Let us rock the boat for a moment, in intellectual detached discourse, free of the emotions, if this is possible? My question: Is this a group tailored and friendly only to Theravada /Pali Canon? Are Vajrayana / Mahayana (or any other paths) not accepted here as paths of Bhuddism? When I look at the link/title, I saw, and see "Bhuddism", not "Theravada"? As an example, on a question about the possibility of the breath ceasing during meditation, I gave an affirmative answer to help increase the understanding of the OP (the person asking) based on my own personal experiences of observing my breath stopping for a while at some points during my meditation. In sharing, I mentioned (on the side) that I use breathing techniques (from Vajrayana?) (i.e. I control my breath) as an anchor to still my mind (I find it very effective and expedient in attaining 2nd - 4th Jhana if I do short sessions [anything less than an hour], and I prefer it to concentration or mantras as my anchor [I find them slower and not often effective]). Does it matter what means one uses to attain 4th Jhana? Is the attainment not the desired goal? Someone said controlling my breath to deepen meditation is extreme? Let's us assume for a moment it is so. Which is more significant? To attain Jhana and all that it entails, or to stick to "accepted breathing"? In answering or asking questions, I have been accused of magic (simply because I ask about some of the side effects of my meditations I do not fully understand (like swaying or complete awareness of surroundings from all directions in the same moment), of yoga (I do not consider myself a yogi - I am not young or flexible (is watching the breath or controlling the breath considered yoga?)) I talk about Sidhhis, which some find offensive as not part of Bhuddism. Let me then rephrase them as "side effects" of meditation or of exploring the nature of the mind. Do not all who meditate notice certain side effects at some point into their practice? Is this offensive to Theravada? I mentioned "spirit" (i.e. the astral form), and people said, "this is not Bhuddism". What does Bhuddism call the state of being in meditation when one loses sense of the physical body, senses unfold, and one is no longer restricted to the physical body? Does such a word exist, and is the employment of it not within the scope of Bhuddism? My practice is about compassion and love, my goal is enlightenment, and service to all beings. I embrace the four noble truths, and follow the eightfold path. Obviously my path passes through attaining direct insight into the nature of mind, emptiness, attachments, emotions etc. ***Wikipedia*** As expressed in the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, the goal of Buddhism is to overcome suffering (duḥkha) caused by desire or craving (taṇhā), attachment to a static self, and ignorance (avidya) of the true nature of reality. Most Buddhist traditions emphasize transcending the individual self through the attainment of Nirvana or by following the path of Buddhahood, ending the cycle of death and rebirth. Buddhist schools vary in their interpretation of the path to liberation, The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union'). Judging from the down votes or antagonism that I'm very surprised to see, would I be wrong in forming the conclusion that people here down-vote on the basis of Theravada, or more specifically, on their own interpretation of their own path to liberation? Would this not make them no different from Islam which teaches that all others are infidels, or Christianity, which forcibly claims that all unbelievers will go to hell??? Or the Pharisees (Jews) (who stick to their own dogma i.e. their own interpretation of their own path, and persecute all who deviate?). I thought Bhuddism embraces that there are many paths which lead to the same place? Am I wrong in saying that Buddha taught different paths to different people, each according to their measure, based on what sacrifices there were prepared to make to seek enlightenment? If one finally attains enlightenment, and forgoes nirvana to become a Bhudda, does it matter by what means/path one got there, whether one lengthened or shortened one's breath to meditate, or how long (or otherwise) it took one to get there (enlightenment)? What are your thoughts?

In karaniya metta sutta, >He who is skilled in (working out his own) well being, and who wishes to attain that state of Calm (Nibbana) should act thus: he should be dexterous, **upright**, **exceedingly upright**, obedient, gentle, and humble. What does it mean to be upright?

I am legally deafblind. Any form of videos, images, audio, ..., so any media apart from text is difficult to access for me. Hence, even though I'm interested in Buddhism, I struggle to figure out if this is indeed my type of faith. Going to a Buddhist community would probably be the best way to find out, but due to the pandemic, all in-person meetings in my area are canceled. There seem to be good online courses out there, but most of them are video-based. So my question is: Are there books about Buddhism that could help me understand and perhaps start practising Buddhism without requiring video instructions on e.g. meditation? Or is physical or at least visual guidance absolutely necessary?

