakadagami some special methods and returning to the "formal meditator" mode can be helpful to move forward more quickly. <S> But I think we can't call it "effort" because in the next Enlightenment Stages the person has continous peace of mind and contentment. <S> So whatever s/he is doing, we can not say that it is "trying" or "putting effort". <A> Nyom Damith, 7 more lifes mean 7 times aging, sickness and death: <S> huge suffering not only for one self, but for many, as life requires food. <S> Does one like to cause another mother and so many others so much pain like in this existence already did? <S> Something one should think about when up to laziness. <S> My person guesses only Mohayana-confused continue to cause and nurish suffering in the world, telling they make it out of compassion. <S> Or the livingroom Āhāra hats, open to lead a holly life but prefer to be "enlightened householder" with a "secure" refrigerator next. <S> Things one should really honest consider, especially the "compassionate" ones. <S> Because people tend to over-estimate there qualities and not seeing that certain easy, merits, are not for sure, the Buddha did not taught much about it, only in one case. <S> [This answer is given for liberation, not for exchange, stackes, trade... in the world and might be well deleted if space here is not given for such]	In summary, it is pointless asking about stream-entry if you believe in reincarnation because this just perpetuates the "self-view" that must be broken for stream-entry.
Doubt and contradiction in buddhas teaching I have few doubts in buddha teaching. Just wondering my mind since i start reading the various teachings. Lets assume we all achieve the enlightenment then what will happen to world? No one will exist .. no life will exist... that will be the end of this universe. If we really know the path then why even one percent leaves behind and could not achieve nirvana. Buddha says we lose what we cling to. But he talks about love too.Loving your son or wife will bring attachment for sure. What one should do when a person rapes/molest your close one in front of you? Anger and emotions will take over. <Q> No need to worry about this scenario. <S> Even during the Buddha's time, at the peak of the Dhamma, how many people attained enlightenment and how many did not? <S> By the way, with or without enlightenment, the universe will go thru periods of birth, decay, and destruction. <S> It's inevitable that one day life as we know it will cease to exist. <S> And one day, life will spring up again. <S> Hence the endless cycle of Samsara. <S> Well, as the saying goes, there's a big difference between knowing the path and walking the path. <S> One can equanimously execute countermeasures to incapacitate a rapist or molester without letting anger arises. <S> Matter of fact, martial arts practitioners are trained to keep a cool head. <S> Anger, rage, fear, etc. <S> only cloud one's mind and make it much harder to handle rough situations. <A> 1. <S> I think that Buddhist doctrine is that ... <S> There's no such thing as an "independent" nor "permanent" self -- and that what people often call "self" (e.g. body, feeligs, etc.) <S> exist depending on other things Holding a view of self, and/or selfishness, leads to suffering <S> I think that the suttas have little or nothing to say about the "end of the universe". <S> I don't think they even say that it's possible that "we all achieve the enlightenment" -- only those who see clearly and who make the effort, and even then not immediately. <S> Maybe something like this topic is relvant too: Should a Buddhist have Children? <S> 3. <S> Buddhism teaches morality and harmlessness -- if everyone practised that then I suppose there would be no rape. <S> On the subject of resisting violence, this says ... <S> If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. <S> ... <S> perhaps something like that would be applicable, i.e. that you could make an effort to stop the crime if you see it. <S> I'm not sure that "anger taking over" does any good. <S> I think that accepting hypotheticals as real can be a source of harm, e.g. "We'd better kill these people now because they might have hurt us in the past, or they might hurt us in future". <S> So either try to see the world as it actually is without imagining catastrophe; or when you're daydreaming try to imagine instead how you might do better than participate in or initiate violent conflict. <A> Nirvana is not disappearing as a being. <S> Being that Buddha meant was not this physical or mental phenomenon but a state of mind that gives you a hard time due to your failure to properly handle the situation. <S> Most of all sufferings from having a physical body is not the one Buddha meant to eliminate but the mental is. <S> Buddhism is not the ultimate solution to all problems humans are facing either. <S> There is no such a thing in the universe.	Nirvana is state of mind that one has no attachment to their mind and body.
How do visualisation meditation practices relate to insight? A while ago I attended a Tibetan Buddhist group. They were very nice but I just couldn't get on with the visualisation practices. I find it reasonably clear how mindfulness of breathing becomes an insight practice and metta bhavana. But I just couldn't see how an intricate visualisation practice would lead to an understanding of conditioned existence, suffering, no fixed self or any of it really. How do visualisation practices relate to insight? Additional detail - the practice involved the Buddha in a bright blue sky on a throne and I remember there were snow leopards under the throne and light was going out of the Buddha. <Q> 1) <S> The practise of visualizing "Buddha on a levitating throne flanked by snow lions" (paraphrase) is an overly-promoted for-absolute-beginner entry practise mainly because it could be taught under 15 minutes. <S> Having said that - under the guidance of a qualified teacher, it can lead to results similar to those of the kasina practises. <S> For a variety of psychological reasons, most individuals find it more exciting to visualize some made-up super-beings instead of pieces of earth or colour discs. <S> 2) <S> The Visudhimagga prescribed and recommended different Samatha meditation objects depending on the individual's intellectual and habitual dispositions. <S> While anapanasati works for most people, kasina works for the others. <S> In a meditation retreat, the teacher may not prescribe the same practise for everyone. <S> 3) <S> Samatha meditation practises is not unique to Buddhism, and they have been around even before the historical Buddha. <S> The main difference is that the Theravadin's Samatha practises are stripped of all mysticism (incantations/rituals/super-entities) - leaving only what truly matters. <S> 4) Vipasana is what sets Buddhism aparts. <S> It is vipasana that leads to genuine insights and liberation from dukha. <S> The Theravada texts tell of bikkhus who obtained final liberation just on vipasana practise alone, but the same texts strongly recommended the cultivation of Samatha skills to support and to "supercharge" the practitioner's vipasana experience. <A> My answer does not rely on scriptures. <S> I am a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism too, doing Ngöndrö, so I have to visualize a lot. <S> In fact visualisation "repels" me first from Tibetan Buddhism (I was in Zen a long time.)Now <S> I value it: 1.) <S> Visualisation strengthen your concentration. <S> It does not exclude breathing meditation. <S> Both are strengthening each other. <S> And sometimes visualisation prevents you from dullness. <S> It also may strengthen your mental capacities like memory. <S> -> <S> So it helps you, to gain insights indirectly. <S> 2.) <S> In some books about the Bardo – I think it was one from Ponlop Rinpoche – visualisation helps you to stay concentrated, when you are losing your sensual experiences, because of dissolving - dying. <S> (Sorry, for not being eloquent enough to make it sound less weird.) <S> -> <S> So it helps you to stay on your path . <S> 3.) <S> I also think it helps to understand some more philosophical topics like "Form is emptiness. <S> Emptiness is form" - because you are going to construct an image out of a "light" form of emptiness. <S> ("Light" like "Light Cigarettes" not like "illuminating".) <S> -> This is directly related to the insights you mentioned. <S> But this is not an argument I've heard from a kind of authority. <S> It's my own thought. <S> 5.) <S> Personally I "feel"/"see" movements of my mind better before the backdrop of a mental image. <S> -> <S> Which makes you know your mind better, which obviously is good for Buddhists <S> All points are highly subjective. <S> Except 2. <S> Imagine to stay calm etc. <S> without a sensual anchor like breathing. <S> So it makes sense for me to train visualisation meditation as preparation for dying. <S> Best <A> I don't know so much about Tibetan Buddhism <S> but I just wanted to share some informations about visualisation and related meditation methods. <S> Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo talks about Samatha and Vipassana meditation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDDY4gOexVA <S> Visualisation is a Samatha meditation object. <S> If a person can completely focus his/her mind to that concept(visualisation) then the mind enters to a trance state and become tranquil, peaceful. <S> Also the person then naturally is capable to have magical experiences like seeing the past lifes, astral projection, reading other people's minds, seeing the future etc. <S> If the person decides to look to the nature of the reality with that clear and sharp mind then gaining insight and letting go would be very easy. <S> So some people start with Samatha meditation to gain tranquility first to make the insight meditation easy. <S> But just doing Vipassana meditation is more practical.	Ultimately, the "core" of Tibetan Buddhism is the Mahamudra system of practises, where they also include the Samatha and Vipassana systems/methods as described in the Theravada texts.
Scattered mind while doing Body Scanning in Vipassana I have been practicing Vipassana under the tradition of S.N Goenka for the last 2 and half year. When I scan my body and observe different sensations, I find that my mind is not clear and It's not like I'm sleeping but there is dullness of awareness. Some part of my mind is aware of the sensations but it's not clear and there is a thin layer of thoughts in between. It's like trying to see the sun(sensation) when there is thin layer of clouds(thoughts) in the sky. In other words the mind is scattered while doing Vipassana. I believe it's the sloth and torpor that is causing all this and Vitarka-Vicara faculty is not that much strong. I have read some suggestions for this like having the perception of light, walking meditation etc. but none of these are helping me out. I would be very grateful if someone could point out my mistakes and give some advise to overcome this. <Q> I have read some suggestions for this like having the perception of light, walking meditation etc. <S> but none of these are helping me out. <S> I would be very grateful if someone could point out my mistakes and give some advise to overcome this. <S> Interesting, because I was just about to suggest the same when I read your post saying it doesn't work for you. <S> When I walk meditation, I have the same problem as you and I deal with it by simply noting the length of the distraction. <S> I don't fight it. <S> I simply say, "oh I was distracted for a block." <S> Or I say, "I was distracted for a mile." <S> This sounds so simple and so silly, right? <S> But it works because what happens is that you will find that the distractions decrease in length over days and weeks. <S> This is exactly the same approach taken for noting the length of breathing: "this is a long breath" and "this is a short breath". <S> The breath becomes longer on its own without any struggle or grasping. <S> Similarly, notice that you are "scanning the body" or that you are "distracted from scanning the body". <S> Just be aware. <S> I counted my breath for decades. <S> That is only the first step! <S> Just be mindful and aware of what is happening. <S> It is not a race. <S> Be gentle and mindful. <A> You could try to balance the Energy (viriya) faculty , i.e. to arouse energy. <S> There are several ways to do that: Splash cold water in the face before a meditation session <S> One can go to a high place, e.g. a mountain or building and practice meditation <S> One can make a firm determination/resolution (Adhiṭṭhāna pāramī) to practice effortly and sincerely One can do contemplation on Death <S> (Maraṇasati) as that will induce a feeling of Urgency (Saṃvega) <S> One can reflect on the 5 Daily Recollections , i.e. That one will grow old, become sick and ill, die, loose everything that one holds dear and that one is the sole heir of one's actions <A> The citta is clear when it is in samadhi, not before, so it is normal to be in your situation. <S> Samadhi means exactly non-scattered. <S> ANd you do vipassana when the citta is in samadhi, like here <S> ‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ <S> That’s what I said, but why did I say it? <S> Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption. <S> They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. <S> They turn their mind away from those things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’ <S> Abiding in that they attain the ending of defilements. <S> If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, with the ending of the five lower fetters they’re reborn spontaneously, because of their passion and love for that meditation. <S> They are extinguished there, and are not liable to return from that world. <S> https://suttacentral.net/an9.36/en/sujato <A> If your mind feels dull and you cannot feel the breath increase the area. <S> As the dullness subsidies to gradually decrease the area to what one can manage. <S> When one feels one has sufficient concentration then return to body scanning. <A> You want to adjust to the state of mind by picking the appropriate theme to be developed. <S> Some notes on this here; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hRy-g6o8yKsDQnR6_sbBbY5ZVpDbQ5-_LURXqwxS7YU/edit	One can do walking meditation in a brisk pace before sitting meditation If the mind is scattering concentrate on breathing.
Does Nibbana lie within The All or not? The Sabba Sutta (SN 35.23) (trans. Thanissaro) states: The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." The commentary on this sutta by Thanissaro Bhikkhu states: Furthermore, the following discourse ( SN 35.24 ) says that the "All" is to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation ( nirodha ), which is to be realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be done. Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas ( Iti 90 ), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion ( Sn 4.6 ; Sn 4.10 ). This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to objectify the unobjectified — see the Introduction to MN 18 ). The range of differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all differentiation is allayed. On the other hand, Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in the book The Connected Discourses of the Buddha Vol II : On first consideration, it would seem that the six internal and external sense bases should be understood simply as the six sense faculties and their objects, with the term āyatana , base, having the sense of origin or source. Though many suttas lend support to this supposition, the Theravada exegetical tradition, beginning already from the Abhidhamma period, understands the six pairs of bases as a complete scheme of classification capable of accommodating all the factors of existence mentioned in the Nikayas. This conception of the six bases probably originated from the Sabba Sutta (35:23) , in which the Buddha says that the six pairs of bases are "the all" apart from which nothing at all exists. To make the six bases capable of literally incorporating everything, the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pitaka defines the mind base ( manāyatana ) as including all classes of consciousness, and the mental phenomena base ( dhammāyatana ) as including the other three mental aggregates, subtle nonsensuous types of form, and even the unconditioned element, Nibbāna (see Vibh 70-73). So, Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that Nibbana is not included in The All. Bhikkhu Bodhi says Nibbana is included in The All. Who is right? And why? What is also interesting is that Bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation would put all types of consciousness within the classification of the six sense bases. <Q> I didn't read the question but Thanissaro says as a footnote: <S> To abandon the eye, <S> etc., here means to abandon passion and desire for these things. <S> Nibbana is the same. <S> Nibbana is not experienced due to passion & desire for Nibbana. <S> Therefore, passion & desire for Nibbana is also abandoned. <S> Thanissaro is wrong translating 'dhamme' as 'ideas'. ' <S> Dhamme' is 'mind objects'. <S> Nibbana, per Ud 8.1, is a mind object or 'ayatana'. <A> Not sure there's any conflict between Ven. <S> T and Ven. <S> B. Notice that Ven. <S> B's SN 35.23 footnote on defining the scope of the All, his first footnote citing the Comy. <S> says this: Spk: <S> The all (sabba) is fourfold: (i) the all-inclusive all (sabbasabba ), i.e., everything knowable, all of which comes into range of the Buddhas knowledge of omniscience; (ii) <S> the all of the sense bases (aatanasabba), i.e., the phenomena of the four planes; (iii) <S> the all of personal identity (sakkyasabba ), i.e., the phenomena of the three planes; and (iv) <S> the partial all (padesasabba), i.e., the five physical sense objects. <S> Each of these, from (i) to (iv), has a successively narrower range than its predecessor. <S> In this sutta the All of the sense bases is intended. <S> Now that sounds like Ven. <S> T's idea too! <S> Also notice the last paragraph in Ven. <S> B's intro. <S> to SalayatanaSamyutta: <S> To make the six bases capable of literally incorporating everything, the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pitaka defines the mind base (manayatana) as including all classes of consciousness , and the mental phenomena base (dhammayatana) as including the other three mental aggregates(feeling/perception/volitionalFormations), subtle nonsensuous types of form, and even the unconditioned element, Nibbana (see Vibh 70-73) <S> So basically Ven. <S> B simply cited the positions of the SN Comy. <S> (at SN 35.23, which Ven. <S> T also shares) and the Vibhanga (at intro. <S> to Samyutta 35), both just seems to define the scope differently. <S> The SN Comy. <S> limited the scope, hence leaving the extra "stuff" outside, while the Vibhanga extended the scope, hence including everything. <A> Does Nibbana lie within The All or not? <S> The, or what ever peception of Nibbana, nibbana-sanna, or nimitta, yes, is part of "the all". <S> Nibbana, in and of itself, no. <S> That's why the Buddha told his monks to let go even of the perceptiin of Nibbana and they didn't rejoiced after the approach. <S> [Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or Buddh-ism but purposed for liberation of that]	Nibbana is included within The All, i.e., included as a sense object (per Ud 8.1) experienced by the mind sense organ.
Is the Buddhist path one of 'selfless offering' or 'inner kindness'? Just expanding on this answer is the Buddhist path one of 'selfless offering of oneself and efforts' or of 'inner kindness' i.e. kindness to oneself. Or is it both or neither. I've come across both themes and both seem right but to me they contradict. Of course Buddhist is about many other things including outer kindness (to all beings) but right now I'm interested in these two aspects. Many thanks as always <Q> To the enlightened mind, what's good for one is good for the other, because they dependently-co-emerge. <S> Even in a regular worldly sense, if you think about it, it's impossible <S> to 100% neglect one and only care about the other. <S> If you attempted to completely stop taking care of yourself and only help others, you'd die - and how do you help then? <S> If you attempted to only take care of yourself at the expense of the others you'd soon run into problems with society and the law, and with the nature at the bigger scale. <S> Sedaka Sutta SN 47.19: <S> Looking after oneself, one looks after others. <S> Looking after others, one looks after oneself. <S> And how does one look after others by looking after oneself? <S> By practicing, by developing, by doing a lot. <S> And how does one look after oneself by looking after others? <S> By patience, by non-harming, by loving kindness, by caring. <S> (Thus) looking after oneself, one looks after others; and looking after others, one looks after oneself. <A> Case 14 of the Mumonkan <S> Nansen Cuts the Cat in Two Nansen <S> saw the monks of the eastern and western halls fighting over a cat. <S> He seized the cat and told the monks: "If any of you say a good word, you can save the cat." <S> No one answered. <S> So Nansen boldly cut the cat in two pieces. <S> That evening Joshu returned and Nansen told him about this. <S> Joshu removed his sandals and, placing them on his head, walked out. <S> Nansen said: "If you had been there, you could have saved the cat." <S> Mumon's comment: Why did Joshu put his sandals on his head? <S> If anyone answers this question, he will understand exactly how Nansen enforced the edict. <S> If not, he should watch his own head. <S> Had Joshu been there, He would have enforced the edict oppositely. <S> Joshu snatches the sword And Nansen begs for his life. <S> A friend of mine is a Catholic priest. <S> Every Easter, I send him this koan. <S> I don't think there's a better example of two religions expressing identical, deep and transcendental truth than when the story of Christ's crucifixion is juxtaposed with the theme of this koan. <S> This is a koan about sacrifice. <S> It's about making an offering of oneself. <S> The cat knows what's coming. <S> He's in on the hit <S> and he happily throws himself on the sword. <S> Christ also knew that his time of reckoning had come. <S> Though racked with doubt, he courageously goes to the cross to die. <S> We don't always offer ourselves bodily. <S> While we must always be willing to die on the cushion, our mundane life offers us millions of way to perish everyday. <S> If kindness is hard, that is your sacrifice. <S> If sitting is hard, that is your sacrifice. <S> If calling your mother is hard, that is your sacrifice. <S> Everything hard is an offering. <S> Everything that requires effort is the threat of the sword. <S> Practice means that we can't stay remain dumbstruck with silence. <S> Practice means that we can't let thoughts of self preservation stand between us and the way. <S> Practice means that we act the fool, put our sandals on our head, and let ourselves be cut in two. <S> You are the cat. <S> Trust what comes next. <S> Spark Notes version: Sitting ain't gonna kill you, dude. <S> You're standing in your own way. <S> Pitter patter let's get at 'er! <A> 'selfless offering of oneself and efforts' or 'inner kindness' <S> Let's put it this way: When one want to offer selflessly, one needs to have the right resources and capabilities as pre-requisites. <S> One can cultivate resources and capabilities through various means, to the context of your question, "inner kindness", is definitely one of the MANY pre-requisites. <S> Then, within your scope of developed capabilities, such as Wisdom, Time, and any other resources, you offer to others appropriately. <S> So the two aspects do not inherently contradict to each other, and can be approached with tact and careful considerations.	The two contradict only to a "confused" (=normal) mind - in which "self" and "others" are two separate things.
How can I tell the difference between the Deva realm and the Buddha and bodhisattva realms? How can I tell the difference between joy bourne of karma that will expire and joy bourne of karma which has turned the irreversible wheel of the dharma? <Q> Denizens of the heavenly planets enjoy more and live longer. <S> They have made lots of good karma in their human form of life and became qualified to enjoy heavenly life. <S> The joy of of Buddhas is eternal and unlimited. <S> Buddhas enjoy their natural life that's found in enlightenment. <S> The best way to know this is by gaining experience from meditating. <A> The Deva Realm is one of the six realms of Saṃsāra , implying Devas are still subject to Karma. <S> Simply put: what goes up, must come down. <S> The Buddha and Boshisattva realms are not on the Samsara map, implying they are either not subject to Samsara or that Samsara is Nirvana (opinions on this will vary from lineage to lineage). <S> The joy of this state is considered non-temporal and non-individual as it stems from compassion, is not induced by the senses, and is in essence non-dualistic . <A> Cosmologists today attribute approximately 5% of the cosmos to matter i.e. the material world of the planets and stars, approximately 35% of the cosmos to dark matter and the balance 60% or so, to dark energy. <S> Scientists say that in the realm of dark matter light is reflected whilst in dark energy no reflection takes place. <S> According to Buddhist cosmology, it is conceivable that the deva world (only the higher senses are present i.e. sight, sound, mind) represents the realm of dark matter and the brahma world (only the mind/cognition is present) represents the realm of dark energy. <S> These three realms may be defined as samsara. <S> It is conceivable that Enlightened beings living in the realm of Nirvana may be either in the ''higher frequency band' of dark energy or in a realm unknown to science.	Existence in the Deva realm is temporal, and therefore the joy it brings is temporal, sensorial, and driven by the ego.
What is the meaning of Pali word "Apannaka" his question is based on the sutta translation of MN60. What is the Pali translation of “apannaka” https://suttacentral.net/mn60/en/sujato Ven. Sujato translate it as “guaranteed” Bhikkhu Bodi translate it as “incontrovertible truth” I.B Horner translate it as “the sure” Ven. Thanissaro translates it as “Safe Bet” When I read the Sutta, my understanding is that the meaning is very close to the word “safe bet” even though the gambling is very un Buddhist. Perhaps I would say “safe action” <Q> It obviously cannot be "guaranteed" because the moral realm is never guaranteed; per MN 136, MN 117, etc. <S> The idea of "incontrovertible" appears to slander the Dhamma. <S> For example, moral people who hold the follow view can still suffering when their mother & father die because they still believe in mother & father: <S> ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ <S> MN 117, a later addition, written by an arahant, properly says the above is non-noble defiled right view siding with merit & not siding with liberation. <S> MN 117 was required to be written to straighten out other later additions, such as MN 60, which falsely say worldly right view has guaranteed results. <A> "A sutta called Diṭṭhi-apaṇṇaka paṭipadā-sutta at A II 76 states that when a bhikku is possessed of four things he has entered on the path to the 'incontrovertible' ( apaṇṇaka ) and the destruction of the āsavās ." <S> ~ <S> Cited from: The Notion of Ditthi in Theravada Buddhism: The Point of View In the Sinhalese translation of Jātaka Pāli-Khuddaka Nikāya, the phrase "Apaṇṇaka paṭipadā" is translated as "නිසි මඟ [Nisi ma(n)ga]" which means "appropriate path/way". <S> In the same translation and in the translation of Apaṇṇaka Vagga of Aṅguttara Nikāya, the word "consistent" ["අවිරුද්ධ" in Sinhalese] used for the word "Apaṇṇaka". <S> "බෝධිසත්වාදී නුවණැති සමහර <S> කෙනෙක් අවිරුද්ධ වූ <S> කාරණය <S> (අපණ්ණක ප්‍රතිපදාව <S> = නිසි මඟ) <S> ගත්හ." <S> ~ <S> Cited from: Apaṇṇaka Vagga, Jātaka Pāli, Khuddaka Nikāya <A> I think the a prefix implies the negative -- so a more literal translation might be "not a bet" (i.e. it's a certainty ... <S> it is not chancy ). <A> dayāpanna: <S> There is no real contradiction in the various translation quoted and they all fit for the meaning in context as well. <S> Panna/paṇṇa : bend down, ~ka downbendig, upwardly, falling. <S> The "bet" idea of Nyom Chris, as a relative, fit's also in relation of "giving into something". <S> As all path factors, especially the initial, right view, are leading to heardwood, security, also to saw that the path is a secure, fits here well, and since it requires faith at first place, "good bet, secure bet" is totaly fine and a good rendering as well. <S> apaṇṇa : certain, true, secure. <S> ~ka: <S> ~ing <S> May non be an ''Apaññaka'' toward the Sublime juwels and takes on right thoughts, not wrong, like mostly if worldling, panna: <S> "And how is one made impure in three ways by mental action? <S> There is the case where a certain person is covetous. <S> He covets the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' <S> He bears ill will, corrupt in the resolves of his heart: 'May these beings be killed or cut apart or crushed or destroyed, or may they not exist at all!' <S> He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: ' <S> There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. <S> There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. <S> There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' <S> This is how one is made impure in three ways by mental action... <S> Furthermore, as a result of being endowed with these ten courses of unskillful action, [rebirth in] <S> hell is declared, [rebirth in] an animal womb is declared, [rebirth in] the realm of hungry shades is declared — that or any other bad destination. '' <S> AN 10.176 '' ''Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti.'' <S> Through virtue they go to a good bourn. <S> ''Sīlena bhoga-sampadā.'' <S> Through virtue is wealth attained. <S> ''Sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti.' <S> ' <S> Through virtue they go to Liberation. <S> ''Tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.'' <S> Therefore we should purify our virtue. <S> [Note that this is not given for any ''Āpaṇa'', market, bazaar... but for Apannaka, for release, if possible to take]	Regardless of what "apaṇṇaka" means; I think a "safe bet" is the most accurate meaning, based on Dhamma principles. The book "The Notion of Ditthi in Theravada Buddhism: The Point of View" by Paul Fuller states that the meaning of the word "Apaṇṇaka" as "incontrovertible".
My job requires me to shuck oysters I am not necessarily Buddhist but I am a vegan and killing doesn't sit well with me. I have suffered terrible sleep condition over the past 2 years and can't work in my field anymore and have no experience in any other field and have a hard time getting to work at an early time so midday work is best for me. Unfortunately the restaurant I work at currently has oysters for sale and they are alive when you prepare them which involves killing them. I don't know how to rationalize this but I am struggling financially and am working on getting a different restaurant job where they might not serve this dish. But I have killed some oysters already. How do I come to terms with this? <Q> The Buddhist teachings do not exist for you to create suffering for yourself. <S> Oysters are extremely primitive life forms. <S> While they breathe oxygen, they are very close to plants. <S> Oysters have a nervous system but not a brain. <S> However, if you think deeply about what or who you have harmed, I don't think much will be found. <S> Don't worry about it. <S> Let it go. <S> An oyster does not have a brother, sister, mother or father somewhere in the universe grieving about their lost relative oyster. <S> The Buddha appeared to infer in SN 12.63 that lifeforms consuming other lifeforms is part of the cycle of life. <S> As a "vegan", I imagine your views about food are more extreme than the average Buddhist. <S> For example, the Buddha did not preach vegetarianism. <S> The above said, personally, I would not like to kill oysters for a living. <A> However, deliberately killing an animal is an offense that requires only confession (pacittiya) within the monastic order, usually with the intention not to do it again. <S> It's not as severe as killing a human. <S> If possible, change jobs or avoid doing the task of killing oysters. <S> This is because killing oysters involves generating the unwholesome deliberate intention of taking a life. <S> It's against the five precepts and Right Livelihood. <S> Also, don't carry remorse in your mind, which is unwholesome and unskillful. <S> Confess it i.e. acknowledge that it's wrong then <S> let it go. <S> Don't hold on to it. <S> Intentionally bringing about the death of a human being, even if it is still a fetus — <S> whether by killing the person, arranging for an assassin to kill the person, inciting the person to die, or describing the advantages of death — is a pārājika offense. <S> (Pr 3) <S> Pouring water that one knows to contain living beings — or having it poured — on grass or clay is a pācittiya offense. <S> Pouring anything that would kill the beings into such water — or having it poured — is also a pācittiya offense. <S> (Pc 20) Deliberately killing an animal — or having it killed — is a pācittiya offense. <S> (Pc 61) <S> Using water, or getting others to use it, knowing that it contains living beings that will die from that use, is a pācittiya offense. <S> (Pc 62) <A> Tell it your boss, simply "I observe the precept of not killing, not to encourage others and not to approve. <S> It would be good if my person could take on tasks which do not involve such.", and simply abstain. <S> Mental and future struggles from wrong doing are by far more hurtful and lasting then whatever hardship out of earn. <S> Not out of causes the Buddha told that aside of killing, involvment in business with meat or living beings, does not fit well for someone after long time happiness. <S> And whatever gain, of cource needs to have it's sacrifies: <S> why not letting go of what hurts? <S> [Note: <S> this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, but for release. <S> For discussion and further question one is given to make use of this exit .] <A> Since you're not necessarily a Buddhist, I'll try to answer from a more vegan point of view although I'm not a vegan. <S> You can only come to terms with this by telling your boss your beliefs and stopping. <S> You can't continue to uphold vegan beliefs and kill animals. <S> I know your financial situation is at stake <S> but you don't want to be a hipocrite. <S> There is a gentlemen I supervise who we excuse from killing bugs which is a function of his job, that we excuse because of his spiritual beliefs.	We practise non-killing as Buddhists so we cultivate a respect for life and cease to be violent people. If killing oysters (that don't suffer or don't have relatives or loved one's who suffer about them) is against your moral principles then find a new job. According to the Bhikkhu Patimokkha (quoted below), which are rules for monks, killing a human is grounds for immediate and irreversible dismissal from the monastic order (parajika).
Time and Frequency of Meditation I have read psychological studies and commentaries by meditators that frequency is more important than duration for meditation. Thus, 10 minutes seven days a week is more beneficial than 70 minutes in one sitting according to this view. I am wondering what this site thinks of this idea. Is regularity more important than duration? I am wondering whether changing the hour of regular meditation (e.g. one time at 5PM and another at 8AM) impedes on the efficiency of meditation practice. Should meditation occur towards the same time each day ideally? If the previous ideas are true, then: Would meditating a short amount each day, whatever the time, ensure regularity? I'm open to hearing any ideas on the subject. Thank you. <Q> Some puthujjanas manage to think that they will progress by spending 20 minutes per day watching the thoughts and suppressing thoughts of harm and lust, then spending the rest of the day allowing bad thoughts permeated with sensuality, ill-will and harmfulness. <S> Of course, the only progress possible is first to be mindful of thoughts and perceptions all the time, in order to keep only the good ones. <S> Sila is made complete with sati sampajana. <S> When sati sampajana declines, sila declines. <S> Without mindfulness, a puthujjana will only a have sila for a few minutes up to a few hours <A> If you meditate really many hours a day(example: 8 hours) then duration matters. <S> These long meditations are really beneficial and they forces the meditators to meditate correctly otherwise negative mind states like boredom can take over. <S> But in other cases it is better to do shorter meditations few times or many times a day <S> so it will lead you to be more mindful during the day. <S> Changing the time of the formal meditation can be problematic If you don't decide to increase the time of your meditation sessions. <S> Doing short meditations puts you in a better position than the vast majority of the humans who don't even have awareness for 1 second a day. <S> But in the long run it is not enough. <S> But If doing short amount of formal meditations lead you to be mindful during the day <S> then it's beneficial. <S> The important thing is the continuity of the mindfulness during the day. <S> Practising mindfulness all day long is the gateway to liberation. <S> If the person haven't attained one of the four stages of enlightenment, it's necessary for him/her to practise mindfulness all day long to get results in spirituality. <S> This video is about short meditation sessions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XyQBI1ZPJ0 <A> I don't understand why everyone tries to make this so complicated. <S> You need frequency and duration. <S> There's not other way about it. <S> If you expect to progress, you have to practice often and for significant periods of time. <S> There are no shortcuts. <S> Monks from the time of the Buddha to the present day would sit for hours , everyday . <S> It's curious to me that laymen today think they'll be able to get away with less. <S> If anything, they'll have to sit more often to combat the stresses of a householder's life! <S> Don't worry about when you sit. <S> While mornings are generally best, all that matters is that you are practicing. <S> If you're looking for a number to shoot for, aim for two hour long sits everyday. <S> While more is always better, if you can manage this much, your practice will drastically improve. <S> A little snark from J.D. Salinger to help you on your way <S> - "I don't want you to go away with the impression that there're any-you know-any inconveniences involved in the religious life. <S> I mean a lot of people don't take it up just because they think it's going to <S> involve a certain amount of nasty application and perseverance <S> -you <S> know what I mean." <S> It was clear that the speaker, with patent relish, was now reaching the high point of his address. <S> He wagged his orange stick solemnly at his mother. <S> "As soon as we get out of the chapel here, I hope you'll accept from me a little volume <S> I've always admired. <S> I believe it touches on some of the fine points we've discussed this morning. ' <S> God Is My Hobby.' <S> By Dr. Homer Vincent Claude Pierson, <S> Jr. In this little book, I think you'll find, Dr. Pierson tells us very clearly how when he was twenty-one years of age he started putting aside a little time each day-two minutes in the morning and two minutes at night, if I remember correctly-and at the end of the first year, just by these little informal visits with God, he increased his annual income seventy-four per cent. <S> I believe I have an extra copy, and if you'll be good enough-" <A> I'm open to hearing any ideas on the subject. <S> Thank you. <S> Consider making everything your practice. <S> With this perspective, where and when and how you meditate simply flows along with your life sitting, standing, walking or lying down. <S> Because in the times that you don't practice with all your waking body, speech and mind, you are likely just chasing cravings.	So doing the formal meditation in the times that you get used to is better.
Choosing Between Mindfulness and Compassion Meditation Basically, I have tried for some time mindfulness meditation. I have also tried compassion meditation. In mindfulness meditation, my mind becomes very still, with few thoughts, but outside of meditation the mind remains so. My thoughts outside of meditation are quite abstract, but I am perhaps stunted emotionally and in terms of visual images. I don't feel my mind wanders too much though. In compassion meditation, I visualize loving-kindness and compassionate images, and I usually end up crying or feeling positive affect in my body. It is nevertheless quite difficult for me to visualize vividly. How does one decide which type of meditation to engage in? Would both mindfulness (focused attention) and compassion generate some type of meditative concentration? <Q> In so far as your quesstion is about Meditation, I cannot say anything. <S> But if you were to mean Buddhist meditation, then I can say the following-The meditation technique which Buddha taught, which is the teaching of the Buddha and the basis for all philosophical schools, is Vipassana . <S> Other techniques serve as efficient and helpful techniques, depending on the individual. <S> So for example, if someone is unable to meditate because they cannot concentrate their mind, they would be suggested some technique (like anapana or samatha {which in fact is considered as a pre-requisite for Vipassana by many schools}) or a skill in daily life (such as reciting a particular mantra or counting the number of beads in a mala ) that would develop some concetration, which will allow them to practice vipassana. <S> Or if a person were too obsessed with physical beauty, with lust- <S> so much so that they cannot practice vipassana , they would be advised to meditate near the dead bodies. <S> Vipassana involves not only the establishing of the four-fold awareness and the insight gained from it, but also leads to one becoming more compassionate and more aware (mind-fullness). <S> What I mean to say is that, the two aspects you have asked about, comapssion and mind-fullness are not seperate- <S> they go hand in hand- <S> one helps in developing the other which helps in developing the first. <S> But it is possible that one may have some problem in developing mind-fullness or practicing compasssion. <S> Therefore, in such cases, as per the understanding of the teacher (spiritual guide, elder monk) certain technique of meditation (like verbalization or visualization) which is not Vipassana, would be suggested in that particular case, so that the meditator can continue making progress. <S> Only you would know where you are in your progress and only you would know what problem you have with regards to you meditative practice. <S> I suggest you read further literature so that you can understand in your own way of thinking and continue practicing. <S> Do not get involved with questions to the extent that you stop meditating at all. <S> Neither ignore the questions that have occurred to you- <S> and if you cannot answer them, then consult a senior monk, or your guide. <A> My limited knowledge about compassion meditation is that it does/can generate some type of meditative concentration. <S> Here is a little explanation of compassion meditation: http://www.oprah.com/spirit/compassion-meditation <S> Mindfulness gradually grows awareness(which <S> leads to more tranquilty in a person but only after attaining high enlightenment stages it becomes permanent) and during the path it temporarily generates mind states with high awareness too. <S> For the first question, I think this part of the video(6:40-7:38) can be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDDY4gOexVA&feature=youtu.be&t=400 <S> Mindfulness is the only way to gain insight, purify the mind and achieve enlightenment. <S> But ofcourse it is up to the person to decide which path is more suitable for him/her. <A> To keep it short and simple (This is worth elaborating on): <S> Metta bhavana is meant for ameliorating dvesha (avsersion towards different people, or yourself). <S> Vipassana has multiple purposes, one of them you've already mentioned: to develop concentration. <S> There are other purposes as well. <S> Not sure if it helps, but a different approach is to find a clear understanding of the problem. <S> What type of dukkha/tanha/upadana are you looking to manage? <S> Are you suffering from moha/raga/dvesha? <S> Et c. Exploring these things might guide you in how to practice your meditation. <A> Ideally one would contemplate to rouse motivation, make effort in developing good qualities and become glad on that account. <S> Metta and Compassion just as Appreciation and Rejoycing can be used to rouse gladness and to establish these perspectives due to frequent giving of attention. <S> Therefore any amount of time dedicated to development of perceptions is great. <S> If one is dilligent in giving attention to these themes which are fit for reflection, one can be expected to develop good behavior and see lights & visions. <S> Also pondering the themes reveals the elements as one eventually 'sees the point' that is the element, as a referable factor coming into play that can be shown to be a truth of the world. <S> However developing concentration that leads to mindfulness & alertness is necessary to be able to maintain skillful perceptions. <S> So is development of pleasant abidings necessary for contentment. <S> Ideally one would contemplate to keep focused on developing mindfulness and the pleasant abidings. <S> Failing to do so one dwells in pain and is one with a painful practice; without a pleasant abiding. <S> If you want to develop mindfulness more that is ok <S> if you aren't particularly cruel to yourself and others, it's impossible to tell just how cruel one is until it's (compassion) development culminates.	If you wish you can mix your mindfulness practise with Samatha, compassion meditation or other types of meditation, but at the end only mindfulness leads a person to complete and permanent freedom from suffering.
