As I see and learn there are typically two different positions of palms and hand that I see people meditating in. One is keeping the palms turned up and kept on knees like this picture; which is a classic yoga pose and the other way is to keep the palms in your lap with thumb tips touching each other, like this; the classic zen pose. When I meditate I keep on changing between these two, as I feel comfortable. The two poses yield different mindfulness for me. I think, most of the Buddhist meditate like the second pose, but the first one also yields better meditative awareness. I want to ask are there any instructions in the suttas about this. Is there a Buddhist pose and Non-Buddhist pose?

When your mind is wandering during Anapana, you may use "Hard Breath" (intentional breath). What is the Pali word for this technique? What is the Pali text explaining this "hard breath" technique? This is a major technique we are taught in a 10-day Vipassana course taught by S.N.Goenka. There are several rules to use this intentional breath but we are advised to minimize the number of intentional breaths if it's not necessary.

I remember hearing that on one, two, or maybe more occasions the Buddha attempted pretty much unsuccessfully to intervene in war or battle. Maybe one had to do with fighting over water rights. I also remember arrows being transmuted into flowers, but unsure if this is related.

In advaita vedanta, consciousness is the self. Consciousness has 2 modes: it can be pure consciousness, and it is described as "being aware of being aware" or the "I that I am knows that I am"; while the other mode of consciousness is consciousness entangled in objects, like feelings and thoughts. Is pure consciousness, or being aware of being aware, the same as what the Buddha called the "unconditioned"? Or is the unconditioned the cessation of consciousness, as Buddhism sees consciousness as impermanent and not self? They said if consciousness was not aware of itself, none of us would know that we are aware. I have this problem, my friend had the same, so we wanted to ask you if you could help us out.

Every Buddhism believe in Eternity or Samsara . So, how can I imagine of **Samsara**?. What is the starting of it ? Any suggestions would be really appreciated.

I saw an article on the Internet about the fact that Buddhism is compared to solipsism or nihilism. In particular, they talked about Japanese and Chinese Buddhism, since the teachings of Yogacara are present there. On this I want to ask questions about these schools. My questions: 1. Do the schools of Buddhism Soto, Rinzai, Jodo-shu, Jodo Shinshu, Nichiren, Shingon in Japan teach Buddhists, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas any varieties of solipsism and any varieties of nihilism? 2. Do the schools of Buddhism Chan, Pure Land in China teach Buddhists, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas any varieties of solipsism and any varieties of nihilism?

In his book "Tibetan Buddhism from the ground up", Alan Wallace describes a part of the (human) rebirth process as follows: >"In [this vision] one sees (...) [the parents-to-be] in the act of sexual intercourse (...) and the bardo being is lustfully drawn to this event. Moreover, Buddhism says, this lust is directed toward the parent of the opposite sex of that being which is about to be conceived." I have some questions about this: - Is this the usual Buddhist view? If yes: What's the original source? - Do I understand it correctly that "lustfully drawn to" means sexual attraction? - If heterosexual attraction is a fundamental part of the human rebirth, how is this process supposed to work for homo- or asexual people?

I read here that on the night before the dawn of Buddhas Nirvana, the Buddha made a resolve that; > ‘I shall sit under this tree and meditate upon my questions. And I > shall not move until I have my answers. Even if my skin rots and my > body decays, I shall not budge till I see the light,’ he decided. Does this resolve go against the middle path that there should not be extreme asceticism and indulgence? I mean if He was not going to get up until He attained enlightenment then wasn't it extreme of asceticism.

