I have a question about how the Mahasi noting practice can be applied informally to daily, mundane affairs, rather than during formal meditation. As a Theravadin, I find that this practice is similar to DBT skills. I'm currently undergoing therapy and learning the skill of "one-mindfulness," which is essentially monotasking: doing one activity wholeheartedly at a time. It's also somewhat similar to Zen practice. I have a hard time focusing on simple tasks, such as reading books or listening to audiobooks. I think this may be the long-term effect of social media use, exacerbated by the habit of doomscrolling. My question is, how do you apply noting to informal practice? Is it possible to mentally note everything or practice sati/remembering throughout the day?

I am very new to Buddhism, I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist but I am learning about the religion. While reading, "In the Buddha's words" by Bikku Bodhi I started to think about the action of letting go suffering, but how could a traumatized person let go of sufferance if it is something they can not control even if they have healed from it?

I recently heard a monk mention that, being in a monestary and meditating, you process a lot of stuff and it can get crazy, but masters are knowledgeable about handling this. So, is there any concept of trauma in buddhist scripture or culture?

The Nibbanasukha Sutta presents Nibbāna as an experience of “bliss” > There he addressed the mendicants: “Reverends, extinguishment is > bliss! Extinguishment is bliss!” > > When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend > Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?” > > “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it. The question concerns how “experience” is to be understood in this context. If all five aggregates are relinquished and no residual locus of identification remains, in what precise sense can sukha or bliss be meaningfully predicated?

I think it's essentially the fear of death, but I am discouraged/demotivated from continuing on the path of meditation due to listening to what is at the end of it. The goal of enlightenment is sounding a bit depressing for me and I am scared of it. I am very much attached to my intellect and thoughts. It's something I identify with. My fear comes from being attached to my mind maybe? But ultimately it's my mind which has to be convinced to continue. Of course it doesn't want its own "death". After reading things about what will happen after enlightenment, I am backing out. I have experienced the bliss more than once. I know the feeling; it's great, it's literally the purpose of life. But I am again attached to my mind. Seems like I need an intellectual reason to transcend my intellect.

Usually when someone pushes back against me, I feel displeasure, and I am very reactive. I say something defensive in response, but then, I yield entirely from the subject or area in which I was pushed back against. My ego tries to frame this yielding as being egoless, but obviously, it is just to protect the ego. How can I remain in such a conflict of interest without either yielding, or letting my ego influence the conflict? For example, if at work, my ego has attached itself to some submission, and someone points out things they feel are worthy of change in the submission. How can I remain objective, without jumping the gun (applying the suggested changes immediately, or rejecting it outright, or yielding from the submission entirely)? When I happen upon a pushback, the first few moments are of clarity. "Oh, I see, interesting". But then slowly it irks me and I become rejective. Then, after I push back, I go "this is too much, how will people perceive me after I pushed back, I'm so confrontational, I gotta leave/yield".

I am able to see that desires are not self. I am able to see that thoughts of hatred are not me nor mine. However, with arising consciousness (awareness of feelings and thoughts and sense input), there is still identification. The sensation is felt, and it feels like I personally am the consciousness of it. I don't identify with the sense organ nor the sensation itself, but I identify with the consciousness of it. For example, I am highly ambitious of just being aware of what is happening in me. "I have to stay conscious of my mind" - and I identify with that voice. I see it as necessary and vital, because else I feel my head will explode with suffering, which primarily manifests as a sharp pain in the middle of my brain. How can I become disillusioned?

I came across the following diagram while reading the paper Is this a valid presentation of how the illusion of self arises in Theravāda Buddhism?

If I do meditation just before and after sleep, will the whole sleep be counted as a meditation session? If I don't have time, how do I make sleep as meditation? Is an afternoon nap permissible according to Buddha?

I have been trying to get myself into a non reactionary state and all my instincts seem to tell me to do the opposite of what Buddha would have taught. My ex is withholding visitation from me but we have a joint custody agreement in place. He won't answer my texts, won't let my daughter call, has pulled her out of school and keeps her locked up in the house like a prisoner. I am very concerned about her well being, she has been depressed at his house and had been requesting to move back in with me before all of this started. I could go to court and file an enforcement motion along with relief in the form of legal fees, and jail time for him. While this feels reactionary is it? Would I be doing harm if I stand up for my daughter? I don't want a fight and I don't want to see anyone hurt further.

Wikipedia mentions the following translation of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19-20 without mentioning a source: > There is nothing whatsoever of samsara distinguishing (it) from nirvana. There is nothing whatsoever of nirvana distinguishing it from samsara. (That?) is the limit which is the limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara; Even a very subtle interval is not found of (between) them.[citation needed] Where does that translation originate from?

