In daily Life, I always trying to focus on single good thought so no space for bad. When I did something, I tend to analyse it wether it is good or bad. It is deep most of the time because I am trying to follow five precepts. It seems like I am doing nothing wrong. So I trying to understand deeper clingings (klesha) that are not visible to outside. Most of the time, I am stuck in a loop. But, I recently realize that I'm living in a different world. I am far away from the real world. I was trying to improve samadhi but it weaken the sati. Trying to have a single thought feels heavy to mind. Focus on environment feels calm/less heavy/simple. So How am I improve the situation? I think I have some kind of fear of doing something wrong. Focusing on something good prevent coming wrong thoughts to mind. I heard these kind of advices from monks. But this prevent having sati. Should I have a general idea of good/bad deeds and stop trying to have a single thought always so I can be aware about the environment (have sati)? Have a specific time for a day to reflect about deeds did during the day. Are there any sutta which contrast sati and samadhi?

I am completely new to all this (buddhism, meditation etc...) but I really want to begin somewhere I found this guy called Stephen Procter who has this free guided meditation program (52 guided meditations, 1 each week) that he says will guide you to the completion of the Satipatthana Sutta. What actually is that sutta about? what will it teach me. Is it for real deal enlightenment (or just new age hippy dippy stuff)? What sort of meditations would this be about (I suuuck at visualization, which is why I am not trying out tantric practices even tho I like the sound of them) And why is there all these other methods then? all these other suttas, and then stuff like Vajrayana buddhism. I don't get it, I just want something clear cut that can at the very least give me a very solid foundation. Can I do this Sattipathana program if im physically unhealthy? (all the Hinduism yogas seem to require superman level health before you can even think about doing anything with the mind)

What does the one taste of the dharmadhatu really mean? I know no language beside this English, and would be interested in any philosophical, literary, or religious answer on what "taste" means there, so I can best grasp what is being said.

I have a research and I need to know all the names of angels in different religions and their actions, and since I am an Arab, my sources are not enough and I need the names of the angels in Buddhism

I read the following on the internet: > One perceives 'the world' through the senses - however the senses > themselves are in the world (lokasmiṃ). That does not imply the world > is a state of mind, but that the mind is in the world. Also: > Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and > **conceive the world** is called the world in the training of the noble > one. (Yena kho, āvuso, lokasmiṃ lokasaññī hoti **lokamānī**) And through what in the world do you perceive the world and > conceive the world? Through the eye in the world you perceive the > world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body … > mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. - SN > 35.116 Can "the world" only be "perceiving the world" (lokasaññī) without "conceiving the world" (lokamānī)?

Middle length suttas often include following descriptions of wrong views (MN 44, MN 109, MN131, MN 138): > regards material form as self, or self as possessed of material form, > or material form as in self, or self as in material form. (similar descriptions are given for feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness. To limit the scope, I'd like to focus on the material part for now, and see whether I understand those insightful categories (as I have a feeling that this slips through the words). For the sake of simplicity I interpret: regards material form as self is basically I am a collection of atoms, self as possessed of material form: this is hard for me to understand, maybe as eager to have many houses and fat bank account?, material form as in self: I can be only certain about things that are taking place in my head? self as in material form: hard to understand.

Which pali sutta is this? I think it's in MN somewhere. The Buddha says monks missing out on pleasures of lay life and the pleasures of holy life. The idea being that their practice is such that they're not getting jhana (pleasures of holy life), and they're deprived of the pleasures of the lay life (food, sex, etc), so they're just suffering.