Anki , is by far the most popular "spaced repetition tool" to enable long term retention of learned material in 2021. It does so using a scheduling algorithm which prompts the user to recall a piece of information at the time of optimal "desirable difficulty." Example: YouTube: Guide to Anki Intervals and Learning Steps In this fashion, it enables large amounts of information to be memorized (e.g. Pali language, Buddhist lists, Suttas, etc) with the optimal return on investment of time and energy. One advantage to having this information committed to memory, as the monks of 2500 years ago did, is that it can be instantly recalled and used in reasoning. In this fashion, memorization creates the conditions whereby deeper insights into the truth of existence can be extracted more quickly. I have a strong intuition that this might be part of the reason why arahats were more common at the time of the Buddha than they seem to be today. For this reason, I strongly suspect that spaced repetition practice would be helpful for those intent on mastering the skill of nibbana. I know that many Buddhists use this tool and that many shared decks exist. However, I have not been able to find any listing of Anki decks for Buddhism thus far. Where are the most common places to find Pali/Buddhism Anki decks in 2021?

I've heard of Vastu shastra, but what kind of dwellings are conducive to Buddhist practice and living and why?

It seems a significant and overlooked contribution of the Buddha, his redefining of various terms of his day into definitions more conducive to the ending of greed, ill-will and delusion/ignorance. What are (all) these redefined terms (if not listed elsewhere)?

From Wikipedia's Sutta Pitaka's list of ten fetters : > The Pali canon's Sutta Pitaka identifies ten "fetters of **becoming**". > > 1. sakkāya-diṭṭhi > 2. vicikicchā > 3. sīlabbata-parāmāsa > 4. kāmacchando > 5. vyāpādo > 6. rūparāgo > 7. arūparāgo > 8. māna > 9. uddhacca > 10. **avijjā** My best *guess* is that "becoming", in this context, has the same meaning that it does in the context of pratītyasamutpāda . > 1. **avijjā** > 2. sankhara > 3. viññana > 4. nama-rupa > 5. salayatana > 6. phassa > 7. vedana > 8. tanha > 9. upadana > 10. **bhava** 11. jati > 12. jarāmaraṇa Notice that **avijjā** is both (1) the last of the 10 fetters and (2) the first of 12 links of the dependent origination of suffering, This suggests that cutting the last "fetter of becoming" results in the dependent condition which gives rise and sustains the entire cycle of suffering to cease. Therefore, an understanding of avijjā and bhava and their inter-relationship will be of interest to many. Gil Fronsdal describes the first 9 steps of dependent of origination (preceding "bhava/becoming") thusly > 1: avijja: ignorance; the choice to ignore / avoid discomfort > 2: sankhara: intention > 3: viññana: attention > 4: nama-rupa: mobilization of "body and mind" in the direction of the attention > 5: salayatana: mobilization of the "6 senses" in the direction of the attention > 6: phassa: contact > 7: vedana: feeling tone > 8: tanha: craving > 9: upadana: clinging Source: 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination Notice that the choice to ignore / avoid the source of the discomfort conditions / shapes / influences our choice of intention. Our choice of intention, in turn, conditions / shapes / influences our choice of attention. Our choice of attention, in turn, conditions / shapes / influences how we are compelled to move in the world including our choice to believe that happiness depends upon the satiation of THIS desire for the THIS sensory experience. Our choice of what we cling to (updana), in turn, conditions / shapes / influences becoming (bhava) by creating the conditions for the formation of an identity capable of attaining the craved sensory experience to which we are clinging. For example, the pain of the perception of rejection might compel the formation of an identity to prove to ourselves that we are worthy of attaining the object of our desire. So the **meaning of becoming (bhava)**, in this context, is something like > *moving/acting with the aim/intention > to create the conditions whereby > our clinging to a craved sensory experience > can be satiated.