Given that Buddhism could accommodate people's prior religious beliefs, why is Buddhism itself now described as a religion? Read somewhere that Buddhism does not advocate to go away from the beliefs of a person. Or in a way accommodate one's rooted beliefs from childhood. The main objective of following the path of Buddha is for self-realization. That too not disturbing others and their beliefs. Since Buddha advocated for education to all humankind without considering race or color, will it be like a revolutionary thought came before centuries ( like communism, socialism ... )? But most of the world refers to it as a religion. Is it because of the transformation to idol based community from a spiritual community created by Buddha? Does Buddism has more affinity towards a free-thinking society based on modern science OR towards a ritual-based society based on fears that remind the mind to do good acts? <Q> As with anything else, that completely depends on what you consider a “religion” is, or what is a “religious belief”. <S> When westerners first came in contact with Buddhism they considered it a “philosophy” as they could not conceive of a religion that did not have a “god” at its center. <S> The idea of an atheist religion did not make sense. <S> You can see that such bias still exists in modern dictionaries. <S> But when does a philosophy become a religion and when is a religion a philosophy? <S> Is Nihilism a religious idea or a philosophical one? <S> What about philosophical skepticism? <S> Can science itself be considered a religion? <S> Although Buddhism is very flexible and personal, it is very clear that to progress in the Buddhist path you have to accept a set of beliefs (e.g., Samsara and the eight-fold path) and reject others (e.g., atman/soul ). <S> It is also very hard for most people to let go of the idea of a “god”, of atman, and many others. <S> This sets a limit to progressing on the path. <A> Since Buddha advocated for education to all humankind without considering race or color, will it be like <S> a revolutionary thought came before centuries (like communism, socialism ...)? <S> Yes, the Dharma taught by the Lord Buddha was definitely revolutionary at his times, hence all the knowledge pertains until this day. <S> But most of the world refers to it as a religion. <S> Is it because of the transformation to idol based community from a spiritual community created by Buddha? <S> Over thousands of years, the preach have transformed and therefore arrives at different "Schools". <S> But what is an Idol? <S> Is a teacher an Idol? <S> And if one follows a good teacher's teachings, does that equate to worshiping an Idol? <S> Does Buddism has more affinity towards a free-thinking society based on modern science OR towards a ritual-based society based on fears that remind the mind to do good acts? <S> Neither. <S> The gap in principle between Science and Dharma is "Drive a conclusion base on what everyone can visually see" VS "do not drive a conclusion based on only what everyone see". <S> The freedom in the Dharma is freedom from Dukkha. <S> Not absolute freedom to do anything one wishes. <S> The teaching is not to inflict Fear, but do speak of the truths. <S> Doing good deeds as a means to be "skillful" and noble, not because purely out of fear. <S> (although there are some who only do good deeds out of fear, but that is not the point) <A> Re. <S> whether it's revolutionary socialism, yes <S> and no: <S> Yes the Buddha in the suttas challenged some conventional/social hierarchies, especially the idea that someone (e.g. a Brahmin) is or isn't holy because of their social caste. <S> But no I think that the Vinaya obviously makes an effort (several efforts) to not cause conflict with lay society <S> -- don't break the "king's laws", and regulations about when and how to go on alms rounds, and asking parents before ordaining, etc. <S> Also I think it's meant to help everyone, universally -- not just help the poor, or help the rich, or the priests or the warriors, or the men, or even only the human beings. <S> Re. <S> whether it's called a religion, does it matter what it's called? <S> What else would you call it <S> , what do you call "mathematics" for example (art, science, practice, doctrine), or what do you call "family" ( <S> society, way of life, relationship, vehicle)? <S> I guess it's called a religion because it shares some properties with "religions" (or "other religions"), for example: <S> Belief, faith, confidence. <S> Moral/social rules <S> Soteriological theory, a doctrine of liberation or salvation Uniforms (at least in monastic society), and rituals, special places, <S> special days <S> I guess it's called that because people like to generalise or classify, make analogies (e.g. "X is like Y") and reuse existing words (like "religion") -- especially when thy encounter something new, they might want to compare it with what they "know" already. <S> Also some of the things I mentioned (e.g. ritual, uniform, the iconography and architecture of special places like temples) is public and visible -- and that's what (perhaps that's all that) <S> someone who is not a Buddhist will see. <S> Even more so if they don't know any Buddhists. <S> And if Buddhism is mental practices, states of mind -- not only rituals -- maybe that's less evident to the world at large. <S> Maybe it's not even considered uniquely Buddhist (e.g. you might think of someone, you might recognise that, "he's a kind person", instead of, "he's a Buddhist").	It is possible to enter the path while still holding to incompatible beliefs, however sooner or later these beliefs will conflict with the teachings.
Despairing About Meditative Regularity I have set the amount of time I meditate (focused attention/shamatha) at merely 15 minutes per day. Despite this, despite all my best efforts, I seem to still skip a day or two now and then. Why is this? Would changing the type of meditation help? I had read positive emotions help develop a habit. When I meditate mindfully on the breath, there are no such emotions; doing compassion meditation, positive affect arises. Would this affective benefit motivate a meditative practice? <Q> Having spend a mindful day with dana, a day having begone with refuge, spend with Sila, one is able to rejoice: Buddhanussati, 2 min remembering the BuddhaDhammanussati, 2 min remembering the DhammaSanghanusati... <S> Remember ones GenerosityRemember ones <S> VirtueRemember/reflect ones virturs equal the Devas <S> Having given causes, one gains concentration. <S> Not having given causes, trying to concentrate by effort will always be just developing wrong concentration. <S> Useless to invest in a roof when foundation is not given. <S> Duties first: this is not a path for lazyness's fruits. <S> Not the path of demanding and claims. <A> There can be several reasons. <S> If you are only training concentration ie; tranquilizing the breath or observing thoughts, feelings and perceptions arising and ceasing, then it is possible that you would incline to laziness because you are not cultivating perceptions which would lead to aroused effort and willingness. <S> If the monk intent on heightened mind were to attend solely to the theme of concentration, it is possible that his mind would tend to laziness. <S> http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/03/an03-103.html Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of unpleasantness in impermanence and abiding much in it, a keen perception of fear, for laziness, distraction, negligence and non-reflection gets established, like to a slayer with raised sword. <S> http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/mnl/an/07_sevens/an07.046.upal.mnl.htm <S> You can try doing 15 minutes but cover more bases. <S> Perhaps experiment with something like this; 5 minutes - Inconstancy, Unpleasantness, Unattractiveness of Worldsor Death Contemplation 5 minutes - Uplifted Energy, Appreciation, Sympathetic Joy, Metta, Equanimity or Recollection; of The Buddha, The Dhamma, The Sangha, your own virtue or Devas 5 minutes - Develop Concentration; <S> if restless tranquilize breath formation and if sluggish train mindfulness observing feelings, thoughts and perceptions as they arise, persist and cease <A> Observe the breath carefully - in/out - rising/falling - long/short breathstrain in the breath this way, until mindfulness is achieved. <S> Practice:mindfulness of the body (kaya);mindfulness of feelings or sensations (vedanā);mindfulness of mind or consciousness (citta); and.mindfulness of dhammās. <S> As a result one should develop clarity of mind, alertness, clear thinking as a result. <S> As the saying goes: "Cooler heads prevail" - we should develop a cooler head. <S> If you can't feel yourself breathing via body, sensations, mind, dhammas, then we come back to the mindfulness, regulating mindfulness to follow the breath in these four bases. <S> Just feeling the in/out breath with body alone should be sufficient to feel the cooling effect. <S> This is not insignificant, stay with it. <S> Study <S> the suttas - Ānāpānasati - Satipaṭṭhāna Check your practice against these texts - it should work. <S> Download Insight Timer for your smart phoneLoad the Presets with 15 minute, 20 minute, etc. <S> sessionsUse the unguided meditation methodtrack your daily, weekly, monthly progress, aiming for stability and getting established. <S> Or get an actual timer and a meditation bell. <S> It's good to have a zafu. <S> All the props do actually help. <S> Go to sangha meetings. <S> Over time, increase your daily sessions, the more you give, the more you get. <A> Why is this? <S> The gauge you should use for success here is not how often you meditate, but how long you hold your attention during those sessions. <S> There is nothing wrong with skipping a day or two, for the goal is not to sit consistently. <S> The goal is to extend the length of time you can concentrate on an object of your focus. <S> Would changing the type of meditation help? <S> If you change the type of meditation you are doing, you will be no longer cultivating your skills in concentration. <S> If your goal is to increase your concentration abilities in order to gain insights into the true nature of experience and therefore work towards becoming enlightened, I do not suggest you switch. <S> If your goal is not enlightenment but something else, there is no problem with you switching the type of meditation you do. <S> Would this affective benefit motivate a meditative practice? <S> If your goal is to simply sit and meditate, no matter what the type, it would make sense to switch. <S> A type of meditation you enjoy will most likely be one that you come back to more frequently. <S> But if your goal is to become enlightened, the type of meditation you do is very important, and I do not suggest switching.	The goal of attention meditation is to increase the length of time you can successfully focus on your meditation object (the breath) without breaking that attention. Instead, I would suggest re-examining what the goal of your sessions are, and change how you measure a successful succession of sessions.
Meditating on Public Transport I saw there was one post about mindfulness on public transport. However, I felt these posts dealt with being mindful on public transport rather than meditation . I wonder: Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport? Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality of general meditative practice? <Q> Meditating on Public Transport Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport? <S> Sitting (cushion) meditation practice is meant to develop mindfulness to such a degree that it can be transferred into daily life and ultimately into constant mindfulness until one can ultimately become free from Samsara. <S> Walking meditation is another great way of bridging ones practice into daily life. <S> Meditation in gradually noisier environments will be challenging but that's the idea. <S> It's beneficial to meditate everywhere and all the time. <S> As an example; when I have patient consultation, I'm mindful of my abdomen rising and falling with each breath, the feeling of my lips moving when talking, the sound of my own voice, the seeing that goes on when seeing a patient, the feeling of pressure from sitting on a chair, the sound of birds chirping outside etc. <S> One object at a time. <S> Even though it might be difficult to practice in public transport it should be done and with time it will become effortless. <S> Don't worry about the quality it will become refined with practice. <S> It's like learning to shoot a bow. <S> It's the same with meditation practice in noisy environments. <S> At some point the mind will begin to incline towards being mindful due to the purity and simplicity of being in the present moment. <S> When that happens there will be a strong momentum driving the mind towards mindfulness and away from unmindfulness. <S> At that point it begins to become effortless. <S> One does not have to apply and direct (vitakka and vichara) <S> the mind anymore. <S> Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality of general meditative practice? <S> No, never. <S> It will build, develop, cultivate and add to "general meditation practice". <S> A doctor who specializes in a field will be good but a doctor who specializes in several fields will be even better. <S> A fighter who specializes in one school of martial arts will be good. <S> A fighter who specializes in several schools of martial arts will be even better. <A> I practice Samatha meditation when I am traveling on the plane. <S> If shot distance travel it is better to practice Vipassana <S> otherwise you might miss the place to get off from the bus. <S> Buddhists are expected to practice mindfulness throughout the day. <A> I felt these posts dealt with being mindful on public transport rather than meditation <S> I don't feel like there is necessarily a distinction between being mindful and meditating. <S> In my experience, the goal of meditation is to get insight, and the way to practice meditation is to be mindful of what happen in the present moment in the frames of reference, which are the body, the mind, feelings and dharmas. <S> That being said, the context and the environnement surrounding you matters a lot, and you can take advantage of that. <S> There will not be the same kind of activity in your mind if you are on a public transport rather than in your room. <S> There is stuff to be aware of that can happen only when you are on public transport, so don't miss your chance to get insights by being distracted ! <S> The whole purpose of formal meditation in a quiet place is to train yourself to be able to meditate anywhere throughout your day, you have to do it <S> otherwise you will not make any progress. <S> As the musician knows that doing his scales everyday is necessary to make music but is not music itself, we should know that formal meditation is only a mean to an end. <S> So to answer your questions : <S> Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport? <S> Yes ! <S> Go for it any way you like. <S> Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality of general meditative practice? <S> If you feel weird while doing it fearing what people might think of you, or unable to calm down your mind, great ! <S> Finding out ways to relax in the present moment in these difficult conditions will enhance your ability to meditate in any situations. <S> Meditation is a skill that develops over time. <S> Don't worry about the quality of your meditation. <S> You might not feel like this is going anywhere when you meditate in awful conditions, but keep at it and you will be rewarded !	Proper practice revolves around an integration of mindfulness meditation into daily life. If one only practices at home but can't use the practice outside of ones sitting practice, then it's not beneficial. With time and consistent practice one will finetune the movements, reduce energy consumption and eventually be able to do it effortlessly.
What happens if you drop and break a plate of fruit from the Buddha's altar? What happens if you drop and break a plate of fruit from the Buddha's altar? <Q> Is it bad karma? <S> Well, karma is about intention. <S> Is it a bad omen? <S> Definitely not. <S> The Buddha did not teach his followers to believe in omens. <S> In fact, we should not cling to unskillful thoughts like superstitious belief in omens. <S> How should I interpret the incident? <S> All conditioned things are impermanent ( sabbe sankhara anicca ). <S> Everything that arises, must eventually cease. <S> That applies to the plate of fruit too. <S> If you leave the fruit where it is, in due time it will rot and dry up, even without your intervention. <S> What should I do? <S> It would be skillful, virtuous and thoughtful of you to clean up any mess that you created, even if done accidentally. <S> What should I not do? <S> You should not carry remorse or regret for breaking the plate. <S> It's unskillful to cling to remorse. <S> Instead, you should resolve to be more careful next time - <S> that's skillful. <S> You should also not deceive others into thinking that you did not break the plate, as lying is against one of the five precepts. <A> What happens is the possible realisation of impermanence & the true nature of rupa (materiality). <S> SN 22.79 says: " Why is it called rupa (form)? <S> Because it is deformed or broken (ruppati), thus it is called form (rupa) ". <S> There was a Thai leader & teacher of many monks named Ajahn Chah. <S> who had a drinking glass. <S> He would always tell his disciples the drinking glass is already broken. <S> Similarly, it is the true & inherent nature ( sabhava ) of the altar plate that it must inevitably break (sooner or later). <A> You should take responsibility. <S> Someone commented ... <S> "You will have to pick up the pieces and clean the mess. <S> That's an answer of a person who has at least such as shame and a feeling of responsibility for his deeds; but nevertheless, it's not the place to play "the cool one" if hurting somebody else. <S> One may read or listen to " Sensitivity through generosity " <S> It's a very praiseworthy reaction to feel remorse, even if having unintentionally broken someone else's possession or something another loves. <S> And it is praiseworthy, even if would not having a debt to repay something, to simply use such occasions for training one's generosity -- without long asking who, and why. <S> Bringing Ajahn Chah here in the right way into this, he said: <S> "When you see some dirt, sweep it away. <S> When there is something to do, do it. <S> No need to argue around who's duty." <S> Don't just imitate equanimity (by saying for example "it's just rupa "), or use that as an excuse not to work on the very basics, on defilements. <S> (Note that this is not given to make anybody a favor, for exchange, trade, gain and bonds but dedicated for release not only from fools but also from debts in this world)	If you did not intentionally drop and break the plate of fruit, then there is no consequence for you, from the perspective of karma.
Remaining in first jhana, while walking, talking, eating Is it possible to attain the first jhana, then remain in first jhana, while walking, talking, eating and performing other daily activities? Or does one remain in first jhana only while in sitting meditation, then he has to leave the jhana and meditation, before he is able to perform daily activities such as walking, talking and eating? <Q> From AN3.63 : With the giving up of pleasure and pain, and the ending of former happiness and sadness, I enter and remain in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness. <S> When I’m practicing like this, if I walk meditation, at that time I walk like the gods. <S> When I’m practicing like this, if I stand , at that time I stand like the gods. <S> When I’m practicing like this, if I sit , at that time I sit like the gods. <S> When I’m practicing like this, if I lie down, at that time I lie down like the gods. <S> There are some who find the above an indication that walking meditation in jhana is possible. <S> There are also those who find the above impossible given the depth of absorption in which senses recede and physical processes such as breathing stop. <S> There is also the matter of the Vinaya, which prohibits public discussion of attainments. <S> To illustrate the difficulty of translation for those bound by the Vinaya, note that where Bhante Sujato uses "walking meditation", Bhikkhu Bodhi translates the section on walking in AN3.63 with more ambiguity. <S> Both are bound by the Vinaya: <S> Then, brahmin, when I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is celestial. <S> Discussion of jhana attainments is problematic given the prohibitions of the Vinaya. <S> In other words, the monastics who understand jhana are forbidden from discussing it. <S> Therefore, this question can never be answered definitively in a public forum such as this. <A> It's possible to reach Jhanic states while not formal sitting, yet can be certain " dangerous ". <S> (while not serious, actually serious warning). <S> Walking is perfect, but one should not train such in a "dangerous" environment for one self and others but only when already walking renouncing ways. <S> A will of change (sitting, walking, standing, lying), how ever, requires to leave the state, but if good trained, quick may continue. <S> It might occur, but would not be prompted by one knowing what he is doing, while doing other things concentrated. <S> [Note: not for trade, exchange, stacks and gains binding to world but liberation given] <A> According to Sutta Jhana formula, you have to sit cross-legged and keeping your body erects, keeping your mindfulness to the front when you are in first Jhana. <S> In first Jhana you have abandoned five hindrances and acquired five Jhana factors vitakka, vicara, pithi, sukha and ekagata. <S> your speech has ceased and no body pain. <S> Hence walking, talking and eating do not satisfy the Jhana formula. <A> Perhaps you can stay in Arahattaphla Samadhi while you are walking, talking and eating. <A> No, it's impossible. <S> That isn't to say that you can't practice walking meditation (or any other technique) in a way that develops the five jhana factors, however. <S> These can be cultivated to quite a significant degree especially if they are done as a supplement to seated meditation. <S> By definition, one-pointedness cannot coexist in the midst of multiple objects of attention. <A> The First Jhana is just sustained thought and attention on the object, with some sukkha (pleasure, bliss), and some piiti (rapture, ecstacy) which are " <S> First dhyāna: the first dhyana can be entered when one is secluded from sensuality and unskillful qualities, due to withdrawal and right effort. <S> There is pīti ("rapture") and non-sensual sukha ("pleasure") as the result of seclusion, while vitarka-vicara ("discursive thought") continues" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhy%C4%81na_in_Buddhism <S> "you will be overcome with rapture, euphoria, ecstasy, delight. <S> These are all English words that are used to translate the Pali word piti. <S> Perhaps the best English word for piti is “glee.” <S> Piti is a primarily physical sensation that sweeps you powerfully into an altered state. <S> But piti is not solely physical; as the suttas say, “On account of the presence of piti, there is mental exhilaration.” <S> In addition to the physical energy and mental exhilaration, the piti will be accompanied by an emotional sensation of joy and happiness. <S> The Pali word for this joy/happiness is sukha, the opposite of dukkha (pain, suffering). <S> And if you can remain undistractedly focused on this experience of piti and sukha, that is the first jhana." <S> Leigh Brasington - <S> https://www.lionsroar.com/entering-the-jhanas/ <S> It must be possible to experience these during sitting, standing, lying down, and walking, because they are standard positions for meditation. <S> Eating is also used for meditation so that also. <S> Conversing activates the discrimination mind, rather than the mind moving towards equanimity, so it will diminish the effect of the First Jhana. <S> It is excellent to stabilize samadhi by doing these things, whilst in jhana, but preferably with Noble Silence. <S> "Huisi taught two different forms of the lotus samadhi. <S> The "practice devoid of characteristics", or the practice of ease and bliss, is based on the fourteenth chapter of the Lotus Sutra.[22][23] <S> Huisi explains, "While in the very midst of phenomena [the practitioner discerns that] mental characteristics are quiescent and extinguished and ultimately do not arise. <S> (...) <S> He is constantly immersed in all the profound and wonderful dhyana absorptions because in all activities - walking, standing, sitting, lying down, eating or speaking - his mind is always settled [in samadhi]." <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanyue_Huisi	Unfortunately, it's simply not possible to develop one-pointedness to the degree required by full jhana when one's attention has to be split between the object of meditation and the act of walking.
First Effort in "Right Effort" The first effort states to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states How is this done? How can we prevent something beforehand? By avoiding situations? By trying to be in a rational and/or 'dhammic' frame of mind? If there is contact with an object, either ignorance or wisdom arises subsequently in response, and AFTER THAT, we can use sati-sampajañña to get rid of the unwholesome state (2nd factor of right effort). But how is the first factor to be practised? <Q> The following theme for reflection from AN 5.57 (quoted below) can prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states. <S> It encourages shame of evil ( hiri ) and fear of evil ( otappa ), which are mentioned as beautiful mental factors in the Abhidhamma . <S> “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘ <S> I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do’? <S> People engage in misconduct by body, speech, and mind. <S> But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct is either completely abandoned or diminished . <S> It is for the sake of this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’ <A> "to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states": the first in this regard is to do not associate with fools and further might then be learned elsewhere. <S> Most difficult if not training already on the path. <S> So better train right effort in looking after right view, effort and making the Sila section full. <S> (Not for exchange, stacks and trade but for liberation) <A> You might be able to answer this from your own experience: why don't you kill people, for example? <S> Why avoid lying, stealing, sexual misconduct, alcohol? <S> I suppose it's: Avoiding a situation where that might seem tempting Not seeking that situation (and therefore never finding it) <S> Using conceit as a tool (e.g. "I don't want to see myself as being the kind of person who can do that kind of thing") -- possibly related to the sense of shame -- for example if the feeling of beginning to get angry causes the feeling of shame to arise (or if not shame then compassion, any awareness of the disadvantages), then you'll want to "prevent the arising" of anger. <S> Having better (more skilful) alternatives to use -- e.g. tell the truth, stay on-topic, or stay silent instead of lying or being "harsh" -- and so on.	Considering the danger in advance (because the dhamma tells you to) so that "that's a danger, I'll avoid doing that" is a "instinctive" reaction when there is any contact with a situation like that (except that I'd guess that isn't "instinct", instead it's training and habit, character)
Sati-Sampajañña and a quiet mind Is it the case that a quiet mind can best execute Sati-Sampajañña because there are no interfering thoughts disturbing it? If the answer is yes, should the main concern in day-to-day life be to tranquilize the mind, to think and keep wisdom in mind, or even both? Regards <Q> The quiet mind is ideal but not a forced quiet mind. <S> It is only the quiet of jhana that is ideal. <S> If jhana is too difficult, and unlikely for us, then best not to waste time and practice momentary samadhi instead by becoming aware of the busy, unclear mind when it arises. <S> If there is an urge to fight it or if there is disliking it, be aware there is disliking. <S> Mindfulness impartial to the defilement <S> , the defilement is automatically abandoned, disappears for that moment. <S> Train this way for those who aren't clearing the mind correctly or easily. <A> Absence of thoughts is different than the awareness being roused. <S> For example, a bad day in Samsara can make one more aware of dukkha, and can rouse the awareness that one has dukkha and not clear release and knowing. <S> This is a better place to start from: rousing the awareness, and setting mindfulness front and center. <S> Ultimately Samsara is Nirvana. <S> Knowing this will quiet thoughts. <S> One needs to be discontent, dissatisfied with samasara on the dukkha side. <S> If one can find the quiet that rises up to overcome dukkha, that's a day-to-day practice. <S> "Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering. <S> Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving [taṇhā, "thirst"] which leads to re-becoming, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for becoming, craving for disbecoming. <S> Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it. <S> Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is this noble eightfold path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." <A> In respect to meditation, the quiet mind is the end result of the execution of Sati-Sampajañña. <S> As for daily life, the role of Sati-Sampajañña is to ensure or remember Right Speech, Right Action & Right Livelihood are performed in respect to daily activities. <S> Sati-Sampajañña does not only have one outcome. <S> I suggest to read MN 117 , which describes how Sati-Sampajañña is used in relation to each factor of the Path. <S> In summary: In meditation, Sati-Sampajañña ensures the mind has Right View & Right Thought that leads to Right Concentration. <S> In daily life, Sati-Sampajañña ensures Right Speech, Right Action & Right Livelihood are maintained when interacting with others. <S> For example, from MN 117: One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. <S> Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort & right mindfulness — <S> run & circle around right view. <S> One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness.... <S> One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right speech: This is one's right mindfulness.... <S> One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness..... <S> One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness. <S> Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right livelihood. <A> Saṭipatṭhāna has many levels , such as Sīla, Khaṇika Samādhi, Taruṇa Vipassanā, Balava Vipassanā, Ariya Magga. <S> Sīla, Khaṇika Samādhi and Taruṇa Vipassanā do not require a quiet mind, so the practitioner can do it in day-to-day life. <S> Upacāra Samādhi, Appanā Samādhi (Lokiya Jhāna), Balava Vipassanā, Ariya Magga <S> (Lokuttara Jhāna) require a quiet mind because... <S> Upacāra Samādhi mind and Appanā Samādhi mind (Lokiya Jhāna) know only one object, unleashing five string objects, but Sīla and Khaṇika Samādhi minds know those both five string objects and unleashing five string objects, so they can't upgrade to be Upacāra Samādhi mind, Appanā Samādhi mind. <S> Balava Vipassanā mind knows only the last vanished Vipassanā-Mind <S> and it's three characteristics as object, but <S> Taruṇa Vipassanā knows five string objects too, so it can't upgrade to be Balava Vipassanā. <S> Ariya Magga mind (Lokuttara Jhāna) knows only Nibbāna, but Sīla, Khaṇika Samādhi, Taruṇa Vipassanā, and Balava Vipassanā minds know the other objects too, so they can upgrade to be Ariya Magga. <S> So, the definition of the meditation is: <S> All the wisdom of one who has attained (appanā), is, wisdom by means of development. <S> The meditation is the cessation of all suffering, not only the present suffering. <S> If the meditation is not strong enough, it can ceases only the present suffering and keeps the future suffering going on. <S> Daily life Vipassanā is good and the practitioner should do it, but Nibbāna is the best, so only doing good is not enough to enlighten Nibbāna. <S> See KN Paṭisambhidāmagga, Visuddhimagga, DN Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta. <A> Sati - mindfulness or awareness Sampajañña - constant thorough understanding of impermanence <S> A quiet mind can help: establish awareness as a scattered mind cannot develop a deep awareness <S> see clearly the nature of things hence know impermanence at the experiential level	The role of Sati-Sampajañña in meditation is to ensure there are no interfering thoughts.
Potential of Five Minutes of Meditation Once, when I went to a Buddhist meditation center, an experienced meditator said: "Sometimes, for meditation, all it takes is five minutes [in a session]." I'm wondering what is the meaning of such a statement. Does this refer to relaxation? Insight? Or something else? What is the most plausible meaning? <Q> According to Abhidhamma Jhana is one thought moment. <S> One thought moment is so small there could be billions of thought moments in a splash of the light. <S> So the five minutes of Jhana is quite an achievement for a beginner. <A> "If one were to develop even for just a finger-snap the perception of inconstancy, that would be more fruitful than the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and [in addition to that] if one were to feed one person... 100 people consummate in view, and were to feed one once-returner... <S> 100 once-returners, and were to feed one non-returner... 100 non-returners, and were to feed one arahant... 100 arahants, and were to feed one Private Buddha... 100 Private Buddhas, and were to feed a Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — and were to feed a community of monks headed by the Buddha, and were to have a dwelling built and dedicated to the Community of the four directions, and with a confident mind were to go to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha for refuge, and with a confident mind were to undertake the training rules — refraining from taking life, refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from illicit sex, refraining from lying, refraining from distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness — and were to develop even just one whiff of a heart of good will." <S> https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.020.than.html <A> Ah, well you'd have to ask them. <S> In 1999, when i began the Buddhist practices of meditation, I started with 5 minutes per day and it was enough to keep me anchored and get results, and expand the time and depth of practice. <S> I still only average 45 minutes per day <S> but i augment that with "spacing out" practice where i just stop everything and return to meditation. <S> Or it could mean that in only 5 minutes time a meditator can reach the deep end of the pool. <S> But for me the longer i sit, the deeper the pool is. <S> Maybe thats what they meant.	Five minutes is great goal for the "spacing out pratice" - to stop and remember the practice.
Buddhist thought on Amends Did the Buddha address the idea of making amends for past wrongs? I understand that we really only have the present moment in which karma is made, and where past karma manifests. But say one was a thief in this lifetime, stole much, but then found Buddhism and the path. According to the Buddha, should this person make an attempt to repay the victims of his/her theft? <Q> Walking the path with bad karma presently lingering will make it more difficult to gain wisdom. <S> This is because the guilt you feel from stealing will distract you from your cultivation of concentration and insight. <S> If you find you are having a hard time focusing during your meditation sessions because of this guilt, making amends could help you better progress in your search for enlightenment. <S> If you are just suffering in general because of it, it still may be beneficial. <S> That being said though, it is not required to clear that karma. <S> Once you attain enlightenment, all your karma is released, and the guilt will no longer remain. <S> So the answer is, how much is it bothering you? <S> If it is of little concequence to you, don't worry about it and continue the path. <A> I don't know, so I'll answer with the little bits I do know. <S> I think that, to ordain as a monk, a person should (must) be free of debt and of good reputation <S> -- I don't know how that's interpreted with respect to past theft. <S> There are some crimes where it isn't even obvious how to "make amends" or "repay the victim" -- if you steal someone's life, for example. <S> And yet there is at least one famous example in the suttas of a murderer becoming a monk, enlightened and harmless. <S> I guess everyone has a lot of past karma -- and Buddhism may be kind of about ending karma rather than continuing to act on it -- and for that reason I sort of doubt <S> (I might be wrong) whether he taught people to make amends by repaying victims (especially materially), but I also hesitate to say that you shouldn't. <S> There's a notion of owing a great deal to one's parents, a debt which can't be repaid. <S> See also topics about 'forgiveness' (for example), which might be relevant <A> Actually a question already often answered here, for example Confession in Buddhism <S> Did the Buddha address the idea of making amends for past wrongs? <S> Yes. <S> It's a very important point, althought very denied by "Buddhists" and "reformer" since they sell/advertise with a pseudo liberal idea of remorse-lessness without having given causes for such. <S> I understand that we really only have the present moment in which karma is made, and where past karma manifests. <S> It's possible good to understand kamma better and that "only present" does not help much. <S> Good, as most, Ven. <S> Thanissaros generous Dhamma gifts: Karma Q & A <S> But say one was a thief in this lifetime, stole much, but then found Buddhism and the path. <S> According to the Buddha, should this person make an attempt to repay the victims of his/her theft? <S> If such is possible, not always would a "victim" accept such, such can nothing but useful. <S> It's important to understand that "nobody" would force you in regard of confessions, amends or repay from the side of the tripple Gems. <S> How ever, as for the case one wishes to join the monastic Sangha, certain questions are raised and Monks are restricted from giving ordination to certain people. <S> Generally again the important story of Angulimara , the mass-murder, to get some understandings that wrong and right is not something lasting till certain points of attainings. <S> "No future" (for the current existence) in Dhamma are only in 6 cases, for one having killed mother, father, an Arahat, caused the Buddha shed bold, scaused a split of the Sangha and if holding strong wrong views, like those who deny the requirment of remorse, making amends of faults and other cause and effect denying ideas. <S> Hearing the good Dhamma, accepting right and wrong as explained and taking refuge in the Gems, if truthful, is the most usual kind of showing ones change and stick to virtue out of firm confidence. <S> At least: one who walks the path in it's full, is one who will "repay" all debts and an Arahat <S> is someone really free of debts. <S> Yet there are still three person hardly ever to repay . <S> (Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and what ever is thought to bind to the world for gains their but for liberation)	If you feel sad and guilty every day because of what you've done, making amends can relieve you of that.
Is divination for fun acceptable? I recently read an answer on here referencing a sutra that states "animal arts" such as performing any form of divination constitutes wrong livelihood which should be abstained from. What I'm wondering is which of these possible interpretations is most correct: Only monks need to abstain from engaging in these activities, and laypeople can do as they will. Laypeople should also abstain from engaging in these activities to make money, but using them for fun / as a pastime is fine. Everyone should abstain from these activities, regardless of any other factors. Or is there another interpretation altogether? <Q> My understanding is that anyone seeking Nibbana should be refrain from animal arts. <S> it may be a monk or a lay person. <A> I can't really speak about the dogamatic reasons for not, but if you are seeking to become enlightened, I suggest you abstain from activities like that until after you awaken. <S> This is simply because the activity of doing so is both enticing, and reinforces beliefs that need to be seen clearly and "undone". <S> Doing such things brings a belief in power and control. <S> It is very easy to become attached to these things. <S> Those attachments will keep you coming back for more. <S> Coming back for more will reinforce beliefs that "you" are "doing" something and gaining some "external" knowledge. <S> All these things will make it harder for you to become enlightened. <S> Tldr <S> ; Morally there's no issue. <S> If you do, enlightenment may be harder to realize. <S> If enlightenment this lifetime isn't your top priority but is a goal, maybe just do it sparingly? <S> If you don't care about enlightenment, do it as much as you'd like! <A> While Upasaka SarathW is right in his answer, the "matter" is that only a monks life might provide such. <S> So if caught in householder life, it's good to make it lesser and lesser "animal". <S> Kamma (action) "is" kamma, the path "is" one, does not care much about social stand, clothes... <S> right "is" right, wrong "is" wrong. <S> (Note: Not given to keep one in trade, exchange, stacks increasing or other animal arts binding toward worlds but to possible escape beyond the world.)	If you are seriously working hard to become enlightened, abstain.
Is there a proper name for my recent experience? I don't meditate often, and I've never had an experience like the following while meditating, but I feel that the following experience probably has a proper name in Buddhism (or Hinduism for that matter). A few days ago, I woke up to a horrible bout of depressive thoughts (deep depression being something I have been struggling with for almost as long as I can remember). I have gotten better at combating it recently, but this particular time, after the storm of bad thoughts had been beaten back, I had this feeling that my awareness somehow expanded. I felt as thought I could see my emotions and opinions and thoughts pass in front of me, almost like I was standing in the middle of a carousel with different lenses passing in front of me, those "lenses" being my notions and emotions through which I viewed the world; it was as if I had somehow "stepped back" 15 or so feet to view from a more removed vantage point. I noticed that my ability to "manage" my emotions went through the roof, and I was much, much happier all day. I also noticed that it was hard for me to say words that I felt were untruthful, or to say things I didn't know were true or not, as I could feel in my stomach whether they were truthful or not. I also (weirdly) felt as if I could tell when others said something they didn't actually believe, or if they were lying. I felt as if most "talk" was mainly chatter, not in a condescending sense, but more in a "not worth it" sense. I felt as if many things I used to take stock in just became... flat , totally uninteresting. I felt this state until I went to bed that night. But now, a few days later, I'm back to the way I was (as far as I can tell) and I also had a depressive bout as well (I'm guessing somehow brought on in part by this experience). The things that didn't matter that day, the opinions and expectations of others, their ideologies and so on, suddenly popped back up, are no longer "flat" so to speak, and are "real" again -- though not as "real" to me as they had been previously. Is there a proper name for this state of consciousness? <Q> Common signs of depression: ---> Decreased Interest or Pleasure <S> The second core symptom of major depressive disorder is a decreased interest or pleasure in things that were once enjoyed. <S> A person exhibiting this symptom will show markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, daily activities. <S> --- <S> > <S> Depression can be dangerous, do not take it lightly and seek proper medical support <S> is also a preferred way. <A> As Krizalid said, it is always important to take care of your mental health. <S> Asking for professional help can improve the way you deal with emotions and thoughts. <S> That being said, I suggest taking the best of that situation (the "feeling" of being able to watch the emotions and mindstates impersonally, and the knowledge of the possibility of finding progressive peace and tranquility through mental training, like the one offered by the Buddha through the Noble Eightfold Path), but keeping in mind that such experiences are conditioned and impermanent. <S> Try to not get attached to it, don't become obsessed with trying to feel it again, and pay attention to not use this as a way to increase (maybe unconsciously) your "ego" or ideas born from conceit, about an "I" which is "more spiritual" and superior than everyone else. <S> I'm not saying that what you felt was false nor a delusion. <S> I'm just suggesting to keep your feet on the ground, and to maybe use this as a motivation for getting in touch with the mind and its processes. <S> Buddhism offers a lot of tools, knowledge and strategies for knowing the mind better, for understading the motivations behind our deeds, and for learning how to deal with such underlying processes. <S> I wish you the best, and feel free to ask here whatever you may need to be answered (related to Buddhism, of course). <S> Have a wonderful day! <A> I don't know what the experience was <S> but there are many things going on <S> and if i was to paraphrase it using what i think to be Buddhist terminology i would explore the application terms like; <S> The faculty and power of conscientiousness; ... of concern; ... ofdiscernment Fear and shame of wrong-doing Renunciation joy States that are Good in Relation to the Sensuous Universe <S> Basically when faculties are developed, the range of potential states to be experienced is altered. <S> The novelty of the experiences associated with the faculty development is many-fold and that is about as far as i would go of what you wrote in the OP. <A> It sounds exactly like you had a dissociative episode. <S> The National Alliance on Mental Illness lists some symptoms as: Out-of-body experiences, such as feeling as though you are watching a movie of yourself Mental health problems such as depression <S> A sense of detachment from your emotions, or emotional numbness <S> A lack of a sense of self-identity <S> The fact that this matches up exactly with how you describe your experience means I would be extremely cautious about assuming you are "progressing" in any way like some other commenters have said. <S> It is likely that this entire experience was a symptom of your depression, and if it continues to happen you really should seek medical advice.	Disengaged A developed practice of being distant or disengaged, uninvolved with things that usually matter, negligent towards loved ones.
Is there any benefit to, as far as is humanly possible, total dedication to the precepts, in zen? Is there any benefit to, as far as is humanly possible, total dedication to the precepts, in zen? So total celibacy, vegetarianism and non violence to any life form, complete abstinence form alcohol, etc.. For the laity without a zen master. <Q> When focusing on the foundations, one works smart and straight forward till perfection. <S> One hearing then the good teachings it might plopp . <S> Good associations/relations so that it might work. <S> (Note: not given to keep or give to keep in the wheel of trade, exchange, stacks... binding to worlds but for using as escape) <A> Yes. <S> I studied Zen for many years. <S> And yet my practice was indeed strengthened when I started reading the Pali EBTs and observing more precepts. <S> For example, I gave up dinner, cook for my wife and have the leftovers for lunch. <S> And I regularly study the suttas. <S> The suttas actually bring the Zen canon to life in a completely novel way. <A> Yes, of course. <S> However, in Zen, as in Vajrayana - and Mahayana in general - there is a strong idea of priorities . <S> It exists in the Pali Canon and Theravada too, but there it is not so strongly emphasized, although they recognize it, too, without a doubt. <S> In the simplest example, if lying is required to save a life, one or the other concern may have to take precedence, depending on a situation. <S> In more interesting "Zen" situations, if overcoming your phobia or attachment requires breaking a minor precept, guess what wins. <S> The way I was trained, whenever you feel too holy and saintly, you should go get drunk or yell at someone etc. <S> Basically, break the pattern. <S> It requires increasingly fine discernment to perfect this skill, with different counter-acts and counter-counter-acts applicable in different situations, but you get the basic idea. <S> (Reminds me of stories... was it Milarepa? ... <S> who burned the Dharma texts his student was obsessing about. <S> Or that story about Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche forcing a student to watch him throwing rocks at a cat. <S> This last thing of course is extremely cruel, and I'm sure Rinpoche felt the cat's fear and pain deep in his heart. <S> And yet, sometimes these are the kinds of things you have to do in order to help your students overcome some of their stronger attachments, especially attachments to high ethics and spirituality.) <S> So the above considerations put some limit on how closely you can uphold the precepts, but within those limits, yes absolutely, you should definitely keep them as pure as humanly possible.	"Perfect" virtue (when based on right view, which could be problematic with certain "Zen-views") is the condition for no remorse, no remorse... happiness, concentration, ... insight... liberation. There is definitely much benefit.