> The Story of the Son of Mahadhana > Neither living the chaste life nor gaining wealth in their youth, they waste away like old herons in a dried-up lake depleted of fish. > Neither living the chaste life nor gaining wealth in their youth, they lie around, misfired from the bow, sighing over old times. I imagined "gaining wealth in their youth" would mean spiritual wealth, after all a lot of materially rich old people I know do **sigh** at old age, because material pleasures are often best enjoyed in youth. Yet, the back story seems to indicate the Buddha did mean material wealth, which is odd. Granted, being rich and old is better than poor and old, still, old age to the unwise is great suffering. Of course, Buddhism doesn't *ab initio* criticize wealth, or beauty. They are said to accrue as a result of good deeds, and are desirable as long as they don't interfere in bettering one's virtues and mind. Still, it's not a perfectly flawless argument to equate pious virtue and shrewdness in wealth. Billionaires could even make a case of being equal to Arhats, more or less, as I currently understand this verse. This is made all the more odd on account of the Buddha's own rejection of wealth and kingdom. Can someone shed more light? Are there two sets of guidelines that the Buddha advocated? One for those enmeshed in Samsara, and another for those gone forth? > The Story of the Son of Mahadhana > While residing at the Migadaya wood, the Buddha uttered Verses (155) and (156) of this book, with reference to the son of Mahadhana, a rich man from Baranasi. > The son of Mahadhana did not study while he was young; when he came of age he married the daughter of a rich man, who, like him, also had no education. When the parents on both sides died, they inherited eighty crores from each side and so were very rich. But both of them were ignorant and knew only how to spend money and not how to keep it or to make it grow. They just ate and drank and had a good time, squandering their money. When they had spent all, they sold their fields and gardens and finally their house. Thus, they became very poor and helpless; and because they did not know how to earn a living they had to go begging. One day, the Buddha saw the rich man's son leaning against a wall of the monastery, taking the leftovers given him by the samaneras; seeing him, the Buddha smiled. > The Venerable Ananda asked the Buddha why he smiled, and the Buddha replied, "Ananda, look at this son of a very rich man; he had lived a useless life, an aimless life of pleasure. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the first stage of his life he would have been a top-ranking rich man; or if he had become a bhikkhu, he could have been an arahat, and his wife could have been an anagami. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the second stage of his life he would have been a second rank rich man, or if he had become a bhikkhu he could have been an anagami, and his wife could have been a sakadagami. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the third stage of his life he would have been a third rank rich man, or if he had become a bhikkhu he could have been a sakadagami, and his wife could have been a sotapanna. However, because he had done nothing in all the three stages of his life he had lost all his worldly riches, he had also lost all opportunities of attaining any of the Maggas and Phalas." I'd like to contrast this with another verse from the Dhammapada which is an emphatic put down of worldly gains. > **Dhammapada Verse 178 ** > Anathapindikaputtakala Vatthu > *Pathabya ekarajjena saggassa gamanena va sabbalokadhipacce na sotapattiphalam varam.* > Verse 178: Far better than sovereignty over the earth, or far better than going to the abodes of the devas, or far better than ruling supreme over the entire universe, is (the attainment of) Sotapatti Fruition.

Is it true that at stream-entry there is a profound decrease in the intensity of suffering perceived in samsara? If I'm not wrong, the Buddha does use the metaphor of a small clod of earth, as tiny as that can be picked up on a fingernail, to portray the amount of suffering one perceives after stream-entry, compared to the intense suffering, equivalent to the whole of earth, that a worldling feels in samsara?

In this text SN 56.46 Andhakara Sutta: Darkness, the Buddha seems to say, in my opinion, that life is much more stressful than black holes. And I think life is an anomaly in this universe just like black holes, stars, time, quantum entanglement and such. But are there any other things he has mentioned that are outlandish and we are unable to comprehend by using juxtapositions as always? Or did he just ignore them completely as they were not important? Sorry if my question is not clear. I always have a hard time interpreting what's in my head to words.

I found following movie "Zen of Yamada Mumon Roshi" - [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2vF0dGNGmA&t=285) - after meditation, student go to master and at 4:45 the student start screaming on master. Then master takes breath and start talking (I don't understand what) Can someone explain me in details - what actually is happened there?

