All our feelings depend on conditions... it is said that conditions are impermanent.... is it possible for us to create conditions for us to have good feelings forever ? If not , why ? I am not saying good feelings can exist eternally ... I am saying can we create conditions for good feelings? For example by earning money we can ensure that a perpetual supply of food is available.... we fulfill the conditions of money accumulation and in return I get food. Similarly is it possible to work for something which ensures us good feelings forever or at least till we last ?

How do I deal with my mind accusing me of something I’m not doing? For example, if you are walking, and your mind tells you that you are killing insects or bacteria, how do you deal with it? Or For example, if your skin gets itchy and you want to scratch but your mind tells you that you are killing ants or bacteria that might be causing your skin to be itchy. Your original intention was to scratch your skin because it’s itchy but your mind tells you that you are going to kill insects or bacteria that might be on your skin, you don’t listen to your mind and scratch your skin anyway. Is this bad karma? Sorry if this is hard to understand. I try to make it clear.

The question 'What is the purpose of life? ' has been asked before. What I understood is that if I were to set a purpose to life, once I achieve my goal, life becomes meaning less. There is no single thought great enough to spend an entire lifetime. So, life has no intrinsic meaning. In everyday life, we try to plan things. Setting goals provide clarity about what exactly to do, what's important and what's not. Reaching goals help building self-confidence and motivates to move forward. It also helps to work efficiently while dealing with big tasks (Makes big tasks into smaller, more manageable units, Helps good decision making that are inline with the final goal). Both sound reasonable to me but they also seem contradictory. Then how should a lay man approach his life to be productive and at the same time seek liberation from the sufferings of samsara?

In a comment to an answer on this site I saw this: > To the folks who insist on downvoting, please note that downvoting is > extremely unhelpful and actually qualifies as divisive and harsh > speech. Do others agree? Does downvoting an answer necessarily qualify as divisive and harsh speech? I've thought of it as a form of feedback. Of course, if it is possible to elaborate and provide more constructive feedback then by all means... Does downvoting violate the precept on correct speech?

In DN 27 , the Buddha said that the Brahmins make bad karma for speaking falsely. > “Actually, Vāseṭṭha, the brahmins are forgetting their tradition when they say this to you. For brahmin women are seen menstruating, being pregnant, giving birth, and breast-feeding. Yet even though they’re born from a brahmin womb they say: Only brahmins are the first caste; other castes are inferior. Only brahmins are the light caste; other castes are dark. Only brahmins are purified, not others. Only brahmins are Brahmā’s rightful sons, born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’ **They misrepresent the brahmins, speak falsely, and make much bad karma.** So my question is do you get bad karma if you say something you thought was true but turned out to be false?

Why is there something instead of nothing? Why there are clothes , why food , why shelter , why surprise , why anger , why love , why disgust , why father , why mother , why child, why atom , why Einstein , why Buddha and also why Universe? Buddha said *sabbe sankhara anicca* (all conditioned things are impermanent) ... therefore all things, whether tangible or intangible are *anicca* (impermanent) but why? Why not nothing? No conditionality ever?

It is [known](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Monastery) that Shaolin monks practice a form of [Chan Buddhism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism) . It is also [known](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Kung_Fu) that they practice their own form of martial arts. * What is the doctrinal justification for their practice of martial arts? * Additionally/alternatively, within the Shaolin view of Buddhism, are martial arts purported to have soteriological effect? * Lastly, as a bonus, are there any academic studies exploring the Shaolin doctrines? I found [an answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9246/buddhist-shaolin-monks-and-their-practice) regarding their practices in general, but not about the doctrinal basis. Thanks.

We Buddhists talk about non-attachment in our relationships, but after breaking all the samsaric attachments, how do we break the last attachment with the Buddha and may be also His teachings? When the Buddha said '***appo-dipo bhava***' ('*be a light unto yourself*') is that what he is pointing towards?

I have been studying and practicing meditation for over a decade, mainly following Kamalashila's stages of meditation as a guide. I learned that Shamata is defined as ***the single-mindedness which is imbued with the exceptional bliss of practiced ease due to single pointed meditation on its object***. I have just started Alan Wallace's Fall 2013 Shamatha and the Bodhisattva Way of Life (https://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/fall2013/) where he is giving instruction in "Shamatha practice". I believe he means a meditation practice with the goal of achieving shamata. However, when I hear "shamata practice", I automatically think that someone is already able to rest in the state of Shamata and is meditating at that level. This would be like, for instance, someone running having a "running practice" by running. In contrast, someone aspiring to be a runner, might first begin with walking as they get in shape. They might say, "I am walking, with the goal of running." Do you think they would call their walking a "running practice"? Given the definition of shamata I know, it seems many different meditation practices could potentially lead to shamata, if that was one's intention for their practice. My first question is: Is there something distinctive about "shamata practice"? My second question, is where did the custom of labeling meditation "shamata practice" originate?