Whatever bad deed done with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here In the context of the sutta below, what does the following phrase mean? - " whatever bad deed I did here in the past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will not follow along " ( yaṃ kho me idaṃ kiñci pubbe iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ idha vedanīyaṃ; na taṃ anugaṃ bhavissatī’ti ) This phrase seems to apply to one who practises the Brahmaviharas . How is it different for one who does not practise the Brahmaviharas (or the Dhamma in general, for that matter)? What does deed-born body ( karajakāya ) really mean? Also related is the phrase " A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals have mind as their core. " ( Itthiyā vā, bhikkhave, purisassa vā nāyaṃ kāyo ādāya gamanīyo. Cittantaro ayaṃ, bhikkhave, macco. ). What does this mean? From AN 10.219 : “What do you think, bhikkhus, if a youth were to develop the liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity) from his childhood on, would he do a bad deed?” “No, Bhante.” “Could suffering affect him if he does no bad deed?” “No, Bhante. For on what account could suffering affect one who does no bad deed?” “A woman or a man should develop this liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity). A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals have mind as their core. “The noble disciple understands: ‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will not follow along.’ When the liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity) has been developed in this way, it leads to non-returning for a wise bhikkhu here who does not penetrate to a further liberation. <Q> What does deed-born body ( karajakāya ) really mean? <S> It appears to mean "body born of causing". <S> It's a compound, e.g. kara ("causing") <S> ja <S> ("born of") kāya ("body"). <S> The PTS dictionary <S> entry for Kara includes ... Kara (p. 195) <S> Kara Kara [fr. <S> kṛ] <S> 1. <S> (adj.) <S> ( -- ˚) producing, causing, forming, making, doing ... <S> and ... <S> ja "born of kamma" in karaja <S> -- kāya the body sprung from action, an expression always used in a contemptible manner, therefore=the impure, vile, low body A v.300; J i.5; Vism 287, 404; DA i.113, 217, 221; DhA i.10; iii.420; DhsA 403. karaja -- rūpa Vism 326. <S> Also ... <S> Ja (p. 277) <S> Ja Ja ( -- ˚) <S> [adj. <S> -- suffix from jan, see janati; cp. <S> ˚ga; gacchati] born, produced, sprung or arisen from. <S> So it's literally or etymologically <S> kara-ja-kaya i.e. "body born from kara ", where kara is defined as "producing, causing, forming, making, doing". <S> I don't see exactly why kara and kamma are being equated, but they're obviously pretty similar. <S> Given this translation <S> ... <S> yaṃ kho me idaṃ kiñci pubbe iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ idha vedanīyaṃ ... <S> I think the literal word-for-word translation is something like ... <S> Whatever my something in-the-past I have with this body-born-of-causing bad-deeds done, entirely in-this-world <S> I will know them. <S> Perhaps you might as well just read it as kaya (i.e. body). <S> There are other bits in the sutta which just refer to body, e.g. ... <S> For neither women nor men take this body with them when they go. <S> Itthiyā vā, bhikkhave, purisassa vā nāyaṃ kāyo ādāya gamanīyo. <A> Ven. <S> Bodhi's note citing Comy's explanation: " <S> [The noble disciple] understands: "Whatever bad deed I did here in the past with this deed-born body <S> is all to be experienced here"[2190] <S> Karajakaya. <S> I translate the expression literally but it may imply much the same thing as such English expressions as 'this mortal body' or 'this corporeal body.' <S> DOP sv kara, says: ' <S> A body produced by action, the physical body.' <S> SN 12:37, II 65,1, speaks of the body as 'old kamma' (Puranamidam - kammam). <S> The Chinese parallel has nothing that corresponds to this term. <S> " It will not follow along"[2191] <S> Mp: ' <S> By means of loving-kindness, the feeling that would have been experienced upon rebirth is cut off, and thus it does not follow one along. <S> This is the reflection of a noble person who is a stream-enterer or a once-returner.' <S> Presumably, the bad kamma is all to be experienced here <S> (Sabbam tam idha vedaniyam), in this life, and will not follow along (na tam anugam bhavissati) because his next rebirth will be in the form realm, where there is no painful experience, and he will attain nibbana in the form realm without returning to this world. <S> "A woman or a man should develop this liberation of mind by loving-kindness. <S> A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. <S> Mortals have mind as their core"[2189] <S> Cittantaro ayam bhikkhave macco. <S> Mp: ' <S> They have mind as their cause, or their interior is due to mind (cittakarano, atha va citten-eva antariko). <S> For with the mind at rebirth that follows without interval the mind at death, one becomes a deva, a hell-being, or an animal.' <A> If after liberation rather that to find something to grasp on either: <S> It simply empathizes, approves, that what ever body/kaya/stand is taken on comes into being by deeds (kamma). <S> Nothing that one should puzzle one thought into and and "end" up in papanca anyway. <S> The certain sequences deal also with cases where one still clings to a merely mental kaya, stand. <S> That is why there is no final liberation at this point. <S> "Just" cetovimutti but try it, right here and now (Brahmavihara), rather to seek for another kaya. <S> It's a Sublime host, that of the Brahma. <S> ... <S> it leads to <S> non-returning for a wise person here who does not penetrate to a further liberation (Not given for trade, exchange, stacks but for getting independent from relations and bonds.)	Whatever bad deeds I have done in the past with this deed-born body I will experience here.
Suffering in Meditation Versus in Daily Life I feel like this is a naive question, but I'm wondering what is the difference between experiencing discomfort and distress in meditation versus in daily life outside of meditation. Do the same states generate different results in each case, depending on the co-arising factors? EDIT: For example, suffering in daily life might undergo rumination and even being acted upon. In meditation, perhaps the same suffering will be diminished by the arising qualities from meditation, like equanimity or compassion. Is this the case? <Q> Meditation mustn't be limited to the formal meditation which is just done in a limited time. <S> If a person doesn't do anything to be mindful in daily life, even having temporary calm in the formal meditation session would be difficult for him/her. <S> Also such a practise would not effect the person in daily life, so the person would continue to experience negative mind states(and <S> the person would "be" the negative mind states completely) without being able to observe them clearly. <S> If a person does such a practise, the daiy life suffering would capture the person completely and would completely influence his/her actions. <S> And the suffering that a person experiences in the formal meditation would be "potentially" diminished or temporarily go away(but <S> this is not guaranteed) and replaced by temporary calm, peace, compassion, equanimity etc. <S> But If a person succeeds to do it in the formal meditation it would not have a continous effect in the person's life because only practising mindfulness all day long can change the structure of the mind and can lead a person to Nibbana. <S> Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment. https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-do-not-dwell-in-the-past-do-not-dream-of-the-future-concentrate-the-mind-on-the-present-moment-buddha-26637.jpg <A> Suffering in Meditation Versus in Daily Life <S> If not, then one might react with aversion towards present suffering and thereby cultivate further future suffering. <S> Be happy that the suffering is arising now and not in the future. <S> Now you have an oppertunity to do away with it, meaning that the distance to Nibbana can be reduced. <A> If during meditation one reaches equanimity (upekkhā उपेक्खा), during the meditation practice, then there are no outflows. <S> Which makes it sound impossible to achieve, but remember, one's practice may lead to the non-arising of suffering as well. <S> It's not a naive question. <S> From saṃyuktāgama <S> First Discourse on <S> Not Knowing: <S> “A learned noble disciple understands as it really is bodily form, the arising of bodily form, the cessation of bodily form, the gratification of bodily form, the danger in bodily form, and the escape from bodily form. <S> He understands as it really is feeling … perception … formations … consciousness, the arising of consciousness, the cessation of consciousness, the gratification of consciousness, the danger in consciousness, and the escape from consciousness. <S> Therefore he does not follow after and turn around bodily form … feeling … perception … formations … consciousness. <S> “Because of not following after and turning around, he is liberated from bodily form, liberated from feeling … perception … formations … consciousness. <S> I say, he is liberated from birth, old age, disease, death, worry, sorrow, vexation, and pain.” <S> https://suttacentral.net/sa266/en/analayo <A> From the perspective of someone practicing or developing the Noble Eight-Fold Path (versus an Arahat who has removed all cankers), a difference would the mindfulness. <S> When you are meditating, you are withdrawn from mundane bodily and verbal actions and contemplating on the Four Noble Truths. <S> And you have more mindfulness about the body, feeling, etc. <S> So when a feeling arises (whether it is painful, pleasurable, or neutral), you are quick to identify them as part of suffering. <S> And they become the object of contemplation. <S> Instead of reacting to them, you investigate - what is the arising phenomena, <S> what is the cessation phenomena of what has arisen. <S> And how do you contemplate on the arising phenomena? <S> You contemplate according to what the Buddha has said - one seeks delight in form, welcomes it, <S> remains holding it. <S> As a result delight in form arises. <S> Delight in form is clinging. <S> With clinging as a condition, existence come to be. <S> With existence as a condition, birth. <S> With birth as a condition, aging, sickness, death, etc. <S> and this whole mass of suffering come to arise. <S> Same for feeling, etc. <S> That way you see the origin of the pain or distress you have now. <S> Then you can contemplate on the cessation phenomena. <S> Again you contemplate according to the Buddha - one does not seek delight in form, does not welcome it, does not remain holding. <S> As a consequence delight in form ceases. <S> When cessation of delight comes cessation of clinging. <S> With cessation of clinging, cessation of existence. <S> With cessation of existence, cessation of Birth. <S> With cessation of birth, the whole mass of suffering ceases. <S> Same with feeling, perception, etc. <S> That way you see the cessation of the pain or distress you have. <S> The amazing thing is, when you contemplate this way, your actual pains subside and joy & rapture starts to flow (due to seeing the Dhamma within your self). <S> However, you have to be mindful again to apply the same investigation to the (now) pleasurable feeling due to joy and rapture. <S> You also start to value the cessation of bodily, verbal & mental actions that you do in day to day life instead of giving value to them. <S> You also start to see the only real solution is Nibbana. <S> All else cannot be trusted to last (even the concentration from meditation). <S> With Metta	If one is mindful of the present suffering, one might remove it by passively observing it with mindfulness until it has been exhausted. The difference comes down to whether or not one is mindful of the suffering.
Can meditation be harmful? I often see promotion of the positive benefits of meditation in the media and even in school and government settings. However, there is evidence meditation is not always beneficial. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-science-behind-behavior/201604/the-little-known-downsides-mindfulness-practice Is there much discussion of the possible negative aspects of meditation in Buddism? For instance, could it leave one susceptible to malicious spirits? <Q> What Buddha recommended was the right concentration (Samma Samadhi) <S> a part of Noble Eightfold Path. <S> Wrong concentration (Mitya Samadhi) may be harmful. <A> Each person is born with a survival instinct, which manifests as "ego". <S> For many or most people, this ego instinct cannot be abandoned. <S> Luckily, nature protects most people but not allowing their mind to end the ego. <S> This is why Buddhist internet forums, for example, have many egotists that claim or imagine meditative attainments, such as "jhana". <S> These minds or people simply cannot get rid of ego. <S> But for some people, meditation can cause the ego to become fragile, causing psychosis. <S> Its only a select few that can peacefully abandon ego. <S> These are the Noble Ones. <A> Coming from a clinical perspective, i would advice against meditation in cases of moderate to severe illness like depression for instance. <S> I am aware that a practicing buddhist may have a different perspective. <S> I also find the false memory argument hard to understand, as a mindful look on memories would be a very healthy way of looking at any form of recollection. <S> If i understand correctly the mindfulness study cited only examined meditation experiences during one fifteen minutes session, and it seems like a very superficial base to draw these conclusion from. <A> Buddhist meditation is about contemplating on Dhamma which in short can be put into the Four Noble Truths. <S> When you are learning and practicing the noble dhamma, you are cultivating qualities such as mettā (kindness), karuṇā (compassion), muditā (sympathetic-joy) and upekkhā (equanimity). <S> Just think practically if these are the qualities you cultivate, can they bring anything negative? <S> Furthermore, when one learns that this nature of Suffering (birth, aging, sickness, death, etc.) and learns that the origin of this suffering is because of the three-fold craving, and also by destroying that very same craving the mass of suffering can be removed; he or she develops this Noble Eight Fold Path which is the path leading to the cessation of that suffering. <S> With the development of the Noble Eight Fold Path, having removed unskilled bodily, verbal and mental actions, and contemplating on the origin and cessation phenomena, one starts to understand the dependent origination. <S> With that you start to understand the root cause of what is arising now, and what happens if we act with lack of wise attention and lack of mindfulness. <S> Simultaneously an unshakable Faith arises in you about the Buddha, Dhamma and the Noble Sangha (as a result of seeing the true dhamma within you). <S> Now with that Faith and the mind fixed on Nibbana, that will become your most important protection. <S> When you practice dhamma this way, you don't get carried away even with highest levels of concentration or the results of such concentrations. <S> You understand if you seek delight in them you are seeking delight in suffering. <S> With Metta	So if you are meditating in accordance with the Noble Dhamma, only positive things can come out of that, with most positive and incomparable result being Nibbana.
Is there a fate worse than oblivion? Is there a fate worse than oblivion ? To forget, to be forgotten is there … Chant for anti- nothingless ? <Q> The opportunity afforded by human life is rare and precious. <S> SN56.47 <S> “Mendicants, suppose a person was to throw a yoke with a single hole into the ocean. <S> And there was a one-eyed turtle who popped up once every hundred years. <S> What do you think, mendicants? <S> Would that one-eyed turtle, popping up once every hundred years, still poke its neck through the hole in that yoke?” <S> “Only after a very long time, sir, if ever.” <S> “That one-eyed turtle would poke its neck through the hole in that yoke sooner than a fool who has fallen to the underworld would be reborn as a human being, I say. <S> Also see DN23 on Nihilism: <S> Nihilism <S> Seated to one side, the chieftain Pāyāsi said to Venerable Kassapa the Prince: <S> “Master Kassapa, this is my doctrine and view: ‘ <S> There’s no afterlife. <S> No beings are reborn spontaneously. <S> There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds.’” <S> “Well, chieftain, I’ve never seen or heard of anyone holding such a doctrine or view. <S> For how on earth can anyone say such a thing? <A> The worst fate is an important person, famous, who is known as a "good person" by most of the people but in reality is deeply corrupted is exposed to the public with all of the details. <S> That ego crushing experience would be a really horrible thing that a person can ever experience. <S> Probably that is far worse than oblivion or anything else ;) <A> No, there are less fates similar danger as Nihilism, householder Oni, interested. <S> One should not for get (how things came up rightly) <S> and so there will be soon forgiviness out of serious truthfulness that does not take side but resolves toward good direction ond <S> goes on. <S> Verdrängen ist nicht Verzeihen <S> There is a chant : Bowing down, I ask for forgiviness of what ever foolish I had done toward my parents, teacher, the Juwels. <S> To the Buddha, I go for refuge, to the Dhamma, I take refuge, to the Sangha of his Bhikkhus, I take refuge, I resolve in not taking existence, I resolve to take not what is not given, I resolve to do not engage in harmful and disturbing sense pleasure (of flesh), I resolve in speaking truthful, I resolve not to take indoxications causing heedlessness. <S> After that: <S> The Sublime Attitudes and at the end of this auspicious merits Dedication of Merits . <S> That is a huge antitude to oblivion, Nihilism and vi-bhava-tanha. <S> Not to mention that once having refuge the tripple Gems protect and one is no more left alone, even if it might appear outwardly this way. <S> [Not for trade, exchange, stacks and bonds to the world, but for liberation]	To embrace oblivion as a human would be...sad.
Direct Experience of Meditation This morning I read many posts on this site. I felt like topics on Buddhist doctrine were somewhat clear to me, but those on meditation seemed complex, difficult to me. I wondered: Does meditation practice increase knowledge about meditation? Is this what is meant by direct experience? I feel this may seem as a naive question; I'm mainly wondering how something experienced (i.e. meditation) might affect cognition / knowledge about the topic of meditation. For example, I'm unsure whether a person hammering nails all day would necessarily understand their task conceptually. Does meditation necessarily give one conceptual knowledge of meditation? <Q> They are mutually dependent as far as i can see. <S> A mere theoretical understanding of meditation will not take us very far in the progress, just like meditation without a theoretical description of the phenomena involved probably won't take us far either. <A> Simple analogy: <S> The experience of watching someone drive (a car) for 1000 years can never compare to actually driving by yourself for 1 hour. <A> Going canonical: Meditation involves samadhi (tranquil absorption) and sati (mindful awareness). <S> When you investigate a phenomena (breath for example) with this state of mind, depending upon the strength of your mindfulness you will see aspects of the working of the mind itself. <S> Almost like seeing through the corner of your mind, you see how the mind itself works. <S> And by virtue of seeing that you might see how reality is- this could come from different angles (impermanence, fabricated nature, dependent arising)- <S> our mind releases a little bit "ahh <S> this is silly, why am I so worried about this!". <S> But those are names we use to convey our experiences. <S> No amount of scholarly dissection of those names will help our mind release it. <S> Only direct, real time, seeing would. <S> Meditation develops the skill and arena for such insights. <S> This seeing the working of the mind does not need a conceptual framework. <S> But certain conceptual framework (the optimal way to nail a hammer) will help you hammer it deeper and better. <S> But it relies on your experiential understanding of hammering a nail itself. <S> The eight fold path is such a conceptual framework which points us in the general direction of these realizations. <A> Its like this. <S> Say you face a problem with the direct experience of a certain feeling ,thus you decided to formulate a new meditation concept where you contemplate that feeling. <S> Direct experience is to investigate the true nature of reality its subjective quality .In hammering nails <S> one will experience nailing Conceptual knowledge <S> comes about as a result of problems faced when having a direct experience. <S> If the nail gets bent then one decides to hammer a bit slowly next time.	One possible answer is that meditation relies both on the theoretical understanding on what's going on, but also the direct experience.
Skipping Meditation After Great Exertion Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, in a video, describes how some beginners exert themselves too much at once and then skip sessions. That is precisely my situation. Upon meditating for much longer than usual in one sitting, I skip subsequent days. Yet, recently I found myself wishing to meditate more, but not doing so because I feared that phenomenon would happen again. How can this limitation (exertion then skipping) be overcome? Would for example taking longer breaks between short sessions (15 min of meditation) inhibit overexertion? What would be the ideal length of such a break? <Q> Meditation shouldn't be viewed as a need. <S> You should neither regret that you skipped nor wish that you do it. <S> Naturally then a rhythm will form that suites your lifestyle. <S> And remember that the practice should be applied in the real world. <A> Use mindfulness. <S> Keep a record of which days you meditate, and for how long. <S> Find ways to graph your progress. <S> There are apps for smart phones that do this, but a simple "Practice Journal" with notes is better, as you can add whatever you want to it. <S> It's impossible to hold everything in your memory, so notes allow you to look back and review your experience, set goals, and work towards them. <A> You keep using this meaningless word that is mediation, as if it is a good idea... <S> whereas nobody knows what you mean by that. <S> if you mean bhavana, then say bhavana and the answer to your question is obvious. <S> Bhavana means you do it as much as you can, each day, all the time. <S> If you want to be more specific, then you use jhana, sati sampajanna or the other 2 Samādhibhāvanās https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html Sati sampajanna is obvious, since you do that as long as there is vitakka, vedana and sanna, so again pretty much all the time, certainly not 15 minutes a day, and then spending 23h45min not developing thoughts renunciation, non-ill will and harmlessness.you will never clean the mind by spending 23h45min each day not developing renunciation, non-ill will and harmlessness, by not forcing seeing things as anicca, dukkha anatta. <S> Development means exactly the opposite of whatever you are doing in 15 minutes per day, which is certainly not training the mind. <S> Even the people who train and clean the body do not claim they train and clean the body by spending 15minutes per day on the body, and the mind is even harder to train and clean... <S> Jhana is when you want sukha <S> and you cannot do that <S> all the time, you can pause for a few hours up to a few days, especially when you are not a idle bikkhu. <S> The last 2 Samādhibhāvanās are done when you want to acquire knowledge of karma and nibanna, so it is not relevant for you here.	Do it simply willingly any time you feel like it. You are getting attached to the joy of meditation and this in itself is counterproductive to the practice.
Why the aristocrat is best of people? Many suttas (SN 6.11; SN 21.11; MN 53; AN 11.10; DN 27) contain the following phase: ‘The aristocrat is best of those people ‘khattiyo seṭṭho janetasmiṃ, who take clan as the standard. ye gottapaṭisārino; But one accomplished in knowledge and conduct vijjācaraṇasampanno, is best of gods and humans.’ so seṭṭho devamānuse’ti. Why is the aristocrat best of those people who take clan as the standard? <Q> Taken in the context of a conversation between the Buddha and a Brahman in the Ambaṭṭhasutta (DN 3) , it is quite clear how this verse is supposed to be interpreted. <S> Given the hierarchy of caste, the Buddha argues, brahmans are indeed inferior to aristocrats (i.e. rulers and nobles). <S> He depicts brahmans as subservient to the aristocratic class, and indicates that the aristocratic class is more exclusive -- an aristocrat could become a brahman, but a brahman could never become an aristocrat. <S> Thus, this verse should be taken as an argument against brahmanical superiority. <S> Rather -- and this is something repeated in several other places -- a mendicant has worth not on account of their birth, but their sound ethics, great wisdom, and role as a teacher (of dhamma ). <S> This is a standard argument against caste hierarchy, which is depicted as illogical given how brahmans are subordinated to the nobility in practice. <S> Instead, the Pali canon places the Buddha and the Buddha alone at the top of a newly configured hierarchy (ostensibly based on ethics and wisdom alone, but sometimes on the basis of Gotama's godlike preeminence among all beings). <A> Interestingly, in AN 5.179 , it lists aristocrats before other castes ( vaṇṇa or varna ): <S> among aristocrats, brahmins, merchants, Khattiye brāhmaṇe vesse, workers, or outcastes and scavengers — sudde caṇḍālapukkuse. <S> In the suttas you quoted, it says " the aristocrat is best of those people, who take clan as the standard ". <S> The word for "clan" here is gotta or gotra , which is different from caste (which has two types of concepts - vanna or varna , and jāti ). <S> The caste system from the Hindu scriptures is varna . <S> Gotta or gotra is an unbroken male lineage from a common male ancestor. <S> Two persons from the same gotta or gotra cannot get married. <S> From a caste perspective, Hinduism takes brahmana to be the highest caste, followed by khattiya or kshatriya . <S> However, from a clan perspective, the suttas take the khattiya or kshatriya i.e. aristocrat, to be the best of people ( jana ). <S> Perhaps the reason for this is that kings are always khattiya or kshatriya , and their lineage is always an unbroken male line from the first king of that dynasty. <S> Since a king is the best of people in any country, and his clan (in terms of ancestral lineage) is always aristocrat, so aristocrats are presumably the best of people in a country from the perspective of clans ( gotta ). <A> That was a conventional/social belief at the time -- i.e. that there were clans or castes. <S> And according to that maybe the aristocrat was best by definition -- the sutta says Khattiyo , that's presumably "Kshatriyas" mentioned in the Varna (Hinduism) article. <S> Compare with e.g. the Dhammapada, " <S> It is not by birth that one is a 'Brahmin', <S> a holy man" -- see also DN 4 . <A> Khattiya ... since the Buddha wasn't, against many believes and adds, a "Marxist" or "phseudo-liberalist" "only" because he didn't made an end there and made the real "Samana" to the highest of the four able to gather? <S> Other groups (then the four, aristocrats, priests, warrior, samanas) actually have no real (ethical) standards.	I assume it means, "Among or according to the those who take the clan as standard -- i.e. according to those who judge according to the clan in which a person is born -- the aristocrat is best."
In need of help in meditation I have recently started meditation . I'm just doing normal breathing techniques and concentration techniques. Though, while trying to concentrate I feel this weird shiver in my eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in my body?Is it normal?how can we control this? <Q> Welcome to Buddhism. <S> SE. <S> I'm not sure what the current policy is on these sorts of questions, but considering how powerful the mind is, seeking help in a forum like this might be problematic. <S> while trying to concentrate I feel this weird shiver in my eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in my body? <S> I'm guessing the question mark is a way of saying something like "I don't even know if I'm describing it correctly". <S> The Buddha used teachings like the five aggregates to help students understand that feelings are just feelings, shivering is just shivering, heaviness is just heaviness, etc. <S> - i.e. it's not weird, that's your judgement of it. <S> Is it normal? <S> Meditation can trigger all sorts of responses as it affects mental and physical formations that exist prior to meditaiton practice. <S> There is no "normal", as your physical and mental condition are unique. <S> Also, different meditation practices will affect the body and mind differently, so there's really a very wide range of potential feelings, etc. <S> that you might experience. <S> how can we control this? <S> Control has the danger of increasing attachment of self. <S> Regarding your experience specifically, there is no real Buddhist imperative to control feelings; what we are interested in changing is our reactions to experiences, not the experiences themselves. <A> Concentration comes and goes on it's own, be natural with it, it goes where it belongs when you don't try to direct it. <S> In other words, right concentration of mind is natural in meditation. <S> This alone will take you deeper quite naturally. <A> You said while trying to concentrate. <S> This is not conductive to the practice .In <S> Meditation you simply notice whatever is there. <S> It frees you from the idea of making your mind act forcefully. <S> Frees you from should and should nots. <S> Every action then becomes natural because its based on awareness of experience. <S> Real understanding. <S> And again don't make it as instruction for your mind even the noticing itself <S> should't be instruction when for you there is only existence <S> then it sets you free.	You finding it weird is just a mental phenomenon and has nothing to do with the nature of the experience itself My advice is to simply breathe, and to feel the breath in your body, see how that operates in your perceptions, allow mind and breath to become one, and to simply rest in the Dhamma/Dharma as you best know it. You said you felt weird shiver in your eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in body ,just notice them when they arise , know they exist.
How would Buddhists respond to someone harming the temple? If a Buddhist noticed someone trying to severely harm their temple, for example trying to start a fire, how would one expect them to respond? I could imagine a range of responses from completely ignoring it and continuing about their meditation to compassionately talking with the person to getting themselves and bystanders to safety and planning to rebuild later to carrying the person out of the temple. I know spitting on the statue of Buddha is an example used in teachings but I am wondering about scenarios of lasting harm on the facilities that would make them unusable. Are there any instructive historical examples where something like this happened? <Q> This is highly subjective, but practically speaking, If you go to a Buddhist country and try to engage in vandalism, the chances are that the people nearby will beat the living daylights out of you until a monk interferes and calms them down. <S> After that you will be arrested by the police. <S> It would be a big mistake to think that the average lay Buddhist is meek or timid. <A> In one of his talks, Ajahn Brahm recalled that he was once asked by a journalist what he would do if someone flushed a Buddhist holy scripture down the toilet. <S> Ajahn Brahm replied that he would call the plumber to unclog the pipes of course. <S> That's the practical thing to do. <S> The journalist responded to this with laughter. <S> In any country, the right thing to do, from the perspective of Buddhism, is first to ensure the safety of human life, then report the incident to the authorities without delay (inclusive of any photo or video evidence if available), and then fix the damages. <S> The wrong thing to do, from the perspective of Buddhism, is to react with rage and vengeance. <S> However, as Sankha wrote, this might be the typical response of lay Buddhists who are not advanced on the path. <A> For beings nothing more dear <S> then the self/own, knowing that, one is wise to abstain from harming others or take what they consider as their own. <S> Maybe worthy to note is that Bhikkhus, although having the duty to care and maintain what belongs to the Sangha, actually have to give this up in cases where destruction and violence would be expected. <S> That's why you have places and sources like you are used to here. <S> You would have a hard to find anything outwardly which has been not taken over and deprived from the Sangha this days. <S> It's good when all of you reflect a lot of how much and in which ways you probably destruct and harm the temples of the Tripple Gems in you "business as usual". <S> (Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment that keeps one in such but for release)	"Buddhists", at large, regard outwardly and inwardly Dhammas as self and so they react on harm in the many ways beings react if perceiving harm of what is thought to be ones own.
What is this electric feeling I have like an electric current passing through my body during meditation. It is like in the whole body or maybe not just in the body like in my sphere. It is a fine-tuned electric current that comes for a couple of seconds. It stops for a fraction of a second and there is nothing and then it starts again. It feels like it is changing direction. It is not unpleasant it just is. What is this? What can I do with it? <Q> It may be piti, an emotion that can be aroused during meditation. <S> ...or it may be something else buddhism doesn't have a saying about. <S> Meditation clears the path for a lot of things. <A> https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/piti-joy-rapture/2970 :"Pīti is a sense of joy or uplift that occurs during the course of meditation. <S> It is best understood as an emotional response to the pleasure experienced in meditation. <S> It may have physical manifestations, such as goosebumps or hair-raising, but is primarily a psychological quality. <S> Since it is a subtle excitement or thrill in response to pleasure, it is moderated by passaddhi, and drops away in the deeper states of samādhi. <S> It is common for meditators to experience such joy occasionally. <S> In deeper meditation the sense of pervasive joy may last for many hours without interruption." <S> "In modernity, pīti may be related to the psychological phenomena known as frisson or A.S.M.R.,1 and moreover, in a case study, researchers have reported strong dopamine reward system activations in the brain of a long-term Buddhist practitioner during meditation"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_sensory_meridian_response :"Autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR) is an experience characterized by a static-like or tingling sensation on the skin that typically begins on the scalp and moves down the back of the neck and upper spine. <S> It has been compared with auditory-tactile synesthesia and may overlap with frisson. <S> ASMR signifies the subjective experience of "low-grade euphoria" characterized by "a combination of positive feelings and a distinct static-like tingling sensation on the skin". <S> It is most commonly triggered by specific auditory or visual stimuli, and less commonly by intentional attention control." <S> Piti and sukha arise with directed and sustained thought during practice, and will lead to "one-pointedness" (horrible translation) and equanimity. <S> As you already know, these are not visualizations, but rather actual spontaneously arising phenomenon. <S> Sukha is more like a generalized euphoria, but piti is like electricity with goosebumps, but it can also be very dramatic like a thunderstorm with lightening. <S> Some Buddhists will claim because there is an experience here, it must be a wrong experience. <S> Mostly modern, western converts to Buddhism who have been taught that every experience that arises in meditation is distraction. <S> I can't find any support for this teaching in any meditation texts until the modern era. <S> In fact almost all meditation texts from any branch of Buddhism involves calm/insight, stopping/seeing, tranquillity/Wisdom, through which one moves through dhyana/jhana and samadhi/samāpatti. <A> What is this? <S> a sensation caused by kamma (action) <S> What can I do with it? <S> watch it coming and going, whether it last and might be worthy to go after it as refuge. <S> A just "This has come into being"-approach is not that unwise as letting go of it with it. <S> Does Nyom even know why "Buddhist" try to get toward meditation? <S> (Note: <S> this is not given to trade you to come for another binding thought question, something to grasphold, trade, exchange or to increase stacks but as a tiny door to escape form this wheel toward unbound) <A> I have like an electric current passing through my body during meditation. <S> It is like in the whole body or maybe not just in the body like in my sphere <S> These are subtle sensations and likely piti also. <S> These are caused by the mind being happy with the stability of attention. <S> There are several books that talk about it. <S> You can check out Leigh Brasingtons or Culadasa's writings to learn how to progress from here.	It can also be a phenomenon accompanying meditation, since a lot of different unusual sensations can appear as a mere side effect.
Morally unwholesome deeds knowing the consequences but without unwholesome intentions As far as I understand (of course I may be wrong), every act done voluntarily is born from some specific kind of intentions, and according to the nature of that intention, the act can contribute to perpetuate dukkha or to its eradication. What happens when one acts without any amount of aversion nor passion, doing an action which in most cases is considered almost inseperable from evil intentions and almost objectively inmoral, let's say, consciously killing a child or raping somebody, while knowing the consequences? Can those acts actually be executed without any amount of evil intentions? Is that even possible? Thanks in advance for your time! <Q> I think the doctrine says there are three unwholesome roots: i.e. passion, aversion -- and ignorance (or delusion). <S> It's also possible to do things accidentally -- <S> but that's not what you're asking about. <S> See also e.g. <S> this answer about lying -- <S> but maybe that's not without passion, nor considered "objectively immoral", nor without consequences. <S> It's hard for me to imagine another case, other than these. <S> I think you're trying to talk about a "dispassionate killer" -- <S> I guess killers can appear to be dispassionate, but I'm not sure a killer (a real person) can be actually dispassionate except in fiction, though perhaps practised at controlling their emotions. <S> Another case might be a "sociopath" -- maybe they act for a reason of their own though, e.g. passion rather than aversion. <S> Or a psychosis -- misunderstanding reality. <S> I'm not really equipped to judge that. <S> I'm not sure about animals. <S> I think they're understood as being passionate, but perhaps unreasoning. <S> I'm not sure that the "lower" animals have a theory of mind which allows them to see others as "sentient beings" (and immoral to harm them), instead of simply moving objects (which might be killed for food). <S> This isn't a very good answer -- not based on much personal experience nor references. <S> I think that's because I tried to map the question -- "is it even possible?" -- to the doctrine, and didn't really succeed very well. <S> So I think the answer might be: "in general, no". <A> Only harming others or oneself unknowingly can be done without evil intentions. <S> It is not possible to intentionally harm others without having greed anger and delusion in the mind. <S> Harmfulness is just the natural/scientific result of having evil intentions in the mind. <S> And being gentle, good, harmless, happy, peaceful is the result of having a pure mind. <S> Killing, raping, stealing, cheating.. <S> Abusing/harming partners, coworkers, family members, other living beings.. <S> Taking advantage of a worldly position to use it for the unwholesome actions.. <S> Constantly lying, manipulating people for selfish reasons or being an active internet troll etc .. <S> The list can be very long. <S> These actions all makes people's minds more mixed up and makes it impossible to realize Nibbana in one life time or maybe in countless of life times. <S> In ultimate reality there is no judgement, no good or bad, no up and down. <S> But these unwholesome actions naturally and inevitably make people more worlding, more greedy, angry and delusional. <S> Make them suffer more internally and externally. <S> That's why some people's(meditator or ordinary people doesn't matter) disregarding the consequences of unwholesome actions(because <S> the objectivity of the ultimate reality) is wrong because these actions have long lasting and heavy consequences for humans : <S> The Tangle by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu <A> It's not possible to act unskillful while holding right view. <S> That's a nonsensical idea. <S> If someone thinks he is free of passion and aversion and nevertheless, even fully consciously, takes existence, takes what is not given, speaks/ <S> thinks what is not fact , true, harms others and even rapes, such a person can bee sure to be on the highway to hell and such a person, holding grave wrong views, might be even incapable of growing in Dhamma in this existence. <S> As such delusion can always arise for a worldling, that is why faithful disciples hold very firm to Silas and have a lot of fear of wrongdoing. <S> So be even fearful to possible associate by thoughts with thoughts and actions of fools, since even if not acting outwardly, the kamma of thoughts have much more impact in long terms. <S> That includes actually consciously thieves teaching Dhamma, especially if in Orange (put not exclusively) robes. <S> Note that a worldling is incapable either to recognize a immoral nor a moral person, since knowing only one but not the distinction and so stay firm by giving at right occasion, and Sila, do all your duties in frame of this and don't seek for the lazy short cuts and follow fools by it. <S> (Note: Not given for trade, exchange, stacks, bounds and binding to world, but as a tiny exit from the wheel) <A> I think it is not possible to kill or rape without any amount of aversion or passion. <S> There are many kinds of "passion", including what the Pali suttas called "passion for Dhamma" (" dhammarāgena "). <S> Therefore, in my opinion, to kill or rape for a higher ideal (such as in done in war or religious conquests) cannot occur without some type of passion. <S> The Mahayana people have ideas about Tantra & Wrathful Protector Deities and the Mahayana lamas or clerics often assassinate each other but this falls outside of the Budddha's Dhamma-Vinaya. <A> Will killing a child to save 10 people fit the scenario you are looking for? <S> I mean the trolley paradox . <S> What is seen as "Objectively immoral" is a blurry line, at least for unenlightened, because our actions are tented by ignorance. <S> The enlightened, on the other hand, has let go of the raft, transcend the Dhamma. <S> I don't know what Arhat would do if faced with the "trolley problem" <S> but I think it's right to have faith that his/her action will be perfectly moral.	Mindfulness and goodness support eachother, just like negligence/suffering and evil support eachother.
Mindfulness of Action versus Perception I noticed that when I'm mindful of what I'm doing, it seems different and even more helpful than merely paying attention to the senses, i.e. vision or sound. Are there any noted difference between these two practices? <Q> In the beginning the practitioner is generally learning the mindfulness practise. <S> And this happens to everybody who starts this path. <S> All of the mindfulness objects are valid and when the practitioner becomes trained in the practise, all of the mindfulness objects would be ok. <S> for him/her. <S> Also in the beginning all kinds of thoughts can come to the practitioner's mind. <S> "I'm not practising right" or "I must do something different" etc. <S> Learning to live in the now is challenging because human mind is opposite of the "now", it is always running to the future or to the past. <S> So it is better to be patient and insist on the practise. <S> Seeing, hearing, washing the hands, walking, wearing the socks, washing the dishes, cleaning the house, driving the car, sitting on the bus, observing the feelings, emotions, thoughts, doing the job, listening to a dhamma talk, doing formal sitting or walking meditation etc. <S> Every moment of life is a big opportunity to be in the now. <S> The practise must be done all the time and If the practitioner forgets the practise, s/he must return to the practise any time in daily life. <S> This is the only way to learn mindfulness and eventually realize Nibbana. <S> Ofcourse becoming free from the physical and mental addictions, staying away from the crazy parts of the life and "being a good person" are parts of this process. <S> The Buddhist precepts and principles are very helpful for a person to have these qualities so the mindfulness practise can be really fruitful. <S> It is better to not differentiate the mindfulness objects but keeping on the same mindfulness object/doing simples things(like just being mindful of "walking" instead of looking all around) makes the practise easier. <S> But a practitioner must be ok. <S> of all of the mindfulness objects. <S> So it is gradual process and learning to be mindful in daily life takes time. <S> With practise and insistence mindfulness practise would become a learned habit for a practitioner. <A> If one is distracted, one runs into a tree or trips. <S> When walking slowly, one must balance on one foot, etc. <S> Mindful perception is more common in sitting meditation, where subtler perceptions are involved. <S> Both are important. <S> When the subtler mindful perception is overcome with drowsiness , active walking meditation helps. <S> When the coarser active walking meditation prevents subtle study, sitting meditation helps. <S> Adapt your practice according to circumstance as needed. <A> Actually those 2 practices are only parts of a much bigger and more comprehensive system of mindfulness training as detailed in MN 10 , which divides into 4 main domains: 1. <S> Body: 14 sub-domains: <S> the breath, the 4 postures, 4 great elements, foulness of the body, etc. <S> 2. <S> Feeling: 1 sub-domain 3. <S> Mind: 1 sub-domain 4. <S> Phenomena: 5 sub-domains: Five hindrances, Five aggregates, Six sense bases, etc.	Mindful action is more common to walking meditation, where coordination of senses with activity is required.
What is known/taught about yawning during meditation? At some point in life I learned I could focus on some bodily awareness that resulted in the following experience: Piloerectus; Not once, but it stays throughout the meditation while I keep on focusing. A smile is slowly coming on my face (slowly as in it could take 20 seconds or so). It intensifies when I focus on that particular bodily feeling. It feels mechanically. When I take a picture of this I genuinely look happy. Yawning; I cannot suppress this yawning when I focus on that particular bodily feeling. I yawn almost every minute intensely. Energy swirls through my body. which can even make pains go away. Like pains from stress as facial muscle cramps or so. This all can instantly go away when I have thoughts of doubt, fear, resentment or any other negative thought. The smile and energy swirls I understand. Why piloerectus and yawning occur I do not. I am not feeling tired at all when the yawning happens. And when I stop to focus on this particular bodily feeling, the yawning stops. I do not yawn during a whole day, for instance. To me the yawning is a reproducible sign that indicates whether I am focused or not during meditation. But why does it happen? In this pubmed article it is described that yawning is controlled by dopamine release (amongst other neurotransmitters). I was wondering if there is something written about this yawning during meditation in the teachings of the Buddha. <Q> There are a whole host of phenomenon that happen at the early stages of meditation. <S> None of these mean anything, but they are a good indication that you are just touching the edges of samadhi. <S> As your concentration deepens, all of these phenomenon will ultimately disappear. <A> "And when I stop to focus on this particular bodily feeling, the yawning stops. <S> " & "To me the yawning is a reproducible sign that indicates whether I am focused or not during meditation." <S> Great observation, try simply stay by the 1 in ways to do whatever that it stops, thinking "ugly, or "bad" or whatever. <S> And if finding something similar, any "bad" habit, do the same, on and on. <S> Try to be perfect in virtue, appearance, always sense controlled. <S> And this "controlled the sense" is here the point. <S> It's that what the normal mind thinks as focused, actually is not, or with wrong attention, i.e. not pure but with added perceptions. <S> But no need to ponder about that, just do of which keeps you by virtue, keeps you outwardly perfect. <S> Mudita <S> (Note: not given for trade, exchange, entertainment or stacks, but as a tiny door out of the wheel)* <A> The sutta discourses in the EBT (early buddhist texts) don't say anything about yawning, that I've ever come across. <S> Just reading the word yawning in your post, caused me to yawn. <S> And it's a common experience for people to induce yawning from seeing or hearing another person yawn. <S> So maybe you just access that circuit directly with qigong, without needing external sensory activity to trigger it. <A> Physiologically, yawning is reaction meant to oxygenate the blood. <S> It's a sure sign that your body has become energetically stagnant. <S> This will pass as you reach deeper states of meditation. <S> Piloerection (goosebumps, or hairs standing on end) is a natural reaction when you attention is drawn outside your body or to the surface of your skin. <S> Hairs are part of the tactile sensory system, and standing up that way makes them more sensitive to physical contact.	Some others you might experience are a feeling that your face is swelling, that your sinuses are filled with cotton, your muscles might twitch involuntary, it may feel like your hands or other parts of your body are disappearing, that your body is being twisted, that someone is messing with your hair, and so on and so forth. That will go away of its own accord as your body realizes there's nothing particularly interesting to sense, or you can turn the reaction off by turning your attention and energy inward. That's probably why the yawning goes away when you focus your mind on some body part: the act of focusing your mind on a new place draws energy through the body to that point, stimulating everything as it passes.