Does Buddhism say everything is an illusion? For Buddhist, are all other people just an illusion (philosophical zombies)? For example, when I talk to a Buddhist, he thinks I'm a philosophical zombie without minds,feeling,emotions? It turns out that all people in the world believe that other people have consciousness besides the Buddhism?I don't think this is true, so I want to clarify thanks

In [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandogya_Upanishad) i read: > The Chandogya Upanishad is ... one of the oldest Upanishads of Hinduism. > [It] opens with the recommendation that "let a man meditate on Om". It calls the syllable Om as udgitha (उद्गीथ, song, chant), and asserts that the significance of the syllable is thus: the essence of all beings is earth, the essence of earth is water, the essence of water are the plants, the essence of plants is man, the essence of man is speech, the essence of speech is the Rig Veda, the essence of the Rig Veda is the Sama Veda, and the essence of Sama Veda is the udgitha (song, Om). Its date is given as "8th to 6th century BCE" i.e. at least 100 years before Gautama. Now "Om" is also used in Buddhism. Is its use the same as in Hinduism? If you recite the OM, do you (or not) think it is connected to a Super Consciousness as described in the Vedanta? Is it difficult to describe the philosophical basis, if the practice is somehow derived from concepts and knowledge from a text whose date is from before Gautama?

Can anyone explain the hua-yen sutra accroding to tendai, to me? I've read a few books of secondary literature on tientai and tendai, a few translations of Zhiyi, the lotus sutra, some of the hua-yen sutra, some translations of hua-yen, some seconadry literature on hua-yen, and assorted scholarship (both ch'an based and otherwise) on east asian Buddhism. I'm at a complete loss though!

At first I want to say sorry for my English, as it is my second language. My questions: 1. Can non-sentient beings reach nirvana? 2. Can non-sentient beings be reborn? 3. Can sentient beings be reborn as non-sentient beings? 4. Will all beings eventually reach nirvana? Thanks in advance for an answer.

I've been looking into Buddhist concepts and the topic of infinite universes in existence popped up, and the Buddhist text called the "Abhidharmartha Pradipika" talks about infinite universes? And I was wondering what chapter/verse talks about it so I could look more into it.

I read stories in Petavatthu which describe how people offer donations to the sangha and transfer the merit to their deceased relatives who are born as hungry ghosts, so that they can get alleviate the suffering experienced by the hungry ghosts. In the same way, is it possible to share merit to other beings like Angels, animals, etc, because I haven't come across this in the texts.

I sleep the hours which are said to be needed, but I still feel sleepy. I've been drinking coffee recently to eliminate grogginess, and it does work for me. However, I was wondering if there are other methods of eliminating grogginess?

I am reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead Chapter 2 page 26, "A prayer for union with the spiritual teacher [entitled], Natural Liberation, without renunciation of the three poisons". Now in reading this chapter it seems that is a call for union with the fundamental buddha bodies of Reality, Resource, and Emanation. I find it curious that the chapter EXPLICITLY states what the three poisons are, makes a mention "how needing of compassion ..." are buddha bodies that engage in these poisons and proceeds to give an explicit solution, yet renunciation of the poisons is not asked of the reader in fact the title of the prayer explicitly states they will not be renounced. Why is it important NOT to renounce these poisons at this stage of prayer? The beginning of the book makes it clear that much will be renounced (including the desire of sympathy) as it merely perpetuates our cyclic existence yet here an explicit effort is being made to acknowledge the poisons but NOT renounce them. What reason is there for this? At best I can theorize that this has to do with avoiding the type of extreme asceticism that the buddha believed did not allow one to break the cycle, but surely anyone engaging in the poisons described without some renunciation will be trapped all the same.

In lord Buddha's daily routine, divided into five parts as follows. 1. the morning session 2. the afternoon session 3. the first watch 4. the middle watch **(10.00 P.M. TO 2.00 A.M.)** 5. the last watch So the 4th part is The Middle Watch, from 10.00 PM to 2.00 AM. In that time Lord Buddha will answer the questions from "Devas", and these Devas come to see Buddha by flying Machine called "Wimanas" (or [Vimana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimana)) . So my question is, does "Devas" here means Aliens? Did Aliens came to see Lord Buddha, and learn about Buddhism?