**Note: the term sunyata here is being used from the Mahayana context.** Not too long ago, I asked this question about concentration and openness where I suggested that concentration was a hindrance to my practice. I received an answer which informed my intuitive understanding by @Andrei Volkov, in which he recommended a book called The Relaxed Mind by Dza Kilung Rinpoche. This changed my practice and opened up a new discernment concerning space, time and consciousness - essentially the aggregates and their ever subtle perceptions. It also led me to the Tibetan master Chogyam Trungpa who also adopts this same openness method. Thus, shifting my practice to openness (as opposed to strict focus on a single object) I've been noticing a different kind of "not-there-ness". To put this another way: the perception of body as it is normally known is no longer there, but I am still able to function perfectly fine - actually better in terms of how worldly things normally affect me. It's most noticeable when sitting with people and when they are talking to me. There's a part of my mind that thinks, "who is this person talking to?" because, even though they are looking at me, it is like they are speaking into empty space, like they are in the room by themselves. *Please be clear: what I have described above is NOT the negation of suffering which should become clearer from the following.* I'm not able to reference the aggregates as they usually operate, but I discern that there is the perception of "not-there-ness" which presents as an extremely fine notion of space. However, that space-perception seems to have a definitive location situated where the body was previously and conventionally seen as solid matter giving rise to some sort of here-ness, and thus it's opposite: there-ness. The *form* aggregate has taken another blow, but the feeling/perception aggregate has just dropped into a more refined level and thus is still able to create clinging to the idea of "space-body" because space-body has a very subtle pleasantness. In Theravada this might be known as *arūpa-rāga:* craving for immaterial existence thus perpetuating the consciousness aggregate in its entirety. It took me a while to see this, and I could only see it by opening my practice from where I was able to gain situational understanding or a bigger picture. Here in these regions, it seems the motions of samsara cleverly uses indirect methods to sustain the samsaric body. I guess it can only operate at its current level of awareness, and if that level of awareness is largely formless then its movements should naturally reflect the subtleties of formlessness. Therefore, from a Mahayana perspective, I cannot see this as *form is emptiness and emptiness is form*. I cannot see this as *sunyata*. However, it may offer promise, but in ways that are now counter-intuitive. **My question is a little obscure, but I think it has some relevance:** - Having studied sutta after sutta and read various works of the masters, I'm making a reasoned observation that the enlightened mind *knows* it is liberated, that it *knows* sunyata, but to what extent is that *knowing* not of the self such that one can *know* sunyata? There always appears to be a claimant to the ever emerging subtleties of emptiness rendering the idea of ending suffering a fallacy. After nearly five years of intensive lay practice I'm getting quite tired of it all and find myself practising less and less. Although this is more helpful than a hindrance. NOTE: I'm not sure if the term *space-body* is associated with any school. I've just used it spontaneously and completely impromptu. If it does have such an association, it may not share the same conceptual understanding with regard to the context of this question.

What is the precise meaning of the word "dukkha", often translated as "suffering" in Buddhism? Is it correct to say that Buddhism gives a method to get rid of **all** sufferings, including the most basic physical suffering (=illness/pain etc.)? So in that case even if some disease has no cure with our current medicine, Buddhism somehow has a way to free us from the pain of this disease? Please if possible provide a precise reference.

Buddhist Hermeneutics could be the objective study of Buddhist texts (from my limited understanding). Is hermeneutics possible in Buddhism? There are so many allegories and parables in Buddhist texts, I feel that an objective study of these texts would be a good first step towards proper interpretation. Am I wrong? Even if we can't make sense of all of Buddhist teaching, at least we can read the texts properly (in proper contexts).

I normally meditate for 30 minutes but I cannot help but think about the time that the meditation is going to end and constantly thinking about the clock since normally you meditate to be in the present moment, but I am not in the present moment when I meditate. I appreciate any help. Thank you :)

I read the following on the internet: > In my opinion, Buddha looks at sex from four angles. > - Hindrance to attain Nibbana or even one-pointedness > - Generally accepted social norms. > - Kindness towards powerless. (children, poor people, women in Buddhas time) > - Law of the land. > > If the above is not violated, laypeople are allowed to have sex as > they wish. Are accepted social norms and the law of the land moral sexual conduct according to Buddhism?