Does any sutta talk about the right conditions for teaching the Dhamma? I've read in other posts (such as this one ) about the right way to teach the Dhamma. But is there a way to know about the "when", i.e. when to reach out someone else to teach the Dhamma? In specific, I'd like to know if one should teach only when asked for it, or if one should make assumptions about the other's needs or degree of knowledge when trying to help him/her (regardless if that person asked for that helped or not). If you could provide information about suttas where this is talked about, I'd really appreaciate it. I'd even be grateful if personal experiences are given. Thanks for your time and patience! <Q> Part Three: <S> The 16 Dealing with Teaching Dhamma 57. <S> I will not teach Dhamma to a person with an umbrella in his hand who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a staff in his hand who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a knife in his hand who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a weapon in his hand who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> [62.] <S> I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing non-leather [leather] footwear who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> I will not teach Dhamma to a person in a vehicle who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> I will not teach Dhamma to a person who sits clasping his knees and who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing headgear who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> I will not teach Dhamma to a person whose head is covered (with a robe or scarf) and who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> Sitting on the ground, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a seat who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> Sitting on a low seat, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a high seat who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> Standing, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> Walking behind, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking ahead who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> Walking beside a path, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking on the path who is not ill: a training to be observed. <S> https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/sv/bhikkhu-pati.html <A> When somebody wants to know and is receptive. <S> For the most part if you consider the way the Buddha taught, you notice he’s usually only directly addressing the sangha without being asked. <S> Otherwise people usually come to the Buddha with questions. <S> I don’t recall any texts were the Buddha goes out and engages people who are not part of the sangha without being asked. <S> The only exception I can think of is when he initially taught to the five ascetics at Deer Park. <S> After that everyone comes to him. <S> I’m sure there are exceptions. <A> Well then, Lord, does not the Blessed One teach Dhamma in full[1] to some, but not so fully to others? <S> " <S> "I will reply to this question, headman, with another. <S> Answer as seems proper to you. <S> What do you think? <S> Suppose a peasant farmer has three fields, one excellent, one middling, and one poor, sandy, salty, with bad soil. <S> Tell me: when the farmer wants to sow his seed, which field would he sow first: the excellent one, the middling one or the poor one that is sandy, salty and with bad soil?" <S> "Lord, the farmer who wanted to sow his seed would sow the excellent field first. <S> Having done that, he would sow the middling field next, and the one that was poor, sandy, salty, with bad soil <S> he might or might not sow. <S> Why? <S> Well it might do for cattle-food." <S> "Well, headman, that excellent field is like my monks and nuns. <S> To them I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in <S> letter,[2 <S> ] I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. <S> Why? <S> Because these people adhere to me as their island, their shelter, their resort, their refuge. <S> "The middling field is like my male and female lay-followers. <S> To these too I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. <S> Why? <S> Because these people adhere to me as their island, their shelter, their resort, their refuge. <S> " <S> The poor field that is sandy, salty and with bad soil is like my wandering recluses and Brahmans of other sects.[3] <S> To them I also teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. <S> Why? <S> Because if they only understand a single phrase, it would long be for their profit." <S> https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.007.wlsh.html <A> See grave faults in the Bodhisattva-vows , since the questioner has lesser to no respect toward the Buddha-Sasana: (11) Teaching voidness to those whose minds are untrained The primary objects of this downfall are persons with the bodhichitta motivation who are not yet ready to understand voidness. <S> Such persons would become confused or frightened by this teaching and consequently abandon the bodhisattva path for the path of personal liberation. <S> This can happen as a result of thinking that if all phenomena are devoid of inherent, findable existence, then no one exists, so why bother working to benefit anyone else? <S> This action also includes teaching voidness to anyone who would misunderstand it and therefore forsake the Dharma completely, for example by thinking that Buddhism teaches that nothing exists and is therefore sheer nonsense. <S> Without extrasensory perception, it is difficult to know whether others' minds are sufficiently trained so that they will not misconstrue the teachings on the voidness of all phenomena. <S> Therefore, it is important to lead others to these teachings through explanations of graduated levels of complexity, and periodically to check their understanding.	I will not teach Dhamma to a person lying down who is not ill: a training to be observed.
Samatha vs Vipassana. What are the mechanics? So correct me if im wrong samatha and vipassna are the goals of all forms of meditation. Anapanasati can be either for the goal of samatha or vipassana (or both). Vipassana is very cognitive, contemplative, and samatha is often the exact opposite, one pointed focus? Im curious how it works. How does it connect to doctrines of tanha and clinging? Is the samatha concentration lead to deep state of non-reactivity? Like this is how it leads to tremendous results (samatha anapanasati is the meditation used in psychotherapy as just pure stress reduction) . But despite it's results it's not sufficient for the Buddhist path because serious stages of enlightenment require real understanding and insight. And vipassana on the other hand from what i understand is for insight. it doesnt mean tranqulity and mental strenght cant come from it, in fact the true peace and strength does come from understanding eventually, but thats not the point. vipassana on death is generally not that happy go lucky an experience... So while insufficent samatha is a good powerful tool for overcoming barriers? If someone is consumed by hatred or anger or anxiety or impatience and they are too frenzied to really practice so it would be good to tranquilize them first? If I'm dealing with a lot of stress samatha would be the place to go? Tell me if everything I've described is correct. :) thanks <Q> Vipassana (insight) is direct clear seeing thus does not requiring any thinking; therefore it is not antagonistic to samatha (tranquility). <S> Suttas such MN 149 say samatha & vipassana are products of the noble eightfold and are developed in tandem. <S> Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path, the four frames of reference go to the culmination of their development. <S> The four right exertions... <S> the four bases of power... <S> the five faculties... <S> the five strengths... <S> the seven factors for Awakening go to the culmination of their development. <S> [And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight. <S> MN 149 <S> "Samatha" ("tranquility") is not "one-pointed focus" ("samadhi") nor is genuine "one-pointedness" ("ekaggata") an obstacle to vipassana. <S> Its appears you are reading the typical non-sense of modern teachers. <S> I will read the question more thoroughly & completely at a later time and probably add to this answer. <A> What you say is well researched, that's the traditional view. <S> There are some other sutras to look at in addition: Ekottara Agama 17.1 https://web.archive.org/web/20110811122049/http://sites.google.com/site/ekottara/eaxv Satipatthana Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya <S> 10 https://suttacentral.net/mn10/en/sujato Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta, Digha Nikaya 22 <S> https://suttacentral.net/dn22/en/sujato <S> While it is possible to enter into samadhi by using samatha technique, it is said to not have liberating power. <S> But one would have to be fully ignorant of the Dharmna teachings to fulfill such conditions, and it's probably unlikely. <S> Vipassana is centered in the practice of investigation and arousing Wisdom, but each teacher seems to have slightly different idea what it is. <S> Be patient in researching this. <S> I think samatha acts as an anchor, and deep investigation into "reality" requires such calm and tranquility, so develop calm and tranquility, then go to Wisdom and Insight. <S> I'm not of the opinion that this is anything but one practice ideally. <S> Called by many names: <S> Samadhi/Prajna. <S> Calm/Insight. <S> Tranquillity/Wisdom. <S> Stopping/Seeing. <S> Silence/Illumination. <S> Emptiness/Fullness. <S> Tiantai Master Zhiyi likens the pair as two wheels of a cart. <S> You can indeed work with one wheel at a time (either samatha, or vipassana) <S> but if you are planning to use the cart to get to Liberation (or just results) you need to use the whole cart. <S> Contemplation of death is never a bad idea, that is, if you are ready for it. <S> Since we all invariably die. <S> And yes, calmness might be the first goal in starting this samatha/vipasanna practice. <A> IMO samatha and vipassana are two sides of the same coin. <S> Calm and clarity as qualities of mind. <S> In terms of method, I would distinguish between absorption and observation.	Both samatha & vipassana are natural results of the silent collected stable mind called "samadhi". Practically speaking it involves a broadening of attention, from a single object to multiple objects, thereby seeing the conditionality of experience.
What buddhism says about physical reality? I had a discussion with one of my friend, who said, there's no such thing as physical reality, as per Lord Buddha. He quoted "The universe only exists inside this small body". As per my understanding, this is about how we understand the universe is different. But his idea is that there's no physical reality, all we experiencing is a delusion. Any idea about this ? <Q> As Thrangu Rinpoche once said, some people spend a lot of time arguing whether a chair really exists or if it only exists in our minds, but here we are much more concerned with our attitude to the chair. <S> Are we attached to this chair? <S> Do we hate this chair? <S> Do we think we are the chair? <S> Are we free from this chair? <S> That's what really matters in practice, not whether it exists or not. <S> At the same time, as my teacher said, "reality is our interpretation". <S> Here you go. <S> Whether the physical reality exists or not, all we see is our interpretation. <S> So if in this interpretation there are any mistakes or gaps, but we attach to it as if it were truth, as if what we perceive in our interpretation were 100% objective reality - when we think like that we get into all kinds of trouble. <S> Like, we get attached to "the chair" or hate "the chair" - <S> because in our interpretation it means something <S> and we think that's the only truth. <S> Then when someone gives us new facts about "the chair" - we don't accept them, because they don't fit with our reality, our interpretation. <S> We only see what we know, what we believe, not what's really there. <S> This is what's called "delusion". <S> So maybe you and your friend are both right. <S> This is about "how we understand the universe" is different AND all that we experience is our own delusion. <A> As you put it, this is one of the so-called 'unanswered questions', that is, you are really asking 'Does the world exist?' <S> Such questions deal with opinions, points of view, diṭṭhi's; and there is no way of holding one side of such a controversy without opposing the opposite point of view; there is no way of resolving the conflict; and such a state does not satisfy the search for truth. <S> Such being the case The Buddha abstains from answering such questions because debates about existence and non-existence do not conduce to the ending of pain which is the fundamental point of what the Buddha teaches. <S> You can see the futility of this sort of debate in the result of your discussion with your friend which only ended in incresing your confusion. <S> He who sees the origination of things cannot justify in mind the point of view that things do not exist; he who sees the ending of things cannot justify in mind the point of view that things have an ultimate reality. <S> What is the case is that the subjective individuality has identified with the six senses and once such an identification is made all perception is made relative to the input from these senses. <S> The eye comes into contact with a visible object and visual consciousness arises. <S> Visual consciousness then becomes the sense-object of the mind sense. <S> So you see that subjective experience of the sight of a visible object is based on second-hand information. <S> Since at this point your 'reality' is a construction made entirely by the subjective mind, that means that without escape from identification with the six senses, you have no ability to directly see whatever is 'out there'; there is no way to determine the truth or falsity of any claim that a thing exists. <S> It is a hopeless situation, like a cat chasing its tail, and as such should be dropped as a waste of time. <S> Understanding this way of structuring the existing being, you can then see the logic of the statement: "in this very fathom-long body,along with its perceptions and thoughts,I proclaim the world to be,likewise the origin of the worldand the making of the world to end,likewise the practice going to the ending of the world. <S> AN 4.46 http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/an/idx_04_catukkanipata.htm#p46 <S> For 'the practice going to the ending of the world' see any good description of the Magga. <S> I suggest: http://buddhadust.net/dhammatalk/the_pali_line/course/the10thquestion_2.htm#TheDestructionofthe%C4%81savas <A> The buddhist concept of rupa, as well as the division of ayatanas as being internal on one hand, and external on the other, implies the idea that our perception of the world is not strictly solipsistic. <S> This suggest the Buddhist view that the ayatanas are mutually dependent, or “dependent arising”. <A> The idea in the question, namely: " The universe only exists inside this small body " is mixed up. <S> The Buddha said " the world (loka) " arises & ceases within the six-foot long body, including perception & mind. <S> (AN 4.45) <S> The term "the world" refers to mental ideas of personal existence; both internally & externally. <S> It is unrelated to whether physicality exists or not. <S> The idea in the question, namely: " The universe only exists inside this small body " is mixed up because assumes "the universe" is the stars, planets & galaxies rather than the mind-created world of self-identities & self-entities. <S> I imagine the friend acquired their kooky idea about "the universe" from the kooky translation of Thanissaro Bhikkhu, who translated "loka" as "the cosmos". <S> What "the world" ("loka") is is described in SN 12.44 ; namely, the arising or " birth " (" jati ") of egoism, self-identifying & ideas about "beings" or "persons" that leads to suffering.	The only reality we can know is reality we perceive in our mind, and this perceived reality is our own interpretation.
What is the view of Buddhism in correcting others' view in spite of their willingness to accept it? I have these questions: If an enlightened mind sees that helping someone is beneficial to them, then would they do it even when the helped doesn't proactively ask? If they are hated by the helped, then would that hate be irrelevant to the intention? Is it perfectly fine to continue the help despite of the rejection? How is that different to converting them? My self-answer is that of course it is fine to do that, given that the helper is truly sure that their help will bring benefit in the long term. There are many such stories about the ones sacrificing themselves to rescue those who try to kill them, Buddhists or not. However, from the perspective of the receiving end, it is still unsolicited help. They only see that action as unsolicited, or even stalking. They may even see the helper is having a big attachment/mental problem. Although this is just a misunderstanding, I think the helped has the right to challenge that intention. How does Buddhism address that? For the question that how the helper knows what is beneficial to the helped, read Does following logic necessarily require one to conclude that they are objective and have no bias? <Q> If an enlightened mind sees that helping someone is beneficial to them, then would they do it even when the helped doesn't proactively ask? <S> Yes. <S> They would help without being asked, as the Buddha did. <S> However, the Buddha did this relatively rarely and only to those he knew he could help. <S> The difficult issue is actually knowing intervening when not asked will benefit the person. <S> For example, often I would like to help some people but sense I cannot actually help them; given they are difficult to change. <S> If the enlightened one is hated by the helped, then would that hate be irrelevant to the intention? <S> Is it perfectly fine to continue the help despite of the rejection? <S> An Enlightened One, that knows the mind of others (due to psychic power) would not try to help another who would reject them. <S> As I said, the difficult issue is truly knowing we can help another. <S> How does that be different to converting them? <S> As the saying goes: " When the student is ready; the teacher appears ". <S> My self-answer is that of course it is fine to do that, given that the helper is truly sure that their help will bring benefit in the long term. <S> Yes. <S> We agree. <S> There are many such stories about the ones sacrificing themselves to rescue those who try to kill them, Buddhists or not. <S> Angulimala Sutta. <S> However, from the perspective of the receiving end, it is still unsolicited help. <S> They only see that action as unsolicited, or even stalking. <S> They may even see the helper is having a big attachment/mental problem. <S> Although this is just a misunderstanding, I think one has a right to challenge that intention. <S> Someone who can be helped will be grateful. <S> I think there would be nothing worse than learning that someone who could truly actually help you decided not to help you. <S> It is best to follow the example of the Buddha. <S> While the Buddha did not attempt to help everyone, the Buddha did intervene unsolicited to help those who he was absolutely certain he could help. <S> Note: Since we do not have psychic powers, it is rare we can be certain we can help another, unsolicited. <A> Your description of "help" is too vague and it's most likely not really "help" - in a way a Buddhist should help people. <S> It sounds more like an imposition. <S> In the Diamond Sutra, it is said that one should practice charity and compassion with no regard to appearances. <S> So you should GIVE, despite being loved or hated - but also, despite your own ideas about "right and wrong". <S> If a person is poor and hungry, you give him food, or money and go away. <S> If a person is carrying a heavy load, you help them and go away. <S> It doesn't matter if they'll appreciate it, or what they think about you. <S> If a person wants you to listen, you listen. <S> It doesn't matter if they'll appreciate it, or what they think about you. <S> If a person wants you to go away, you go away. <S> It doesn't matter if they'll appreciate it, or what they think about you. <S> That's helping. <S> If a person wants to smoke and you don't want them to, so you make schemes to prevent them from smoking, that's not helping anything at all, but your own ego and your wish to control, that, according to Buddhism, you should let go of. <S> "Pile up money for your children, they will just spend it. <S> Pile up books for your grandchildren, they won’t read them. <S> The best thing to do is to quietly accumulate your own virtue, Quietly and in secret. <S> Such a gift will benefit your descendants for a long, long time." <S> (Hakuin) <S> Buddhism is searching for happiness inside oneself. <S> "If we look for the Buddha outside ourselves, the Buddha becomes a demon." <S> (Dogen) <A> This is only limited to my understanding about Buddhism, but isn't that koan the exemplar of this? <S> The koan teacher deliberately makes the student confused. <S> Could this be considered as "correcting others' view in spite of their willingness to accept it"?	The Buddha converted many individuals however only because he knew it was the best thing for them; due to their inherent disposition. It doesn't matter if they'll appreciate it, or what they think about you.
Observing the breath vs Pranayama Is it better to just watch the breath as it unfolds or sometimes we need to control it to slow it down ,calming down and noticing it in the same time ?. <Q> Calm down the mind - breath is indicator of mind state. <S> https://plumvillage.org/sutra/discourse-on-the-full-awareness-of-breathing/ <S> ‘Breathing in a long breath, I know I am breathing in a long breath. <S> Breathing out a long breath, I know I am breathing out a long breath. <S> ‘Breathing in a short breath, I know I am breathing in a short breath. <S> Breathing out a short breath, I know I am breathing out a short breath. <S> ‘Breathing in, I am aware of my whole body. <S> Breathing out, I am aware of my whole body.’ <S> He or she practices like this. <S> ‘Breathing in, I calm my whole body . <S> Breathing out, I calm my whole body.’ <S> He or she practices like this. <S> ‘Breathing in, I feel joyful. <S> Breathing out, I feel joyful.’ <S> He or she practices like this. <S> ‘Breathing in, I feel happy. <S> Breathing out, I feel happy.’ <S> He or she practices like this. <S> ‘Breathing in, I am aware of my mental formations. <S> Breathing out, I am aware of my mental formations.’ <S> He or she practices like this. <S> ‘Breathing in, I calm my mental formations . <S> Breathing out, I calm my mental formations.’ <S> He or she practices like this. <S> ‘Breathing in, I am aware of my mind. <S> Breathing out, I am aware of my mind.’ <S> He or she practices like this. <S> ‘Breathing in, I make my mind happy . <S> Breathing out, I make my mind happy.’ <S> He or she practices like this. <S> ‘Breathing in, I concentrate my mind. <S> Breathing out, I concentrate my mind.’ <S> He or she practices like this. <S> ‘Breathing in, I liberate my mind. <S> Breathing out, I liberate my mind.’ <S> He or she practices like this. <A> For people with 'monkey-mind', often controlling the breath for a period may be beneficial to help the mind calm down. <S> The only reason watching breath is mentioned in Buddhism is because a pure mind without any unwholesomeness automatically watches the breath. <S> As for Pranayama, this can harm the body & mind if done incorrectly: <A> Satipatthana doesn't any relation to breath. <S> This path is for further perfection towards Arhatship. <S> But Nirvana is achieved before that. <S> Sati doesn't mean breath but awareness in detached form. <S> With eyes of wisdom having detached from inside keeps his awareness there, as it the practitioner turn into that. <S> By keeping this awareness daily in life while walking, sitting, doing something he is detached in every respect. <S> That's the eight fold path. <S> Samma ditthi means insight of thou and that awarenes become one. <S> Samma vaca means that you are talking wholesome with united detached awareness. <S> So also other Samma steps and finally Samma Samadhi. <S> Samma samadhi is the end where previously you perceive as detached awareness, you become that. <S> You crossed from this shore of body to other shore of formless spot. <S> You are embodied. <S> Then one realised his past lives, how karma operating living beings by seeing three realms of heaven, earth and hell and know the four noble truth. <S> Then only he is termed as Arhat. <S> This state is hard to attain without bounty of wholesome deeds. <S> The awareness in satipatthana can be termed as God watching you and all your actions. <S> If you commit misdeeds you bound to repay. <S> How can if one know He is watching, commit misdeeds? <S> Hence five percepts are gem for householder and eight for that of monks. <S> Do good deeds. <S> That's the main motto. <S> Just meditation can't remove your suffering.	However, true Buddhist meditation is merely allowing the mind to watch the breath because Buddhist practise is actually not really related to watching breath per se but is about keeping the mind free from unwholesomeness.
Dependent Origination and Impermanence in Buddhism 1 question: I just started learning about Buddhism and I read about the 3 marks of existence. When Buddhism speaks about impermanence does impermanence only refer to our experience (the 5 skhandas) or is outisde world phenomena included and considered impermanent. As I understood it impermanence is a key Buddhist principle. How does Buddhism describe time according to this impermanence doctrine and what is impermanence relationship and connection with time. I have seen a few answers here on a similar question/topic but not really this one so I hope I will get a few answers that can help me understand it. 2 question: Is a dependently arising cycle considered happening in a split second or how fast is it considered happening and what is its relationship and connection with time ?? <Q> Impermanence includes everything. <S> For the record, Buddhism only uses the references like inside and outside as compromises with unenlightened way of thinking. <S> In the strict sense, these notions of Inner and Outer arise as result of Dependent Origination. <S> When you go out of subjective frame of reference and speak about Mind Processes at large, everything is unfolding all the time, with some patterns emerging as seeming Inner and Outer. <S> Technically, this Unfolding IS Being IS Time, as explained by Dogen in his famous lecture on the topic. <S> In other words, it's not that Time is a container for Everything. <S> It is identical with Being or Unfolding, but we sentient beings like to delineate certain aspects, because our minds are reification machines that work in terms of entities and their background. <S> So for us it's only natural to think of time as background or container of events. <S> Dependent Origination unfolds over time, just like everything else. <S> However, it would be incorrect to talk about concrete time scale, because DO talks about high-level principles in terms of functional relationship. <S> Yes, the seedling comes from the seed and this happens over time, but we don't have to talk about a specific seed, we talk about the principle at large. <A> Buddhism says " sabbe sankhara anicca: all conditioned things are impermanent ". <S> A "conditioned thing" is anything put together & dependent upon causes & conditions, which includes material things, such as rocks, planets & universes. <S> SN 22.90 says: Form, friend Channa, is impermanent. <S> Feeling is impermanent. <S> Perception is impermanent. <S> Mental formations (saṃkhārā) are impermanent. <S> Consciousness is impermanent. <S> Form is not-self. <S> Feeling is not-self. <S> Perception is not-self. <S> Mental formations are not-self. <S> Consciousness is not-self. <S> All (sabbe) conditioned things (saṃkhārā) <S> are impermanent (aniccā). <S> All (sabbe) phenomena (dhammā) are not-self (anattā). <S> AN 10.48 <S> contains the phrase: " rattindivā vītivattant: days & nights passing ". <S> Each condition of dependently arising is also a conditioned thing, therefore it is subject to "time" ("arising & passing") and impermanence. <S> Of dependent origination, SN 12.20 says: <S> And what, bhikkhus, are the dependently arisen phenomena? <S> Aging-and-death, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation. <S> However, that the mind suffers due to the conditions in dependent origination, this reality is permanent. <S> In other words, whenever there is suffering, it must always arise due to dependent origination. <S> SN 12.20 says: <S> And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? <S> ... <S> whether there is an arising of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality. <A> In regard to your question, three characteristics of existence apply to cling aggregate. <S> Clinging aggregate includes all our experience internal, external, far, near, gross, subtle, etc. <S> In regard to your second question, there are two schools of thought. <S> The popular belief is one life model or the instant Dependent Origination. <S> But when you speak conventionally it applies to three life model of past, present, and future. <A> Is a dependently arising cycle considered happening in a split second or how fast is it considered happening and what is its relationship and connection with time ?? <S> Short answer: <S> Dependent arising applies to any and all units of time. <S> Long answer: <S> The way i understand it, there are probably several answers regarding the temporal aspects of dependent arising, but one view is that it's the agent/motor to an eternal reproduction of phenomena, not to mention suffering (and the cessation of suffering) specifically. <S> We can describe the results of our actions as karma, and as such these consequences can be instantaneous, delayed over generations, or maintained for an eternity (samsara), and everything inbetween.	"Time" is also something impermanent, whether it is "mental time" (born from expectation or craving) or "physical time" (the days & nights passing).
Do enlightened people "know" what nirvana is like? Do enlightened people "know" what nirvana is like? Obviously, they can't express it to anyone else, so the question isn't super helpful. I just wondered whether nirvana is a thing that we can know as well as experience or taste. One response, one I don't (personally) want to hear about (at least without some in depth quotation) is that nirvana isn't "like" anything. And, of course, nirvana isn't similar to anything. I'm asking whether Buddhas of any sort "know" the qualities (e.g. bliss) of nirvana. <Q> Ud 8.1 says Nibbana is a sense object ( ayatana ) <S> therefore it is obviously something known. <S> MN 26 says: <S> Then the thought occurred to me, ' <S> This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced ( vedanīya ) by the wise. <S> SN 56.11 says: ‘This noble truth of the cessation of suffering has been realized ( sacchikata ).’ <S> Concise Pali English Dictionary sacchikata pp. <S> of sacchikaroti realised; experienced for oneself. <S> PTS Pali English Dictionary sacchikata seen with one’s own eyes, realized experienced <S> The Dhammapada says: 205. <S> Having savored the taste of solitude and peace (of Nibbana), pain-free and stainless he becomes, drinking deep the taste of the bliss of the Truth. <S> Nibbana is the dropping of all burdens; like the experience of relief when urgently urinating or dropping a heavy backpack or drinking cool fresh water on a hot day. <S> Read more here: SN 43.14-43 and Nibbana For Everyone <A> Nirvana is an application of the fire-metaphor (a fire going out) used to point at certain aspects of The Goal. <S> What aspects? <S> dispassion, disenchantment <S> the finality (no state subtler than this, nothing further to be attained, no realization that is more fundamental, no fuel to burn, no further becoming) <S> There are other aspects of The Goal not covered by the metaphor of Nirvana, and to indicate these aspects we use other concepts, namely liberation <S> peace <S> suchness <S> Enlightenment, Awakening, Knowledge bliss, happiness <S> the emptiness <S> the other shore the deathless <S> the unconditional one's true nature <S> the unborn <S> These describe various other aspects of The Goal (not of Nirvana, which is just one concept among many). <S> It is therefore incorrect to say that Buddha knows Nirvana or experiences Nirvana. <S> Buddha experiences what Buddha experiences, and he can invent various ways to talk about it, including the metaphors like Nirvana. <S> Buddha knows and experiences The Truth, and Nirvana is only a didactic device used to talk about attainment of Truth and its personal implications. <S> All these terms and descriptions remain in the conceptual field, as qualities or aspects that try to characterize The Goal by relating it with something the listener knows from his own unenlightened experience. <S> As you change, reality you perceive changes as well, so all these concepts are attempts to describe both the change as well as the new reality, in contrast with old. <A> Bhikkhu Sujato translated part of MN 49 as: Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round— <S> that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the Overlord, and the all. <S> Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, ... <S> This translation is problematic because there is no such thing as infinite consciousness in Buddhism. <S> Equating Nirvana with infinite consciousness would be more of Advaita Vedanta rather than Buddhism. <S> However, in this answer , Bonn explained that this is a wrong translation. <S> It should rather be: That which could be known (Nibbana), is invisible, infinite, radiant all round— <S> that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the Overlord, and the all. <S> Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, ... <S> So, Nirvana is something knowable, but it is not within the normal scope of physical and mental experience. <S> It is not even within the normal scope of the experience of gods. <S> How do the enlightened ones know and experience Nirvana as? <S> From AN 3.32 : <S> ‘This is peaceful ( santaṃ ), this is sublime ( paṇītaṃ ), <S> that is, the stilling of all activities, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbāna.’ <S> From Dhammapada 204 : <S> ... <S> Nibbana is the greatest bliss. <S> ( nibbanam paramam sukham ) <S> They know and experience Nirvana as the greatest bliss, that is peaceful and sublime, and free from all suffering. <S> The ending of AN 3.32: ‘Having surveyed the world high and low, they’re not shaken by anything in the world. <S> Peaceful, unclouded, untroubled, with no need for hope— <S> they’ve crossed over birth and old age, I declare.’”	In one important sense, attainment of Nirvana is a personal transformation.
Is it correct that dependent origination will cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas? From Pratītyasamutpāda - Wikipedia : dependent origination refers to nothing else but the process of mental conditioning as described by the twelve nidanas So to check if my understanding is correct, will dependent origination cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas? In my understanding, dependant origination is just an extended understanding of "condition". For example, if I say "plants need water, soil and light to grow", then water, soil and light are the originations. This doesn't seem to relate to the mental condition of the observer. So how do the two relate? And in general, how does one know that all dependent originations of a thing are "depleted"? <Q> will dependent origination cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas? <S> Yes. <S> In my understanding, dependant origination is just an extended understanding of "condition". <S> For example, if I say "plants need water, soil and light to grow", then water, soil and light are the originations. <S> This doesn't seem to relate to the mental condition of the observer. <S> So how do the two relate? <S> 'Paticcasumuppada' ('Dependent Co-Arising') is the subset of 'Idappaccayatā' ('Conditionality') that explains the 12 conditions for the arising of mental suffering. <S> The suttas say: And what is dependent co-arising? <S> From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. <S> From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. <S> From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. <S> From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. <S> From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. <S> From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. <S> From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. <S> From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. <S> From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. <S> From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. <S> From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. <S> Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering . <S> The conditionality related to the arising or coming-to-be of trees is not called 'Paticcasumuppada'. <S> The arising of trees is merely an example of general 'Idappaccayatā'. <S> And in general, how does one know that all dependent originations of a thing are "depleted"? <S> This question is not valid because not all examples or occurrences of 'Idappaccayatā' are 'Paticcasumuppada'. <S> The mind (while living) can experience the depletion of 'Paticcasumuppada' but the mind (while living) cannot experience the depletion of 'Idappaccayatā'. <S> Even though the suffering of 'Paticcasumuppada' can end; the 'Idappaccayatā' of Nature will continue to be discerned. <S> In short, suffering can end but trees will continue to grow, clouds will continue to form, the body will continue to live nourished by food, consciousness will continue to operate conditioned by sense organs, etc. <A> will dependent origination cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas? <S> I think it's a description of how mental conditions originate -- for example, the origination of feelings depend on contact, the origination of craving depends on feelings, etc. <S> I think it is meant to be possible to stop (arrest) <S> this "wheel of becoming" -- and that a place (on the wheel) where you can do that is at "feelings" -- e.g. if there's "contact" with things (i.e. sensory contact and perception), but without indulging in feelings <S> (e.g. feelings like "delight" or "loathing"), then (without their being "feelings") then subsequent nidanas (e.g. "craving" and "attachment") won't originate. <S> I think that practice is called "guarding the senses" (where "senses" includes "the mind" -- which senses mind-objects e.g. thoughts, like the eye senses sight-objects etc.). <S> And in general, how does one know that all dependent originations of a thing are "depleted"? <S> What is effluent? <S> might be relevant -- see also Four stages of enlightenment . <A> will dependent origination cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas? <S> In Buddhism, what should be uprooted is Ignorance (Avidyā, Avijja) which is the first nidana in dependent origin. <S> This results to cease the other 11 nidanas in dependent origin. <S> And in general, how does one know that all dependent originations of a thing are "depleted"? <S> When someone uprooted the Ignorance <S> it becomes very clear to him. <S> Because who ever in the path to Nivana <S> knows what's ignorance <S> and when they uprooted they just know there's no more Ignorance in the mind. <A> I can only try to answer your first question like this: Dependent origination is - among several things - a theory to describe how our perceptions are created. <S> As such it's not a question whether you have the nidanas or not. <S> To make a comparison, that would be similar to asking whether we can have gravity or not. <S> Gravity is present under certain circumstances, and is absent under other circumstances. <S> Dependent origination can perhaps be compared to the western idea of an ontological axiom, meaning it's a theoretical framework to interpret and understanding how phenomena arise and cease. <A> There are five Niyamas subject to Mode of Conditioning applied for mental and physical. <S> Hence Arhant Body (Physical) is still subject to DO. <S> However, his mental factors subject to DO has ceased. <S> (ending birth) http://103.242.110.22/theravadins/English-articles/abhidhamma-in-practice.pdf	The way I understand When Buddha taught Dependent Origination he was talking about the arising of Dukkha hence the application of mental phenomena.
Was is the difference between "uparujjhati" & "nirujjhati"? In the Pali, nirujjhati ( ni + rudh + ya) appears to be a verb for the noun "nirodha". nirujjhati ceases; dissolves; vanishes. to be broken up, to be dissolved, to be destroyed, to cease, die Uparujjhati ( upa + rudh + ya) appears similar in etymology, however differs in the prefix. uparujjhati stops or ceases to be stopped, broken, annihilated, destroyed I have done some examination of the usage of these words in the Pali suttas and, for now, I think their meanings or usages are contextually different. How can these two words be linguistically distinguished? <Q> They are not synonyms, they have different meanings derived from the same root and different prefixes. <S> Nirodha means stop, suppress, not allow to go on. <S> Uparodham means enclose, blockade. <S> So aparisesa nirujjhanti means "completely stopped". <S> But asesam uparujjhati means "fully enclosed". <S> So in DN11 the guy was asking about place <S> where the physical processes are completely stopped ( aparisesā nirujjhanti ). <S> But Buddha said, that's not what we are talking about. <S> It's about "place" where the physical elements have no footing, place inside which all concepts like beautiful, ugly etc., <S> all namarupas, all conceptual discriminations are fully enclosed or fully en-scoped ( asesaṃ uparujjhatī ). <S> It is the universal space of information, the universal space of mind, is where they are all enclosed of course. <S> When all discrimination is stopped and this "space" is seen in its original undivided way, is when the unborn/deathless is attained. <S> It is this space is what we in Mahayana call Shunyata. <A> The difference is primarily in upa , which is used as an intensifier to designate the circumstance of cessation. <S> Since it is an intensifier, we are led to read "obliteration" rather than "fading away" as for "nirujjhati", where the "ni-" is providing emphasis by repetition of meaning (i.e., ni- + rujjhati ). <S> One can also feel the meaning of the prefixes "upa-" and "ni-" when performing physical actions: <S> Say "upa" when lifting or moving a heavy object. <S> The breath is stopped briefly for exertion. <S> Say "ni" when putting that heavy object down. <S> The breath is exhaled continuously and let go. <A> According to the PTS Pali-English dictionary entry on the prefix upa- : <S> Upa -- [Vedic upa; <S> Av. <S> upa on, up; Gr. u(po/ under, u(pe/r over; Lat. <S> sub fr. <S> * <S> (e)ks -- upo; <S> Goth. <S> uf under & on; Ohg. <S> ūf = <S> Ags. <S> up = <S> E. up; Oir. <S> fo under. <S> See also upari] prefix denoting nearness or close touch (cp. <S> similarly ā), usually with the idea of approach from below or rest on top, on, upon, up, by. <S> -- <S> In compn. <S> a upa is always contracted to upa, e. g. devūpaṭṭhāna, lokûpaga, puññûpatthambhita. <S> -- Meanings: (1) <S> (Rest) <S> : on upon, up -- : ˚kiṇṇa covered over; ˚jīvati live on (cp. anu˚); ˚tthambhita propped up, sup -- ported; ˚cita heaped up, ac -- cumulated; ˚dhāreti hold or take up; ˚nata bent on; ˚nissaya foundation; ... <S> According to the PTS Pali-English dictionary entry on rujjhati : <S> Rujjhati [Pass. of rundhati] to be broken up, to be destroyed J iii.181 <S> (pāṇā rujjhanti; C. expls by nirujjhati). <S> Cp. <S> upa˚, vi˚. <S> For example, from SN 56.22 : <S> ceases with nothing left over. <S> asesaṃ uparujjhati. <S> This means nothing left UPON ceasing. " <S> asesa " means nothing remaining. <S> According to the PTS Pali-English dictionary entry on the prefix ni - Ni˚ [Sk. ni -- & nih -- , insep. <S> prefixes: (a) ni down= <S> Av. <S> ni, cp. <S> Gr. <S> neio/s <S> lowland, nei/atos the lowest, hindmost; Lat. <S> nīdus (ni -- <S> zdos: <S> place to sit down=nest); Ags. <S> nēol, nider= <S> E. nether; <S> Goth. <S> nidar= <S> Ohg. <S> nidar; also Sk. <S> nīca, nīpa etc. <S> -- (b) niḥ out, prob. <S> fr. <S> seni & to Lat. <S> sine without]. <S> ... <S> "Nirujjhati" means "breaks down" <S> I think with "ni-" meaning "down", more or less. <S> From SN 12.62 : <S> But that which is called ‘mind’ or ‘sentience’ or ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night. <S> Yañca kho etaṃ, bhikkhave, vuccati cittaṃ itipi, mano itipi, viññāṇaṃ itipi, taṃ rattiyā ca divasassa ca aññadeva uppajjati aññaṃ nirujjhati. <S> Here, the mind rises UP as one thing ( uppajjati ) and breaks DOWN as another ( nirujjhati ). <A> My answer is actually a response or comment to Andrei Volkov's highly illuminating answer; which reflects my interpretation and application of Andrei's answer. <S> When dependent origination ends forever (SN 12.2) or craving ends forever (SN 56.11), without ever arising again, it is called "asesa-virāga-nirodhā". <S> So in DN 11, the guy asks: " where do the four elements aparisesā nirujjhanti ". <S> Here, " aparisesā " might mean " totally not remaining " ( an + pari + sesa = completely not remaining ) ????. <S> The Buddha replies this is a wrong question. <S> The Buddha then replies in luminous consciousness, the worldly discriminations are subjected to asesaṃ uparujjhatī . <S> While " asesam " appears to mean " nothing left over ", " uparujjhati " does not have the same meaning as " nirodha " or " nirujjhanti " because it is only in luminous consciousness that these discriminations completely cease. <S> In other words, even in ignorance-free craving-free enlightened ordinary consciousness, such as a Buddha or Arahant in a conventional mode (such as the Buddha telling a monk to do walking meditation over the "length of 30 short steps" or to know "long breathing" & "short breathing"), these discriminations (of long, short, fine, coarse, beautiful, ugly, naming a form) can return. <S> Thus these discriminations are "uparujjhati" because, unlike the cessation of ignorance for an Arahant, these conventional discriminations can return. <S> In other words, similar to the prefix "upa" in "upapajjati", the cessation of the discriminations is an "offshoot" of or "rests" upon the luminous consciousness (rather than <S> is an outcome of the permanent or remainderless cessation of ignorance, which is "nirodha" or "nirujjhanti"). <S> Thus, as Bhikkhu Sujato said: Nibbana is not viññāṇa. <S> Really, it just isn’t .	Uparujjhati means "upon ceasing" with "upa-" meaning "upon" or "on", more or less.
Would a wise person avoide situations where other could perform lot of demerits? Would a wise person avoide situations where other could perform lot of demerits? Or different asked: Would a wise person go out only if meritorious reactions are suspected? What do you think, or know about the Buddhas view on such? (Note that this has been not asked for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment that binds here in this world, but as means of release) <Q> The general Buddhist advise is to associate wise people. <S> There are many Buddhist stories that Buddha encountering unwise people. <S> It appears that Buddha did not have much time for those people. <S> You find stories such as Angulimala. <S> But they appeared to be intelligent people. <A> Yes. <S> When you are in contact with negative things, they weaken you. <S> So as much as possible, you should be with positive thinkers. <S> Because, after all, our life is result of our sankalps, therefore, be with the things which give you hope and confidence. <A> Would a wise person go out only if meritorious reactions are suspected? <S> The Gilana Sutta (AN 3.22) might imply that a wise person would go out if a meritorious reaction is even possible -- even if an unmeritorious reaction were also possible -- i.e. "on the chance that they may actually turn out to need and benefit from such". <S> Another way to say it is, perhaps you shouldn't only judge an act by its effect -- "was it effective, successful?" -- but by intent.	Wise person would avoid situations which can give negative vibrations.
