Sampajana is observing mental object(dharma) and associated perception and feeling.and its part of all 4 foundation. It seems there are two different types of dhamma.One is for Sampajana and other is for dhammanupassana. So what is the dhamma in dhammanupassana and what is dhamma in sampajana.

If I'm remembering right, in a previous life of the Buddha, because dharma teachings were so rare at that time, a being offered to give a teaching, but only if he sacrificed his life to this being. What is the text and reference for this?

Does any authentic Buddhist scripture mentions the Saraswathi River? If yes where and what does it say? Saraswathi river is an ancient Indian river mentioned widely across all Indian scriptures but it's dating is debated. We know that Buddha lived around 6th century BC, if Saraswathi river is mentioned then we can be of some certainty that the river flowed, however sparsely around 6th century BC. Refer

There was an incident in the 50s, a monk named [Ñāṇavīra Thera](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanavira_Thera) commited suicide, he was believed to be a stream enterer and was suffering from amoebiasis. So I'm curious to know, if someone knows for sure that he's become a stream enterer (or beyond) and doesn't desire to live anymore, can he decide to commit suicide?

Did any contemporaries/students of the historical Buddha achieve "full enlightenment" before he passed away?

During practice of meditation experience there are thoughts that can't be noticed. But they stop on their own and later they appear to show up less and less. The thoughts were less wondering with the practice. Is this due to obsessive defilment become less? In what stage this is experienced?

Doubt (Vicikitsa) is one of the five hindrances to progress to meditation. I searched for the hindrance of doubt, and as I understand it is the 'doubt in Buddha, his attainment and the Dhamma he taught'. I also tried reading about the 'ten fetters', but none of it mentions countering self-doubt. I mean, the thoughts go in this way, > I have been unsuccessful in worldly matters, I was unsuccessful in > getting 'this and that', I couldn't fulfill the expectations I > had...then how do you expect to succeed in attaining Nirvana...If you > failed in samsaric life, then...so and so... How does one counter this negative chatter and some kind of predictive reasoning?

I was wondering if seeing flickering lights during meditation meant anything. My eyes had been closed for about 15 minutes. I would not say I was in a deep meditative state. The room was dark already and the blinds were down. At the beginning of my session I had seen points of light converging on a point. When I try to focus my eyes on the pattern, the shape changes or disappears; I’m not sure which. This doesn’t happen when my eyes are open. I’ve been meditating for a couple of years for about 10-20 minutes a day but never have felt like I was a good meditator. My mind usually wanders when I try to focus on my breath. In the past I have felt like my whole body has become stone during meditation but the flickering lights is something new. Was wondering if anybody has ever had that experience or knew if it meant anything. My guess is that I’m not supposed to pay attention to things like that.

I think the co-worker fighting is normal here: (YouTube) Horrifying office fight (Leaked video) . It happened to me as well quite a few times with different bosses. How to handle in this scenario in Buddhism? It's related to this previous post: Dealing with Anger and Criticism . But that does not directly answer my question. Some solutions may take a 500 lives to practice too such as master in patience as story of Buddha himself so minimum is 500 lives. The situation may could lead to continuous karma such as injury, unhappiness in the company or even death in some cases. We just have few seconds of thoughts in this event of karma. Any other quick guide? I tried these quite useful. Assume the "boss" is aggressive and unreasonable type 1. Personal message or personal discussion with the boss before the karma happens. i.e. if u start to scream like the other day, then how to manage ya. I can't talk properly when being screamed. 2. Can we talk about this in an hour time later ? Or just walk out of the place by saying "I need some fresh air". This tip eventually given from #1 above. Another solution provided in minute 2:03 of (YouTube) 4 Types of Workplace Bullies , for #1 screamer: she said can we have discussion in a respectful way. What if the boss said "No! get the F out of here?" and continue screaming?