* With regard to the last 3 steps of dependent of origination, quoting the comments under this answer : > “When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is > no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be ... So long as > the choice to pursue the sense-desire via becoming and birth is > rewarded with acquisition, ignorance [AKA "avoidance"] is rewarded, clinging to “wrong > view” is rewarded and we remain trapped in the cycle of suffering. > > Only when the unskillful choice of ignorance [AKA "avoidance"] is not rewarded by > acquisition does the mind feel forced to search for an alternative way > to alleviate the suffering. Only then will it feel compelled to think > more deeply about its unskillful choice to ignore the discomfort which > is feedback to be investigated for insight. An insight the mind > desperately needs to find to break the cycle of suffering." Gil also suggests that jaramarana (aging & death) is short for "aging, death, sorrow, lamentation and despair". Source: 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination This suggests that even if we attain that which we were clinging to, new rejections will arise to fuel the fires of greed, hatred and delusion and hints and that the subjugation of conceit (mana) is not only necessary to end the cycle of suffering, it is in direct opposition to becoming (bhava) which seeks to strengthen the identity to attain the craved for sensory experience which is being clung to. **What is avijjā?** In this context and considering that **avijjā** is both (1) the last of the 10 fetters and (2) the first of 12 links of the dependent origination of suffering, understanding the meaning of avijjā is crucially important. Being consumed by "sorrow, lamentation and despair" is compelling us to "ignore/avoid" something important and it is THIS choice to ignore/avoid which sustains the entire cycle of suffering. Therefore, if the aim is to end suffering, understanding exactly what is being ignored/avoided is of some importance. **So what exactly are we choosing to ignore/avoid?** From neuroscience we know that ... The sensory-motor brain evolved because it enabled beings to respond to sensory experiences with moves that improved the probability of gene survival. It does so by constructing and continually refining a sensory-motor predictive model of the world to guide movement. It does this by "knowing and seeing". Whereby "knowing" is making moves in the world as if the model were 100% correct and "seeing" is verifying if the sensory experience predicted by the model is (1) correct or (2) a misprediction. In the event of a "misprediction", beings respond by ruminating to discover the error in the predictive model (insight), reformulating the predictive model to improve its predictive power. i.e. Greater understanding (panna) enables us to move through the world with greater equanimity (uppekha) because our predictive model is constantly improving to make better predictions. The problem is that mispredictions are accompanied with varying intensities of pain. The biological purpose of "pain" is to provide the sensory motor brain with strong feedback that its predictive model of the world is incorrect and to keep the attention focused on the sensory experience until the source of the error in the predictive model has been discovered and corrected. But the problem is, if the intensity of this pain (first arrow) exceeds our ability to hold it in spacious non-judgmental awareness and investigate it for insight, we will feel a compulsion to ignore it; to avoid investigating it; to leave the error in the predictive model unfixed; in favor of the pursuit of sense-desires. The entirety of the dharma is oriented towards correcting this single unskillful decision by training the mind to turn towards the suffering and to search for the insight which leads to the correction in the sensory-motor predictive model of the world. In this context, becoming (bhava) should be corrected. This would explain why it is one of the 4 āsavas: > 1: kāmāsava > 2: **bhavāsava** 3: diṭṭhāsava > 4: avijjāsava https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asava But this is only a strong intuition. I lack certainty in this meaning. If you possess insight that can contribute to a stronger understanding, please provide commentary.