What is appropriate usage of medicines that are intoxicating? What is appropriate usage of medicines that are intoxicating? I know that cannabis has been used for pain relief but if the use of the cannabis is intoxicating then what is the right view of what is appropriate regarding the use of the cannabis as a medicine? Are there any suttas which seem like they might be helpful in answering this question? <Q> Regardless, the precept on intoxicants refers to heedlessness . <S> If a person has a serious medical condition and must use ordinary intoxicating cannabis for relief then it is expected they would be morally mature enough for the cannabis to not lead to heedlessness. <A> As long as it is for true medical purpose as a treatment when there are no other similarly effective alternatives, and one is not using possible medical benefits as an justification but consuming it for toxication, then it is fine. <S> General sprescribed medication as a treatment and given but a doctor is fine. <S> If one seeks toxicating meditations of the toxicating benefits then it is not OK. <A> Let me ask you this, can you enter samadhi when you're high? <S> How easy is it to maintain mindfulness when you've smoked a bowl? <S> Is your awareness as sharp? <S> Can you establish atapi or sampajanna? <S> I know when I used to smoke, getting rid of anything that could be construed as ardent and clearly comprehending was kinda the point. <S> One thing that I think gets lost in regards to the fifth precept is this blunting of perception. <S> When we reduce this training rule to only those conditions that cause heedlessness, we ignore the larger way this precepts figures into our training. <S> I mean, think about it. <S> Are all of those fermented substances listed by the precept really the only things that cause intoxication? <S> Of course not. <S> There are plenty of other psychoactive compounds and not all of them are chemically derived. <S> Porn, biased news coverage, our phones, and countless other vices remove us from full engagement with experience. <S> They cut us off from the moment. <S> There is only so much mental real estate we're afforded. <S> When we crap it up with these mental intoxicants, there's no room left for the path. <S> Of course, this doesn't mean we should beat ourselves up. <S> If a life saving medicine makes you a little woozy (e.g. chemotherapy), by all means go for it. <S> You aren't much use as a Buddha if you're dead. <S> But if the choice is between popping a couple of Benadryl and going all balloon head or having a running nose, sit down on the cushion and let your nose drip down your chin. <S> I think you'll find that samadhi is a rather impressive panacea. <S> More importantly, our egos hate it when we suffer. <S> It's an affront to everything it stands for. <S> Embrace these minor irritations and club it over the head. <A> I think the key word in the fifth precept isn't "intoxicating" but <S> Pamadatthana <S> i.e. <S> Pamāda <S> carelessness, negligence, indolence, remissness <S> See also other topics on this site which describe pamada : <S> What is the purpose of the 5th precept? <S> How do different traditions define "intoxicant"? <S> Apparently, in Thailand doctors make fewer prescriptions for cancer pain than you might expect -- I don't know whether that's because of Buddhism though. <S> I think I read once that pain itself <S> can, if it's intense enough, cause "heedlessness" -- perhaps a Buddhist would prescribe a medicine-which-causes-heedlessness to the extent <S> it's necessary to alleviate pain-which-causes-greater-heedlessness. <S> Buddhist monks are allowed to take medicines which they "need". <S> I think it's another monk who might decide whether they "need" something (or at least decide whether they need to see a doctor), but also monks aren't allowed to act as medical doctors for laypeople, so there's not much answer to your question from that source. <S> A very general answer -- a way to maybe answer start to answer it yourself - might be to relate it to remorse: i.e. if you feel "remorse" after doing something perhaps that's a sign that it would be better to steer clear of doing that. <S> See also Experiencing physical pain	My impression is medical cannabis does not have an intoxicating effect.
Would the Buddha have considered engaging in anal sex as breaking the 1st and/or 5th precept? Would the Buddha have considered engaging in anal sex as breaking the 1st and/or 5th precepts? I would like to know this as I am trying to better understand the 5 precepts. <Q> Obviously, anal sex performed by a husband on a wife would not break the literal teaching found in the 3rd precept. <S> However, its often voyeuristic nature tends to place it within the sphere of mere lust, which is unwholesome, unless the wife genuinely rather than begrudgingly consents to the act. <S> In certain societies, anal sex was a common way for men to have sex with their wives and avoid pregnancy. <S> However, many wives resented it. <S> If a wife resented this, it would be an unwholesome act, not based in real love. <S> But if the wife enjoyed it & was happy to do it, I suppose it would be OK (ignoring the fact the anus being something not really designed for sexual penetration). <S> Similarly, if committed homosexual partners sincerely wish to practise anal sex, it seems OK, I suppose (i.e., ignoring whatever risks are involved). <S> But if anal sex is part of some domination or aggression motivation, it would not be OK. <S> Sex exists in nature for reproduction. <S> However, it is acknowledged in religion that sexual desire is also something "oppressive"; that often needs to be "managed". <S> When questions about sexual morality arise from the perspective of "sexual desire management", it becomes more complex & less straightforward. <S> But when sex is for reproduction, sexual morals is easier to define. <S> Naturally, ordinary male & female relationships have children as a very strong factor that naturally binds the relationship. <S> When people, be they homosexual or heterosexual, engage in childless relationships, this lacks the natural children factor that helps define ethics and also greatly helps maintain the relationship. <S> For example, when a wise man sees marriage & children are the optimal life for a woman, a wise man can easily generate compassion towards women and even lose sexual desire towards women (and thus easily become a monk or enter samadhi). <S> In the Buddhist suttas, wise men left the household family villlage life because they could see the business of reproduction & family life was a burden & bondage. <S> For homosexuals, however, such a perspective is lacking. <A> If you do any sexual act with someone under guardianship, protection or care, then it breaks the 3rd precept, regardless of the nature of the act. <S> The party providing guardianship, protection or care can be oneself, partner, family, government, religious institution, etc. <S> The 1st precept is about killing and the 5th precept is taking intoxicants. <A> In VinayaPitaka Pathamaparajika , Pathamaparajika precept will be perfectly completely broken when bhikkhu's penis immediately touching 3 holes, vagina, anal , and mouth. <S> Exposition part 2 Voluntary sexual intercourse <S> If a monk has the intention of association and he lets his penis enter a human female through the anus … through the vagina … through the mouth, he commits an offense entailing expulsion. <S> If a monk has the intention of association and he lets his penis enter a non-human female … a female animal … a human hermaphrodite … <S> a non-human hermaphrodite … an animal hermaphrodite through the anus … through the vagina … <S> through the mouth, he commits an offense entailing expulsion. <S> If a monk has the intention of association and he lets his penis enter a sexually nonconformist human … a sexually nonconformist spirit … a sexually nonconformist animal … a human male … a male spirit … a male animal through the anus … through the mouth, he commits an offense entailing expulsion. <A> It doesn't break the first precept because sperm is not a sentient being. <S> It doesn't break the fifth precept because anal sex is not an intoxicating substance like alcohol or recreational drugs. <S> You can read this answer for details.	It may break the third precept, but that depends on WHO the sex partner is, rather than WHAT the sex act is.
Acting nice for karma's sake? If I recall correctly, karma is constituted of two parts - action and intention. Which means if one wishes to "gain" positive karma, one would have to conduct a positive action AND do so with a positive mind. With that being said, if I were to help an old lady to cross the street for the sole purpose of obtaining good karma, am I going to get good karma? <Q> This is a triple win in term of accumulating and strengthening the effectiveness of the karmic action: Being nice Knowing being nice has consequences <S> Acting knowing there are consequences When doing good, believing in Karma and knowing there are consequences, reinforce the good results. <A> Just" for the sake of doing good is a very noble intention, householder Timothy Hung. <A> Yes, you are exercising the muscle of kindness. <S> Eventually the action will become more natural. <A> Karma is how this world behaves. <S> As an example in general how world behave is ; if we change the state of a weight (put a stone from the ground on the table) to a more unstable position (being on the table is more unstable than being on the ground) <S> what would happen? <S> Once its got a chance it comes to a stable position right? <S> You can name this as gravity or any other concept in Science. <S> The same model is happening in Karma too. <S> By helping a lady to cross the road you are changing the state, and once the nature got a chance it gives you similar thing back. <S> But main thing to remember is that ‘chethana han bikkha wè <S> kamman wadami’ means thought (intention) is the karma. <S> So if you do this without the intention of really helping that lady, you will not get similar help in future. <S> The intention you meant here may cause you to be used by someone else (as return karma) to get what they want while you will feel some easiness. <A> It will still be positive, but not as beneficial as if it was done selflessly.	For the purpose of obtaining good karma, one would in most cases accumulate more good than for any other common purpose, yes. "
It is said that arahants never dream. What are the textual sources for this claim? On various web pages relating to the Dhamma I have read the claim that arahants never dream. A few examples: Buddhist scholar Lily de Silva writes : We may also note the tradition maintaining that arahants never dream, maybe because they have attained such perfect mental health that there is no necessity to release tension through dreams. The ven. Dhammananda Maha Thera writes : Buddhas and Arahants never dream. The first three kinds of dream cannot occur in their minds, because their minds have been permanently 'stilled' and cannot be activated to dream. The last kind of dream cannot happen to them because they have eradicated all their craving energy completely, and there is no 'residual' energy of anxiety or unsatisfied desire to activate the mind to produce dreams. And the Czech monk U Sarana writes : At that time Mahasi Sayadaw told to U Pandita that to his (Mahasi Sayadaw's) surprise, Mahasi Sayadaw had a dream. It is impossible for an Arahant to have a dream - and thus Sayadaw U Pandita knew, that Mahasi Sayadaw was not an Arahant at the time when this was said. Surprisingly, I have not been able to find any Suttas or other textual sources for the claim that arahants never dream. Do any of you guys know of such sources? Is it in the Suttas, the Abhidhamma, the commentaries, or in a later text such as the Visuddhimagga? Thanks in advance for your answers! <Q> Dreams are not mentioned a lot int <S> he suttas. <S> Perhaps you can search the vinaya instead of the suttas. <S> THe best there is for the suttas is ''the lack of evil dreams'', from metta <S> "Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of loving-kindness[1], by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into practice, and by establishing them. <S> What are the eleven? <S> "He sleeps in comfort. <S> He awakes in comfort <S> He sees no evil dreams. <S> http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/11_elevens/an11.016.piya.ati.htm <S> there is the same thing with mindfulness <S> http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/05_fives/an05.210.hare.pts.htm <S> https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_13.html <S> Whoso ’mong them strong efforts made resembling Brahma, best, he never did engage in sex not even in a dream. <S> https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_7.html <S> One of my followers would not cast spells, Or interpret dreams, Nor would they practice astrology <S> , Prognosticate animal sounds, <S> https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp4_14.html <A> Householder, interested, dreams, and how one takes on them, should be seen as experiences of actions, kamma. <S> In this relation it is easier to trace their value. <S> That is right, as long heedful. <S> Even if one reaches the area of perfection in virtue, the first section of the path, eager staying heedful with mindfulness arosen, such as dreams do no more appear. <S> One may simply put it into test by seriously practicing the path for a while and one will know it for oneself. <S> Even if practiced to the extend of unripe right view, say developed metta in a good manner, one will observe the fading away of dreams like they might have been before. <S> Such as "really" bad dream <S> do no more arise as soon one enters into the sphere of integrity. <S> Not that also an Arahat could dwell heedless (not reflecting inconstancy, dukkha,... permanently, not dwelling in Jhana, not engaging in discussing the Dhamma), what they are not encouraged to, and it may be that such may be confronted by dreams, yet not that much burdened or exited by it. <S> It might not be found directly in words in the Canaon, but for one who's mindfulness does not collapse any more, it's not possible to enter into a deluded state, not knowing what's real. <S> Surely the source, transferred by the elders, derives from the Commentaries. <S> The pali supin(a) , dream, gives: 158 matches on 48 pages (vaggas/books) in the Tipitaka 328 matches on 79 pages (vaggas/books) in Atthakatha 260 matches on 67 pages (vaggas/books) in Tika 92 matches on 54 pages (") in Anya ...so far. <S> ( Account reqired, if not for now, and given to do such for noble research, dedicated toward the gems, toward Liberation. ) <S> (Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel) <A> There is a sutta somewhere in the AN, I don't remember if it takes place before or after the Buddha's awakening. <S> The dream goes something like he's lying down, and there are white worms, they represent future disciples gathering around to learn from him. <S> And other symbols of that nature. <S> In MN 23, the ant hill sutta, it doesn't say it's a dream, but it is exactly like the kind of dreams Buddhists often have. <A> They must be in the preset moment and live their lives totally. <S> Osho gave a good answer on that question. <S> Source: <S> https://youtu.be/h3_8wgDx9_4	In the suttanipata, the buddha says dreams are worthless, contrary to what puthujjanas believe Who has destroyed (belief) in omens, in luck, the occurrence of dreams and other signs such, who is rid of the bane of what is auspicious, such a one rightly would wander in the world.
Cutting Computer in Evening I have recently managed to restrict my eating period to about 8h per day, which is supposed to help circadian rhythm. Yet, to further promote sleep and circadian rhythm, I should also cut out blue light from a computer a few hours before bed (and go to bed at the same time each day). Since I get bored when I cut the computer at this hour, I always revert to using the computer, delaying bedtime in the process. What would Buddhism suggest as solution towards such a computer use? In the evening, I'm unable to find activities interesting enough, I always revert to using the computer. Would avoiding the computer at other times decrease my attachment to it overall? What might help? <Q> When using a computer you get a lot of input or information to process. <S> This leads to more vitakka and vicara hence dispersion of the mind. <S> It is best to limit this and try to be more mindful when using computer and phones. <A> well since the problem is that you cannot get sati or samadhi in your evening spare time, you destroy the evening spare time. <S> To remove the spare time in the evening, you wake up earlier, so that you will be tired in the evening and directly go to bed. <S> Plus you wake earlier and striving for sati and samadhi in the morning is easier, since you have more energy and less papanca after you wake up. <S> You can do that in bed too. <S> Even if your activities are not related to the dhamma, People who wake up early have more energy for their spare time (which is in the morning), instead of doing their hobbies in the evening after a full at work. <A> In the evening, I'm unable to find activities interesting enough, I always revert to using the computer. <S> I have found two solutions: <S> When using the computer, I use it mindfully to educate myself on current events and trends (e.g., global warming, technology trends, national conflicts, etc.) <S> that deepen my study of the suttas with current considerations. <S> Or I work on projects that help myself and/or others. <S> I walk meditation listening to the suttas. <S> This is difficult and interesting for my restless mind. <S> At the very least my mind is occupied by wholesome thoughts. <S> MN20 has a good exposition of how to stop thinking. <S> Restraining thoughts is important and it is difficult because we tend to identify with those thoughts such as "I am bored. <S> Let's see what's on the computer tonight." <S> : <S> Now, suppose that mendicant is ignoring and forgetting about those thoughts, but bad, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and delusion keep coming up. <S> They should focus on stopping the formation of thoughts. <A> First ask yourself, what do you want to see in Computer? <S> Computer is for you, not you for computer. <S> If you want to watch movies, or chat with friends, you can do that in morning as well. <S> You cant think of mindfulness and meditation unless you are saturated with the sensual gratification. <S> Buddha himself was born as a King with all kinds of luxuries, but eventually realized that earth will never be enough for an uncontrolled mind and hence renounced his kingdom. <S> Any addiction is created because of repetition and leads to misery eventually, for example an obese man is addicted to eating, a gambler is addicted to greed, all are desires born from untamed mind for non-self. <S> If you can think and understand the cause of your bondage than you can also free yourself from it, as no one can free you except you. <S> You are the writer of your own destiny in very first place. <S> Follow the madhyakama or the middle path and maintain balance in everything food, sleep, life etc. <S> , Any crest of sense imbalance in life will be followed by a trough of miseries.	Plus since you will wake up earlier, you do not need an alarm clock to wake up.
Is ritual always a practice, or can it be a belief too? If ritual is repetition outside of what can be justified through direct experience, can ideas and opinions, as well as words and actions, be ritualistic? Would a belief in God - given the axiomatic impossibility to verify the entity directly - classify as ritual? <Q> Till the experience of clear seeing and knowing, realizing, what ever deed by body, speech and mind is good to considered as a habitual ritual, householder Ilya Grushevskiy and interested. <S> Ways of belief, expecting certain happiness and release, to the extend of not knowing, not clear seeing, are rituals. <S> In regard of abounding the fetter of ritual toward an aspiration headed to Nibbana it requires the knowledge of the path through realization. <S> Relaying on this, it's also again practiced as ritual (habitual) <S> but no more destined toward anything else as well as raw rituals not headed toward the aim have been abounded. <S> The same, of course, would count also for the path into the Brahma-realms, if realized once. <S> To possible understand the underlying point as well: believing is an action (mental), a practice, as well, and the foremost in becoming also signs and physical deeds, rituals. <S> Usually the word ritual is used for practice that would not really cause the desired effect (i.e. actually: mind is one, sign, physical another). <S> Sometimes ritual refers also to holding on certain actions by signs and deeds although the mind might not be directed at it's purpose, perceived as habitual only outwardly. <S> (Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel) <A> I get the impression (e.g. from this answer ) that a "belief" might (instead) be classified as a "view". <S> The word you're asking about might be sīlabbata -- using a quick search of Google <S> I saw several discussions of that, but didn't notice references to suttas where the term is clearly defined. <S> The PTS dictionary says, bbata [=vata2] <S> good works and ceremonial observances <S> Dh 271; <S> A i.225; S iv.118; Ud 71; Sn 231, etc. <S> ; sīlavata the same Sn 212, 782, 790, 797, 803, 899; <S> It 79 <S> Given that the word includes <S> sīla <S> I assume that, like the precepts, it implies some element of behaviour and not only of view. <S> I think the two (i.e. "belief" and "practice") might be equated by some Christian sects, e.g. "the only thing you have to 'do' is 'believe' " (i.e. the Christian sola fide doctrine) -- I guess that might seem like a ritualistic belief. <S> There may be something analogous in Buddhism too, e.g. this answer or perhaps even just taking refuge. <A> Is ritual always a practice, or can it be a belief too? <S> Silabbata paramasa is a ritual backed by wrong belife. <S> If a ritual is a repetition outside of what can be justified through direct experience, can ideas and opinions, as well as words and actions, be ritualistic? <S> Yes. <S> As it is a practice not rooted in reality. <S> Would a belief in God, given the axiomatic impossibility to verify the entity directly - classify as a ritual? <S> Yes. <S> Any practice expecting liberation will be. <S> Following is a good writeup: <S> SILABBATA PARAMASA is generally translated into meaning the adherence to wrongful rites, rituals and ceremonies. <S> Believing that a wrong practice is a right practice is called Silabbataparamasa, which is believing, maintaining, or supporting a wrong belief in the practice. <S> According to the teaching of the Buddha, apart from the Eightfold Noble Path, all other practices are wrong practices and taking them as right practices amount to wrong belief in the practice. <S> Everything that appears at the six doors of senses constitute the Five Aggregates of Grasping, namely, rupa and nama, the Truth of Suffering. <S> Meditating on rupa and nama is practising the Path by which the Four Noble Truths will be understood. <S> Believing in and practising any other method which keeps aside the magga Path and which does not lead to understanding the Four Noble Truths, is wrong belief in the practice (silabbata paramasa ditthi). <S> There are people who are preaching that "It is not necessary to practise meditation nor to observe the precepts (sila). <S> " That is to say, they are saying it is sufficient to simply listen to sermons and learn by heart the nature of rupa and nama. <S> " It will be necessary to consider whether such views amount to silabbata paramasa. <S> In the opinion of some, such preachments amount to teaching wrong view in practice as this method excludes the three disciplines of: Samadhi Sila Vipassana <S> Although a person at a lesser level of insight may participate in Wrong Practice and even be unaware of such, a Sotapanna, a person of the first level of The Four Stages of Sainthood, and those above, being well-established in the knowledge of the Right Practice are not liable to hold the wrong view of silabbata paramasas. <S> (1) SILABBATA PARAMASA DITTHI <S> PRESENTED BY: the Wanderling <A> I think you can easily distinguish between the two. <S> Beliefs are orthodoxy i.e. excepted views, doctrines, or teachings. <S> Ritual is orthopraxy or correct conduct, liturgy, or action. <S> What ultimately distinguishes ritual from belief is that the former is expressed in some context whereas the latter fundamentally structures how a person views the world. <S> Belief is God, on the other hand, is to formally order your universe according to that view. <S> Obviously, both are contrived when compared with direct experience.	Saying "I believe in God, the Father, the Lord, the Giver of Life" is to make a ritualistic declaration of an orthodox belief.
What symbols represent Zazen? I am looking for symbols which specifically represent Zazen, or, more generally the act of meditating. <Q> See Wikipedia article on Ten Oxherding Pictures . <S> The calf, bull or ox is one of the earliest similes for meditation practice. <S> It comes from the Maha Gopalaka Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 33). <S> It is also used in the commentaries, especially the one on the Maha Satipatthana Sutta (Digha Nikaya 22) and the Satipatthana Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 10). <S> As Buddhism spread throughout South-East Asia, the simile of the bull spread with it. <S> According to this explanation, the use of ox as symbol for meditation predates Zen, but on my memory I have not seen the ox used in any tradition other than Chan/Zen/Seon. <S> Now technically, the ox is probably a symbol for the mind or something like that - so it is not the ox itself <S> but riding it joyfully (symbolized by the flute) is what probably stands for the (successful) act of meditating. <S> Or perhaps, if you want to show the struggle you can use the fighting scene: In Tibetan tradition the ox is replaced by an elephant: <S> In Pali Canon, the Buddha speaks on multiple occasions about herding the grazing cows, taming wild elephants, and training horses as metaphors for Buddhist practice. <S> Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche spoke about training our inner gorilla. <S> Dza Kilung Rinpoche compared the gentle but steady approach to meditation with teaching a very young child. <S> I think it should be safe to say that training an animal is probably a good symbol for meditation. <S> Other generic metaphors used by various Buddhist teachers for (not necessarily Zen, but definitely Buddhist) meditation, that come to mind, include: Improvising a certain theme on a lute, with the strings not tied too tense nor too loose. <S> Flying a kite of mind, tied to the stake of the breath. <S> Practicing airplane "touch-and-goes". <S> Watching the running water calm down. <S> Sobering up without sleeping. <S> Cleaning the kitchen. <S> Weeding the yard or field. <S> Polishing a tile or a mirror. <S> Leveling jungle into a flat field. <S> Honing an arrow. <S> Heating or chilling a piece of smithwork to maintain the right temperature. <S> These metaphors hint at such factors as steadiness, balanced effort, removing the obstacles, and making incremental gradual progress. <S> Some of these might make good graphical symbols, too. <A> From Zen specifically: Silver valleys and iron cliffs Swallowing a hot ball of iron Mingling your eyebrows with the patriarchs Washing your bowl Hunting the king of the king deer Staring at the wall <S> Those are the ones that come most readily to mind. <S> There are probably scores more I’m forgetting from the various koan collections. <S> What’s listed above specifically refers to seated meditation, but virtually every koan has some symbol or metaphor that you can sorta shoehorn into applying to zazen e.g. putting on your seven piece robe, cutting off your finger, proceeding from the top of the flagpole, etc. <S> Phrases like that actually refer to specific aspects of big mind, but in many cases can be used to describe some of the mental states associated with zazen as well. <A> The most common symbol which implies meditation, and specifically Zen meditation, is a seated figure in a half- or full-lotus posture.	The symbol for Zen meditation is Riding the Ox.
Union with Brahma, or company of Brahma? The following phrase comes from DN 13: “ayameva ujumaggo, ayamañjasāyano niyyāniko niyyāti takkarassa brahmasahabyatāya , yvāyaṃ akkhāto brāhmaṇena pokkharasātinā”ti. T.W. Rhys Davids translated here as: ‘This is the straight path, this the direct way which makes for salvation, and leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahmā . I mean that which has been announced by the Brahman Pokkharasādi.’ Bhikkhu Sujato translated here as: “This is the only straight path, the direct route that leads someone who practices it to the company of Brahmā ; namely, that explained by the brahmin Pokkharasāti.” What does "brahmasahabyatāya" mean? What does "sahabyatāya" mean? This translation could be meaningful. "Union with Brahman" sounds like the modern Hindu concept of Moksha which is a union with God or Ultimate Reality. On the other hand, "company of Brahma" sounds like rebirth into the Brahma realm. What's the correct interpretation? <Q> In DN 13 the term is originally used by Brahmins talking with each other, and so between them it meant whatever (non-Buddhist doctrine <S> ) they each understood it to mean. <S> At the end of the sutta the Buddha teaches them the four brahmaviharas and defines or explains that these are the path to "companionship with Brahma" -- i.e. I think he thus redefines <S> brahmasahabyatāya (whatever it used to mean) in Buddhist terms, in a way that can be understood and agreed by the Brahmins. <A> This topic is thoroughly analyzed in a 2013 paper “Brahmanical Terminology and the Straight Way in the Tevijja Sutta" by Brett Shults. <S> There, Shults explains that "sahaya" means "friend", "companion" - therefore "sahavyata" means "companionship" or "fellowship". <S> Shults explains (as ChrisW said too) that the term refers to the Brahman's idea of The Goal, which Buddha then takes and clarifies according to the Buddhist proper interpretation. <S> Shults also argues that the meaning of the word is most probably "joining", "in a sense as we might speak of joining a club". <S> I personally think "sahaya" means something more like "sidekick" or "henchman" - <S> i.e. someone who is always together with, but is "lesser" than, the main figure. <S> The idea IMO is that one is in a state of joining with Brahma without actually being Brahma. <A> I feel this is "in the audience/assembly of the brahma". <S> So "company of the brahma" seems more right. <S> This seems more like a literal translation. <S> Looking at the context union with the brahma might be right if the brahmins were teaching this. <A> Householder Ruben, interested, Would you say, perceive, that you are now in Union with Brahma-SE or in the company of Brahma-SE? <S> Or even deny the relation, dependency, company or union with his host? <S> Would you say that you are here with Brahma-SE or of Brahma-SE? <S> In the same way there are being perceiving the body as the own, or the own in the body, ... And likes as gained a human awareness, there are those who perceive own in this or that way and those free from the fetter of sakkaya-view, and those in all ways liberated. <S> So what is real? <S> Worthy to seek for, worthy to go after? <S> (Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.) <A> My view would be that 'union' is the more rigorous word. ' <S> Companionship' suggests a separation from Brahman but where there are 'not-two' separation is impossible. <S> Yoga is the art of union with reality, not the art of of becoming a distinct phenomenon. <A> The Buddha says: This is a path to companionship with Brahmā. <S> Regardless of whether companionship means union or company, the Buddha says that this is a path that is related to Brahmā (and not to <S> Emptiness / Void) Company with Brahmā is lower than Union with Brahmā. <S> What sort of 'company' can it possibly be that will justify to be called The path of Lord Buddha ? <S> It is - becoming One with Brahmā.	In the case the brahmins in question were teaching being born among the brahmas or brahma plane then company of the brahma is more correct.
What does pari-mukha mean in 16 APS anapana sati? https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/07/what-does-pari-mukha-mean-exactly-in-16.html excerpt:Translation (from pali)I've chosen the literal translation of near-the-mouth. In Theravada Pali Vinaya, pari-mukha is used in the context of facial hair or chest hair being in front of you. But what does it actually mean? To have 'sati' established 'near the mouth', or 'in front of you'? Three logical possibilities1) spatial coordinates only (in front of you, near mouth, face, chest)2) figurative only, not a literal interpretation of spatial coordinates, like "focusing on task at hand"3) both one and two (it's possible the Buddha meant both, just like if you're using a cel phone, you're literally and figuratively focusing on the task in your hand) <Q> There's an article discussing the use of that word here -- parimukhaṃ -- which interprets it literally, as you did, by referring to its being used literally in other texts like the Vinaya, the Abhidhamma, the Khuddaka Nikāya, and a Commentary. <S> Piya Tan disagrees, in his introduction to MN 118 <S> he writes, 2.4 <S> PARIMUKHA <S> 2.4.1 Abhidhamma interpretation. <S> Unlike in Hatha Yoga, in breath meditation the breath is not deliberately regulated, but a sustained effort is made to fix one’s awareness on the breath as it moves in and out in its natural rhythm. <S> Those who follow the Abhidhamma and Commentarial traditions, teach that mindfulness should be focused at the nostril or the upper lip, wherever the contact of the breath is felt most distinctly. <S> This tradition is mainly based on the Patisambhida,magga and Vibhanga interpretation of parimukham as being “at the tip of the nose or at the centre of the upper lip.” <S> Parimukha literally means “around (pari) <S> the entrance (mukha),” here always used idiomatically and as an adverb, meaning “in front.” <S> This is the interpretation followed by U Thittila, Maurice Walshe, Soma Thera, and Ñānamoli & Bodhi. <S> ... <S> and he includes a half a dozen footnotes as references for that last sentence. <S> He also wrote, In this connection, the Tiantai master, Zhìyǐ 智顗 (538-597), in his Tóngméng zhǐguān 童蒙止觀 (Samatha and Vipasyana for Beginners), gives this advice for dealing with two kinds of distractions: What is a sinking mind ? <S> If during the meditation the mind is dull, confused or unrecordable, while the head drops, this shows a sinking mind. <S> In such a case, it should be fixed on the tip of the nose to nail it there and to prevent it from wandering elsewhere. <S> This is the way to regulate a sinking mind. <S> What is a floating mind ? <S> If during the meditation, it drifts about and is uneasy, while thoughts follow externals, this shows a floating mind. <S> In such a case, it should be pushed down and fixed on the navel to prevent thoughts from rising; thus the mind will be stabilized and will be easily quieted. <S> Therefore, the absence of the sinking or floating state shows a regulated mind. <S> (Zhìyǐ, Tóngmén Zhǐguān 童蒙止觀 in Lu K’uan Yü, 1964:126;41) <S> That latter reminds me of the little I was taught about Daoist meditation, incidentally. <A> It's best take if using it's meaning also mental " <S> bringing it into the front", "focus on it", "make it as target direct for one" in all it's aspects. <S> "bringing it in foreground" ... <S> reading the options given in the question now, <S> good householder Frank, the third is good when taking the coordiants just one-dimensional, as direction, straight forward, in front, as supporting perception for the mental part of it. <S> (This "calibration" works good (just as one tool one could try) to perceive such as a robe between ones "bottom" firm on the ground fixed and the crown, taking the breat (strong hand), and pulling the robe straight upward, making the body straight, upright, and with it an even view and focus as well, mental at the same time.) <S> (note that this Gift of Dhamma is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation) <A> https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/07/parimukha-57-occurrences-in-pali-suttas.html excerpt: <S> parimukha: 57 occurrences in the pali suttas <S> If you want to be sure of what a pali word means, you need to look at every reference in the suttas and make sure it's coherent and consistent throughout. <S> The conclusion of this study, is that pari-mukha can not mean the physical spatial location "around the mouth", as late Theravada interprets it. <S> In the sitting meditation context, pari-mukha is not about the spatial location "in front" at all. <S> The spatial interpretation just happens to work for 16 APS (breath meditation). <S> But it doesn't work for all of the other Buddhist meditations designated which are non-breath related. <S> conclusion: Pari-mukha is a figure of speech. <S> Similar to these English figures of speech:1. <S> Focus on the task at hand2. <S> A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.3. <S> Follow your nose <S> = Make sati establishment your "main priority".	Pari-mukha is a figure of speech that means, "main priority".pari-mukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā
Suppose World War 3 occurs and manages to wipe out all humans and animals. Is the cycle of death and rebirth broken? Or will human beings be magically reborn again in order to continue their journey to Nirvana? <Q> 'Humans' are people who have a moral conscience & are humane. <S> 'Animals' are people driven by instinct (such as survivalism, tribalism & terroritalism), emotion, without reflective wisdom. <S> 'Human' & 'animal' are states of mind rather than physical qualities. <S> For example, the 'human state' is described as follows: <S> Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state . <S> For what reason? <S> Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma , no righteous conduct , no wholesome activity , no meritorious activity . <S> Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. <S> For what reason? <S> Because, bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths . <S> What four? <S> The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering. <S> SN 56.47 <S> AN 6.39 says: <S> Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. <S> Yet, bhikkhus, from actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. <S> AN 6.39 <S> As for Nirvana, the suttas described it as the here-&-now end of greed, hatred & delusion. <S> To 'journey' is to 'wander & roam'. ' <S> Wandering & roaming ' is called ' samsara '. ' <S> Nirvana ' is found in the present. ' <S> Samsara ' is not ' Nirvana ' and ' Nirvana ' is not ' samara '. <A> In Buddhism, there are 31 planes of existence ( “The Thirty-One Planes of Existence” by Venerable. <S> Bhante Suvanno Mahathera ) which make a universe. <S> There are such infinite universes. <S> (Page 27, Abhidharma Pradeepika, volume 1 by Mr. Amaradasa Rathanapala) <S> Also, there are multiple humanoid planets. <S> If the world gets destroyed then everyone is born somewhere else, either in a different humanoid planet in the same of a different universe, a different plane in the same of a different universe, or inter-dimensional hell which belong to any universe. <S> The cycle will not be broken. <S> Also, see Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school . <A> From SN 15.3 : <S> " From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. <S> A beginning point is not evident , though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. <S> Long have <S> you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released." <S> From MN 9 : <S> From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of ignorance . <S> From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of ignorance. <S> ..... <S> From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of fermentation. <S> From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of fermentation. <S> From DN 15 : <S> "Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. <S> From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. <S> From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact. <S> From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. <S> From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. <S> From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. <S> From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. <S> From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. <S> From birth as a requisite condition, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. <S> Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress. <S> As you can see above, the Buddha says that a beginning point for samsara is not seen. <S> There are also cyclic relationships like between ignorance and fermentation (or effluents ), and also between consciousness and name-and-form. <S> This is like the case of chicken and egg - which came first? <S> A beginning point is not evident. <A> Whoa! <S> Really, if there is a particular set of cause& conditions capable of doing such thing then the same would again make it because Energy remains preserved . <S> We are not merely body, rather a particular set of causes&conditions known as subcouncious mind state(citta). <S> 2 cases arise:: 1.) <S> Every citta is being wiped out. <S> 2.) <S> Citta is preserved. <S> 1st <S> one only possible when everyone attains Nibbana , which is not destruction. <S> If 2nd one occurs then just like life generated out of chemicals on earth(which came into existence through sun), same way it would generate again. <S> It seems that by thinking such amount of mass destruction, there is a lack of love, compassion in your life. <S> So, May you be free from this evil idea of wiping-out every life from everywhere. <S> Along with this, metta in song form too, let me love you(bieber). <A> ‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long period, this world contracts. <S> At a time of contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. <S> And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long time. <S> (Aggana Sutta) <S> If a fantastic war occured, such that would make the world unfit for human and animal life; nothing special would happen and beings would be in the unaffected realms.	There is no 'journey' to 'Nirvana'.
How does the exterior is suffering? How does the exterior is suffering? In this Sutta series from SN35.140 it says the following. Eye etc and its objects are impermanence, notself, and suffering.I understand all except that eye etc and its objects are suffering.For instance, if my eye arises as a result of a physical object, how the physical object is suffering? https://suttacentral.net/sn35.144/en/sujato <Q> It is the sensation created by the touch of the object which is suffering regardless of whether it is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. <S> The whole sphere of sensations is unsatisfactory. <S> Anything physical object you have not experienced is not unsatisfactory to you. <S> You don't know about it and not registered in your mental model of the world. <S> For someone who experiences it, it will be unsatisfactory. <S> To experience an object you need contact: the object, faculty and attention to the faculty. <S> Your mental model of the world is all that you have experienced. <S> So everything you have experienced is unsatisfactory hence the world at large is unsatisfactory. <S> Also, the world is the 5 aggregates. <S> Past experiences leave an impression in sanna and what is experienced now is registered through consciousness and recognised though sanna - which essentially builds your mental model of the world. <S> Physical objects which are in your world is what is unsatisfactory to you. <S> Objects in another's world unsatisfactory to them. <S> Essentially what is know wold to a being is unsatisfactory. <S> Everything in the known world is unsatisfactory. <S> Anything which is unknow becomes unsatisfactory <S> then it is experienced, until then it is not known hence neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory. <S> What you crave for is also unsatisfactory as you might not get it. <S> The faculty (e.g. eye) itself is not suffering. <S> It is the sensation produced which lead to suffering. <S> If there are an eye and an external object and attention which gives rise to eye consciousness. <S> This results in a sensation due to contact. <A> The word 'dukkha' here means 'unsatisfactory' <S> or 'cannot bring happiness'. <S> It does not mean 'suffering', as translated by Sri Lankan N.K.G. Mendis, Indian Acharya Buddharakkhita and Thai Bhikkhu Buddhadasa: <S> "What do you think of this, O monks? <S> Is form permanent or impermanent? <S> " <S> "Impermanent, O Lord." <S> "Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?" <S> " Unsatisfactory , O Lord." <S> "Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" <S> "Indeed, not that, O Lord." <S> SN 22.59 " <S> All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. <S> This is the path to purification. <S> "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory " — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. <S> This is the path to purification. <S> "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. <S> This is the path to purification. <S> Dhammapada "Vipassana" means "seeing clearly," having direct insight into the truth of aniccam (impermanence), dukkham ( unsatisfactoriness ) and anatta (not self). <S> Buddhadasa <S> The Buddha said: Open are the doors to the Deathless to those with ears. <S> MN 26 <A> Answer to this query is related to birth-time or the causes&conditions( old action ) which results in the the formation of eye. <S> Answer is already in the link you have given Reference <S> And what is old action? <S> The eye is old action. <S> It should be seen as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt. <S> Sutta goes on saying <S> And what is the cessation of action? <S> When you experience freedom due to the cessation of deeds by body, speech, and mind. <S> Furthermore, <S> And what’s the practice that leads to the cessation of action? <S> It is simply this noble eightfold path <S> , that is: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion. <S> This is called the practice that leads to the cessation of action. <A> It's due to the element being known as having the characteristics of dukkha that it is included in the classification.	External objects are not suffering until you come in contact and it creates a sensation. External objects on their own are not unsatisfactory.
