I've been practicing meditation and studying buddhism for years, and I've always been curious about *vipassana*, but I never knew how should I practice it, on what should I focus, etc. So my questions is: what do you recommend for someone who is starting *vipassana* meditation? How do I begin and how should I do it?

It seems that often what one has difficulty with in attempting to hold onto some thing is some other which competes. Can what is effortful in attention be seen as a non-clinging to that which we don't want to attend to? In other words can what is effortful in attention be thought of as an excess of attachment? As if we were something sticky; is what is effortful in rightful adhering (to what is attended to) to be a matter of nonattachment? edit: To put it in Buddhist language is the vāyāma of sati anupādāna.

Four Parts of the Mind 1. Vinnyana or Consciousness – 6 Vinnyanas. These include the consciousness that arises from the Eye, Ear, Tongue, Nose, Mind and Body. 2. Sanya or Perception – Function of this part of the mind is to recognize and evaluate. 3. Vedhana or Sensation – Function is to realize the sensation. 4. Sankhara or Reaction – Function is to react, to give fruit to the sensation. This is the volition of the mind. The 3 types of Sankharas include a) like line drawn on water b) like line drawn on sand on beach c) like line drawn on rock, deep line. My question which part of mind observes 3.Vedana/Sensation in VIPASSANA ? Is it 1.Vinnyana ? And how come one part of **mind**(the first part) is again **mind**?

Given that using the internet and its services, such as social networks and brokers, involves signing contracts, terms of service, policies, and so on, is it possible to use them without breaking the fourth precept? Indeed, most contracts are assumed to have been read and understood before signing. However, reading and understanding what is read can take dozens of hours in each case and requires considerable intellectual effort, even legal knowledge. Furthermore, these contracts often contain clauses that are difficult to comply with or even logically impossible. With the proliferation of these contracts, it becomes almost unmanageable unless one is willing to dedicate an excessive amount of time to them. So, how can we use these services without breaking the fourth precept?

In Buddhist philosophy, particularly in traditions like the Madhyamaka, the catuṣkoṭi (tetralemma) operates as a dialectical tool that rejects the four extremes of affirmation and negation (“is,” “is not,” “both,” “neither”) to demonstrate the emptiness (śūnyatā) of any inherent essence (svabhāva). But conversely, Advaita Vedānta employs a similar deconstructionist method, the neti neti (“not this, not this”) utilising it as an epistemic negation process in order to systematically exclude all contingent identifications such as body, senses, mind (manas), intellect (buddhi), and ego (ahaṅkāra) — to arrive at Ātman, the absolute self conceived as pure awareness, distinct from all phenomenal processes. From a Buddhist philosophical standpoint, can the catuṣkoṭi be coherently applied to the Vedāntic conception of Ātman—understood as pure awareness beyond mind,ego and intellect? Would such an analysis deconstruct this posited ultimate subject , or does the Vedāntic notion of Ātman represent a category that eludes Madhyamaka negation?

Do we know any Zen teachers/masters that do not have Chinese origins and do not speak Chinese? For example English? P.S. I know that such type of logical questions are taken humorously in the zen culture, as it does not really matter but still my "small mind" is curious. Does one need to know Chinese in order to get to the heart of the teachings?

In AN 8.70 , the Buddha lists eight causes for an earthquake. The passages read as follows:- > Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one > side, and said to him, “Sir, that was a really big earthquake! That > was really a very big earthquake; awe-inspiring and hair-raising, and > thunder cracked the sky! **What’s the cause, what’s the reason for a > great earthquake?”** > > “Ānanda, **there are these eight causes and reasons for a great > earthquake**. What eight? > > **This great earth is established on water, the water is established on > air, and the air stands in space. At a time when a great wind blows, > it stirs the water, and the water stirs the earth. This is the first > cause and reason for a great earthquake.** > > Furthermore, there is an ascetic or brahmin with psychic power who has > achieved mastery of the mind, or a god who is mighty and powerful. > They’ve developed a limited perception of earth and a limitless > perception of water. They make the earth shake and rock and tremble. > This is the second cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the being intent on awakening passes away from the > host of joyful gods, he’s conceived in his mother’s belly, mindful and > aware. Then the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the third > cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the being intent on awakening comes out of his > mother’s belly mindful and aware, the earth shakes and rocks and > trembles. This is the fourth cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One awakens to the supreme perfect > awakening, the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the fifth > cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One rolls forth the supreme Wheel of > Dhamma, the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the sixth > cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One, mindful and aware, surrenders the > life force, the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the > seventh cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One becomes fully extinguished in the > element of extinguishment with no residue, the earth shakes and rocks > and trembles. This is the eighth cause and reason for a great > earthquake. > > These are the eight causes and reasons for a great earthquake.” Seven of these eight causes are clearly supernatural (e.g., divine beings, psychic powers, events related to a Buddha) while the first and the only natural explanation of earth resting on water stirred by cosmic winds being the cause of earthquakes does not align with what we understand today as the geological and entirely naturalistic explanation of earthquakes. My question is:- How do Buddhists, especially those who identify with traditional or orthodox readings of the suttas understand these earthquake causes today? Do they:- - Reject the modern scientific understanding of earthquakes and accept the sutta’s description literally? - Interpret these causes allegorically or symbolically? If so, how? I’m curious how different Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, etc.) approach this apparent conflict between scripture and modern scientific understanding.