I'm currently reading _The Art of Living: Vipassana Meditation_ and it says to observe sensations in the body without reacting. 1. What would be an example of a reaction that one might have? When I feel an emotion - perhaps I remember a conversation that I had that produced a strong emotion - I notice a sensation in my body associated with the emotion. Is the goal to focus on the sensation and wait for it to pass? 2. Also, I've tried starting a meditation session by focusing on my breathing. I then try to observe sensations in my body -for example, my stomach gurgling, a tingling on my skin or the temperature on my skin. If I focus on this, no emotions are coming up because I'm focusing only on my breathing or sensations in my body. In the book it says to observe the sensations without reacting. There's nothing to react to though if I'm just focusing on the bodily sensations so I'm not sure what this piece of advice is referring to.

I once attended a puja at a Sri Lankan temple where a string was passed around during chanting. Afterwards the monks tied string around our wrists and poured water over our heads. What is the string called? Any explanation on the significance. I notice some people kept the string on for months, others said to cut it off at the end of the day.

**Important note:** I am only using the word "real" only in the sense of meaning "exists and is not an illusion". I am defining "extreme metaphysical nihilism" as the belief that "nothing is real". I do not know if the belief that "nothing is real" is (also) called something else but if it is then please tell me. I consider the view that "nothing is real" as being false. A refutation of the view that "nothing is real" is that consciousness is observably real in the ability to understand "real or unreal". Mental suffering may be verified as real by observing that it exists in reality as what it is deemed to be. Did the Buddha ever refute the view of "extreme metaphysical nihilism" i.e. a view that "nothing is real"?

What is your best mindfulness book or documentary? I have experienced Vipassana retreats. I would like to know more about mindfulness.

Does Mahayana Buddhism or any other school of Buddhism posit the idea that the physical world does not exist apart from an observer's frame of reference, as in everything exists only in the mind as imagination?

Please see this section taken from the wiki page titled Boddhisattva which might help you answer the question: > ...what early Mahayana sutras like the Aṣṭa do is to help individuals > determine if they have already received **a prediction** in a past life, > or if they are close to this point. The Aṣṭa provides a variety of > methods, including forms of ritual or divination, methods dealing with > dreams and various tests, especially tests based on one's reaction to > the hearing of the content in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā itself. The text > states that encountering and accepting its teachings mean one is close > to being given **a prediction** and that if one does not "shrink back, > cower or despair" from the text, but "firmly believes it", one is > irreversible. Many other Mahayana sutras such as the Akṣobhyavyūha and > the Śūraṃgamasamādhi Sūtra present textual approaches to determine > one's status as an advanced bodhisattva. These mainly consist in one's > attitude towards listening to, believing, preaching, proclaiming, > copying or memorizing and reciting the sutra. According to Drewes, > this claim that merely having faith in Mahāyāna sūtras meant that one > was an advanced bodhisattva, was a departure from previous Nikaya > views about bodhisattvas. It created new groups of Buddhists who > accepted each other's bodhisattva status. Also, is the Śūraṃgamasamādhi Sūtra the same as Leng Yen Ching? And, is there an English translation of the Akṣobhyavyūha sutra?

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 are experiencing is a delusion. Any idea about this ?

Some people believe that their compassion is holier than yours. Firstly they do not understand what compassion is and Secondly they question your genuineness of compassion. I will not explain compassion here but will ask you ... How to deal with people who try to humiliate you on the genuineness of your compassion?

What is *musāvādā* in the five precepts? On this five precepts page, it is translated as "incorrect speech", presumably by Ven. Thanissaro. On this DN 27 page, Ven. Sujato translated it as "false speech". In Iti 25 , Ven. Thanissaro instead translated it as lying. From SN 45.8 , we read the definition of right speech as follows: > And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, > from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech. So what exactly is *musāvādā* in the five precepts? Does it refer to only lying or untruthful speech? Or is it considered "incorrect speech", the opposite of Right Speech, that includes lying, divisive speech and abusive speech? If *musāvādā* is not "incorrect speech", the opposite of Right Speech, then what is the correct Pali term for the opposite of Right Speech? Please provide references to suttas if available.