Temporary Influences on Meditation I was wondering, in the case of a beginner in meditation, how much having eaten sugar might affect meditation quality? Also, I wonder what else -- in terms of states altering the mind like tiredness or sexual arousal -- might affect meditation quality. What are the things to avoid to preserve meditation quality? <Q> The vinaya probably talks more about food. <S> In the suttas the stock phrasing is ''moderation in eating'' is associated to good condition with minduflness, like that https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-037.html <S> "And how does a monk know moderation in eating? <S> There is the case where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new feelings [from overeating]. <S> Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' <S> This is how a monk knows moderation in eating. <S> https://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/bhojan.html <A> Householer, interested, althought already knowing, heard and read often... = <S> > <S> there is no way around, no short cut for "lazy". <S> Keeping 8 precepts , the Brahmacariya, is needed, otherwise meditation on lack of precepts, holding wrong views, would never arise, at least not for right liberation. <S> Once Sila section, based on right view is complete, Samadhi comes alone by it's given causes . <S> To get possible some access to right view, practice of generosity of all kinds will be needed to train at first place as well. <S> What are the things to avoid to preserve meditation quality? <S> unskillful things. <S> See right effort . <S> "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort... <S> "One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort... <S> "One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort... <S> "One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort... <S> "One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort." <S> (note that this Gift of Dhamma is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation) <A> how much having eaten sugar might affect meditation quality? <S> That depends on how much/little (blood) sugar you're starting with. <S> What fits your physiology best is probably a matter of trial-and-error. <S> What are the things to avoid to preserve meditation quality? <S> Generally speaking, according to satipaṭṭhāna sutta the hinders to meditation are described as: <S> Sensory desire (kāmacchanda) Ill <S> -will (vyāpāda/byāpāda) <S> Sloth-and-torpor (thīna-middha) <S> Doubt (vicikicchā) <S> https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html <S> The sutta also goes into detail on how to counter the hindrances. <S> I personally find these advice for countering hindrances good starting pointers, but also a bit generic. <S> Again, you might need to explore what counters fits you best, personally. <S> Also, this is a huge topic, since pretty much every aspect of the eightfold path contributes to preserving meditation quality, meaning that everything we do according to the eightfold path <S> inbetween actual sessions of meditation is conducive to fruitful meditation practice, and vice versa . <S> Also, continuous meditation will strenghten itself as you go from coarse examination to finer insights. <S> The message here is to be patient and compassionate about your struggle for elaborating concentration. <S> Don't give up!	A rule of thumb for determining what is too much is probably to stick to what's necessary for your body/concentration to function to an acceptable degree, but no more than that as it will bring you into sensory desire territory (kāma-taṇhā). Too low blood sugar levels is equally detrimental to meditation as excessive sugar intake can be. Restlessness-and-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca)
What is meant by the impossibility "A Buddha can not help someone not related to him"? What is meant by the impossibility "A Buddha can not help someone not related to him, no relative of him"? Is said to be one of the three things a/the Buddha can not do. How should that be understood? And what is needed to become one that a Buddha could help? Who is a relative, are the relatives, of the Buddha? [Related and given in tiven sphere: Buddha can not help one not related to him? Buddha kann keinem "Fremden" nicht helfen? . (Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release) <Q> Related in this case does not mean by blood. <S> Rather it is in terms of belief in the shared Buddhist philosophies, or at a minimum maintaining an open mind on the subject. <S> Someone not related has no interest in attaining liberation, and such a person cannot be forced or coerced. <S> Thus, they cannot be helped. <A> It is said the Monks as the Buddha's children. <S> Likewise, it can be considered that someone adhering to the dhamma becomes his relative. <S> In this context, if you do not fall into the path of Dhamma ("become a relative of the Buddha") one does not achieve liberation. <S> Also if one gives his children for monkhood then one becomes related to the Buddha and Sasana. <S> This is considered to accelerate one's goal of becoming enlightened, but this is not a must to get enlightenment. <S> At a festival for the dedication of the Great Pataliputra monastery called the Aśokārāma as well as the other viharas built by Ashoka, Moggaliputta-Tissa, in answer to a question, informed Ashoka that one becomes a kinsman of the Buddha's religion only by letting one's son or daughter enter the Sangha. <S> Upon this suggestion, Ashoka had both his son Mahinda and daughter Sanghamitta ordained (Mhv.v.191ff.). <S> Moggaliputta-Tissa <A> Your question "What is meant by the impossibility "A Buddha can not help someone not related to him, no relative of him"? <S> may be explained by--understanding whether a person has faith. <S> When a person is able to (or willing to) believe in Buddhist teachings, then the conditions of that person have matured. <S> What is affinity? <S> It is the ability of a person being able to believe. <S> Even a Buddha cannot help someone whose conditions have not yet matured. <S> However, when they have matured, the person will have belief. <S> Then the Buddha can help. <S> <S> Here we speak of belief, is that first we believe in ourselves. <S> This is where Buddhism differs from religion. <S> In religion the most important criteria is to believe in God. <S> In Buddhism the most important criteria is to believe in ourselves, not something outside of ourselves. <S> Next we need to believe that we have the same Buddha nature. <S> Believe that originally we were Buddhas. <S> Believe that we are no different from the Buddhas. <S> Believe that our true nature has become polluted and that once we remove this pollution we will uncover our true self-nature. <S> Once we have the belief, we then have to obtain the correct understanding of Buddhism. <S> Buddhist teachings explained to all beings the truth of life and the secrets of the universe. <S> Only after we have acquired a true understanding of it can we begin our practice. <S> Therefore, practice is based on understanding. <S> True practice is based on the foundation of principles and correct methods. <S> The ultimate goal of practice is to achieve attainment, to attain the real benefit of Enlightenment. <S> The proper sequence of cultivation is 1) belief, 2) understanding, 3) practice, and 4) attainment. <S> Buddhist teachings in the Right Order of Learning is very important for us to first establish a correct understanding before starting our cultivation and practice.	There is a saying that "the Buddha is unable to help those who have no affinity with him".
Is everything about the world the 6 sense objects I read that the world is only our 6 sense object that we percieve with our 6 sense doors, does this mean that Buddhism says that everything is mindmade and there is nothing really out there or I may be wrong so I would be glad to hear from you. <Q> In my understanding, the suttas tell us that everything that can be cognized, it is cognized through our six sense-doors. <S> The senses work conjoined with sensory stimuli and consciousness of each sense door, which arises only after the impingement between a stimuli with the sense-organ; the interaction between this three conditions is called "contact". <S> If one were to posit that something can be known outside of what our six senses offer to the mind, that would be inconsistent with our capacity to know the world. <S> From the above, we cannot conclude that "everything is mind-made", but only that we feel and get "our" information through "our" senses. <S> Now, if you want to know where does this sensory data come from, I would argue that such answer is out of reach, beyond our ability of knowledge. <S> The very question of " <S> how can we feel what lies beyond our feelings" becomes contradictory, as far as I can tell. <S> We can only be conscious about what we perceive; and we perceive only what we feel through our sense-doors (including the mind as the six sense-door). <S> In my opinion, this is why the Buddha equates the senses to "the world", because in practice we can only speak and reflect about what our senses are able to tell us. <S> Anything beyond them might fall under the realm of speculation and fantasy. <S> Kind regards! <A> Since 5 of the 6 sense objects are not mind-made, obviously the world is not mind-made. <A> The world as we know it is from our senses. <S> If we have not sensed something it is not there in our world. <S> Before the microscope, there was no notion of microbes. <S> When the way to sense it came about this expanded the knowledge of the world. <S> For any being what he knows is the world. <S> This does not mean the world is mind-made. <S> Our model of the known world is in our mind conditioned by our sense experiences. <A> It is not said anywhere in the teachings of Buddha that the world is the 6 sense doors. <S> What is said is that we encounter the world, we sense the world, we come in contact with the world, through the 6 sense doors. <S> Furthermore, since we have 6 sense doors through which we come in contact with the world, we cannot say precisely what the world is. <S> And we cannot say that there is no world, for there is contact happening and because of this contact, phenomenon is encountered. <S> To make assetions about the world, given that our encounter with the world is through 6 sense doors will be insufficient. <S> To anyone who says everything is in the mind, pick up a stone and throw at them and then ask- <S> "Was this in your mind as well?" <S> (Please dont actually throw a stone at anyone, I am simply pararphrasing a very useful Zen story about the mind-only reality):P	To assert that there is no world would be incorrect because we know thorugh 6 sense doors there is a world.
Automatic Habit of Meditation In psychology, a habit is defined as a behaviour done automatically, requiring little conscious effort. I have meditated recently pretty much every second day, but I fail to see any automaticity; its incredibly effortful to sit and meditate for me still. Does Buddhism have anything to say about forming such habits? Is there any knowledge -- whether in the scriptures or from personal experience -- suggesting the ideal frequency of meditation (to form a habit)? Here, I mean the frequency which would enable consistent and automatic sitting and meditation. Also, does consistency relative to the hour of the day of meditation matter at all? Any information is welcome, thank you. <Q> Does Buddhism have anything to say about forming such habits? <S> Is there any knowledge -- whether in the scriptures or from personal experience -- suggesting the ideal frequency of meditation (to form a habit)? <S> I realize you are asking about forming habits , but sometimes the road to effortless habits goes through eliminating hindrances . <S> If we're talking satipatthana, a big deal is actually investigating hindrances to overcome these obstacles, as it is also conducive towards further cultivation of your meditation regime. <S> Generally speaking (vitarka), the five hindrances are: Sensual Desire Ill-will Sloth and Torpor Restlessness and Remorse <S> Doubt <S> Insights regarding hindrances are most likely not only beneficial for your meditation practice, but can likely be generalized to life as a whole. <S> More reading, and not least suggested antidotes to the hindrances: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html <S> Also, does consistency relative to the hour of the day of meditation matter at all? <S> You may benefit from looking at prolonging the time for meditation rather than increase the frequency or timing during the day. <S> It will expose you to important observations for deepening dhyana. <S> I'd argue that the more overall time spent in dhyana the better. <A> Start with one second. <S> Do it every day for a week. <S> Move up to 15 seconds. <S> Do it everyday for a week. <S> Keep adding 15 seconds until you hit two minutes, then start adding thirty seconds. <S> Keep adding thirty seconds until you hit a half an hour. <S> What you do after you hit 30 minutes is up to you. <S> There are only two things you need to do - sit everyday and don't exceed the amount of time that you are supposed to sit. <S> If a sit goes well, end it, and let those positive feelings kindle your desire to sit again the following day. <S> If you do join a group, it's perfectly OK to sit more than your allocated time for the day. <S> There is no magic formula to establish a habit. <S> Right effort is karmimcally recursive - like a spiritual, centripetal engine. <S> But you first have to try. <A> IMO, yes, it does. <S> :) <S> Many meditation programs and retreats are organized around this principle. <S> It takes the average person somewhere between 20 and 30 days to form a solid habit. <S> The more often and more regular the repetition, the more solid the habit. <S> It is the same with sports, gym, eating, etc. <S> Just like with working out, set a specific time every day to meditate. <S> Set a progressively longer series of sit times, so you start out light and work your way up to an hour at a time. <S> You can also try maintaining mindfulness throughout the day, retreading the neural pathways as often as you can, even if just one minute each hour. <S> Once mindfulness and samadhi become habitual, you are on your way. <S> And remember, it's only heavy if you pick it up. <S> It's only hard if you don't want to be there. <S> Observe your mind when you feel it hard to sit. <S> Why is that? <S> Are you craving snacks, sleep, or entertainment? <S> Exhausted by pain or striving? <S> Remember at those times why you are meditating, and remember to relax and take it easy. <S> Make it a game, how many breaths can you observe without mental interruption? <S> Set a high score board of Stillness if it helps. <S> ;) <A> Firstly, you do not specify in your question how long you have been doing "every other day" meditation or how long your sessions are. <S> Meditating for 5 min ever other day will NEVER develop "automaticity" nor can one expect that meditating for 90 min every other day will develop automaticity in a matter of weeks(if ever). <S> Also of note- <S> the momentum generated by SUSTAINED "informal" mindfulness/meditation during daily activities plays a big role in developing automaticity. <S> In my experience, some genuine pervasive automaticity can be experienced by a couple months of daily sits of approx 1 hr, followed by a retreat of a week or so which has you primarily in sitting and walking meditation for 5+ hrs per day.	The more you practice meditation, the more of an automatic habit it will become. Make it fun and rewarding. The only other recommendation I would make would be to find a group to sit with.. Having people to whom you are accountable makes it much easier to maintain a practice. The initial excursion is hard, but once established, the amount of effort required to keep things going is greatly reduced.
5th precept missing from 8fold Path? I can find the first 4 precepts explicitly listed in the 8fold Path- but not the 5th precept regarding intoxicants. Am I missing it in there somewhere? I am wondering if it was a later addition to the tradition. <Q> There is an interesting relationship between the first four precepts and the fifth precept. <S> For e.g. from the Kalama Sutta (quoted below), we can see that the fifth precept is not included. <S> You can find a similar grouping of the first four precepts in the Sigalovada Sutta as the four vices. <S> It also appears in this way in the Sankha Sutta . <S> But there's a reason for this. <S> Consuming intoxicating substances is by itself not a vice or evil act (unlike killing, stealing, telling lies and sexual misconduct), but it can cause you to become heedless and violate the first four precepts. <S> In this sense, the fifth precept is only there to support the first four precepts (and the rest of the training). <S> From the Kalama Sutta : “A greedy individual, overcome by greed, kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. <S> Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?” <S> “Yes, sir.” <S> “A hateful individual, overcome by hate, kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. <S> Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?” <S> “Yes, sir.” <S> “A deluded individual, overcome by delusion, kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. <S> Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?” <S> “Yes, sir.” <S> From the Sikkha-Dubbalya Sutta : <S> "Monks, these five are things that weaken the training. <S> Which five? <S> The taking of life, stealing, sexual misconduct, the telling of lies, and distilled & fermented beverages that are a cause for heedlessness . <S> These five are things that weaken the training. <S> Please see this question for more info on heedfulness ( appamāda ). <A> AN4.201 <S> lists these five: <S> And what is a better person? <S> It’s <S> someone who doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or use alcoholic drinks that cause negligence. <S> And they encourage others to avoid these things. <S> This is called a better person. <S> This works for me. <S> Does it work for you? <A> The Noble Eightfold path actually has 7 precepts (3 bodily + 4 verbal). <S> The 7 precepts are earlier because they are included in the Noble Eightfold Path. <S> As the monastic sangha grew, new precepts were gradually added (including the 5th precept); most of the precepts were added after some issues had occurred and to prevent the same incidents from happening again. <S> Origin of 5th precept as I heard from Ven Dhammavuddho (abbot of Vihara Buddha Gotama) <S> : There was a monk who possessed psychic powers (means he attained at least the 4th Jhana). <S> He had just tamed a Naga (snake spirit) and the villagers were very grateful. <S> They wanted to make an offering and asked him what he wanted. <S> He didn’t want anything but his fellow monks suggested he asked for alcoholic beverage. <S> So, the monks drank the alcohol. <S> His fellow monks were seasoned drinker; so they were not drunk. <S> However, this monk became drunk. <S> When they went back to see the Buddha, this monk had his feet pointing towards the Buddha (which he would not have done if he was sober). <S> The Buddha asked the other monks whether this drunken monk could fight the Naga now. <S> The answer is obvious; he couldn’t. <S> From this incident, the Buddha added the precept to abstain from consuming intoxicants, which leads to heedlessness.	In many suttas, the Buddha talk about the 7 precepts instead of the 5.
Mental Release from Breath Versus Metta I asked a friend who is a meditator about my practice of compassion, and he suggested I do breathing meditation because it helps liberate the mind from overthinking, as well as relaxes the person. However, I'm slightly skeptical because metta typically is also considered a concentrative meditation. Wouldn't compassion meditation also relax the mind because of this? Thank you <Q> Someone practising metta meditation can make one's mind concentrated easily but metta meditation does not in itself result in deep absorption as the object of concentration is changing and vittaka vicara is needed think " <S> so and so be happy", etc. <S> Breath meditation with a bit of metta meditation will help deepen the concentration. <A> According to at least the Visudhimagga (chapter 9), you can reach jhana when practicing the Brahmaviharas of which compassion is one. <S> Yeah, good luck with that. <S> Practically speaking, it is far, far more difficult to develop concentration to the point of absorption when using a complex, abstract concept as the object of meditation. <S> The mind is just too easily given to vacillation. <S> In a Brahmavihara meditation, you are imagining people, their mental state, your feelings for them, and so forth. <S> There's a ton of potentially moving parts. <S> Samatha meditation requires stability. <S> Think of dropping a hunk of uncooked meat on a table. <S> Hear that slap, feel the weight of it, see that piece of roast beef kinda relax as it settles. <S> It ain't going anywhere. <S> Your attention has to drop on <S> it's object in much the same way (at least initially...eventually you ease up on the gravity). <S> You can do that with compassion meditation, but man, if you're looking to develop the same amount of relaxation and absorption as say, breath medtiation, you are setting yourself up for a pretty rough go of things. <A> Wouldn't compassion meditation also relax the mind because of this? <S> Yes. <S> Absolutely. <S> If you could meditate about walking to the gallows after being unjustly convicted and do so spreading a heart full of love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity limitless in all directions, then your metta meditation is rock solid and well developed. <S> That would be the painful practice with swift insight discussed in AN4.163 : <S> And what’s the painful practice with swift insight? <S> It’s when a mendicant meditates observing the ugliness of the body, perceives the repulsiveness of food, perceives dissatisfaction with the whole world, observes the impermanence of all conditions, and has well established the perception of their own death. <S> You might prefer instead the pleasant practice with swift insight meditating on the breath: <S> And what’s the pleasant practice with swift insight? <S> It’s when a mendicant … enters and remains in the first absorption … second absorption … third absorption … <S> fourth absorption … Both are effective.	Breath meditation, on the other hand, helps develop concentration and studies ones mind from overthinking.
Does Buddhism endorse pacifism in times of injustice? How would a monk or a Buddhist answer look like in dealing with injustices like murder, rape, torture? If we refer to Dhammapada 3, the victims get instructions how to deal with those misfortunes, but what about the perpetrators? Would a Buddha not support the actions of military forces -- who kill their opponents -- if their opponent's regime were involved in "wars of aggression" and mass murder of civilians, i.e. "crimes against humanity"? How would a PRACTICAL Budddhist response look like? <Q> How would a monk or a Buddhist answer look like in dealing with injustices like murder, rape, torture? <S> The Vinaya governs rules dealing with issues within the community of monks. <S> The purpose of becoming a monk is to renounce worldly ties, hence it is not expected of a monk to be involved in serving justice. <S> A Buddhist layperson can get involved if is in a position serving justice. <S> In such case one must do what is fair. <S> If we refer to Dhammapada 3 the victims get instructions how to deal with those misfortunes, but what about the perpetrators? <S> This was addressed to Ven. <S> Thulla Tissa. <S> The fault or perpetrator was Ven. <S> Thulla Tissa. <S> Would a Buddha not support the actions of ally forces that killed the Nazis, who killed thousands upon thousands jews, gypsies, mentally handicapped, blacks etc.? <S> Endorsing anything will break the Sila is not fit for a Buddhist. <S> So this will not be endorsed by the Buddha or Sangha. <S> How would a PRACTICAL Budddhist response look like? <S> If one is in a position of the military, justice or politics one will inevitably have to take action which is decremental to oneself or which is unwholesome. <S> What is unwholesome not endorsed but one has to do what is needed to be done for society to function. <S> This involves: dispensing justice involvement in wars <S> Other religions may have a position about law, politics and wars, but Buddhism does not have such position as punitive action would have karmic consequences and these are conventions which change with time and society. <S> Certain laws and politics which were considered just in medieval times are no longer considered just. <S> The Dhamma Buddha perches transcend time and society so everyone can accept it at all times and societies. <A> Buddhism does not micro-manage the lives of ordinary people. <S> Its up to ordinary people to make worldly decisions about their personal lives, families, communities & nations. <A> International law includes an idea of " Sovereignty " -- it's to do with control, e.g. whether a state or government has controls or authority over the people in a given area. <S> A state which doesn't, by the way, might be called a " Failed state ". <S> Conversely I think that Buddhism demands that people control their own behaviour -- see e.g. Getting the Message . <S> There's a topic Expaining The Holocaust & karma to <S> a non-Buddhist which might be relevant to your question -- including the video referenced in Lanka's answer to that question, which seems to to talk about how different people perceive things and react to circumstances differently.	As for the Buddha, he does not get involved in war.
A limit of right speech At what point does the discussion of others become wrong speech? "Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord." Being that I am not an arahat, I need to work through occurrences, sometimes my mind is not enough, so doing so with other people could be helpful. But to talk through some events by those committing wrong speech, wrong action - with those that one considers capable of adding something positive - necessitates their exposition as wrong speakers etc, so is certainly close to creating rifts. I understand that the above has right intention - no desire to spread rumours or damage others' opinion of others, but how to decide whether it is wrong speech? I suppose choosing a person that is not easily susceptible to jumping on disconcord, that differentiates between direct and indirect experience, and that aims to solve problems is a start, but is there anything from the texts? <Q> From Abhaya sutta: [1] <S> In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. <S> [2] <S> In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. <S> [3] <S> In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. <S> [4] <S> In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. <S> [5] <S> In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. <S> [6] <S> In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. <S> Why is that? <S> Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings." <S> https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html <S> This sutta is also interesting, because it suggests that being silent can sometimes be wrong speech in a sense. <S> There may be situations where we need to speak up to prevent harm. <S> Right speech then becomes a question of knowing when to remain silent and when to speak up. <S> Timing becomes a factor. <S> What is considered factual, true, beneficial, endearing & agreeable, and not least proper timing will probably always be subjective to a certain degree, so it's hard to draw a clean cut line between right/wrong speech. <S> One will always need be mindful to make good judgements, i suppose. <A> If one repeats something with the intention of bringing discord, then it is divisive speech. <S> If one says something without the intention of discord then it is OK, regardless of the consequences. <A> If there is doubt, refraining from speech is immediately effective. <S> Yet sometimes there is a need to speak of others. <S> Sometimes there is a need to accuse. <S> In these cases: A mendicant who wants to accuse another should first establish five things in themselves. <S> I will speak at the right time, not at the wrong time. <S> I will speak truthfully, not falsely. <S> I will speak gently, not harshly. <S> I will speak beneficially, not harmfully. <S> I will speak lovingly, not from secret hate. <S> A mendicant who wants to accuse another should first establish these five things in themselves. <S> --AN10.44 <S> As an example, this happened recently when a grandmother, worried about her grandson, intervened and spoke out . <A> The Buddha didn't just emphasize the truthfulness of one's speech but also its timeliness/appropriateness: <S> So too, prince, such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. <S> Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. <S> Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is unwelcome and disagreeable to others: the Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech.613 Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, but which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. <S> Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. <S> Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: the Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech. <S> Why is that? <S> Because the Tath›gata has compassion for beings.” <S> ~ MN 58 ~ <A> What produces right speech? <S> Like the wheel of a cart follows the ox, if a mind is very agitated, full of ignorance it will be difficult to produce beneficial Noble speech. <S> If the being or mind is calm, compassionate, and clearly seeing, unlikely the words will cause harm. <A> I have heard from a sermon that, If you lie and the result is a good thing then the bad kamma that you gain from lying is canceled out by the good kamma which is the result of lying. <S> For Eg: <S> 1) Parents often lie for their children so that they eat. <S> The intent of the parent is wholesome therefore even if the parent lies the good kamma is more than the bad kamma, which cancels out the bad kamma. <S> 2) <S> A doctor who knows that a patient is going to die withing a few days won't say that the patient would die soon but would say that he will survive. <S> This will make the patient have a firm determination to live which might even result him in not dying at that moment, thereby the doctor saved a life through a lie. <S> I don't have sutta's for my claim, but you can refer this video (it's in Sinhala)	The main factor is the intent.
Strong tingling sensation in face that persists +- hour after meditation I've been meditating for about 8 years.Recently I did a second vipassana 10 day silent retreat. A few days in, when focussing on my face, my face got highly sensitive, and a strong tingling was felt in it. This feeling intensified when focusing more on the areas where I would place my attention. Even focusing on parts of the neck and throat would have the same effect on the face. The sensations would last after meditation and subside after about an hour or so. My teacher assured me that it happens more often, and I should probably not focus too much on my face. I'm slightly worried about it still, and decided to fully avoid the face area for now, and take it easy meditating altogether. I was wondering if others had similar experiences, alternative interpretations, and other ways to work with it. Thank you! <Q> At some point, you will feel sensations thought out the body. <S> There is nothing to get alarmed. <S> Also, do not get attached to it. <S> Do not avoid any areas and also do not stay long in any area than others. <A> What's really going to blow your mind, however, is that the sensation you were feeling is probably always there. <S> You are only experiencing at the forefront of consciousness because your mind is more relaxed and open during and just after a meditation session. <S> What you are experiencing is really the meat and potatoes of Buddhist meditation practice. <S> Our normal, day to day consciousness is utterly incapable of perceiving the vast majority of what constitutes reality. <S> We go along, blissfully unaware, of all sorts of subtle details. <S> When we sit, however, our mind begins to open to a very different subset of phenomenon. <S> In the context of Buddhist practice, obviously we want use that bright, open, malleable, and unblemished mind (to paraphrase the Buddha) for the purposes of direct insight into the four noble truths, the destruction of the cankers, etc. <S> as this kind of insight is unavailable to our mundane consciousness. <S> That's the ideal, anyway. <S> As we go along in our practice, however, that same luminous mind can also shine its beacon into other dark corners of reality. <S> These are of less benefit, spiritually speaking. <S> They can also be distracting or come to represent some fairly massive obstacles (e.g. in the form of attachment to non-ordinary experience). <S> It's generally best to just let them go. <S> They're just going to get in the way. <A> As a Christian, I feel something similar, a breeze at the back of my neck and head, though there’s no wind. <S> Been getting due to listening to Hillsong and Disney. <S> I wasn’t even sitting down. <A> Few days back, I was walking alongside Ganges river, suddenly I saw a policeman sitting on the top of an official and big elephant. <S> I saw that elephant was reacting to a man as the man didn't get aside of his path and upon seeing this even the policeman started scolding/abusing him. <S> Soon within a minute, that elephant came nearby me <S> and I was also walking aside in reverse direction. <S> Heart started pondering. <S> But soon I realized that I am not here to fight with policeman and/or elephant, so I got more aside and simply observe them as passing-by. <S> Let it pass-by. <S> Reaction or even thinking/intentions about reaction is gonna give you trouble like with that other man alongside Ganges .	Moral of the story :: you don't have to react. Simply continue your meditation. As you progress in meditation you will start feeling sensations in different parts of your body. What you experienced is perfectly common.
Meditation for Work Anxiety I started a new job, and when I get anxious my cognition turns to pure incoherence. I second-guess everything, doubt, double-check unnecessarily, make more errors, etc. What is the best type of meditation to deal with such anxiety-related problems? <Q> If the anxiety is light yet bothersome, gentle restrain anxiety by relinquishing attachment to outcome: <S> This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self. <S> MN62 <S> If the anxiety is heavier and a bit overwhelming, a firm restraint can be achieved by slowing the breath--rapid breathing promotes anxiety. <S> When mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it’s very fruitful and beneficial. <S> MN62 <S> Generally, the more you practice the Noble Eight-Fold Path, the more equanimity emerges with the fading away of attachments to identity view. <S> However, that practice and its fruition are gradual. <S> For the longer term, precepts can be enormously helpful. <S> A mendicant might wish: ‘May I prevail over fear and dread, and may fear and dread not prevail over me. <S> May I live having mastered fear and dread whenever they arise.’ <S> So let them fulfill their precepts … AN10.71 <S> Also consult with your doctor for additional recommendations. <S> Some anxiety disorders can be quite crippling and medical assistance can be of great benefit. <A> Vipassanā Samantha increases concentration. <S> If you have concentration problems which lead to mistakes then this will help. <S> Vipassana meditation can help with stress and anxiety at work. <A> I guess the way I try to deal with it is Ethics e.g. being careful about what I say, not promising what I cannot deliver Having an altruistic attitude ( metta ), trying to cooperate and to provide what other people want <S> Also I kind of know that every job is temporary. <S> The longest I worked anywhere was 12 years, and I have had contracts to do just a few weeks' work. <S> So I think you have to do a bit of what Oyamist said, i.e. "relinquishing attachment to outcome" -- sometimes there's work for me somwhere, and sometimes there isn't -- and whether and when that's so (i.e. whether people have a job for me) is somewhat outside my control. <S> So instead of concentrating on outcome ("what will happen?") <S> , you concentrate on process ("how am I doing, am I communicating well?") <S> -- then perhaps you develop a reputation, and so be able to find more work even after this job ends for whatever reason (but of course concentrate on one job at a time). <S> On the subject of meditation (which you asked about) <S> I find walking ("walking meditation?") helpful. <S> If "cognition turns to pure incoherence" then maybe walk around the block and breathe a bit. <S> I do that, stand up, breathe, swing my arms a bit, use both feet, see a streetscape -- and without thinking about it too hard, and idea might come up like, "maybe I'll trying doing X next" -- and that seems like an idea that might work <S> so I go back and try it.	Regular practice of mindfulness of breathing helps. There are 2 main types of meditation: Samatha
To reach 1st jhana, do we have to let go, or do we have to put some effort? Recently, I've been reading a lot about the different methods and perspectives for reaching the jhanas. For a long time, the only method I've been using is to "let go" everything, and to use the breath as a kind of anchor for the eventual and sporadic distraction. But I never felt anything like joy or rapture. A few days ago, I found a meditation instruction where the instructor tells that effort and will can be used to give rise to joy and to expand it throughout the body. An as soon as I started doing that, I felt and important qualitative difference in the kind of feelings arising. Is this application of effort compatible with "letting go"? What do the suttas tell us about this? Kind regards! <Q> The method you cite first is correct. <S> Any authentic feelings of joy and rapture will arise of their own accord. <S> The first stirrings of jhana will invariably catch you by surprise and will seem to come out of no where. <S> We cannot force them to arrive. <S> If I had to guess, I'd say the main reason why you [and really most people] aren't experience jhana is that you haven't been sitting enough. <S> Outside of a retreat setting, daily 90 minute sits is really the bare minimum for effective samatha meditation. <S> Any less than that <S> and the mind just isn't quelled enough for jhana factors to present themselves in any kind of stable way. <S> It usually takes at least three days of 10+ hours a day of sitting for the mind to release its hold on the world and the grosser manifestations of the hindrances. <S> Only afterwards is the mind prepared for jhana practice. <A> "There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. <S> He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. <S> There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. <S> "Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. <S> There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal... <S> Jhana / <S> Right Concentration (samma samadhi) <S> One should quite withdraw from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities. <S> To do this one must put effort to develop Vitarka-vicara on a chosen object exclusively. <S> The Jhana factors that follow automatically. <S> This is not comparable to "letting go" <S> (viraga) which is more Vipassana oriented results due to Nibbida . <S> When one focuses on and objects one temporarily suspends sensuality. <S> Vipassana totally eradicates it. <S> Therefore Vipassana also leads to Jhana when one develops viraga, but suppression of sensuality and unskillful qualities is sufficient for the 1st Jhana. <A> responding to user 000's answer: <S> The method you cite first is correct. <S> Do not pursue the second. <S> Any authentic feelings of joy and rapture will arise of their own accord. <S> Anything forced or willfully attained is not jhana. <S> The first stirrings of jhana will invariably catch you by surprise and will seem to come out of no where. <S> We cannot force them to arrive. <S> That is completely wrong. <S> Meditation is a subtle art, and both viriya-sambojjhanga (vigor/energy awakening factor, equivalent to right effort, right exertion) and passaddhi-sabojjhanga (pacification/relaxation/letting go of all tension in mind and body) are active before, and through all the 4 jhanas. <S> See MN 78, and study the 7sb awakening factors. <S> Blissful aspects of Jhana can hit you suddenly and seem to come out of nowhere, as user 000 described, but piti, pamojja and mudita are active things you do to engender joy and bliss. <S> Piti-sambojjanga (rapture awakening factor) is to be developed (bhavana), just like samadhi. <S> https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-miseducation-of-piti-in-theravada.html	Do not pursue the second. Anything forced or willfully attained is not jhana. To be terribly honest, you are also highly unlikely to find full absorption outside of a retreat setting.
How can I stop thinking about the clock when meditating? I meditate for 30 minutes every day I normally meditate for 30 minutes but I cannot help but think about the time that the meditation is going to end and constantly thinking about the clock since normally you meditate to be in the present moment, but I am not in the present moment when I meditate. I appreciate any help. Thank you :) <Q> Focus on the clock, and you will find yourself getting distracted. <A> Do nothing. <S> Maintain a daily meditation practice. <S> Time will do the rest :) <A> Use a timer/alarm so you do not need to think about it. <S> One's mind may be checking the time as you desire the session to end. <S> This can be due to: <S> session is uncomfortable <S> you desire to do something else <S> The above reaction can be very subtle. <S> Don't despair if it is uncomfortable and desire doing other things while meditating. <A> Then you simply let go of it. <S> Do this with all thoughts and distractions. <A> Is it possible to be ok with the reality of this. <S> Can one become aware, of I am thinking about the clock, agitated figity. <S> Even thinking about, thinking about the clock? <S> It's ok, that may be a perfect meditation when you realize that it is this not that. <S> Even reading these words, this is the only reality, trying this advice later is not a reality. <S> The conflict of what is and what should be is very real difficulty in the world, that difficulty is here, and now. <S> So many people living in a rush, want to rush off to the next thing. <S> Take pictures to enjoy later and always miss out on the powerful presence of reality. <S> Whatever the reality is. <A> try what is in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html <S> you can also think about the past, future and the currently changing phenomena. <S> Experience changes as soon as it arises, like a monkey swinging from one branch to another, grabbing on to next one before letting go, so <S> the expression of conditions coming into play is preceded by what has been and not of what is or will be. <S> Therefore the line of thinking; 'I am [feeling] bad because of this circumstance having to do with having sat for a long time is going to be changed eventually because the development i described counters both the perception of 'i am', establishes perception of inconstancy and changes how we think about time and how we think and what we know about that which is 'thinking'. <S> think about the thinking itself and of that which you think about; feelings, thoughts & perceptions. <S> This could calm it and give a new perspective on things. <A> Count your breaths. <S> For example, if you breath once every 15 seconds, then you would count up to 120 for 30 minutes. <S> After decades of meditation, I still count my breaths. <S> This is actually how I know when to ring the bell at the end of meditation during zazenkai. <S> I'm going blind and can't see any clock or watch. <S> After practicing counting breaths, you may find that you can simply sit for 30 minutes without counting and know when to get up. <S> It is an aspect of mindfulness to gauge time. <S> That internal sense of time even works for sleeping: <S> And then the Buddha spread out his outer robe folded in four and laid down in the lion’s posture—on the right side, placing one foot on top of the other—mindful and aware, and focused on the time of getting up. <S> DN33 Practice your internal sense of time. <A> That is default behaviour of mind, don't think about " I'm thinking about the clock " just focus on the meditating mind, if it still coming neglect that thought. <S> Don't fight it just forget about the interfering thought.	Notice that constantly thinking about the clock is stressful and that letting go of it can be much nicer and calmer. Look at what your mind is doing and get a handle on it. If you still think about it bring back your mind to the object of meditation.
Is Nibbana joyful or not joyful? I have noticed that it seems Nibbana has been described as "the peaceful". I have had the impression that Nibbana is neither joyful nor delightful. Is my impression correct? <Q> OP: I have noticed that it seems Nibbana has been described as "the peaceful". <S> Nibbana is peaceful of blissful because it is not dependent on sensations/feelings. <S> The whole Shere of sensation regardless if it is present, unpleasant or neutral is unsatisfactory (dukkha). <S> pleasant feeling is pleasant when it persists, painful when it changes; painful feeling is painful when it persists, pleasant when it changes; neutral feeling is pleasant when there isknowledge of it, painful when there is no knowledge of it. <S> Cūla Vedalla Sutta <S> OP: I have had the impression that Nibbana is neither joyful nor delightful. <S> In terms of sensations, this is not pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. <S> But since is it not dependent on the sensation it is not unsatisfactory. <A> AN 9.34 , Ven. <S> Sariputta says (in translation) ... <S> nibanna is bliss ... <S> and that what's blissful about it is that there are no "feeling" i.e. vedana . <S> The word translated "bliss" is sukha . <S> The word translated as "joy" is (instead) usually piti and associated with meditation (and impermanent). <A> On Nibbana "This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." — <S> AN 3.32 <S> Its essentially peace within your being .In <S> Your experience of joy or sadness you are detached meaning not possessed by the experience .It <S> doesn't mean that you are indifferent or passionless but truly alive ,cooperating with the experience ,being with the experience ,where there is nothing but experience ,ceasing to cause anything or interfere in your life process, because with every need to cause there is nonacceptance of an experience .Thus <S> in Nibbana you simply are . <S> Its important to realize that you don't view Nibbana as a goal that your ego needs to achieve <S> You don't gain anything from Nibbana because you become empty from all your conditioning and your ego with all its accumulations <S> disappears. <S> You let go of all the attachments including that of the body, you let yourself happen like you let a flower bloom. <A> Yes. <S> Whatever word you use to describe it, it will miss the mark, as Nibbana is free of concepts, perceptions, judgements, etc. <S> If you label it "peace", that is based in your perception of peace, which cannot exist at Nibbana. <S> If you label it bliss, that too misses the mark. <S> It may be more accurate to say, "after the experience of Nibbana, I felt supreme peace and bliss of an otherworldly magnitude", etc. <S> Nibbana is, by it's nature, nearly impossible to describe and conceptualize. <S> Like a black hole, it is only discernable to the normal mind by the things surrounding it. <S> It may be more useful to learn how to experience it than to wonder too much about it, which may engender expectations and concepts that you'll have to let go of eventually anyways. <S> ;) <A> Words aren't really meaningful unless they correlate to something connected to your sensory perception. <S> Having experienced higher states I can tell you that it's definitely joyful rather than peaceful... <S> I think of peaceful as more like deep relaxation and joyful <S> as more like happy with high energy. <S> MN 59 categorizes different types of pleasures (each one higher): <S> Sensory pleasures 1st jhana <S> 2nd jhana <S> 3rd jhana <S> 4th jhana <S> Infinite space <S> Infinite consciousness <S> Nothingness <S> Neither perception nor non-perception Cessation of perception and feeling <S> The cessation of perception and feeling seems to be connected to arahantship or nibbana or almost like the same thing. <S> But I guess you would have experience it yourself to know... <S> all I know from experience is that higher states resulting from destroying negative unconscious impulses is joyful beyond what you can imagine. <S> If someone really experienced nibbana they should be able to describe it in detail. <S> From my experience the highest state I've experienced was when the energy went above my forehead, above the top of my head, and <S> even further I felt high energy, confident, fearless, unstoppable <S> , like nothing is wrong... <S> it is a joy like no other. <S> The arahant has their fermentations ended so to inspire fear in an arahant is impossible! <S> If having difficulty making progress then best to generate good kamma through the practice of metta (loving-kindess) <S> "Bhikkhus, whatever grounds there are for making merit productive of a future birth, all these do not equal a sixteenth part of the mind-release of loving-kindness. <S> The mind-release of loving-kindness surpasses them and shines forth, bright and brilliant." <S> (Iti 27) Best to shine loving-kindness as opposed to negative emotions like anger, fear, sorrow.	Based on the suttas nibbana/arahantship/cessation of perception and feeling is the highest pleasure.
Is "doing according to one's best understanding" a protection from wrong-doing? A common belief is that, if one conducts himself "as best he can" (in the best ways he understands and knows), then would be a protection from -- or an excuse for -- wrong-doing. For example, "I answer with best effort and understanding..." Under the context of truth, the Dhamma, is this just a naive thought of foolish people? Or can such be rightly justified as something an Awakened would approve? [Not at all given for trade or keep people caught in corruption] <Q> Doing the best that you can, is not a protection against wrong-doing. <S> Why? <S> Hence, gaining Right View, and gradually improving Right View and wisdom over time, through insight, will push the boundaries of your "best effort". <S> In the Salt Crystal Sutta (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu), the Buddha taught: ' <S> Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? <S> There is the case where a certain individual is developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. <S> A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment. <S> And there you have it. <S> For protection from wrong-doing, one should be developed in body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment and dwelling in the immeasurable. <S> The same paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Sujato here : What kind of person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot? <S> A person who has developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. <S> They’re not small-minded, but are big-hearted, living without limits. <S> That kind of person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot. <A> I cannot see how it would be possible to do any better than doing the best we can. <S> If we do this but inadvertently cause suffering or harm then it would hardly be fair if this created bad karma. <S> Surely it is intention that matters, not the outcome of the action, especially since approximately all the outcomes of our actions cannot be known in advance. <S> The only proviso seem to be that 'doing the best we can' must involve the acquisition of knowledge, since ignorance is no excuse for wrong-doing where it is a choice. <A> Doing the best one can is relative to what one knows. <S> If what you know is the method described in the Dhamma, then 'doing the best <S> you know how at the time', if followed-up with a little review of the results will move you steadily from higher to higher and on out. <A> There are several suttas addressing the necessity in reflecting over consequences - besides our intentions - for the sake of benevolence. <S> From the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: <S> All those brahmans & contemplatives at present who purify their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions, do it through repeated reflection on their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions in just this way. <S> Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself: 'I will purify my bodily actions through repeated reflection. <S> I will purify my verbal actions through repeated reflection. <S> I will purify my mental actions through repeated reflection.' <S> That's how you should train yourself. <S> https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html <S> Also, one of the five rememberances from Upajjhatthana Sutta regards the consequences of our actions: <S> Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. <S> Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? <S> There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. <S> But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker... <S> https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html <S> This is also addressed in the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta: <S> Beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. <S> Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement... <S> https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html <S> A more thorough description of consequences is detailed in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta. <S> At the end this is summarized as: <S> So, Ananda, there is kamma that is incapable (of good result) and appears incapable (of good result); there is kamma that is incapable (of good result) and appears capable (of good result); there is kamma that is capable (of good result) and appears capable (of good result); there is kamma that is capable (of good result) and appears incapable (of good result). <S> https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html	Ignorance, or the lack of Right View and wisdom, may cause you to commit wrong-doing, despite doing "the best that you can".
