I used to go to a Tibetan Buddhist community where they were constantly reading Buddhist scriptures off of little stacks of cards. They were wide aspect ratio, and had the syllables of various mantras written out phonetically on them. Is there a word for this object? I always wanted to look it up.

I'm trying to practice Satipatthana meditation according to the book [Satipatthana Meditation - A Practice Guide](https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/satipatthanapracticeguide.pdf) . In the book, Bhikkhu Anālayo teaches the contemplation of anatomical parts by body scan (Chapter 3, p. 53). > The mode of practice I recommend to get started takes the form of body scans. One body scan to become aware of the skin, another to become aware of the flesh, and a third to become aware of the bones. During each body scan, one scans through major body parts (hair, face, neck, shoulders, arms, and so on, to feet) sequentially. And for each body part, one turns attention to the fact that it's "just skin/flesh/bones" and "impure/dirty/not beautiful/not sexually attractive" (p. 58, 59). > If we already tend to feel frustrated or even depressed because our body does not meet current standards of physical beauty and attractiveness, it would be unwise to employ the evaluation. Instead we might turn attention just to the fact that the body is made up of skin, flesh, and bones, which perform their function independent of what society considers to be good looks. > Based on such an assessment, some of us might feel ready to confront a tendency to sensual obsession in relation to the body. In such a case, it would be appropriate to bring in the element of evaluation. We might decide to use the terminology found in the discourse, “impure” or “dirty”, or else “not sexually attractive”. There's also [a guided meditation recording](https://www.windhorsepublications.com/satipatthana-meditation-audio/) provided by the book publisher that illustrates the process. I have following questions: 1. Am I supposed to verbalize the body scan process in my head? During my practice, I would move my attention to the next body part by mentally naming it (e.g., mentally saying "upper arm", "lower arm", etc.), then examine it by mentally saying "just skin/flesh/bones", "not beautiful", and try to contemplate on that at the same time. 2. Related to the 1st one, am I supposed to visualize each body part in my mind during body scan? Specifically, am I supposed to visualize the skin/flesh/bones of each body part? During my practice, it became quiet natural for me to imagine each body part's skin/flesh/bones since I needed to mentally say its name & focus on "it's just skin/flesh/bones". 3. Related to the 2nd one, can I really *physically feel* every major body part? For example, is it possible to feel skull bones, or bowels, spleen (which is even hard to imagine)? So in practice, I guess I had just imagined my skull or some other body part that is not very perceptible and contemplated based on that mental image rather than actual sensation. Is this the right approach? Thanks in advance.

I have heard this sutta referenced in dhamma talks by Ajahn Thanissaro, although I don't have a specific talk to point to. I know I have also read the sutta, but I can't remember when. In the sutta, various monks state that they practice by contemplating something along the lines of "If I live so long as one year... one month... one day... one hour... one breath... the time it takes to chew one bite of food... then I can accomplish a lot in the practice." The Buddha then states that the last two monks who cast their intention across one breath or one bite of food are heedful, while the other monks are not. Does anyone know which sutta this is? Thanks!

I have moved to a big city from a suburban area recently. I hardly have to go outside home. Because of the current covid restrictions, I do WFH. I used to go cycling or walking everyday before. But now I am too afraid to go out not just because of covid but also because of the thievery, burglary, snatching incidents that get reported in the area everyday. I stay in one room all day. And mentally it's affecting me a lot. I understand that maybe I have attachment to my previous place of stay. Now how can I deal with my anxiety?

I practice mindfulness and meditation for a few years, since I took a 10 week mindfulness course. In some periods more intensely (daily), some periods (weeks) not. Recently increased the intensity by taking the waking-up app, and meditate & reflect more frequently I detach more from emotions and thoughts, and find it interesting to see them arise and pass. But it also gives me a sense of disconnect. If every thought is just arising (and passing) on its own, I put less value in it: why even believe the thought? Emotions are interesting to be taken away by (at least in reflection after it). But if I try to let them just pass, it feels like not really being engaged in life. Often the comparison is made, that there is no ego watching the river of experiences, but that we are only the river. To me, it feels like floating on the river. With less meditation, I feel more like a boat, steering and aiming at goals. Meditation has given me more detachment from emotions and thoughts, letting me see them rise and pass more. But this also gives me a sense of disconnection, perhaps even a flavor of nihilism or apathy (why does it all even matter). How can I navigate the balance correctly?

How can someone take rebirth with non-heterosexual inclinations? What specific karmic acts will lead to rebirth with this trait of non heterosexuality?