I want to work on the Koan,**'What was your original face before you were born'** and '**Who am I**',How do I go about it. Should I constantly ask myself this question? Should I write it down? How is the Koan practise done?

A few months ago I bought a four volume set of The Shobogenzo, translated by by Gudo Nishijima and Chodo Cross. In this set there was not only a translation of the Shobogenzo, but an interpretation of each chapter of the text in modern language. I found these interpretations extremely helpful in actually understanding the text, as a lot of the original language was quite obscure. Recently, I also picked up The Blue Cliff Record, translated by Thomas Cleary. However, in his text there are no direct interpretations of the chapters, and so I'm having trouble understanding some of them. I largely understand Zen itself, but the original language of The Blue Cliff Record often just doesn't seem to get to the point, or make that point clear. **So I'm wondering if any modern, English interpretations of The Blue Cliff Record exist?**

I often see the Abhidhamma referenced as a framework for interpreting the teachings of the suttas. However, opinions vary widely: some say it is essential for proper interpretation, while others argue that it is a later analytical system not required for understanding the early discourses. How exactly does the Abhidhamma function within Buddhist hermeneutics? Do canonical or commentarial texts explicitly state how the Abhidhamma should be used to interpret other teachings? And if yes How do traditional commentaries justify its authority? Furthermore Are there examples where Abhidhamma exegesis diverges from sutta usage? If so How do scholarly commentators resolve such differences?

Early Buddhist history shows a rapid diversification of viewpoints, lineages, and monastic communities, eventually producing schools such as Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Mahāsāṃghika, and many others. What historical, doctrinal, social, or organizational factors contributed to this early schism? To what extent were these divisions driven by philosophical disagreements, regional spread, monastic discipline (Vinaya) issues, or broader political and cultural influences in ancient India?

As per title. I read the English translation of the heart sutra recently.If Karma is part of the Dharma, or is the Dharma, does this mean that Karma is not created or destroyed, and it neither decreases or increase, according to the heart sutra?

In reading this answer to another question I came across this link which is seemingly a Tibetan Buddhist site proclaiming the following: > In Buddhism the two beings that are often confused with the Christian > concept of the devil, Yama and Mara, are also Bodhisattvas. Lord > Yama’s job is to make sure beings receive the appropriate karmic > retribution in the appropriate hell realm. Which strikes me as completely antithetical to Buddhism, the Dharma, the Bodhisattva way of life, and well in just about every sense wrong and even *dangerous* idea about how karma works. This is certainly never been taught to me in the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and I would be quite shocked if any of my teachers (in the lineage of His Holiness the Dalai Lama) accepted any of this. As a student of Tibetan Buddhism, but not specifically the Vajrayana I would like to know if there is any defense of this from the viewpoint of Vajrayana? Does anyone follow this way of thinking? Personally, I would file this under *don't believe everything you read purporting to be Buddha Dharma on the internet.* There are ignorant people out there making all kinds of bellicose claims and surrounding themselves in the iconography and material trappings of Tibetan Buddhist culture all the while being shockingly ignorant of Buddha Dharma. This seems to me to be one of them.

Wikipedia says this about Vajrayana Buddhism : "According to several Buddhist tantras as well as traditional Tibetan Buddhist sources, the tantras and the Vajrayana was taught by the Buddha Shakyamuni, but only to some individuals." What precisely is the claim here? What rationale is given for the Buddha reserving teachings for "only some individuals"?

Two questions that may have an overlapping answer: - How and why the Buddha would praise simple living, the simple life of monastics? In which sutta (or vinaya texts)? - Are there any sutta in the Pali canon where the Buddha explains the advantages of a simple life (a life without too many material comforts)?