Forced suppression of all cravings including harmless ones Let's say a person has a craving to eat a slice of cheesecake. This is obviously a sensual craving ( kama tanha ). The mental defilement ( kilesa ) to get a slice of cheesecake and eat it, is greed ( lobha ). However, eating a slice of cheesecake (that was not stolen) does not break any of the five precepts . It also does not violate Right Speech , Right Action and Right Livelihood , to the best of my understanding. Questions: Are there any karmic consequences from the harmless consumption of a slice of cheesecake? And why? Should lay people forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? And why? Should monks forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? And why? For questions #2 and/or #3 above, if your answer was "no" to forcibly suppressing all cravings, then I guess entertaining and fulfilling such a craving (to eat a slice of cheesecake) is ok. Is that so? Are there any negative consequences with respect to forced suppression of all cravings (including harmless ones)? <Q> Are there any karmic consequences from the harmless consumption of a slice of cheesecake? <S> And why? <S> Cheesecake is just food. <S> All sentient beings are sustained by food. <S> Sentient beings are not sustained by wishes. <S> Suffering is sustained by wishes. <S> Should ... forcibly suppress all their cravings Generally speaking, suppressing a craving just makes it stronger. <S> But you can restrain or relinquish. <S> Just observe the rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates: form, feeling, perception, choices and consciousness. <S> That craving is impermanent and is not your self, it is not yours, it is not you. <S> ... <S> however... <S> If you cannot muster any skillful thought, then desperate measures are called for as described in MN20 : With teeth clenched and tongue pressed against the roof of the mouth, they should squeeze, squash, and torture mind with mind. <S> Perhaps that would be overkill with...cheesecake? <A> Are there any karmic consequences from the harmless consumption of a slice of cheesecake? <S> And why? <S> It depends on what the karmic intention is. <S> Eating cheesecake can be interpreted as indulgence in pleasure, and is likely to prolong further craving as it's vipaka. <S> As such it will also risk reinforcing the notion of self, maintaining samsara. <S> Should lay people forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? <S> And why? <S> The suttas merely suggests the layman precepts as a way of life and an entryway into dhamma. <S> Should monks forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? <S> And why? <S> Arguably, any precept is not intended to be forcibly followed. <S> They are voluntarily made wovs - if anything - as far as i understand. <S> A monk would then follow the additional three or five precepts along with the five initial ones. <S> For questions #2 and/or #3 above, if your answer was "no" to forcibly suppressing all cravings, then I guess entertaining and fulfilling such a craving (to eat a slice of cheesecake) <S> is ok. <S> Is that so? <S> The way i understand it the purpose of the precepts is not based on permission or prohibition as much as it is offered as a self chosen, volitional effort to end cravings <S> /the notion of a self/samsara. <S> 5 <S> Are there any negative consequences with respect to forced suppression of all cravings (including harmless ones)? <S> If one emphasises "forced", there is a risk one reproduces new craving in terms of vibhava-tanha (craving elimination) or silabbatupadana (clinging to blind doctrines). <A> Yes, there are kammic consequences to any volitional act because as the name implies, it entails volition, or more precisely, it has an intention. <S> In simple terms: If you give into a craving, it's temporarily stilled, but comes back afterwards due to it being reinforcing. <S> Buddhist principles are not commandments. <S> Lay people in this regard are adviced to restrain themselves in the realm of the five precepts, and if they want, they can undertake 8 precepts (which includes celibacy), but this is not mandatory. <S> If you come up with idealistic ideas of surpressing any desire, you will be full of guilt. <S> The arising of craving of sense objects is determined by the degree of the sensual element. <S> The more you feed it, the more the sensuality element grows. <S> It's only with Vipassana that you can ultimately uproot all "evil" tendencies. <S> With monks it's a bit different. <S> If they're genuinely practise the Buddhist path & experienced some bliss (Samadhi for example), it's easier to let go of cravings. <S> Since monk's goal is Nibbana, it makes sense to overcome all cravings that exist. <S> That's why they renounced the world & material things, to make it at least easier for craving not to arise. <S> Environment is very important, but by no means that means that monks have little craving. <S> With regards to your last question, it's impossible to surpress all cravings. <S> Once the five hindrances are active there will be craving & attachment. <S> If you haven't experienced the higher happiness of the path, you will inevitably cling to sense pleasures. <S> It's the same as with eating a delicious meal & an ordinary meal.	By definition, lay people are not required to do anything "forcibly", let alone suppress cravings. So don't wish for the cheesecake, just eat it if it's there, sharing it kindly with others. Proper knowledge will be a better motivation for further honing skillful karma, not forcing yourself.
Anapanasati practice: what’s the correct way to focus on breath? I have practiced anapanasati for a while and encountered some difficulties. I can easily find my breath in front of nostril. Then I started to pay attention to the in-and-out of the breath continuously. But after a while, pain raised in my chest around heart. As I tried to focus more on the breath, the pain increased. In addition, if I suddenly stopped paying attention to the breath, I found my neck and shoulder very rigid and uncomfortable. I also felt exhausted after the meditation. I’m wondering if I focus too much. Before I know anapanasati, I used to practice simple meditation like just relaxing and checking any thoughts if they arise. I felt much better by not paying attention to any object. So my question is: what is a good “attention” to breath? Thanks! <Q> There is no need to focus on the breath. <S> The practise of the Buddha is to keep the mind without craving, without attachment, without past, without future. <S> Silent still mind. <S> Experiencing the breath is merely the "sign" the mind is without craving. <S> And what is the faculty of concentration? <S> There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to <S> let go , <S> attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. <S> Indriya-vibhanga Sutta <A> Don't give too much importance to this and continue the practice. <S> The focus of breath meditation should be in the area from the top of the nose to the base of the upper lip. <S> The areas should be widened this full area or narrowed to based on one's sensitivity to feeling the breath and concentration. <A> There are different ways to do the anapanasati. <S> You see, what happened , over the years was that the teachers started using the breath practice as just a concentration practice. <S> To answer your question, be fully and completely aware of the body breathing. <S> Each moment is a new moment, and new consciousness. <S> Most of us are confused about the goal, because we haven't really seen any Arhants , or even Never returners. <S> I don't recommend the Nimita , sign , after image, practice, but this does happen naturally. <S> Usually at retreats. <S> Find a good teacher. <S> Do Soto Zen. <S> So , let me ask you, <S> Do you have a very clear, comprehensive view of the goal? <S> That is why we study. <S> Find what the 10 taints are , they are removed when one has reached full awakening. <S> Here , read this for fun and benefit https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html <S> So , to condense. <S> Trust yourself, Seeking the truth is natural, but not easy. <S> We really have a natural tendency to go into samadhi, learn to work with that. <S> When you are more peaceful, relaxed patient, etc, you are going in the right direction. <S> In short all the 37 limbs of awakening need to be developed in one's practice. <S> I hope this helps. <S> Remember, <S> Buddha Loves you, really. <A> When I first started anapanasati meditation two years ago I was making the breaths and that hurts! <S> Now I'm just happy to keep returning my attention to what's happening at the nostril tip - for example warm air out, cooler air in. <S> I have no other reason to do this other than to see what's happening there - and then, for me, gradually the inexplicable happens :-)	When the mind is quiet, it will connect with the breath, itself, automatically. If I were you, I would read the Sutta at least once a week, to get the spirit of the practice. Due to past Sanhkara when one practices meditation one may get different sensations which can be pleasant or unpleasant.
How to stay mindful of the gap in the breath When I breathe there's a certain time gap after the out breath and before the in breath. I find myself being dull or distracted at that time because there's no breath to notice. Do I notice the lack of breath? Do I notice not noticing? <Q> What I watch are the feelings of irritation or tension or rushing in my mind, generated in the very beginning and the very end of the gap. <S> My goal in meditation is to notice how I subconsciously create/maintain emotional tension or inner discord through subconscious grasping some idea, and to stop doing that. <S> When I see that around start and end of the gap <S> my mind has a character of nervousness, then I know I have something to let go. <S> Once I let go, my breathing winding down to the gap and then restarting again from the gap, feels peaceful and more natural. <S> So, what I really focus on is letting go and relaxing, until I basically feel perfectly good in the here and now. <S> And the breathing around the gap serves as an indicator of the remaining tension. <S> It's like zooming in, more and more, on the precise moments the breath stops and restarts. <S> Then at some point when I really relax, I don't really care about watching the breath anymore, I watch something else <S> (mind?) <S> -- I don't know how to describe. <A> Let go of the gap. <S> It is an illusion that is chopping up your breathing. <S> Looking for the gap is like cutting up the goose that laid the golden egg. <S> Looking for the gap traps you into holding your breath, which leads to dullness and drowsiness. <S> Instead of following the breath itself, follow the arc of your intention to breath in as it rises to a certain weightlessness that pivots effortlessly to an intention of breathing out. <S> As your meditation deepens, your intention relaxes yet the sense of an arc remains. <S> Just a gossamer thread remains. <S> Follow that. <S> Don't mind the gap. <S> Mind the breath as a whole. <A> Take your finger off the trigger. <S> Take your foot off the accelerator. <S> Just sit <S> but with a quiet still silent mind. <S> Don't attempt to watch the breathing. <S> The Buddha did not teach to watch breathing. <S> The Buddha taught to abandon craving. <S> Every impulse to watch breathing is craving. <S> When you stop trying or craving to watch breath and have a silent mind, <S> Anapanasati (which means ' mindfulness with breathing ' rather than ' mindfulness of breathing ') can naturally take its natural course. ' <S> Mindfulness ' means ' to remember to keep the mind ' free from craving. <S> When the mind stops trying to watch breathing, the mind will be free from the thought of 'trying'. <S> Not trying actually makes the silent mind more clear, more sensitive. <S> Do we need to make an effort to hear a sound, to smell a smell or to see an object? <S> if not, why does an effort need to be made to know/feel the breathing, when the mind is naturally silent? <A> How to handle the situation when one does not feel the breath is given below: Just before the nimitta appears, a lot of yogis encounter difficulties. <S> Mostly they find that the breath becomes very subtle and unclear; they may think the breath has stopped. <S> If this happens, you should keep your awareness where you last noticed the breath, and wait for it there. <S> A dead person, a foetus in the womb, a drowned person, an unconscious person, a person in the fourth jhāna, a person in the attainment of cessation (nirodha·samāpatti), and a brahmā: only these seven types of person do not breathe. <S> Reflect on the fact that you are not one of them, that you are in reality breathing, and that it is just your mindfulness which is not strong enough for you to be aware of the breath. <S> When it is subtle, you should not make the breath more obvious, as the effort will cause agitation, and your concentration will not develop. <S> where you last noticed it . <S> You will find that, as you apply your mindfulness and wisdom in this way, the breath will reappear. <S> Knowing and Seeing (Fourth Revised Edition) <S> by the Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw	Just be aware of the breath as it is, and if it is not clear, simply wait for it When this impulse arises, abandon it, realise it, drop it, let it go. As I relax, I keep watching more and more closely, in order to notice even smaller and subtler tensions and nervousnesses. Just as a ball thrown in the air spans an arc of ascent and descent, so too does the breath move in a curve.
Are Good Qualities Proportional to Our Efforts? I mused that clearly, certain efforts are necessary for the path. But, I can easily imagine a person exerting lots of efforts towards a detrimental goal, or a person exerting a bit of effort towards a wholesome goal. So, effort in itself seems not directly related to good qualities. Another example is a proficient meditator for whom meditation might be easier, but more potent and pleasant; this contrasts with the beginner who struggles and must apply effort. The experienced meditator might generate more effect with less effort. What is the relationship in Buddhism of effort to its resulting benefit? Is it indirect? Thank you <Q> From MN 117 , we read that Right Effort ( samma vayamo ) must go in the right direction: <S> "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort... <S> "One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: <S> This is one's right effort... <S> "One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort... <S> "One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort... <S> "One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort." <S> Not just the right direction, but also the right amount of effort - not too much and not too little. <S> From AN 6.55 <S> (a vina is an indian stringed musical instrument): <S> "And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too taut, was your vina in tune & playable?" <S> "No, lord." <S> "And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too loose, was your vina in tune & playable?" <S> "No, lord." <S> "And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were neither too taut nor too loose, but tuned to be right on pitch, was your vina in tune & playable? <S> " <S> "Yes, lord. <S> " <S> "In the same way, Sona, over-aroused persistence leads to restlessness, overly slack persistence leads to laziness. <S> Thus you should determine the right pitch for your persistence, attune the pitch of the [five] faculties [to that], and there pick up your theme." <A> This compounds the karmic effort. <S> E.g. killing a mosquito is quite reactive and requires little thought relative to going hunting for larger game. <S> Therefore, killing a mosquito has fewer consequences. <S> Similarly for meritorious deeds. <S> In meditation, when one is struggling this is either lack of concentration, mindfulness or defilements surfacing. <S> An experienced mediator may experience only lesser about of such negative states and more positive states. <S> Therefore, a more experienced meditator may accumulate more merit in the course of meditation. <S> Ultimately what matters is the times one generate wholesome/unwholesome volitional activities when taking action. <S> With regard to right-effort, one must put effort into the Four Right Exertions . <S> More the effort more the merit. <S> But one should aware that this effort is not excessive, in which case will make you stressed. <A> Another example is a proficient meditator for whom meditation might be easier, but more potent and pleasant; this contrasts with the beginner who struggles and must apply effort. <S> The experienced meditator might generate more effect with less effort. <S> There're many other examples we see in our daily life. <S> Weren't you surprised and maybe even a little bit envious of that super genius friend of yours back in 4th grade who aced all the math exams without spending much time doing his homework assignments, while you only got a passing grade even after working your behind off on those homework exercises? <S> How about that music kid in 6th grade who breezed thru Mozart's Concerto No.21 while you still struggled with your Yankee Doodle! <S> So the key point is, unless you believe in complete sheer chance, a completely random rolling of the genetic dice, Or succumb to the idea of a God who, in his own mysterious way, made those friends of yours way smarter or way more talented, then you will have to question where all those potentials came from? <S> If they weren't by chance, by some mysterious force, or came out of thin air, then there always exists the possibility that your math/piano buddies had already worked their behinds off at some point in their previous lives, while you, back then only spent most of your days fooling around, right? <A> One aspect of effort translates from the pali concept viriya. <S> It is included in the ten perfections (dasa pāramiyo) the seven factors of awakening (satta bojjhaṅgā) the five strengths (pañcabalāni) the five spiritual faculties (pañc' indriyāni) Just as you concluded yourself, viriya is bundled with the other perfections/factors since it isn't enough on it's own. <S> For instance, it is not a coincidence that equanimity (upekkha) appears alongside effort/viriya. <S> Effort on it's <S> own runs the risk of becoming unwholesome craving (tanha), and is more wholesome when tempered by the other wholesome factors mentioned above, especially equanimity. <S> This is elaborated on in Visuddhimagga: if the vigor faculty is too strong, the faith faculty cannot perform its function of convincing, nor can the rest of the faculties perform their several functions. <S> So in that case the excessive strength of the vigor faculty should be reduced by cultivating (the enlightenment factors of) tranquillity, concentration and equanimity.	Any action which requires more effort or planning requires more volitional thoughts. So bottom line is, think of efforts like the law of conservation of energy , as long as one invests in it in a good wholesome way, it won't be a wasteful investment.
Vipassana retreat while in post acute withdrawal? It's a hell of state to observe moment by moment. I mean nothing is really life threatening with PAWS so does a retreat somewhere accommodate this condition? <Q> Ask the people arranging the retreat. <S> If they lack experience and/or accommodation for dealing with withdrawal I’d advice against participating. <A> I recommend against it. <S> You better off spending time in the nature, IMO. <A> While every body is different, and every path of recovery unique, I would generally advise against this. <S> I have seen folks attempt retreats while not firmly secure in their sobriety, and the anguish was rather intense. <S> It tends towards failure. <S> Building up some stability and skillfulness with sobriety off the cusion before attempting the marathon of a retreat is the recommended path for success in every case I have personally and professionally seen. <S> Edit <S> : You know your path of recovery and stability in sobriety probably better than anyone. <S> Trust what you know. <S> Perhaps look into finding a good MBRP instructor who is familiar with incorporating mindfulness and recovery before exploring a retreat? <S> All the best... <S> Source: <S> Extensive retreat experience and am an active and licensed mental health and substance abuse counselor. <A> I think a lot of what is attributed to paws can be attributed to weakened intellect, sluggish or scattered mind and other unskillful qualities which are well established in one who does not tend to mind development much. <S> For example when one dispels the hindrance of drowsiness one needs little sleep if any. <S> As for anxiety a lot of it resolves when one has little plans, few projects and is well disciplined for non-regret. <S> Not saying it doesn't come into play somehow (the paws) <S> but i think one can definitely do some training and see what happens. <A> As someone who has attended Goenka's meditation retreat as well as a few other Theravada meditation traditions, this is my experience <S> Different styles appeal to different people. <S> Assuming we are talking about Vipassana meditation, it is NOT a method to cure mental illness <S> Anapana-satti and vipassana are methods (or vehicles) for us to understand ourselves and reality as it is, to let go of our suffering. <S> It is not meant to treat any conditions. <S> Having said that, if you are under the care of a healthcare professional, taking medications or therapy and you have informed the meditation course/retreat organizer, you can participate in meditation retreats.	What works well for one person may be terrible for another DO NOT attend any meditation retreat if you have untreated conditions
Simplest version of anapanasati Anapanasati is usually described as "mindfulness of breathing" but I've seen a member of this site describing it as "mindfulness with breathing". Sati or mindfulness (as seen in the parable of the bowl filled to the brim with oil, of SN 47.20 ) is keeping the mind on the task, and not allowing the mind to become distracted. What is the simplest version of anapanasati ? I found a very simple instruction set in SN 54.3 (quoted below). There may be other suttas too. But I find this description from SN 54.3 insufficient and requires elaboration. While breathing, what is it that one is mindful of? Is one mindful of the breath, or mindful of something else? The sutta states: "They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe in observing letting go.’ They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe out observing letting go.’" What does "breathe in observing letting go" and "breathe out observing letting go" mean? Letting go of what? Do you let go, or do you observe the letting go? How do you observe the letting go (rather than letting go)? What is the simplest instruction for the practice of anapanasati ? Especially for people who are not well-versed in the teachings and maybe even non-Buddhist? Such people may not have the patience for lengthy and complicated instructions. From SN 54.3 : “Mendicants, when mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it’s very fruitful and beneficial. And how is mindfulness of breathing developed and cultivated to be very fruitful and beneficial? It’s when a mendicant has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut. They sit down cross-legged, with their body straight, and establish mindfulness right there. Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out. … They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe in observing letting go.’ They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe out observing letting go.’ Mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated in this way, is very fruitful and beneficial.” <Q> The SN 54.3 linked is not a "simple version". <S> The link is merely abbreviated because the 16 stages are listed in previous suttas. <S> If per SN 47.20, mindfulness is keeping the mind on the task, since the body breathes automatically via its own nature, how can breathing be a ‘task’ to keep the mind on? <S> As for Sujato’s translation of “letting go”, this is the 16th step. <S> Letting go of the 16th step is a result of 13th step experiencing impermanence. <S> The simultaneous knowing of breathing occurs in the background. <S> The Pali here is paṭinissaggā. <S> When impermanence & not-self is clearly experienced at 13th step, the 16th step is paṭinissaggā, which means to give up viewing anything as self. <S> Ajahn Buddhadasa translates it as throwing or tossing back. <S> Paṭinissaggā above is the final step of practice. <S> However, the type of letting go that serves as the initial step of practice is called vossagga. <S> MN 118 <S> at the end says each factor of enlightenment matures as vossagga. <S> SN 48.9 & 10 say jhana is reached by making vossagga the meditation object. <S> Vossagga is letting go of craving & ambition. <S> This is the supramundane meditation object or task of mindfulness. <S> If you try to focus on the breathing, the progress will be very limited. <S> The focus is on vossagga. <S> The task is vossagga. <S> Mindfulness is mindful of vossagga. <S> When there is mindfulness of vossagga, the knowing of the breathing will occur automatically, without an act of will (AN 11.2). <S> This is why anapanasati means mindfulness with breathing. <A> Anapanasati has 4 tetrads with 4 steps each making 16 steps in total: <S> Different Suttas cover all 16 or a subset of them. <S> E.g. Maha Satipattana Sutta / Satipattana Sutta covers only the 1st tetrad. <S> In this context let go, the translation followed by Piya Tan is: (16) <S> He trains himself thus: ‘I will breathe in, contemplating the letting go (of defilements)’; <S> He trains himself thus: ‘I will breathe out, contemplating the letting go (of defilements)’; (Ānâpana,samādhi) <S> Kimbila Sutta <S> So what needs to be done is to contemplate letting go of defilements. <S> Many comprehensive works on Anpapana is are a bit lengthy in nature. <S> These might be helpful to one who might want to learn and follow it thought books: <S> Mindfulness of Breathing and Four Elements Meditation by Venerable Pa-Auk Sayadaw <S> Anapanasati: <S> Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Ven Buddhadasa Bhikkhu <S> The true power of Kannī meditation by Venerable Sumańgala Edited by Eunsook Cha <A> As i understand the 16, i think it is a comprehensive outline of both the directed and the undirected developments of mind up to the highest attainment wherein physical formations cease first, followed by verbal and the mental cessation. <S> I personally take the 16 to be a collection of the aspects to be developed by one who undertakes that training, to be developed progressively and tandem. <S> I think that as one starts training one will first develop mindfulness and concentration and when one gets mindfulness and concentration; feelings, lights and visions will become manifest and these are also to be investigated and the released mind is to be reflected on. <S> So the way i see it is that the 16 are there to build a comprehensive tool kit and instill the foundations of development toward the progressive levels attainment and a general development which is undirected. <S> In other words i think one can learn to use these instructions to develop the mind general and for example the work in the 4th tetrad <S> i take to be desctribing the general development of the perception of impermanence. <S> I think that one can develop the Anapanasati so that it realizes the highest attainment and that one can modify one's approach based on the circumstances. <S> Perhaps one would want to contemplate more for investigation and to counter something unwholesome; perhaps the stilling of the breath is hard to achieve if one's approach is too active and in that circumstance a more tranquil approach can be implemented where one is noting and thinking less for tranquility etc. <S> Most simple way to start is probably just trying to not lose awareness or the breath from start to finish and ignoring all other thoughts, feelings and sensations. <S> The drawback is lesser extent of insight development and that this will be a hit or miss kind of session to the extent that ignoring distracting stuff often doesn't work and there is then a need for other counter measures.	There can be no such thing as mindfulness ‘of’ breathing.
Anapanasati - are the 16 considered progressive sequence of steps? Answers to this question suggest that the 16 are steps or stages of anapanasati , which implies that they are a progressive sequence of steps or stages. They are also related to the four foundations of mindfulness or the satipatthana . On the other hand, the booklet " How To Meditate " (quoted below) by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, seems to suggest that one should not use it as progressive steps. Instead, it recommends that if feelings arise, stop what you were trying to do, and go with that. Or if thoughts arise, stop what you were trying to do, and go with that. That does not sound like a progressive sequence of steps. That seems to be more "go with the flow" or feel free to move from any of the 16 to any other, depending on what arises. So, which is right approach to anapanasati ? Are the 16 progressive sequence of steps approach right? Or is the approach of the "How To Meditate" booklet right? Or are they two different techniques? From " Chapter Two: Sitting Meditation " of the booklet " How To Meditate ": Regarding the body, watching the rising and the falling is sufficient for a beginner meditator. At times, one might wish to also acknowledge the position of the body as “sitting, sitting”, or “lying, lying” if it is more found to be more conducive for clear observation. In regards to feelings, when a sensation arises in the body, one should fix one’s attention on it, discarding the abdomen and focusing on the sensation. If a feeling of pain should arise, for example, one should take the pain itself as a meditation object. Any one of the four foundations may serve as a meditation object, as all four are aspects of reality. It isn’t necessary to stay with the rising and falling of the abdomen at all times. Instead, when pain arises, one should observe the new object, the pain, in order to clearly understand it for what it is, rather than judging or identifying with it. As explained earlier, the meditator should simply focus on the pain and create the clear thought, “pain, pain, pain, pain…” until it goes away. Instead of getting upset about the pain, one will see it for what it is and let it go. When happiness arises, one should create the clear thought, “happy.” When one feels peaceful or calm, one should create the clear thought, “peaceful,” or “calm” until that feeling goes away. Here, the object is to avoid clinging to the feeling, which would create a dependency on it. When one clings to positive feelings, one will be inevitably dissatisfied when they are gone. Once the sensation disappears, one should return to the rising and falling of the abdomen and continue observing it as “rising” and “falling”. In regards to the mind, if thoughts arise during meditation, one should acknowledge them as “thinking”. It doesn’t matter whether one is thinking about the past or future or whether one’s thoughts are good or bad; instead of letting the mind wander and lose track of reality, bring the mind back to the reality of the thought with, “thinking”. Then return to the rising and falling and continue practice as normal. In regards to dhammas, when the mind gives rise to liking, pleased by a certain experience, create the clear thought, “liking, liking”. When disliking arises – anger, boredom, frustration, etc. – create the clear thought, “disliking, disliking”, “angry, angry”, “bored, bored”, or “frustrated, frustrated”. When laziness or drowsiness comes up, create the clear thought, “lazy, lazy”, or “drowsy, drowsy”. When distraction or worry arise, “distracted, distracted” or “worried, worried”. When doubt or confusion arise, “doubting, doubting” or “confused, confused” and so on. Once the above hindrances subside, bring the mind back again to a clear awareness of the present moment by focusing on the rise and fall of the abdomen. The 16 steps or stages of anapanasati : <Q> Try not to overthink it. <S> There is a clear path of progressive steps or progress, yes, but for each meditator it varies somewhat as they each have varied conditions. <S> We don't control what arises, so we can't expect to watch it unfold like a textbook. <S> The stages or steps occur naturally, without us having to force or think about it, as long as you are doing the one basic thing correctly: observe with wise attention whatever arises, without judgement. <S> You'll notice each grouping of steps follows a pattern of prescriptive action - this pattern of treatment is the important thing. <S> Apply this pattern to whatever arises, and the Path will unfold before you, eventually without "effort". <S> At first we start with the coarse, and naturally go sublter and subtler as our minds get more still and concentrated. <S> The next thing to contemplate will be waiting for you, and arise on its own. <S> Don't try to seek out an expected experience. <S> Just observe whatever it is as it arises, watch it as it disappears, relaxed, without clinging. <S> Its shockingly simple when it finally clicks. <S> No need to wonder if you're at stage 13 or should I now contemplate the next thing on the to-do list or anything like that <S> , that will just stir your mind up. <S> The breath is simply our home base, something we can always return to if we wander. <S> Sticking with the breath trains our focus, trains our concentration, trains our resistance, trains us to not cling or push away. <S> It is important to remember that the training of these skills are the key, not what object you use. <S> Master the method, and the Royal Road to Nibbana will appear. <S> Good luck. <S> May we all become truly free. <A> 5.159 ): <S> Calming breathing (kaya-sankhara) leads to rapture (vedana). <S> Calming rapture (vedana) leads to mental (citta) purity. <S> Mental purity (citta) leads to vipassana & nirodha (Dhamma). <S> How can the 16 dhammas not be progressive? <S> Also, steps 7 & 8 are experiencing mind conditioner (citta sankhara) and calming mind conditioner (citta sankhara). <S> Feeling (rapture & happiness) is the citta sankhara, per MN 44. <S> Steps 7 & 8 are not "mental activities". <S> Ajahn Buddhadasa expertly explained Anapanasati in his book called ' Unveiling the Secrets of Life:a Manual for Serious Beginners '. <S> Similar to Ajahn Brahm's book about jhana, Ajahn Buddhadasa's book is the sole only authoritative book on Anapanasati. <S> In conclusion, Anapanasati is 16 progressive steps, which mirror (but are not exactly the same as) the jhana sequence of steps. <S> Anapanasati is fruition of upacāra-samādhi . <S> Jhana is fruition of appana-samadhi . <S> Yuttadhammo monk teaches Satipatthana Sutta parikamma-samadhi . <A> OP: Or are they two different techniques? <S> These are two techniques. <S> The technique taught by Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu is the technique taught by Ven. <S> Mahasi Sayadaw . <S> This is contemplating on the air element, though some also call it Anapana as it also deals with the breath. <S> Ven. <S> Mahasi Sayadaw also positioned it as contemplating the air element: <S> Thus we can feel the inward and outward movement of the abdomen. <S> This specific characteristic of vayo dhatu must be thoroughly realized by meditators so that they can destroy the false view of a person, a being or a soul. <S> Mindfulness Of The Four Elements , Vipassana Meditation Lectures on Insight Meditation by Chanmyay Sayadaw <S> Actually it was the Buddha who did it, because he taught to observe vayo-dhatu , the air-element included in the 5 aggregates. <S> The rising and falling is constituted of the air-element . <S> Questions and Answers with Mahasi Sayadaw <S> Anapana meditation is found in Anapanasati Sutta . <S> This has 16 stages. <S> Each tetrad relates to particular Sathipattana: <S> With regard to the Satipattana aspect, the sutta also mentions: (II) <S> When the mindfulness of the in-and-out-breathing is cultivated and often developed, it brings the 4 focuses of mindfulness to perfection. <S> Anapanasati Sutta	The 16 dhammas are obviously progressive (sequential) steps -- since the Buddha said Dhamma is taught in a proper sequence ( AN
Is Near death experience in enlightenment true? I have been meditating intensively according to the Advaita tradition where self inquiry is practiced till realizing that I and effort are just feelings and that the watcher of even identity is the true self which isn't a phenomena that manifests. 2 days ago I had what I felt as a near death experience ,or maybe a great death of the ego ,at night I suddenly had an awakening in trance where there was a clear seeing of the "I" that I thought was me,then I woke up with a vibration feeling in my head and after lying on my back I suddenly felt as if a light was going to replace me as the identity of the body and me that I thought was my identity all my life was just an idea that was going to be replaced by that light ,I couldn't accept that happening and chose to stay as myself, and I actually cried cause I felt that I was going to die, not realizing that this "I" was more intimate that expected . Is this a paranormal experience or is it actually how enlightenment should occur ? <Q> Enlightenment would involve an understanding of the three marks of existence: impermanence, no-self, and suffering. <S> I mean, if you delve into that experience and gain enlightenment, good! <S> But if you do so <S> and then everything remains exactly the same, you might be discouraged. <S> Just do not cling to the whole phenomenon. <A> Due to past karmic formation, people sometimes get "out of the world" experiences. <S> Best is not to read into these experiences and continue your meditation. <S> Enlightenment is beyond any sensory experience, therefore if you experience involves any pleasant sensation, vibration, thoughts then this is not enlightenment. <A> Is this a paranormal experience or is it actually how enlightenment should occur ? <S> That still sound rather abstract and hence difficult to evaluate where one is on the Path. <S> Actually, enlightenment is subjected to pretty concrete tests and metrics as evidenced in various suttas like here , here and here <A> There are four ways of developing immersion further. <S> Your experience calls to mind the second way: <S> And what is the way of developing immersion further that leads to gaining knowledge and vision? <S> A mendicant focuses on the perception of light, concentrating on the perception of day regardless of whether it is night or day. <S> For more information on the four ways of developing immersion further, please see AN4.41 , from which the above was quoted. <S> You may also be interested Ajahn Brahm's writings on nimitta : <S> Nimitta, in the context used here, refers to the beautiful "lights" that appear in the mind... <S> Please do consider finding a Teacher and a Sangha as well for personal guidance and reliable progress. <A> If I can answer from the point of view of doctrine, rather than of meditative experience, I think that Buddhist doctrine says that any and every "doctrine of self" shouldn't be grasped (attached to) -- because they all give rise to dukkha and so on: MN 22 <S> It would make sense to grasp at a doctrine of self that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. <S> But do you see any such doctrine of self?” <S> “No, sir.” <S> “Good, mendicants! <S> I also can’t see any such doctrine of self. <S> So I guess that the ("Buddhist") doctrine of suttas might contradict whatever "Advaita" is teaching -- i.e. you mentioned "is the true self" which I think is foreign to Buddhist doctrine. <S> Similarly I guess that "a light was going to replace me as the identity of the body" might also be a 'self-view' -- i.e. "there is a currently a 'me' which is the identity of the body" and "the light will become a new identity", <S> even bits like "my life" and "I am going to die" <S> -- I think these could all be classified as examples of self view. <S> As for "how enlightenment should occur" I suppose that the doctrine from the same Tipiṭaka describes what might be called Four stages of enlightenment . <S> I think that "self views" are regarded as one of the "fetters", and that abandoning that fetter is part of the first stage of enlightenment.	I believe such peculiar experiences may be significant, or may not; but in Buddhism one shouldn't cling to them.
Is it necessary to be completely still during body scan? I've been practising vipassana for some time. Now, I'd like to try body scan, but one issue isn't clear for me. Books or articles about sitting meditation, I've read, say that it's good to sit completely still during practise. Does the same implay to body scan? Should I lie entirely still during body scan or can I move my hand, for example, when I feel such a need? Thanks for your answers. <Q> I think there are things to learn by not moving <S> but i doubt it is essential since it is nowhere mentioned in the Sutta afaik. <A> I don't know that its necessary, but its for the purpose of noticing the body sensations as they occur naturally. <S> If you find difficulty in staying still maybe try mindfulness walking, and/or observances of daily activities <A> I've read, say that it's good to sit completely still during practise. <S> Does the same implay to body scan? <S> Yes. <S> Ideally. <S> If it is difficult you can take the liberty to move. <S> But staying still: increases your Adhiṭṭhāna - <S> This is why in courses at least for 3 of the 1-hour sessions you are asked to stay still in courses taught by Goenka <S> increases your Samadhi	Moving would create a sensation and possibly the desire to create or cease a particular sensation.
Where can I find a Buddist Monastery that practice hard training? I wish to master my mind, one reason is I'm so mentally weak. Like anything you want to master you have to work at it. Drill it into you. But practicing on my own hasn't work. I need a far away place that will force me to master meditation. If I get off track they will make sure I get back on track. Where is a monastery like this where I a foreigner can join for a year? <Q> Following are some pointers: https://www.dhamma.org/en/index http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html <S> http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/ <S> https://www.paaukforestmonastery.org/ <S> https://forestsangha.org/ <S> With regard to the 1st 2 links, there are 10-day courses. <S> In the case of the 1st link, you can progress to longer courses up to 60 days. <S> 3rd link lists many other monasteries and centres which some may allow you to stay up to a year. <S> 4th links gives meditation centres in the Pa Auk tradition which is the best if you are looking to master Jhana. <S> 5th link gives monasteries in the Thai Forrest tradition. <A> Any meditation monastery has sufficient disciple for training. <S> There is no need to think as extreme as you are. <S> Wat Pah Nanachat in Thailand or any branch monastery . <A> I would encourage you to take a look at mahamevnawa. <S> They have many branches world wide. <S> Below is link to help locate a branch. <S> Worldwide Mahamevnawa Branches	If you in the east coast of USA, I may suggest Mahamevnawa Buddhist Meditation Center of New Jersey
Is the samadhi of Yoga the samadhi of Buddhism? I was wondering if the samadhi of Patanjali Yoga meant the same thing as the samadhi of Buddhism? A Buddhist friend told me that no, and that Buddhism had higher states after the nirvikalpa samadhi of yogis. But at the same time when I read the descriptions of the two they look similar to me and the samadhi of Buddhism is also the last stage of the Noble Eightfold Path. <Q> The Patanjali system has the following concepts about Samadhi: <S> Asamprajnata Samadhi: one has developed focus on the meditation object hence does not comprehend external stimuli Savitarka Samadhi: when one experiences a stimulus this triggers a thought process which one can discriminate and abandone or continue Nirvitarka Samadhi: when one experiences a stimulus one has control over thoughts <S> Savichara Samadhi: thinking is available Nirvichara Samadhi: thinking is unavailable <S> In Buddhism, there are the following concepts of Samadhi: <S> parikamma samadhi – preliminary concentration <S> upacara samadhi – access concentration appana samadhi – fixed concentration <S> Jhanas - states of samadhi based on the Jhana factors present Parikamma and upacara samadhi is similar to samprajnata samadhi and appana samadhi is similar to Asamprajnata Samadhi Vitarka and vichara are Jhana factors. <S> Savitarka indicates there is vitarka and nirvitarka means there is no vitarka and <S> savichara means there is vichara and nirvichara means there is no vichara. <S> In the Hindu system of samadhi, the object of concentration may be subjected to perversions (vipallasa) hence choose concepts like: permanent, self, pleasant and beautiful. <S> In the Buddhist system, the objects are not subjected to vipallasa. <S> In the Hindu system, the object of samadhi is always a conceptual (pannatti) object which is which leads to perversions (vipallasa). <S> In Buddhist systems, the objects can be conceptual or real (paramartha). <S> If it is conceptual after developing Jhana one contemplates the object as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self. <S> When the object chosen is is not subjected to perversion, wholesome and based on something real (paramartha), the concentration gained is Samma Samadhi or the right type of samadhi. <A> Yes. <S> The eight the highest was missing in Veda. <S> They stumbled into 7th. <S> The eight is highest and veda talk of without drowning to highest samadhi. <S> Thats why they stayed on this side of river with border of discriminination. <S> They had ego. <S> In the bliss of samadhi even that ego also dissolve thats what patanjali mean by Samadhi. <S> Extinction of cause or pain without remainder. <S> This is Nirvana. <S> Nirvana means not getting anything but give up everything to Highest lord. <S> Why? <S> Because its not yours. <S> If you not give it up it will taken as complex and one destined to bound by law of karma and rebecoming. <S> Hope this the answer you want. <S> May you be happy! <S> May you give up that! <A> I would say no. <S> Buddhist Samadhi is called Samma Samadhi which is achieved by following the Noble Eightfold Path.	Samprajnata Samadhi: one is developing focus on the meditation object but comprehends external stimuli
Purpose of cessation or Nirvana! What is the purpose or cause of cessation or extinction or Nirvana. Did Buddha ever talk about it? For example, see how SN 23.1 ends: “But sir, what is the purpose of extinguishment?” “Your question goes too far, Rādha. You couldn’t figure out the limit of questions. For extinguishment is the culmination, destination, and end of the spiritual life.” <Q> So Radha is asking kimatthiya -- <S> “But sir, what is the purpose of extinguishment?” <S> “Nibbānaṃ pana, bhante, kimatthiyan”ti? <S> That is kim plus <S> atthiya <S> So asking "kimatthiya?" is like asking, " <S> Nibbana is with the intention of satisfying a desire for what beyond nibbana?" <S> The question implies that nibbana is a stepping-stone to something else -- like a way of getting from here to somewhere else. <S> But it isn't -- instead it's the destination, the end-result, the goal. <S> I think that's explained in the Uṇṇābhabrāhmaṇa Sutta (SN 51.15) <S> “The purpose of living the spiritual life under the Buddha, brahmin, is to give up desire.” <S> “But is there a path and a practice for giving up that desire?” <S> “There is.” <S> “What is that path?” <S> “It’s when a mendicant develops the basis of psychic power that has immersion due to enthusiasm … energy … mental development … inquiry, and active effort. <S> This is the path and the practice for giving up that desire.” <S> “This being the case, Master Ānanda, the path is endless, not finite. <S> For it’s not possible to give up desire by means of desire.” <S> “Well then, brahmin, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. <S> What do you think, brahmin? <S> Have you ever had a desire to walk to the park, but when you arrived at the park, the corresponding desire faded away?” <S> “Yes, sir.” <A> Thee purpose of Nirvana is to eliminate mental fabrication which leads to rebirth. <S> Brith brings about a host of suffering and unsatisfactoriness. <S> By realising Nirvana one does not get reborn hence do experience the suffering which is part and parcel of life. <A> Buddha's problem was suffering ,suffering's reason he figured out was attachment IN THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS .Thus <S> when there is complete detachment from all forms ,ideas and feelings there is the state of Nirvana . <S> Actually Nirvana is already here its not something that your fake identity will achieve. <S> All whats necessary is unveiling it ,when you have unveiled all the hindrances ,the attachments then only Nirvana remains ,which is really nothing at all,all things manifest in its lab.	Nirvana is its own purpose ,its when complete dis-identification with all that manifests has occurred.