By "transformation target" I mean ... When you hold this compulsion in spacious non judgmental awareness, investigate it and tease it apart into (1) that which is unskillful and (2) that which is skillful, what is the "name" that you give to (2) that which is skillful? Re: transforming unskillful aims (unwise intention) into skillful aims (wise intention), a prominent Western Buddhism site has suggested the following: > [Three Poisons/Defilements](https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/dhamma-lists/) (Kilesas – lit. torments of the mind) > 1. Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith > 2. Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom > 3. Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity This feels mostly correct to me except for “greed (lobha) -> faith”. This feels like a half measure in restraining greed. It feels like continuing to cling to greed. ***Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?*** Re: alternative targets ... My strong intuition is that nibbana, the subjugation of Mara, is neurologically the subjugation (and repurposing) of the “task negative network” by the “task positive network” i.e. The utilization of “feeling” to serve “thinking” so that the sensory-motor brain will be more inclined to “see things as they actually are” and make more accurate predictions. i.e. The dharma is a guide to transforming the sensory-motor brain to use the feedback of bad predictions (dukkha) to transform unskillful views which sustain the bad predictions (dukkha) into skillful views leading to skillful predictions. (the end of dukkha) To that end, it is my strong intuition that these are the correct targets: greed (lobha) -> searching (for similarities) (aka "diffuse mode") hate (dosa) -> discerning (for differences) (aka "focused mode") delusion (moha) -> equanimity (the earned reward of a superior sensory-motor predictive model) ***Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?*** **Why do I think these are the correct targets?** "All models are wrong. Some models are useful." ~George Box This mental model is "useful": **sense-desire** = The belief that happiness depends upon satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience. **greed** = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards. **hate** = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to push away. **craving** = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards and/or push away, that which I do not yet possess **clinging** = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards and/or push away, that which I possess and fear losing "Clinging to sense-desires" is "clinging to views." Specifically the view that "happiness depends upon satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience." Clinging to one particular way to meet our needs impairs the ability of the sensory-motor brain to process feedback that would help it to see other means by which those same needs might be met. To say that this is "unskillful" is a polite understatement. It represents a malfunction of the sensory-motor brain. It represents a failure of the "task positive network" to restrain and to use the "task negative network's" "diffuse mode (searching)" and "focused mode (discerning)" as tools to extract wisdom from the feedback leading to a superior sensor-motor predictive model yielding better predictions, better decisions, better moves in the world. Instead of clinging to a particular sense-desire, it can be skillful to cling to the desire to "see things as they actually are". In so doing, 1: the compulsion to "pull towards" is repurposed away from "greed" and towards "searching for a way to understand the experience." (aka "**diffuse mode**") 2: the compulsion to "push away" is repurposed away from "hate" and towards discernment. (aka "**focused mode**") For example discerning between that which is unskillful and that which is skillful. That which we call "thinking" seems to consist largely of alternating between "diffuse mode" and "focused mode". For example, this new thing that I am trying to to understand is 1: "similar to" this other thing that I already understand ("diffuse mode") in these ways ... but 2: "different than" this other thing that I already understand ("focused mode") in these ways ... This "thinking" is the "task positive network" of the sensory-motor brain. It repurposes the more primal emotions of greed and hate and uses them to solve problems.

Although I have read quite a lot of books about Buddhism, almost all of them were meant for the Western layman so I consider myself to be a beginner compared to most of you here. I hope you can forgive me for possible inaccuracies or inconsistencies in my question. I'm hoping to get answers from Buddhists firmly rooted in the tradition, although of course everyone is most welcome to share their points of view. I have problems coming to terms with the seeming paradox between reincarnation and anatta. How can there be rebirth (which could also include the remembrance of past lives) when there is no soul or inherent self? When searching online most answers refer to all phenomena being interdependent, empty and transient, which is fine, but basically comes down to a sort of Lion King's Circle of Life analogy (beautiful as this still is). But this explanation fails to point out why karma also matters in Buddhism in relation to rebirth. If you are born in an animal's body, you are generally considered to have less karma in stock than when you are born in a happy Buddhist household (or in the Pure Land). How do rebirth and karma rhyme with the concept of anatta? I understand that in your present life you could benefit significantly from pursuing a virtuous life and following the Noble Eightfold Path, and it could have a minute positive change for the world after you're gone, but can you also benefit substantially from living virtuous in your next life after the demise of your current body? If so, how? I really appreciate the Buddhist tradition, but the above concepts currently seem contradictory to me. I hope someone can show me the way out of my maze.