We have all seen them: parrots. Most people don't really have strong reasoning skills, and they just repeat information they learn from elsewhere. This is true in Buddhist discussions as well. Our society is inundated with mediocrity, and voices of reason are drowned in a sea of pretentious masses that lack substance. The Dunning–Kruger effect, you may call it. None of this is new. It's been like that ever since the dawn of humanity. However, today we are at the dawn of a new era. We now have AI, and it's rapidly getting better. It is no longer a question of if, but of when. AI already understands Buddhism better than most people, even today. And I wonder how much longer people can pretend they understand Buddhism (and even teach it), when in reality they don't. It soon may become embarrassing to preach Buddhism in the traditional way, when everyone actually has access to versions of AI with strong reasoning skills. We have all seen massive layoffs in the technology sector. I guess only people with truly strong reasoning skills will survive and thrive. What about Buddhism and religions in general? How much longer can people pretend to ignore AI, when we assume it understands everything better than humans? How much longer can religious teachers paint a false picture of life and existence, when people begin to realize that human teachings may not stand up to AI scrutiny? I guess the world will be split into two classes of people: those who can work side by side with AI and have access to knowledge and reasoning, and those who are excluded from the AI world and its tools, living at the mercy of welfare. The difference from before is that, in the past, one could lie their way through and still gain followers. In the future, those left out may have to accept that AI is more capable than they are, and that it ultimately holds the truth. It's kind of a scary thought. In the old days, one could laugh at the reasoning capabilities of machines. But soon, and by that I mean this time next year, whoever laughs at machines will themselves be laughed at, because, in fact, machines can reason much better and have access to thousands of times more sources of information and perspectives than humans can ever achieve. The value of elite human workers is no longer about how much they know, but about how well they can reason and work side-by-side with machines. Detailed knowledge of things is forever relegated to machines. All of a sudden, the value of parrots becomes nil.

We’re told to let go of craving, yet the path seems to involve wanting liberation or awakening. When someone deeply wants awakening or enlightnement, is that still a form of craving in disguise? If so, does the very drive toward enlightenment risk reinforcing what the practice is trying to end?

There's been persecution of ethnic minorities in Myanmar. Some monks in Myanmar align themselves with groups that cause violent clashes. There has been a civil war in Sri Lanka where Tamils felt the need to stand up to purported oppression by the sinhalese, an ethnic group that adheres mostly to Buddhism. In response, sinhalese that forced Tamils to strip naked in a show of dominance, dehumanizing the victim, felt supported by the sinhalese government. In at least once instance, the victim was killed afterwards. How is this possible? Do buddhists find encouragement of violent action in the suttas? If so, where?

Is it possible for a human to actively increase sense of self and attachment in themself? If so, how? I know that there is clinging to pleasurable experiences, but is there a type of action (cognitive or physical) that increases the clinging? I ask this question for a reason. The reason is that I wonder what mistakes a practitioner on the path can do.

Ashoka lived about 200 years after the Buddha. Do his Edicts reflect the Buddha's original teachings, or did he simplify the doctrine to serve as a social code for his empire?

In theory, many ways of meditation have been given to stop cravings and aversion. What about practical life? During day to day life, it has often been seen and experienced as well that, "we tend to lean towards comfortablity", whether it be of body or brain. Let's take a basic example: one living in a rented house tend to go for a own-home(whenever possible).... even monks of modern era tend to go for own-kuti/monastery. For this one needs money. Reason being given is, "i feel more freedom inside my own-home instead of rented one". Another eg. : Using technologies, more resources for making life easy-going. Resaon being given as: we have less headaches, more respect, easy-flow of society. Even if i properly give time to analyze, realize, etc. bhlabhla, stay *disconnected* to this modernized life, there is definitely no need for me to ask this question! If one doesn't go for maintaining status, using hi-fi techs, spending money(either for dana purpose or for anything else..), ........ It's more likely to be 99.99% that such person would be physically and mentally **behind** from others. One simple solution came is:: live like a bpl(below poverty line) person but this will definitely decrease morale and enthusiasm of nearby-ones, decreasing their chances of learning dhamma. (If possible, kindly don't include advice for meditation to a freak and too-ignorants) i am more concerned into balancing the life(middle path for householders) such that both nearby ones and me can have less possible crave, more possible dhamma! **Edit::** Maybe, this answer is somewhat talking about balance in last 3 paragraphs. But it is also saying to re-engage in earning money to get approval of others.....getting approval is ok but how would money change someone's behaviour, confusing to me?

I am long time student of Chogyam Trungpa. Unfortunately, the current situation at the sangha (now Shambhala International) is in a state of chaos. I am interested in becoming B. Alan Wallace's student. I'm wondering if his path is similar to Vajradhatu, in other words, start with shamatha/vipassana, then ngondro, and then abhiseka. Thank you

Do I intend to do something if I also intend to stop myself from doing it? Suppose I intend to eat the hamburger, but also intend to stop myself doing so. Is that intent in the Buddhist sense?

After a week and a half long meditation retreat, I’ve had pinprick sensations around my body, mostly around the head area but also around the body. I can feel them much more during meditation and when I’m trying to sleep (probably because I am not moving and it is quiet) but also during daily life as well. I felt them much more intensely (almost painful) during the retreat. Sometimes I am in a situation that makes me anxious the pinpricks also comes in full force. This has been bad mostly because it makes it hard to fall asleep sometimes. I do not remember having these sensations before the retreat. From my research, it seems some number of people have experienced this, but mostly during meditation, and not in daily life. I have not found any appropriate western “scientific” explanation. How should I combat this, short term in making it affect my life less, and long term in potentially getting rid of it? How would you explain this phenomenon? Should I find a teacher to deal with this? If so, where could I find an appropriate one? I live in Canada, but if I could talk to someone through call I would gladly do this as well.