When researching stream-entry, I came across this fascinating statement ... > "The stream enterer ... has removed the saṅkhāras that force rebirth > in lower planes". SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_awakening#Stream-enterer I find this statement to be fascinating because the 4 stages of enlightenment are usually described as a function of "abandoning fetters (samyojanas)" rather than "removal of saṅkhāras". Does this statement have any reference in the suttas? i.e. Do the suttas actually make this connection between "removing saṅkhāras" and freedom from "rebirth in lower planes"? If so, do they hint at the nature of the "saṅkhāras" to be removed?

I am looking for Buddhist videos (by Buddhist monks preferably or lay teachers) that describe briefly (under 10 minutes) how Buddhists view consciousness. Most I find are either lectures an hour-long, very difficult to understand, or poetic/allegorical. I'm looking for videos like these. They are by Hindus explaining their view on consciousness briefly. Have you see something like these but Buddhist? https://youtu.be/aGhm8CVnwck https://youtu.be/9n6NvDpcwLM

I have one query. All the Sutra's ( lotus Sutra, heart Sutra) belongs to which Tripitaka (first second or third)?

A friend of mine was practicing zazen for many years. They started to get discourage with their practice and started to explore transcendental mediation. Now, they claim their progress with TM is far better in a matter of weeks when compared to zazen. I was wondering if there is an equivalent to TM in any of the Buddhist traditions? If so, what are the basics and framework of the parallel type of meditation?

Is the emptiness of final nirvana an illusion? ------------------------------------------- When we misplace a box with nothing at all inside we haven't really lost its contents. I am convinced, based on this, *nothingness is only really inside things that exist*. Meaning at final nirvana, the conventional self, which *really no longer consists of anything at all*, is *really composed of absolutely nothing*, must **exist and have no parts**. Final nirvana does still arise, but the Buddha continues to exist, so emptiness, partite lack of substance, is an illusion. I'd like a Buddhist wide quote with sound reasoning.

I have been lurking here for a long time, but I made an account just to ask this because I am very conflicted, and I think some of you here maybe able to help me like you have many times before without you knowing. I have the opportunity to join a company (it's in stealth so I can't say much) in a very senior leadership position on the business side. I have a coveted background for this because although I have built my career around business functions, I have several, admittedly very elitist degrees, including 2 masters degrees in hard sciences and engineering, direct research experience in a similar area while in academia (although I never engaged in / actively avoided animal experiments), and have a fancy resume when it comes to my career. The company is very promising and is founded by someone who also founded a very very well known company that has had massive success. It also has an A+ research team, and is backed by several well known billionaires, so it has the resources and potential to reduce the suffering of many people with serious unmet medical needs. On a personal level, I am still fairly young and this is a big opportunity for me that I never thought I would have at this point in my career, and I feel the work has meaning, which is something I struggled with in my previous and current role. But the fact that the company engages in and will continue to engage in animal experimentation for research, really brings an uneasy feeling in my chest that is hard to explain. Once again, I will be on the business side and will not being doing any direct research work ever, and that work will be done whether I join them or not, and I have the potential to help in maximizing the good that comes out of that work by helping more people benefit from the outcomes, but it still feels... wrong? I doubt there is something in there is anything directly relevant in the suttas, but can someone guide me here? I feel lost. p.s. after typing this I recognize that I want people to say this is ok and there's nothing wrong with it. Please don't do that if it's not what you believe.

There were at least 22 universities according to this -- [Ancient Buddhist Universities in India](https://mu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2016-Ancient-Buddhist-University-in-India-compressed.pdf) by Dr. Sandesh Wagh, Mumbai University: > - In contrast to this with the rise of Buddhism in India, there arose many center's of learning which did not exist before. > - Buddhist monks could opt for a life of meditation in the forests, or a life of teaching, preaching, propagating the Dhamma as a result of these activities, seats of learning arose. > - These seats of monastic learning (Pirivenas) gradually developed and some of them became fullfledged universities. > > 22 Major Ancient Buddhist University > > - These organized institutions in the form of Monasteries, Viharas and Universities formed the spinal cord of the country. > - Well established regular educational institutions were founded during Buddhist period. > - Gradually big shrines and hermitages began to function as educational institutions. > - With the passage of time these places assumed the status of institutions imparting primary and higher education. > 1. Takshila Buddhist University > 2. Nalanda Buddhist University > 3. Vallabhi Buddhist University > 4. Vikramshila Buddhist University > 5. Teleadaka Buddhist University > 6. Odantapuri Buddhist University > 7. Sompura Buddhist University > 8. Jaggadala Buddhist University > 9. Phushpagiri Buddhist University > 10. Nagaarjunakonda Buddhist University > 11. Kashmir or Shardha Buddhist University > 1. Ujjain Buddhist University > 2. Nabadwip Buddhist University > 3. Tawang Buddhist University > 4. Shrangiri Buddhist University > 5. Samye Buddhist University > 6. PanditVihara Buddhist University > 7. Gunshila Buddhist Women University > 8. Kashi Buddhist University > 9. Kanchipuram Buddhist University > 10. Kururshetra Buddhist University > 11. Kanheri Rock-cut Buddhist University However were there any other universities outside India (the Indian subcontinent as we know it now), especially China, Korea, southeast Asia? There were lot of Scholars who travelled to and from India, do any of their travelogues mention any of these universities?