In this question , we found the metaphorical use of the term "the world", different from its ordinary everyday meaning. Similarly, the sutta SN 35.151 below talks about living the holy life without students and teachers, as well as living the holy life with students and teachers. A deeper look into the elaboration by the Buddha seems to indicate that "has students" and "has teacher" are metaphors. What do these metaphors mean? And what is the difference between "has students" and "has teacher" in this case? Why are they differentiated into two different things? > “Bhikkhus, this holy life is lived without students and without a > teacher. A bhikkhu who has students and a teacher dwells in suffering, > not in comfort. A bhikkhu who has no students and no teacher dwells > happily, in comfort. > > “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu who has students and a teacher > dwell in suffering, not in comfort? Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu has > seen a form with the eye, there arise in him evil unwholesome states, > memories and intentions connected with the fetters. They dwell within > him. Since those evil unwholesome states dwell within him, he is > called ‘one who has students.’ They assail him. Since evil unwholesome > states assail him, he is called ‘one who has a teacher.’ > > “Further, when a bhikkhu has heard a sound with the ear … cognized a > mental phenomenon with the mind … he is called ‘one who has a > teacher.’ > > “It is in this way that a bhikkhu who has students and a teacher > dwells in suffering, not in comfort. > > “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu who has no students and no teacher > dwell happily, in comfort? Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu has seen a > form with the eye, there do not arise in him evil unwholesome states, > memories and intentions connected with the fetters. They do not dwell > within him. Since those evil unwholesome states do not dwell within > him, he is called ‘one who has no students.’ They do not assail him. > Since evil unwholesome states do not assail him, he is called ‘one who > has no teacher.’ > > “Further, when a bhikkhu has heard a sound with the ear … cognized a > mental phenomenon with the mind … he is called ‘one who has no > teacher.’ > > “It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu who has no students and > no teacher dwells happily, in comfort. > SN 35.151

I have a friend who is in/with the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) and she states the importance of relying upon a spiritual guide. I know that this meditation practice is a part of the Tibetan Lamrim practice. What I ask is who created this "necessity" or concept in Buddhism? This seems to me that it completely contradicts the Buddhas teaching! From the mahaparinibbana sutta : > "Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto > yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your > island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge. There is more to that sutta but I do not want to link massive paragraphs. While conventionally we need teachers to teach us things. We even had a teacher, our parents, teach us how to bathe correctly! Though from my understanding in Buddhism, the Buddha IS the teacher! He IS the example and the dharma IS his teachings of the truth. So who taught this necessity for a teacher and to what degree is this a necessity? From my understanding only a Buddha is self realised, and arhant is a disciple so by definition an arhant has relied upon a teacher, but that teacher can specifically be Buddha, via the suttas.

When a person enters into Jhana (particularly 2nd onward): 1. What is he mindful of? 2. What kind of meta awareness or introspective awareness(Sampajānakārī) is there? Note: it says that the 2nd onward is without vitaka and vicara. So my doubt is, if there is no object of attention, then what is one mindful of? And what is one peripherally aware (Sampājano) about? Tripitaka, and even no person, is referring to "co-existence of mindfulness and Jhana". Am I missing something very obvious?

Existence, Consciousness, Bliss is described as Brahman by Vedanta but surely that only applies when viewed through the veil of Maya and experienced as the universe. As awareness/ consciousness is always "on", no matter of what state it's in then surely awareness/ consciousness would still experience non-existence, akin to our lack of any experience in deep sleep. Is Buddha Nature Vedanta's opposite of Brahman i.e. Non-Existence, Consciousness, Bliss? Knowing that existence arises from Buddha Nature, non-existence, is this why we start to grasp and cling to the dream of there being any existence at all? Not that there is nothing but that there are no-things, no names or forms, no self, just awareness/ consciousness?

What exactly is the anatomy of a Desire and why does it have such a potent effect on our psyche and life? Is it a ***thought*** of wanting something we don't have, but then we have so many thoughts about so many things? Is it a ***feeling*** of missing something or something being wrong in the present moment, but then we have so many other feelings? Is it a mental reaction, or ***perception*** of thought and feeling? Is it some mental energy illumined by ***consciousness***? Or is it will want? The Buddha went as far as saying, ***taṇhā*** ("craving, desire or attachment") is the cause of suffering. I want to understand what is this as a phenomenon?

In the Canki Sutta (MN95) the Buddha talks to a Brahmin youth called Kapathika, but addresses him as "Bharadvaja". Does this litterally mean "supporter of the cow pen"? What might a more poetic translation be?