Is Buddhist lifestyle harmless to living beings? Is the Buddhist lifestyle harmless to living beings? Lot's of creatures are being killed in various human activities (walking, farming, building, etc.) Did Buddhists found a way to live while not harming other living beings? If yes, how? p.s. For more info, read the same question on this SE. <Q> Buddhism focuses on our intentions, and therefore intentional killing is adviced against. <S> Obviously, the consequences of our actions may sometimes lead to harm despite our good intentions. <S> In buddhism we are - arguably - primarily accountable for the latter, our intentions, even though consequences also matter. <S> Also, see this answer written not long ago: <S> Selling an animal to butcher will break first precept? <A> Some Buddhists -- especially ordained monks and nuns -- don't kill to eat, and don't even participate in farming or other industries. <S> They have rules of behaviour -- e.g. not digging earth, except if it's clean builder's sand, and drinking carefully-filtered water -- to avoid accidentally killing. <S> They eat what's given to them (i.e. donated in charity) -- including meat, like beggars, with another rule that they don't accept meat that killed especially for them. <S> You perhaps might think of "scavengers" on your Worldbuilding question -- eating what's already dead. <S> I've read that monks won't eat fruit unless a lay-person first ritually damages the fruit (to make it "allowable"). <S> The diet of non-ordained (lay) <S> Buddhists varies, some eat meat but wouldn't want to be people who kill animals, some are vegetarian. <S> There are stories from old Tibet of people trying to dig (the foundations of new building) carefully to avoid hurting worms. <S> The principle scruple seems to be against intentionally killing. <A> OP: Is the Buddhist lifestyle harmless to living beings? <S> Did Buddhists found a way to live while not harming other living beings? <S> This is by following the Buddhist training. <S> If yes, how? <S> Buddhist training has the following elements: Sila - <S> this constraining one's actions and speech. <S> Here one may get the intention to kill but because on follows certain rules or precepts or a code of conduct where one does not harm oneself or other <S> Samadhi - one develops mastery over the mind where one can suppress any unwholesome thoughts. <S> This way one can suppress any unwholesome intentions like killing. <S> Panna - here <S> one develops true understanding whereby achieving a state one does not create any unwholesome/wholesome thoughts. <S> Here wholesome thoughts are also eliminated ans these will bring future rebirths. <S> Panna can eliminate eliminate the unwholesome roots which motivate one to kill. <A> Abuse is a form of misunderstanding and communication. <S> And the essence of the Nobel truths determines life contains suffering. <S> So "No" but to emancipate yourself and others from suffering is a great deed and is the go. <S> Just like an arrow the impact comes from letting go. <A> Buddhist monks don't kill; exemplifying the benefits of non-violence. <S> Buddhist laypeople, if taking moral precepts, training to minimize harming. <S> Obviously, if Buddhist laypeople did not kill insects & worms when farming, they would not have a "life-style". <S> Instead, it would be a "death-style" (for the Buddhists).	Following Buddhism, one can ensure one does not intentionally kill. There may be some doctrine which says that some accidental killing is inevitable, and is an example of the fact that the world is a kind of imperfect place, which is a motive for pursing enlightenment instead of re-becoming.
Can Buddhists make very eccentric vows? Can Buddhists make very eccentric vows, and in what sense might these affect their karma? I do believe in karma, in some sense, but am struggling to understand something specific -- and a little strange. Suppose person A vows that, as person B is about to be hurt, they will suffer in their place. The event occurs, but person B, in some ill defined sense, does not suffer as much as they otherwise would. Person A then suffers some grave misfortune (perhaps unconnected). Is person A at fault for their misfortune, karmically speaking? But this is a just so story. Specifically: is there any form of vow, in any tradition, which can lead to suffering for you, but good karma for others? <Q> Not sure if vows alone are sufficient to auto-magically make things happens as one wishes. <S> It's much more likely that intention coupled with concrete actions that will bring about the desired result. <S> So in the case of person A, the event's more likely to happen due to <S> s <S> /he following up with actions that helps person B and maybe at the cost of some suffering to himself. <S> About the concept of collective kamma, it probably is just individual kamma bundled together. <S> An example is the atrocities committed by soldiers during a war campaign. <S> Together they all took part in killing, raping, and plundering their enemies' city. <S> So in some distant future, some catastrophic event happens to a group of people, which on the surface seems like "collective" kamma, but in fact the underlying driving force is still individual kamma manifesting itself. <A> is there any form of vow, in any tradition, which can lead to suffering for you, but good karma for others? <S> Well I think that some people, perhaps wrongly, interpret the Bodhisattva vow as leading to suffering to you, because it's a vow to delay your own nibbana which would cause your own rebirth and continued suffering. <S> As a second possible example, santa100's answer mentioned 'vows making things happen magically' -- the one thing I remember that might be like that is Sacca-kiriyā -- there are several examples in the canon -- <S> that might be like a vow, and like magic which benefits others ... <S> but harmless, though? <S> The whole idea seems odd to me, as if there's a fixed amount of bad kamma floating around which somebody has to suffer for and it doesn't quite matter who -- like the converse would be killing people as a sacrifice to gain good fortune for yourself, <S> as if kamma were a 'zero sum' situation -- instead I think that virtue and enlightenment are supposed to benefit everyone, not be harmful. <S> Then again people do make decisions which seem to be altruistic and self-sacrificing. <S> Anyway -- you might be interested in Sacca-kiriyā . <A> Um, a Buddhist can make any vow they please. <S> And eccentricity is only in the eyes of those who judge him/her. <S> To the practitioner, it is simply a necessary step on the path to Satori. <S> You are in no position to judge here, so the question is pretty moot with regards to others, and completely subjective in terms of yourself. <S> Namaste.	And again, the karma generated by one's vows is wholly dependent on that person's own observations about self and world.
Is this just a logic or experience about mind(reality)? While doing self enquiry kind of meditation(also doing vipassana) there is feel of understanding/experience/logic that make myself convinced(but not strongly) that "me" is not the thoughts or the body or sensual experience. I don't continuously feel this, but I find concentration, calmness etc getting better. What is this am I experiencing? How to go beyond this? And some teachings says that if you can disassociate ourself from mind and body then we can experience oneness(or conciousness), but I don't experience oneness or anything that I haven't experience before except the feeling of dissociation, why? <Q> Sounds like the hinderances have been temporarily tamed to some degree. <S> Oneness as I experience it using metta, self investigation and mindfulness just means there doesn't nessasarily have to be a distinction made by us human beings between me and other, us and them, tree and it's background, hand and fingers, sky and ground, good and bad, out and in, foot and ground, right and left, eyelid and eye, you and me, up and down and so on. <S> If no distinctions are taken for granted one can transcend only perceiving distinctions and percieve everything as one yet distinct. <S> Dissociation with the concept of oneness or dissociation with needing to bring on oneness might be desirable as oneness <S> can so easily be clung to. <S> How do you get beyond? <S> Simply don't try to get beyond, that detached <S> kind of attitude is in harmony with getting beyond. <S> Keep at it, it sounds to me like your doing alright. <A> You are starting to observe things with more clarity, noting that there is nama and rupa (mind and body) and also noting an awareness of both. <S> This is good. <S> Continue sharpening your mindfulness. <S> Maintain your continuous mindfulness longer, and observe more detail about whatever arises. <S> Observe them the very moment they arise, and watch them change, and disappear. <S> Maintain your calmness and concentration - these are 2 factors that are helping you along the path. <S> (There are 7 factors of enlightenment - mindfulness, investigation, energy, joy, tranquility, concentration, and Equanimity) <S> If things progress, observe the 5 aggregates. <S> This may open further depths of knowledge and experience. <S> The oneness you refer to is a concept, one which you're now desiring. <S> Don't strive to seek it out, or build up strong expectations or desire for it. <S> It will occur naturally as long as your mindfulness, concentration, equanimity, etc. <S> continue to develop. <S> Oneness is simply another experience to observe with mindfulness and Equanimity. <S> It occurs with increasing strength as you let go more and more of your concept of self, and know that everything you sense is in your mind. <S> That sound you hear isn't out there, it's within your own mind. <S> When you experience the whole the world within, then you feel a oneness. <A> Thinking is of two kinds: 1. <S> About the seen; smelled; tasted; felt with the body; or heard.2. <S> About 'thinking' itself <S> In this sense thinking is one of the six and can model a representative expression of that which can be thought about, figuring out how things work, imagining and understanding how reality, which would be what the senses present, works rather than what it is. <S> That word which is 'self' is an abstract concept in that it is unquatifiable, unmeasurable, undefined and is therefore a product of imagination and fantasy, delusion if you want to be precise. <S> It is entirely in the realm of fiction <S> this idea of self. <S> The idea of self is contained to the 1 of the 6, the ideation & ideas. <S> We can't see a self; can only see forms & colors. <S> Can't taste... <S> smell... <S> sense... or hear a 'self'. <S> It is only possible to think 'a self' much like it is only possibly to think of fictional stuff like spiderman or santa claus. <S> It is basically a made-up attribute loosely based on misapprehension of obserevable reality. <S> Ideas can be true or false and so can models. <S> Therefore it is natural that ignorance would corrupt understanding and worldview would have 'holes & contradictions' and various faulty ideas would be like a way of working around that. <A> I cannot answer what you are experiencing. <S> Only you would know that. <S> And you would know that in a language. <S> Therefore, if there is confusion in what you are experiencing, it is possibly due to not knowing the language in which the 'talk' of meditative experience is taking place. <S> That you can easily read and make yourself understand. <S> The meditative experience, Vipassana, the technique of Buddha, is many times talked about as a path. <S> Since you are practicing Vipassana, you are walking the path. <S> How does, then, one go 'beyond' the path? <S> By walking the path to its end! <S> In a manner of speaking, going beyond in Buddhist talk means not thinking in terms of concepts but realzing through exprience- going beyond this very conceptual construction in which you seem to find yourself. <S> The goal in Vipassana is not to have this or that experience, but to be aware and be equanimous about whatever experiences you have. <S> (Experience in Vipassana would mean experience of the sensations) <S> If you get caught up and start looking for some type of experience, you wont be observing the sensations equanimously (and therefore coming out of the samsaric becoming). <S> Rather, because of the expectation of this or that, you would land up creating more samsaric fuel. <S> I suggest that you continue with your practice. <S> Let questions come- <S> if you have answers then perfect. <S> If you dont, the dont get lost in looking for them- <S> that is, dont stop your walk on the path because you cannot find some answers. <S> Either you would get the answers (and thus have gone beyond those questions) or the questions would dissolve (or seem incorrect or useless or will be answered).	During practice, there may be times when you experience oneness as a feeling, and sense that you are everything and everything is you. In other words, you are experiencing awareness (knowing, consciousness) as its own object, distinct from the sensations it accompanies. Continue meditating, contiue walking the path.
Are there Theravada practitioners that aspire to be Buddhas? As far as I know, most Theravada followers practice according to the Pali Canon even though they accept the Bodhisattva vehicle as well. So, the main focus is to attain Arahantship for most people. My question is: How common is it for Theravada practitioners to aspire to be Buddhas? <Q> But it is not something that is usually encouraged. <S> It is left up to the individual choice. <S> Those who make such aspirations out of ego and lack of understanding of the enormity of the task are discouraged and adviced to give it up. <S> Those who have mastered the Tipitaka at the highest level and proven their worthiness to the community are given blessings. <S> Even then it's not sure until they actually get the blessings of another Sammasambuddha. <S> And it's not certain if they ever get the chance to meet another Buddha, let alone getting the blessing. <S> Those who never get that blessing end up being Pacceka-Buddhas after a long time, if they don't give up the pursuit. <A> In Theravada, the word 'Bodhisatta' refers to an unenlightened person seeking Buddhahood. <S> In other words, a Bodhisattva is not a Buddha in Theravada. <S> Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta... <S> MN 19 <S> This is why most Theravada reject the Mahayana doctrine of Bodhisattva Vehicle and this is why there are two separate doctrines (Theravada & Mahayana) which despise each other. <S> Theravada views the Mahayana doctrine as superstition and Mahayana views the Theravada doctrine as " hina ", which means " inferior, low; poor, miserable; vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable ". <S> Also, in Theravada, a Buddha is an Arahant but an Arahant is generally not regarded to be a Buddha. <S> Therefore, Theravadans generally aim for Arahant and keep the name 'Buddha' reserved for Gotama Buddha. <A> The difference between Arhantship and Buddha is that the Buddha rediscovers the meditative technique through his/her own effort (rediscovers the technique since the technique is lost as it has been a long time since the last Buddha) that leads to liberation while the arhat learns the technique through Buddha or a line of teachers that have preserved the technique in its purity since the last Buddha. <S> They both are enlightened beings. <S> I cannot say if it is common or uncommon to aspire to be a Buddha. <S> To aspire for liberation is certainly a commmon goal. <A> "Bodhisatta" in your question is a word mean "a man who enlightened by himself, then help uncountable others to enlighten follow him too". <S> According above meaning, there is very less person, uncommon , who going to be a Buddha because almost everyone hates suffering, loves happiness. <S> Helping others are suffering . <S> And if one chooses to help uncountable people, it comes with uncountable suffering, too, because each one comes with individual complex problems. <S> Most of people will not be Bodhisatta because they will give up to that uncountable suffering. <S> Every Bodhisatta borns with uncountable jobs, he has to plan for every step from current life to the next and next and uncountable next to the last life. <S> Bodhisatta must work hard to practice people for making sure that people will birth with him and practice to enlighten follow him in his last life. <S> He has only one chance to help people because it is his last life, so he has to work very hard to collect the actual practicable people before his last life. <S> The fail Bodhisatta is called "PaccekaBodhisatta" because he can't let the others enlighten follow him in his last life. <S> And that's why the Buddha praises PaccekaBuddha more than other Arahanta. <S> Sāriputta and Moggallāna practiced to be the chief male disciples of Gautama Buddha only for 1 asaṇkheyya and 100 thousand mahākappa after making a decision in front of the Buddha, but PaccekaBuddha practiced for 2 asaṇkheyya and 100 thousand mahākappa to enlighten in the last life. <S> All of them can enlighten at the time of making decision, but they didn't because they want to help people. <S> How does PaccekaBuddha help people? <S> And why his helping is better than Sāriputta and Moggallāna? <S> PaccekaBuddha help people by helping many other Bodhisattas. <S> All kinds of Bodhisatta help each other to collect people. <S> You can see the co-working teamwork in Jataka-Atthakathā and some other Atthakatha. <S> Who practice longer is who can help greater. <S> That's why PaccekaBuddha is better than Sāriputta and Moggallāna. <S> PaccekaBuddha can't help people to enlighten in his last life, but he can help many other Bodhisattas to let uncountable people enlighten follow more than Sāriputta and Moggallāna because PaccekaBuddha practiced in the longer period. <S> The only fail of PaccekaBuddha is "they can let people enlighten in their last life".	There are many who aspire to be Buddhas even in the Theravada community.
What is karma vipaka and its contents? What are the results of various sins done. I heard that it has various kinds of results we get for sins done. <Q> For a puthujjana (ordinary unenlightened person), the results of sinful kamma is rebirth in hell. <S> These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actionsunder the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body,after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the baddestination, the lower realms, in hell. <S> MN 4 <S> ( vedana ) felt ( vedaniyaṃ ). <S> Bhikkhus, this group [of aggregates] is not yours, nor does it belongto others. <S> It is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned byvolition, as something to be felt (vedaniyaṃ) . <S> SN 12.37 <S> AN 3.99 says: <S> Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him to hell? <S> There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering. <S> A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual takes him to hell. <S> Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? <S> There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. <S> A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment. <S> Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life,there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. <S> But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt (vedanīyaṃ) in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there isthe living of the holy life , there is the opportunity for the rightending of stress. <A> See the 2 main MN suttas on Kamma at MN 135 and MN 136 . <S> For more detailed infos on Kamma, see accesstoinsight's index <A> You surely know already. <S> It's simple. <S> Bad actions leads to bad results. <S> Good actions lead to good results. <S> Like when someone gives from the bottom of their heart, that someone's vipaka is the development of the bottom of their heart. <S> Like when someone get's angry, the vipaka is often anger right back at that someone or that someone looking like a fool. <S> I'm still finding out the good actions. <S> So I constantly ask myself "What are the good actions?". <S> Subtle bad actions that we can't even see, the substance of avijja, leads to subtle or substantial bad results. <S> Death is the vipaka of being compelled to exist or being compelled to not exist on through samsara.	For a Noble One, the results of past sinful kamma is merely feelings
Other people may misinterpret my "calming my mind" I'm not an "official" Buddhist but I have accepted the idea that "calming my mind" is good -- by not getting emotional about little setbacks (to the degree I can). To some degree, I have accomplished this. As a result, I can keep my head while others are losing theirs. So far, so good. But God help me if I get convicted of a serious crime. Whether I'm remorseful or not (or whether I did it or not), the judge is likely to give me extra punishment if I don't show remorse. And I once met a friend of a friend with whom I similarly held my reactions in check. She later described me as being "an emotionless monster" as if I walk around the streets at night eating children and small animals. What can I do to keep people from thinking something's wrong with me just because I don't get wildly emotional at every little thing? This question is not off-topic. Please don't edit it. Answers that don't directly answer the question as asked will be ignored (no XY-ing, please). <Q> There is a difference between getting wildly emotional at every little thing and having empathy for others. <S> I don't know your friend, or how you interact with her, but I can imagine she may have told you something that was emotional for her and <S> your reaction was deadpan. <S> This is not kind. <S> It communicates to another person that their life and suffering is unimportant to you and breaks any social bonds you might have with that person. <S> It sounds like you are so attached to unattachment that you don't consider how your actions may affect others around you. <S> You can stop people from thinking "something is wrong with you" by forming deep connection with people and showing genuine caring kindness for them. <A> What can I do to keep people from thinking something's wrong with me just because I don't get wildly emotional at every little thing? <S> Practice expressing brahmaviharas explicitly. <S> It will help others to see that your calm demeanor isn’t based on indifference. <S> Just make sure that you only say what you mean. <S> If needed, metta bhavana can aid in deepening your compassion for others, and will not interfere with your ambition to develop stillness. <A> Whether or not you are an "offical" Buddhist, you are a human being. <S> Any human being who reacts wildly with emotion or does not react at all is a human being with problems. <S> And almost all of us fall within these two categories most of the times. <S> Being a Buddhist (offical or not) or having a calm mind does not mean that one does not have or express any emotion at all. <S> In fact you can find many stories where Buddha, Boddhisattvas, Arihants express great joy and are blissful and show great empathy. <S> Having a calm mind means that one acts in accordance to the sitaution; one acts- doesn't react . <S> That is, having a calm mind means that if it is a jouful/happy ocassion, one is happy without loosing the balance of the mind (becoming madly ecstatic). <S> Or if it is a remorseful situation, one is empathetic, without becoming overwhelmed with sadness oneself. <S> The balance of mind, avoiding the extremes of emotion (too much or not at all) is important. <S> You cannot do anything about what people think of you. <S> You can do everything about your balance of mind, your calmness of mind. <S> For that you dont need to be an offical buddhist. <S> Being over-emotional or a lack of emotion are both dangerous. <S> There are good emotions to cultivate like loving-kindness, warm heartedness, joy etc. <S> Cultivate your wisdom and balance of mind- <S> then you would be, in every situation, calm and happy. <S> You wouldn't feel the worry of what other people think of you. <S> That is a benefit of such positive emotions. <A> Joy is an excellent basis for developing another practice called 'metta' ('good-will'). <S> Also, the calm mind is sensitive to the suffering of others, therefore the calm mind is an excellent basis for developing ' compassion ' (' the hope others are free from suffering ' called 'karuna'). <S> Buddhist practitioners train in both calming the mind and metta-karuna. <A> What can I do to keep people from thinking something's wrong with me just because I don't get wildly emotional at every little thing? <S> Buddhism recommends what's "praised by the wise" and being inoffensive. <S> Perhaps try to be like a good parent or teacher -- or a mature adult, a reasonable human being, perhaps somebody with high "emotional intelligence" or a great deal of courtesy?I say that because, for example, if you manage young children then things will happen -- they get upset, they hurt themselves, they might hurt each other <S> if you're not careful, they don't self-regulate as much as adults do <S> (self-regulation is a learned skilled).And their parent or teacher is (I think) meant to be sympathetic and loving (at least they in conventional society that I know) -- and practical, and probably highly moral especially if you're a teacher (and not, "convicted of a serious crime") -- without getting too upset themselves when a child is crying about something. <S> Specifically-Buddhist doctrine on how to relate with other people seems to be to pratice the brahmaviharas when you're in company. <S> There are several articles about that here . <S> I think it's evident in standard Buddhist interpersonal messages like "may you be well". <S> If you don't mind my posting it here <S> I admire this lecture <S> (it's not Buddhist) which illustrates various forms of speech and how/when they're proper in different situations. <S> Possibly you shouldn't "hold your reactions in check", I don't know? <S> But instead express loving-kind reactions. <S> Perhaps a characteristic of well-enlightened people is that they trust themselves to act appropriately, and so they allow themselves to act. <S> Then again I sometimes read of stories like <S> Is That <S> So? , the guy doesn't seem wildly emotional to say the least, but he seems trusted or respected by his neighbours, and acts appropriately even though he says not much. <S> I think people appreciate it when there's some two-way communication <S> (I once heard someone define "communicative" as, something like, "receptive" plus "responsive").	In Buddhism, calming the mind, if done sufficiently, eventually leads to joy.
How to continue practice with pain? I practiced meditation for 6 months continuously. I used to meditate 45 mins in the morning as well as evening. In weekends, I used to meditate many rounds with breaks in between. I developed fear of loneliness due to which I have suffered from insomnia which has lasted till now though it has gotten a bit better now. I don't know if its dark night of the soul or depression. I have also been suffering from gastritis since 1 year. The stomach pain causes me anxiety and I have not been able to continue my meditation. I am waiting for both my sleep and stomach to get better so that I can continue. I sometimes feel that the problem will last till my death. I don't know how to progress from this phase. My meditation practice had definitely brought many positive changes. I have set milestones for myself regarding the practice that I think I may not reach during this lifetime. Any suggestions for me ? <Q> You should not believe meditation is for everyone or should not believe you are a "failure" if meditation does not work out for you. <S> In reality, serious meditation is only for a small minority of people. <S> Some of the meditation in the Western world is just 'fondling' with a service that is advertised so some smooth talkers can make money. <S> Few Westerners are doing actual real meditation. <S> Fear of loneliness ("dark night of the soul") is certainly a common and inevitable result of extensive and intensive meditation. <S> This existential fear must be passed through to achieve any advanced level of meditation. <S> Therefore, if meditation has not worked out for you, please do not judge yourself negatively. <S> Many monks meditate for many years but make little progress and disrobe. <S> You should see a doctor or healer for your gastritis and find some solutions for poor sleep, such as Chinese herbal medicine, exercise, swimming, metta meditation, spiritual friendship, etc. <S> If you believe in future lives, the Buddha taught lay people to practise generosity & keep the five precepts is enough for 'rebirth' in heaven. <S> The Buddha generally did not teach meditation to lay people. <S> The sense of "self" is a natural survival instinct. <S> Meditation can diminish the sense of "self" and this is actually not healthy for most people. <S> Its only a small minority of people who are able to abide without a sense of "self". <A> A healthy body is a pre-requisite. <S> Once, you are fit, as per the advice of your doctor, you can begin your meditation again. <S> Certainly take care of yourself, but don't worry. <S> Your journey, as hard as it is, is for you to make. <S> We all share in the metta of Buddha, boddhisattvas and other enlightened beings. <S> Persistence, patience and determination are qualitites that will help you in this part of your journey, and this part of journey also gives you an oppurtunity to further cultivte these qualities. <S> Things change ( anicca ).May <S> you experience anicca nature of sensations in your meditation (and come to realize the changing nature of all phenomenon) and come out of your worriness. <A> It is not clear what type of meditation you're following at present and the reason for doing so. <S> If you're interested in simply reducing the stress levels at your work place, you may benefit from Mindfulness Meditation. <S> Following 10 years of research at Oxford University targeting stress related problems in schools, the British Government has introduced Mindfulness Meditation, as official education policy in the UK and 5000 teachers have been trained to teach this type of meditation in the schools. <S> It seems a very professional approach to address this problem of stress in schools. <S> If you fall into a similar category, you may benefit from such a program of training. <S> Also recommend the French Lama Matthieu Ricard, who teaches Altruistic Love, Compassion, Loving Kindness, meditation to the corporate sector such as the Google staff. <S> These are types of meditation designed to de-stress most of us who find our school/work routine stressful. <S> Much of this information is available on youtube.	If the body is not in a good physical condition, then one cannot meditate properly. Consulting a doctor would be suggested as a priority. Do not worry about things.
Could dhammanupassana be to remember satipatthana? Could the 4th satipatthana or dhammanupassana be, among other things, to remember Satipatthana in both heart and mind? Shouldn't viriya be focused on the focus towards satipatthana when worldly matters have distracted one down a wrong turn on the path? Do anything Buddhist scriptures talk about this? <Q> Your question is about the 'goal' of dhammanupassana . <S> You are rightly careful to not think of it as the only 'benefit' of dhammanupassana . <S> Establishment of sati , is fourfold. <S> Fourfold establishment means that sati is perfected when sati (awareness) is established over the 4 categorized mind-body phenomenon. <S> That is to say, mind-body phenomenon is viewed in terms of the 4 categories, awareness of body ( kayanupassana ), awareness of sensations ( vedanupassana ), awarenesss of mind <S> ( cittanupassana ) and awareness of the nature/law of mental-contents ( dhammanupassana ). <S> Pefrection of sati is gradual and happens in all 4 categories (since there are no 'categories' as such, but the term is used conventionally to make sense of mind-body phenomenon). <S> Of course, establishing awareness of body is easier than the rest, nonetheless, perfection (perfect establishing of sati ) which is to say , complete awareness happens only when progress is made on all '4' categories. <S> I do no unedrstand what you mean by heart in this context. <S> Memory is a mental phenomenon and so perfection of dhammanupassana , of course, results in sharper and clearer memory (only as an off-shoot; not the main goal(or even an intended goal) of dhammanupassana ).As <S> to the question about ' viriya ', while in a subtle (and indeed profound) sense, viriya specifically implies for the meditation period, in a superficial sense (very usefull and certainly not wrong) it also implies to right effort in one's everyday life. <S> But to answer your question in the simplest way, in the context of meditation, certainly viriya must be applied to get back on the path as one strays and becomes aware that one has strayed. <S> Just dont stop with viriya there! <S> References-You may refer to Sattipathana sutta and Mahasattipathana sutta for better understanding based on your own reading. <S> NOTE- <S> I have used 'awareness' as the english translation for sati . ' <S> Mind-fullness' works equally well in this case. <S> I have used 'effort' as the english translation for viriya . ' <S> Energy' would be an equally goood translation in this case. <A> Yes. <S> Satipatthana (Samma Sati) is an important path factor in Noble Eightfold Path. <S> Viriya or Samma Vayama come before Samma Sati (Satipathana). <S> Samma Vayama, Samma Sati and Samma Samadhi <S> all three come under Samadhi (concentration) category. <A> Could the 4th satipatthana or dhammanupassana be, among other things, to remember Satipatthana in both heart and mind? <S> Main purpose of various vipassana is to rectify defiled behaviour pattern. <S> to remember Satipatthana in both heart and mind Is it referring to passing of meditation-knowledge to next-birth through Citta ? <S> Reference <S> If so, then be assured that it's the behaviour pattern that travels to next birth, otherwise buddha would have taught only satipatthana to everyone whereas, he taught only to rectify defiled behaviour pattern through different Upadesh(lessons cum teachings) to different people . <S> To think again, What would it(remembering) benefit Citta, if defiled behaviour pattern(within) cannot be rectified? <S> Nothing Shouldn't viriya be focused on the focus towards satipatthana when worldly matters have distracted one down a wrong turn on the path? <S> ----: <S> ) <S> focused on focus towards satipatthana , where satipatthana in itself is not enlightenment rather a path to enlightenment. <S> Seems like a similar idea used in hindu geeta by krishna for setting-up arjuna-- <S> "I am teaching you a path upon walking on which, you will reach a path that will ultimately reach to me". <S> Other than stream-enterer, everyone is on wrong path. <S> Stream-enterer is on a path that will reach to enlightening. <S> Others are focusing on the path to attain stream-entry. <S> If it's about meditation procedure, then from practical experience :: sorry to say, in long-run meditation this focused part won't survive. <S> Meditator will ultimately have to switch to, "focus on sattipatthana' part, still in further journey <S> this focus also won't survive, as meditator will have to switch to, "realizing defilements and rectifying behaviour". <S> Theoritically, this realizing also won't survive in further running, meditator will have to switch to, "stop worrying/analysing about behaviour" and achieving the state of "impermanence at atomic or tiniest scale" after which there is nothing left to achieve as achiever itself is 'causes&conditions, an impermanence', no-where left to run. <S> Do anything Buddhist scriptures talk about this? <S> Again, to focused towards focus on satipatthana part, many teachings in suttas are there for right livelihood through viriya . <S> One of the reference being Reference 2 <A> The meaning of dhamme-dhamma anu-passi viharati, means, To see/contemplate Dharma as the Dharma [actually is]. <S> A similar phrase in the suttas that occurs frequently is Dhamma-anu-Dhamma patipada, practicing Dharma in accordance to Dharma. <S> Some passages explain that here: http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/05/dhamma-anu-dhamma-practicing-dhamma-in.html Dhamma/Dharma primarily means the natural laws and teachings of the Buddha that lead one to Nirvana. <S> In other words, it's not just any 'phenomena' or 'mental quality' you're contemplating, or should be contemplating.	You should always be practicing for the Dhamma that leads to Nirvana, not dhamma/phenomena of ultimately pointless things.
Enlightend beings don't make more good or neutral karma? Does a Buddha or Arahant not make good or neutral karma? If somehow an enlightened one does make karma does it immediately come to a result? Are all the actions enlightened beings do the result(vipaka) of previous good karma while on on the path to Nirvana? Is all the enlightened karma neutral? <Q> In its essence, "kamma" means "action" with attachment . <S> While the suttas do refer to " kamma without attachment " namely, " neither-dark-nor-bright kamma " ( AN 4.237 ), this type of kamma is also called the " kamma that ends kamma " (AN 6.63). <S> Therefore, it is not really "kamma". <S> the essential meaning of "kamma" is " action with attachment ", as follows: <S> And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions (attachment) ? ' <S> There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. <S> There are fruits & results of good & bad actions .... <S> MN 117 <S> Refer to Bhikkhu Buddhadasa <S> PDF booklet: <S> Kamma in Buddhism <A> Buddha spoke about cessation of karma and liberation from karma. <S> For Arahant, or for Buddha, there's no acquiring of karma anymore. <S> Indeed, if they still acquired karma, how could we call it "liberation"? <S> But how can an Arahant or a Buddha act without acquiring karma? <S> In my understanding, this is possible because only appropriated action, <S> i.e. action considered to be done "by me" counts as that person's own karma. <S> Since an enlightened being does not reify the concept of "a being" or "self", there is no-one left to acquire karma. <S> There is no way Buddha could appropriate his actions as "I did this", because he had done away with the notion of "I", he only used it for communication with the unenlightened. <S> So whatever we think is done by Buddha or Arahant <S> , from their perspective is not their (personal) intention, and is therefore not their (personal) karma. <S> Buddha's actions can still have results. <S> Generally speaking, in terms of results, this is the third type of actions, one that leads to cessation. <S> We can still observe some of the results of Buddha's actions in our own lives - us studying and practicing Dharma. <S> In fact, the results are unfolding in front of our own eyes, in form of this question and answer site. <S> But these results are not Buddha's personal karma, since they did not come bundled with the concept of "self". <A> The outcome of deeds is discussed in AN4.233 : <S> “Mendicants, I declare these four kinds of deeds, having realized them with my own insight. <S> What four? <S> There are dark deeds with dark results; bright deeds with bright results; dark and bright deeds with dark and bright results; and neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds. <S> The fourth is the destination of the Noble Eightfold Path: <S> And what are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds? <S> It’s the intention to give up dark deeds with dark results, bright deeds with bright results, and both dark and bright deeds with both dark and bright results. <S> These are called neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds. <S> These are the four kinds of deeds that I declare, having realized them with my own insight.” <S> In other words, in giving up identity view and all its wishes, the grasping that leads to rebirth, continued existence and suffering is relinquished and extinguished. <S> Note that non-arahants with some attainment as well as arahants would both relinquish the first three deeds in favor of the fourth. <S> The difference is that non-arahants would still wish and need to practice towards the realization of the fourth clause. <S> They would still have some identity view (e.g., "the conceit, 'I am'"). <S> With Right Wisdom and Right Freedom, arahants will have given up all deeds. <S> Arahants will, per this sutta, have attained the "ending of deeds". <A> If you understand by karma to simply mean causation (of some kind) then karma is there, irrespective of whether one is enlightened or not. <S> If you understand by karma as action (at any of the three levels of body, speech or mind) then karma is there, irrespective of whether one is enlightened or not. <S> The way karma is different is only in the sense of being good or bad karma . <S> A good karma means action that does not lead to further clinging, a cause whose effect is as benficial as the unclinging cause is. <S> A bad karma means action that creates clinging, a causae whose effect is harmful, as one becomes clings slightly strongly than before to the samsaric flow. <S> Karma comes as a result dependent on conditions. <S> If conditions are right, then the result will arise, endure and cease. <S> If conditions are not right, then the result will not arise, not endure and not cease. <S> The arising (and enduring and ceasation) of every karmic action (and karmic intention) is inevitable. <S> That is, karma is bound to produce some effects, results, consequences; irrespective of the fact that it is the karma of enlightened being or not an enlightened being. <S> As one builds up more good karma , it becomes easier to build up more good karma <S> even further (habituation, conditioning). <S> all there actions, words and thoughts are steeped in wisdom and compassion. <A> As I see it dukkha or suffering is bad karma , good karma leads to nirvana . <S> And when all karma is purified Nirvana happens . <S> If all karma is purified then it's not possible to create bad karma because every thought and action is purified and is Nirvana. <S> Nirvana is having no bad karma and if that is the case then all actions are good karma for all sentient beings.	If by enlightened karma , you mean the karma of enlightened beings, then certainly all of it is good- for by very definition of enlightened beings,
Immediate Remedies to Judgmental Thoughts I had previously asked a question about contempt. Since then, I noticed a few things, such as that it's not easy for me to 'cancel' out analytically my judgment of others. If I try to question my judgment and invalidate it, it often doesn't work, especially if I get angry. I know that my judgments are false, but they still arise. Are there alternatives to analyzing/questioning the judgment? The most effective solution so far has been compassion meditation. But that is not always possible in the moment. What can be done in the moment where judgmental thoughts arise to remain open? EDIT: I feel perhaps my question is similar to my previous one, but I'm asking for really in the moment remedies, and the diverse options Buddhism recommends. <Q> I have this problem myself <S> but it is getting better. <S> The first thing I do is to spot the first movement of the mind toward judgment <S> and I send the person metta (May you be well, happy and free from suffering). <S> This then changes my attitude to a more accepting and more opened mind. <S> One other thing which I find helpful is to remember their faults are mine, I have a potential to do what I disapprove and judge. <S> This brings me back to earth and to a forgiving attitude. <A> Are there alternatives to analyzing/questioning the judgment? <S> If you look at it as one of many possible interpretations you avoid the risk of invalidating your point of view. <S> What can be done in the moment where judgmental thoughts arise to remain open? <S> One possible reason why we need to judge others is because it creates a feeling of righting a wrong, in a sense. <S> Without knowing too much about you, i am assuming that there is some form of painful feeling that creates a clinging to judgment (ditthupadana). <S> Further, try to look behind other people's actions, to see if there are motives for acting the way they do. <S> What is their dukkha, their tanha or upadana? <S> This can be very hard, but can also yield compassion that ameliorates our clinging to judge others. <A> What can be done in the moment where judgmental thoughts arise to remain open? <S> Treat the mind as something from a distance. <S> Tell yourself for example: "The mind tells me" or alternatively, "Anger is arising in me". <S> If possible, observe any bodily phenomena with a curious attitude. <S> Don't push it away. <S> It's not easy. <S> If the anger is directed towards others you can reflect how you behaved maybe in a similar way or had similar thoughts. <S> Otherwise distract yourself for a while. <S> But whatever you do, it will take some time until the mind changes its state, and from my personal experience, emotions strongly bias subsequent thinking <S> , that's why I recommend to notice anger signals early on to nip them in the bud, but again with an open, allowing & curious attitude. <A> What is thought? <S> You aware your thoughts Trace your thoughts till it's root <S> Beacuse <S> my observation say that thought is illusion Beacuse thought is <S> memory Memory is thought . <S> Proof <S> What is nirvana <S> (buddhism)You are thinking not reach this question Because you don't experience. <S> You don't experience. <S> You don't thinking. <S> So your are experience is thought	Therefore, one way to aid letting go of judgment is to examine any painful emotions (dukkha) you might have had prior to these thoughts, and try to accept the emotions as they are.
How to differentiate between natural vs artificial breathing pattern during meditation? When we do a simple observation of breath (in & out) during meditation, how to know if its natural flow I am observing or forced one? Regards <Q> If your aim is vipassana then what forced the breath? <S> If the breath was seemingly controlled by you, were you in control if you couldn't even tell when you were forcing it or not? <S> If you just keep watching mindfully then you will see everything is rising and falling constantly while being forced by nobody. <S> This tripped me up in the beginning. <S> I was told to let it go because if I was controlling it or not, ultimately I wasn't in control anyway. <S> In whatever way objects come, do not try to change them. <S> Whatever comes is the buddha-dharma, not objects at all. <S> Even if you try to control what comes, it cannot be controlled. <S> -Dogen <A> If the instruction says "breathe naturally" <S> I think that means "just breathe" and "don't try to hyperventilate". <S> When I cycle (exercise) <S> my breathing increases to meet the increased demand (and my heart does too) -- don't have to "force" that <S> -- couldn't even stop if I wanted to! <S> So it's rare that I intentionally "force" a breath -- <S> I think that "force" means "breathe before I need to", or "more than I need to"? <S> -- I do that rarely , only to make a temporary surplus of oxygen, a few seconds before a sprint. <S> If you're worried, try not breathing?! <S> Then instead of "you" forcing "the body" to breath, the body will force you to breathe! <S> So I let the breath out, relax, pause, and the body takes another breath. <S> And I let it breathe again before it becomes uncomfortable. <S> And so the breathing (at rest, not during exercise) tends to be a little slower (waiting for the body), and deeper/bigger breaths. <S> That's my experience, perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong. <S> One other thing I've found useful to know of <S> : if I do force the breath then I force it out (exhale), not in . <S> If you only try to breathe in , without breathing out, then the lungs accumulate stale air. <S> Better to breathe out, let go, then the body will breathe in again. <A> ChrisW's advice to not breath is a really good one. <S> I always use that method in my meditation when I find that I'm 'attacking' the breath or being otherwise willful with it. <S> Another method I'd add <S> is 'waiting for the breath'. <S> Just sit and wait for breathing to happen - like you're sitting on a bench waiting for a bus to come. <S> Both will help you experience natural breathing.	If the breath is forced or not forced that is what is and can just be witnessed mindfuly as it happens.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.