I have read some early Buddhism sutras where the Buddha says birth doesn't make one noble, conduct does. Is there any sutra in Mahayana Buddhism that explicitly rejected "noble" status just by birth? Or at least rebuking casteism? I have found verses that conform to the caste based society like for example Lalitavistara Sutra that says Bodhisattvas are only born in upper two castes (Priest and Warriors). It does not say a person who rises to become a king, no, he should be from a "royal lineage" (caste). I have found no which eases the caste tension.

I came across a gallery of Stupas from around the world and it made me wonder why some of them differ in shape considerably. Do they express different aspects of Buddhism or is the source of difference rather cultural/historical? I am aware that in Tibetan Buddhism there are 9 types of Stupas and they have a rather uniform shape. What I am interested in is why the ones found in, for example, Sri Lanka or India, have a much different shape and style.

Across early Buddhist and later scholastic sources, sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa refers to the awakening of an arahant/Buddha during life, while the five aggregates continue to function. Parinirvāṇa (or nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa) designates the complete cessation of the aggregates at death. However they raise several questions - If the liberated mind is already free of defilements at sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa, what exactly “continues” until parinirvāṇa? Is it- - merely biological life-supporting karma? - non-karmic causal processes of the aggregates? - a conventional designation with no metaphysical content? - or something else depending on doctrinal school? Furthermore, 1. What specific causal theory does each major tradition (Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka) use to explain why the aggregates continue to arise after sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa? 2. If the arahant produces no new karma, what prevents the aggregates from ceasing immediately at awakening? 3. Do any schools argue that the distinction between sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa and parinirvāṇa is ultimately conventional rather than reflecting two ontologically distinct states?

Finding resources to better understand the meaning of the 12 links of dependent origination has been challenging for me. The best resource I've been able to find to decipher the meaning thus far is this dharma talk. 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination In it, the first 9 links are described in a fashion that makes sense and rings true but the last 3 are still fuzzy to me. 1: ignorance the choice to ignore that which is uncomfortable (i.e The biological purpose of "pain" is to provide the sensory motor brain with feedback that its predictive model of the world is incorrect. It contains a wrong view about the world which leads to unskillful movements in the world. This wrong view should be investigated and replaced with a more skillful view which makes more skillful movements in the world possible. e.g. You burn your hand on the stove. Within this context, the choice to IGNORE the discomfort, to cling to views, gives rise to suffering. Suffering is the persistent pressure by the sensory motor brain to pay attention to the feedback and correct the wrong view in its sensory-motor predictive model of the world.) ignorance is the condition for 2: unwise intention is the condition for 3: unwise attention is the condition for 4: unwise mobilization of body and mind is the condition for 5: the 6 sense bases directed to receive and interpret sensory input (perhaps unwisely) is the condition for 6: contact the sensory experience. which may be interpreted unwisely is the condition for 7: feeling tone (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) is the condition for 8: craving (to pull towards or push away) is the condition for 9: clinging is the condition for 10: becoming is the condition for 11: birth is the condition for 12: old age and death The speaker suggests that “birth and becoming” refer to the creation of an identity associated with suffering and that “old age and death” is a synonym for suffering. This is too fuzzy for my liking and I desire a clearer and more precise understanding. I *think* this means The wrong view that “happiness depends upon the satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience”, when clung to, gives BIRTH to an identity whose mission is to attain that sensory experience by BECOMING the identity required to attain it. So “birth and becoming” kind of make sense to me, though I am still somewhat uncertain if this is the meaning the Buddha intended. “Old age and death” however does not make sense to me. If this is just a synonym for suffering, why didn't the Buddha just say “suffering”. My impression is that he chose his words very carefully.

I have been a Vipassana meditator since 2001 and had a very strong practice and very good concentration. Last 2-3 years I started feeling a physical violation of space and then hearing voices. What interacts with me is some kind of demon or demons that have started harming with negative gross vibrations of all kinds and use very harmful language. They also harm physically and hurt around the spine and different organs of the body and the nervous system- to get your energy -some kind of energy vampires. They harm continuously and never stop. It is impossible to meditate or do anything else. They seem to know how to connect to human mind and body and somehow gain control the nervous system. I asked a lot of people for help including meditators even teachers but so far havnt found anyone who knows about this or wants to help. I don’t even know where to get the help. No drugs or medicines have helped so far, even tried to get some mantra tantra help. I have also read and listened to Ratana and Atanatiya sutta. Written to monasteries..I cannot give metta or practice Vipassana at all because I am constantly under attack. I am not delusional and these are not illusions. Really looking for some help or inputs that refer to any success stories through monks or healers or Vipassana teachers. Someone who really knows about this well.