I've been a practitioner of Vipassana and Mahamudra for 2 years now. One thing quite bothering me is various explanations from different teachers on emptiness logically disturbing... Usually, it goes like this: > The flower before you seems real. Now get closer, you no longer see flower, but just leaves, stem. Even closer, you "see" atoms, electrons, etc. See? the flower is "empty" of inherent existence. The same goes for "self". Try search for the "self" in your thoughts, arm, leg, etc. and you would find nothing. Of course I could appreciate this mentally helps in someway in practice. But something falls short. First, it feels "outdated" to me, in a post-calculus world, that it denies the validity of an aggregate object, by pointing towards an infinitesimally small part of it. Zeno paradox? Secondly, the requirement of "look closer" (or farther) seem to assert the perceiver model. That logic (or its inverse) would seem to imply that, "in order for something A to be *truly existent*, that thing needs to be A in all perceivable cases". That A would then seem to be only possible as some kind of "totality", or awareness itself. So that felt like a semantics game then. I'm sure there're better ways to explain the Buddhist emptiness logic in a more modern compatible way. Please enlighten me.

Why does "not existing from its own side" make something a "conceptual construction"? I believe, from memory, the former phrase in quotes is Tibetan, but that all Buddhists think every empty thing is a "conceptual construction": but am unsure what that last phrase means, so don't know why anyone would believe it. Can you help?

Some background: I was born into a Buddhist family. I've always been intellectually interested in spiritual things like meditation and yoga, but I never really took it seriously until my early 20s, where I started a daily meditation practice. One day I decided to go for a Vipassana retreat where I accidentally/unintentionally attained first jhana. The experience was very transformative & made me want to learn more and go through all the jhanas. I am aware of the warnings about being attached to jhana. Since then I haven't been able to get jhana in my daily life, understandably; too short sits, too many distractions There's a part of me that really wants to become a monk or at least go for a longer retreat so I can reach the next jhana. The reason is that I really just want to figure out & experience for myself what is the next step. It's like reading a book for the first chapter, and then having the book taken away from you. You naturally want to find out what happens in chapter 2, 3, 4 and so on. My parents unsurprisingly don't want me to do this There's also a part of me that thinks: it's your karma to be a householder, forget the jhana, just be a good person & practice the precepts best you can. Abandon the thought of monkhood & solitary practice. Any advice? I'm asking on SE because I feel like some of you guys would have had similar experiences

Looking at the [Noble Eightfold Path](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path) led me to the [non-self](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81) : > that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon. But while I agree that _in the grand scheme of things_ there is no unchanging permanent self in anything, there is however a _temporary self_. Things come and go, and in between they create a self, even though that may be a delusion, it is still created. What does Buddhism have to say about that sort of direction of thinking? I understand the goal is to think about and realize the non-self, but I also think it is important in the game of reality to be aware of the fact that there are temporary constructs which engage and interact with each other.

Where can we find (Lost) ancient Indian text by Buddhist scholars which was Translated in other languages? A Lot of Ancient Indian Buddhist text(Which was lost over a period of time with decline of Buddhism in India.) was translated(Probably from Sanskrit and Pali), specially by Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Sri Lankan Scholars. Where can we find these texts(may be translated in English.)

1. Is the whole of reality what is being denied by some Buddhists? So, for as long as the sensation of pleasure or an atom or visual consciousness or apple is thought to belong to everything that exists, we are confused about them; and everyone is. If so: 2. can we add that everything absent from the whole of reality exists? I know you can literally couple the fire sermon (the Buddha goes nowhere after death) with the unanswered questions (does the Buddha exist after death, in unanswerable). But maybe they're saying that in his no longer existing in the world, he is beyond every concept except existence? So the question is unanswerable because of the assumption that he has somewhere to go.

Why does the Buddha ask the same question twice, and why does Subhuti answer it two different ways? In Diamond Sutra Chapter 13 > “Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be perceived by means of > his thirty-two physical characteristics?” > > “No, Most Honored One. The Buddha cannot be perceived by his > thirty-two physical characteristics. Why? Because the Buddha teaches > that they are not real but are merely called the thirty-two physical > characteristics.” but in Diamond Sutra Chapter 26 > “What do you think Subhuti? Is it possible to recognize the Buddha by > the 32 physical marks?” > > Subhuti replied, “Yes, Most Honored One, the Buddha may thus be > recognized.” Is there a difference between the 32 physical characteristics and the the 32 physical marks?