There are the four noble truths and we know who and how he found and taught them. There are philosophical questions like where did the first Karma come from and so on, that are not quite conceivable to us beings. But out of curiosity I came upon another question and I don't know if there is an answer to it. Every being is born and feels pain and acts on it and more or less identifies with it at least in the way of "I am the one who feels pain". And by feeling, perceiving and thinking it learns the ways of the world and how to sustain itself until it dies. If this is the way the world is turning on and on how come there is a way to realize this and be free of it? If everybody is more or less caught up in it from birth how can one use this life to realize it is "fake"?

Been meditating for some years, been doing most anapana & also a bit of Goenka-vipassana. Have had certain experiences, samadhi states and jhana (although I'm still far from being able to stabilize and consistently maintain them). In recent years, certain things transpired in my life such that I began a daily mantra practice. I now practice the mantra but I wonder if theres a point to it if I can already attain to samadhi states via anapana. I've heard conflicting views regarding this; some say that mantra is just a way to concentrate the mind, and once you get samadhi you don't really need the mantra anymore. Others say mantra grant specific worldly benefits which make your practice in this human life more efficient, depending on the root deity/mantra being chanted. **Is there a value to mantra chanting over breath meditation?** If my goal is to go towards liberation (or at least stream entry) as a layperson.

I am searching for a Zen monastery in India. My google search returns Vajrayana Tibetan monasteries. Please let me know if you know a Zen monastery in India.

One of the recurring themes in the teachings of the buddha is the noble eightfold path; the basis for achieving nibbana. Oftentimes the components of it are presented as their "wrong" counterparts, and usually a row of examples is provided for what some instances of those "wrong" counterparts are. I am specifically curious about what kind of practical basis (as many of the teachings have some) the instances of "wrong livelihood" might have, with regard to the historical context of when the teachings were formed. In DN.10. "Subhasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato" the following phrase can be found: **(emphasis mine)** > There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong livelihood. **This includes rites for propitiation, for granting wishes, for ghosts, for the earth, for rain, for property settlement, and for preparing and consecrating house sites, and rites involving rinsing and bathing, and oblations. It also includes administering emetics, purgatives, expectorants, and phlegmagogues; administering ear-oils, eye restoratives, nasal medicine, ointments, and counter-ointments; surgery with needle and scalpel, treating children, prescribing root medicines, and binding on herbs.** They refrain from such unworthy branches of knowledge, such wrong livelihood. … This pertains to their ethics. Some of these are easily explained, such as performing mystical rites for luck and blessing, but the examples of medical practice and administering "...nasal medicine, ointments..." leave me somewhat confused. What could be a historical reason for why these practices are considered "wrong livelihood", and more generally, what is the core traits that define "wrong livelihood"?

Almost every Buddhist I've met sincerely believes in non-existence of self or soul. Especially, the vipassana practitioners say that *scanning* the body and finding no atman or *self* in it is proof that self doesn't exist. But what about the practitioner himself who is scanning or performing the vipassana? Doesn't that imply that he himself is the soul? Also, I found today that [Buddha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions) himself stayed unanswered on this matter: > The Buddha states that it is unwise to be attached to both views of having and perceiving a self and views about not having a self. So, how can you argue that soul doesn't exist when Buddha himself didn't deny it (or accept it either)? Are there any branches of Buddhism that *believes* in existence of soul?

I read that atman is pure bliss I read that anatta is pure bliss >-Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day? > >-Is atman the same as anatta in anyway? If yes/no then why? > >-Is anatman the same as atta in anyway? If yes/no then why?

In relation to the question: "*Is there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation?*", I read the following quote from SN 36.5 on the internet: > A mendicant who sees pleasure as pain, one who has seen the pleasant as painful, who sees the pain in happiness, Yo sukhaṃ dukkhato adda, > > and suffering as a dart, the painful as a dart, views the painful feeling as a thorn, dukkhamaddakkhi sallato; > > and that peaceful, neutral feeling adukkhamasukhaṃ santaṃ, > > as impermanent, addakkhi naṃ aniccato. > > sees rightly; sa ve sammaddaso bhikkhu, > > they completely understand feelings. parijānāti vedanā; > > Completely understanding feelings, So vedanā pariññāya, > > they’re without defilements in this very life. diṭṭhe dhamme anāsavo; Not necessarily adhering to the literal translations above: 1. What is the meaning of the Pali in verse above from Datthabba Sutta? 2. Does the Datthabba Sutta support the idea: '*there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation*'? 3. How does the above verse in the Datthabba Sutta reconcile with the Pali verse: "*Nibbanam paramam sukham: Nibbana is the supreme happines*s"? 4. Are any of the translations above of the three Western monks accurate so to inspire faith in these ordained Westerners?

I recently attended a tea ceremony, and was reminded of how it is considered polite in Asia to handle everything with two hands. My first dharma teacher was from Hong Kong, and did this, but I notice it is not done or understood by most Western practicioners. I've been reading about Takuan , and got a copy of The Book Of Tea , and it's got me very interested in how ideas about the aesthetics of how we act and behave shape our minds. It seems like having a clear sense of how to move smoothly and stably helps cultivate positive qualities. Especially in regard to interacting with the altar, and moving in the dharma room, I feel it would be useful to have a better understanding of this. Does anyone have any guidance or suggested texts towards this?