I know there are clear explanations of cause and effect for things like the 5 precepts whereby; Killing is the cause for short live, stealing is the cause for being poor etc... But did our Lord Buddha or in any Sutta mentioned what is the cause for having romantic partners / marriage? Why do some people have lots of relationship, gets married and able to establish a family at a young age while some people might doesn't even have a lover? This is aside from worldly conditions such as being good looking or rich. We all have seen some people whom might not be good looking or rich but was always attached while the good looking and rich lived a lonely life. I'm not asking is it due to sexual misconduct whereby a relationship is broken due to adultery etc but rather the cause (Karma) for having a partner. Thank you.

What do you regard as noteworthy differences in the popular pali to english translations of the Sutta?

I'm asking this ontological question as in the context of, e.g., an Aristotelian Prime Unmoved Mover, or some other first cause. My guess is that there isn't, probably based on Dependent Origination or maybe even the Heart Sutra. (I hope I have not misconstrued those.) Thanks

Sometimes when I'm meditating, I'll have really "good" breaths - the breath will be deep, very satisfying and relaxing. My diaphragm and chest really expand and it feels like my whole lung fills with air. The trouble is I can't consistently maintain those breaths. When I do focus on my breath in meditation it becomes more and more shallow. Not a lot of expansion, not relaxing, and not much inhale. I'm not sure why that's happening. I *think* I get my best breaths when *re*focus on my breathing after I have been preoccupied with other thoughts. Why does focusing on my breath cause it to become shallow and how can I avoid it? P.S. I'm not against the practice of meditation. It has helped me with attention and focusing. I've tried other techniques such as being aware of the present moment with better user experience.

I've been reading Peter Harvey's Introduction the Buddhism and I've come across the concept of storehouse consciousness. It's in relation to Yogācāra and Chan Buddhism - originally with Yogācāra. It contains karmic seeds (not sure what they are to be fair). Can anyone give me an explanation of this concept. At the moment it seems to me to be some sort of real existence that underpins reality but I'm sure that's not it. I appreciate that there is an explanation on wikipedia about it but I'm not finding that hugely illuminating.

For some time, I have been practising different types of meditation and yoga, and I have also tried to study a bit of Buddhism, from which I have got the main values that guide my life (I cannot say I am a Buddhist, but I believe the teachings of the little Buddhism I know have been my main source of well-being, together with the love of the people around me). Still, I live trapped in my particular little daily samsara in which my work determines the shape of my days, and I don't see a way out of it. I live in Madrid, I am finishing my PhD in a university and planning to move for a post-doc abroad very soon. Ever since I started studying at the university, I feel like I have been in a continuous race, always moving to new goals. This has not been my decisions, but rather what I thought best at the moment to make a living. I have never had other options or I have not known how to see them. I do not have any professional or academic ambition (which makes me feel peaceful), my needs are very simple, I do not spend much money -but yet, one has to pay rent and food, and for me the PhD and now the postdoc have been the best options for a work which seemingly offered the best way to harmonize my work with my personal life. My work, however, eats away a big part of my days, and I haven't had real holidays in years. I am not unhappy, but I do not wish to be doomed to more years of this meaningless cycle of pursuing goals, working on projects and then get home drained of energy from working on something "competitive", as is academia. I do not want to earn more money, I just want a more simple life. I have no idea, however, which work could I look for, or what changes should I try. I just want to have my horizon depleted of projects and plans. I have researched, for example, how to grow my own food, which is not entirely easy on a small apartment on a city, but even so I have to pay housing, which is expensive, and forces me to keep working. I don't see to have a way out, I do not have the resources to "start a new life", and the only thing I want is to find a way to restructure my life and live a more simple life, in accordance with the Buddhist teachings I have so far gathered, not having always new projects to fight for, not having my life defined by my work. The Buddha, apparently, just went out there "into the wild", so as to speak, which is unthinkable for me. I do not even have the resources or knowledge to survive if I give up my job and house, but I would do the closest thing to that that is possible.