When I'm sitting, I have a lot of trouble making it through all the touching points. One issue I'm thinking that I might be having is that maybe the progression of objects is incorrect: I do rising-falling-sitting-touching and then repeat for the entire hour that I sit. Maybe I am supposed to be doing: rising-falling-sitting and then rising-falling-touching and repeat those two progressions alternatively? Assuming the former is correct - is it ever permissible to, I'm weary about using the word but, ignore very subtle objects of awareness and continue noting through the progression? I just feel like I'm forcing it every time I make it to a touching point. I try to be as mindful as possible but it's hard to feel like I'm doing it correctly when I can't even make it to a touching point. feels like it's creating needless doubts. and maybe I'm just practicing incorrectly. Thanks in advance!

People who have done 10 Days of Vipassana Meditation retreat 5 to 100 times often say that from 5th day the Mind becomes very subtle & remains 24 * 7 like that. However when they're back to their families & life an average normal lifestyle. The Mind becomes similar to what it was before (in most cases, as per my experience). Is our Mind is similar to any other muscle of the body, The bodybuilders can come back in shape quicker than someone who has never achieved it before. If someone is doing the vipassana 1st time & someone else has a good experience. Would a 10 days vipassana a waste of time if not practiced after?

There are some teachings that go along the lines of: 'You are already enlightened. You just need to realize it. Actually there's no need for you to do anything. If you try to strive for enlightenment you just end up falling into the trap of dualism. Samsara, Nirvana, treat it all like a dream' On the other hand, there are teachings which are like this: 'Work hard to rid your mind from its negative qualities, ignorance, greed, delusion. Do this practice. Purify your mind. Abandon worldly attachment. Also please do this sadhana everyday if not you break your empowerment vows and fall into vajra hell' How to reconcile this dichotomy? Is asking this question even necessary? I am aware that asking this question is inherently dualistic, and that these views don't necessarily contradict because the first is an expression of the truth at the ultimate level, while the second is the conventional level. For someone whose mind isn't at the level to embody the first view, should I continue practicing? Or am I missing something entirely?

People from other sects may argue against Buddhism on the following grounds. I invite the community of BSE to explain by reasoning or analogy how cessation of existence, which is known as the Nibbana-principle, as it is explained in Buddhism, isn't a philosophical fallacy of "something turning into nothing" in order to refute those arguments. I call the idea of "something turning into nothing" a fallacy because it can be explained to contradict the law of conservation of energy or simply put; supposedly no existant thing known to a man is known to simply disappear without a trace and thus destroyed without being somehow transformed into some other state, in particular neither matter, nor energy or information can be deleted without a trace, afaik this has been experimentally established as a truth. If cessation of existence, an abandoning of all being with no fuel for a future is possible, then how is it logically acceptable? You are welcome to try showing how "something turning into nothing" is not a fallacy if you want to try that. Extra points if you substantiate your answer with EBTs. Put shortly the problem here is such that a person says; 'Buddha Gotama teaches annihilaton and it's impossible, it cannot happen that existant things can be annihilated.' It's a strawman argument.

Namaste to Buddha. How and where is Buddha now? Does he still teaching now? I am trying to understand Nibbana and where Buddha is now. What I understand is that Nibbana is a state rather than a location or place. This state has no physical body, no desire, no dukkha and no more incarnation. Many have mentioned this state appears as in empty space but I would think the "empty" is a meaning of Buddhism that is 100% free from dukkha . > Endless space is called in Atthasālini ajatākāsa, 'unentangled', i.e. > unobstructed or empty space. Why don't we realise space instead of Nibbana? In Quantum Physics, a state is a source of energy so it's quantifiable and appears as a particle wave. An energy cannot be null or void state too as the law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. Wave–particle duality Conclusion is can I say that Buddha is still teaching and around, appears as the supreme particle wave and possibly can be communicated via meditation? Any form of energy can be interfered/communicated/entangled with based on Physic theory ? > The universe encompasses everything that exists, according to our > current understanding: spacetime, forms of energy and the physical > laws that relate them, history, philosophy, mathematics and logic. > Buddhists refer to the Universe, both visible and invisible phenomena, > as the Dharma. The Origin of Meditation: Making Bonds with the Universe Anyone could verify my understanding above?