Wikipedia currently describes the 4 stages of enlightenment thusly : > A Stream-enterer (Sotāpanna) is free from: > 1. Identity view (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi), the belief that there is an unchanging self or soul in the five impermanent skandhas > 2. Attachment to rites and rituals > 3. Doubt about the teachings > > A Once-returner (Sakadāgāmin) has greatly attenuated: > > 4. Sensual desire > 5. Ill will A Non-returner > > (Anāgāmi) is free from: > > 4. Sensual desire > 5. Ill will > > An Arahant is free from all of the five lower fetters and the five higher fetters, which are: > > 6. Attachment to the four meditative absorptions, which have form (rupa jhana) > 7. Attachment to the four formless absorptions (ārupa jhana) > 8. Conceit > 9. Restlessness > 10. Ignorance I find this to be very confusing because, from personal experience, I believe that it is possible to 1. liberate oneself from "conceit" and 2. liberate oneself from "ignorance" and yet 3. for the compulsions to "ill will" to still arise very strongly. It seems that I am missing something big and perhaps obvious to others who have a superior understanding of the 4 stages? To aid in clarity of communication, I will precisely define the terms I am using: By the **extinguishment of "conceit"**, I mean training the mind to detect the arising of conceit and to reflexively respond forcefully to never allow it to arise again and give rise to suffering. And for that decision to be backed by a solid understanding of exactly why this is skillful to the point where there is zero internal conflict on the matter. By the **extinguishment of "ignorance"**, I mean training the mind to recognize the arising of the compulsion to avoidance and to reflexively respond forcefully to turn towards the discomfort in search of understanding instead. And for that decision to be backed by a solid understanding of exactly why this is skillful to the point where there is zero internal conflict on the matter. By the **"compulsion to ill will to arise very strongly"**, I mean recognizing the arising of "ill will", recognizing that it originates in clinging to a desire for a particular sensory experience, but allowing it to arise and be transformed into a form of skillful aversion that is more appropriate for the circumstance.

Re: The common saying ... "Pain is inevitable but suffering is a choice". Wherein by "dukkha" is meant everything from mild discomfort to intense suffering ... It occurs to me that the "pain" we experience when the "first arrow" penetrates the heart is a separate phenomenon from the dukkha we experience when we react unskillfully to this first arrow. Logically, therefore, if one's aim were to create a path of practice leading to the end of dukkha, one might expect a different word to be used to clearly discern between the concepts of (1) pain and (2) dukkha and for that word to be used repeatedly throughout the suttas. I mostly listen to Dharma talks rather than read the suttas. But, strangely, I have never heard a Dharma teacher use a separate word for pain. Does such a word exist? Is it used commonly in the suttas?

I came across the concept of Nirodha in the book The Meditative Mind by Daniel Goleman. I think it's originally from the Visuddhimagga . In the book it seems to be placed above Nirvana in the path of insight. I have never heard of this term anywhere else or ever heard of anything being above Nirvana. Does anyone have any details about what this is and why it would be placed above Nirvana.

Today I realized that I am an overthinker. I postpone things because of thinking, planning. I missed lot of time due it. But by thinking I found lot of new stuff. Those thinking is the main cause for the posts in this forum. I think there should be a balance. Without thinking, we may go in the wrong path. With overthinking, work won't complete. What are the suttas which states this balance? I know the story of Arahant Sona about effort. I really like to know about balance of thinking and working?

An omen is viewed as a sign from the natural world that delivers a message of some sort. Typically this message is seen as an indicator of coming good or evil events. I know this has nothing to do with the Noble path and Buddhist practice in general, but I know that some lamas or highly attained monks from other traditions demonstrate psychic powers. Also, there are various rituals in Vajrayana which are performed to attain certain spiritual and mystical energies states. So can we train our minds to read omens? Also, can we make use of omens to grow spiritually? Like for e.g. in India. if a black cat crosses our path we consider it as a bad omen and usually abort what we were set to do or become more cautious doing it.

A lay follower should not engage in five types of business i.e. business in weapon, human being, meat, intoxicant and poison. But there are many jobs can be considered harmful but not included in the five types of business mentioned in the Sutta. I have a qualification in music and I want to put this into practice. Is teaching music can be considered right livelihood? Talaputa Sutta says > Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound > by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things > inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a > festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who > are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on > things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst > of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin > with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more > delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage > in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & > heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup > of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of > laughter. Teaching piano may not be explicitly mentioned in this Sutta but it is possible for a person who teaches music and for those who are taught to be focused with even more passion, aversion and delusion. Does this livelihood lead us to hell? I believe the majority of healthy, normal people in the most strictest sense will not object to teaching piano. But the Sutta is probably saying otherwise and it can potentially limit your career or business you want to pursue or at worst you can end up unemployed for the sake of keeping yourself on the right path. The antidote to this type of situation is to ignore it and keep going but I don't think ignorance is the right path. I may misunderstand the Sutta or may not misunderstand it. Hope someone can shed some light, that will be a very helpful and appreciated. Many thanks.