I tried vipassana meditation and where i used to follow my belly for the inhale exhale. Every time I practised, I found that my sleep quality was disturbed. I found myself tired next day after the disturbed sleep. Did anyone experience the same?

In Hinduism, it is generally said that children too have a share of their parent's sins & good deeds. So, according to Buddhism, does the karma of a parent (in a direct or indirect way) affect their children?

I was listening to a discussion with David Benatar, and the point that Buddhism seems to be antinatalist was raised. It seems that people argue this both ways. Can Buddhism be said to be antinatalist? Or some strands but not others? If it is, what consequences does this have? I have always kind of dismissed Benatar's ideas as being a kind of Larkin-esque pose, and making a mistake in hierarchy that puts pleasure above meaning, like utilitarians. But if the charge of antinatalism sticks, it seems I am going to have look more carefully at which of his points also apply to Buddhism.

The Buddha often makes this requests on his monks, *"incline your mind towards Nibbana"* Does this mean concentration with no object? As far as I can ascertain, concentration with no object does not seem to be possible. I have a particular interest in the Mahayana perspective but answers from other traditions are welcome. Thanks

If feeling, perception and consciousness are conjoined or mixed, and it is not possible to separate them or delineate them or disjoin them, then why do we have five different aggregates instead of just three? What is the significance and usefulness in the teaching to have feeling, perception and consciousness clearly distinguished into three different aggregates? Why were they not combined into a single aggregate? From MN 43 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro): > "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not > disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, > to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one > perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these > qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having > separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among > them." From MN 43 (translated by Ven. Sujato): > “Feeling, perception, and consciousness—these things are mixed, not > separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe > the difference between them. For you perceive what you feel, and you > cognize what you perceive. That’s why these things are mixed, not > separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe > the difference between them.”

It is easier to define "right livelihood" in the time of the Buddha when compared to our modern society. I would like to know if this situation can be considered wrong livelihood and if it creates bad kamma or not: Imagine someone that works for a company, just a regular employee, maybe from HR, finance or the legal department, this person provides a service and gets paid for it, but what happens if the company sells alcohol or maybe other product that damages people's health or even if the company sells meat or products to kill insects, plagues and so on... To be honest a great part of the companies these days either damages the environment or the public health, others may have practices not very ethical regarding labour or tax payments, it is not easy to find a 100% "clean" business. I have tried to find an answer in the suttas and dhammapada and the closest thing I found was a story about the wife of a hunter, she used to help her husband by cleaning his weapon, the traps and cooking the dead animals, the Buddha said she was not guilty and was not creating bad Kamma, only the hunter who was actually killing animals. Are there better references than this one? In my example, is it wrong livelihood? Does it create bad Kamma?

I am at the very beginning of my journey. As I understand, suffering and the escape of it are central parts of Buddhism. (Though the notation "all life is suffering" seems to be a misinterpretation .) Are there schools of Buddhism catering to those who see no major suffering in their lives, and hence do not feel any urge to end such?

Antinatalism is the view that it is ethically wrong to procreate any sort of sentient beings, be it human or otherwise because to exist means also to experience pain, pleasure, suffering, bodily deprivations and psychological frustrations. None of the above obviously is inflicted upon the non-existent. My question is: (i) What is the Buddhist view of this way of thinking; (ii) Why create further imperfect human beings who are capable of experience any sort of dukkha, need, want, deprivation, frustration etc., when these kinds of dukkha (and ills) could've been prevented in the first place? Even in the most ideal case, where a parent brings a child into existence that becomes an enlightened being, it is still ethically indecent to do so because (i) one is gambling with the life of that child; (ii) one is using that child as a means to an end; (iii) that "need" or desired outcome to attain enlightenment is only relevant for existent beings. It seems that Buddhism has some Antinatalist undertones, because although not mentioned in the scripture, if everyone followed the ideal, everyone would strive towards arhatship, and thus stop procreating.

For what reason did Buddha rejected Upanishad and Vedas?

I'm following the four foundations of mindfulness. This has given me round-the-clock body awareness. It can often be painful; but it can often be pleasant. The pleasantness is marred by its opposite. I notice from time to time the density of my body disappears along with all ideas of pleasant and unpleasant and their respective sensations. ## Questions ## Is the body a perception like all other perceptions? How does the subtle perceptions described in MN 121 translate into the body? - I'm asking this as there appears to be greater mental/emotional turmoil like an archaic or ancient frustration/restlessness.

The Yogacara container universe model posits that shared reality is due to similar karmic traces or samskaras of sentient beings.this is perfectly fine,as sentient beings with similar karmic dispositions will interact with each other and have theoretically the same reality(theoretically this is possible,but for this to happen in reality especially without interruption for infinite sentient beings without error is very improbable),but there must have been a time where this series started.ni.e the series of karma-samskara->appearance cannot go into infinite regress.and there must of been a time when infinite sentient beings interacted with all of each other or produced the same samskaras leading to future shared realities before a similar shared reality could occur, to produce the series of a similar reality,but one must ask how this is possible if a shared reality is only due to shared karma or samskaras and past interaction(which is only possible with similar samskaras and karma anyway). As again,you cannot go into infinite regress of samskaras->appearances and appearances-> samskaras ,there must have been a starting point. if you say that "No" we are fine with infinite Regress and hold unto it,it must be asked how this is possible as william lane craig has shown that infinite Regress is an impossibility as an actual infinite can never be reached,as soon as you reach a point you must keep going as an infinite can not be finite. the exact same karmic seeds sprouting simultaneously (wich is just as improbable as what I posited earlier,i.e their sprouting simultaneously in infinite numbers of times for infinite group sets of sentient beings)produce a shared reality,but there must have been a time when sentient beings all interacted with each other to produce the same karmic seeds for a future association,but this would have to be before the initial series of samskaras-appearances and appearances samskaras started,but this would be impossible as there could be no shared reality without similar samskaras/ karma . Again if you claim that samskaras and karma have no beginning point, then it must be shown how this is the case. And even if it didn't have a beginning point,and infinite regression without a starting point was possible,it must be asked how shared karmic seeds sprouting all happen simultaneously in infinite cases since beginningless time without a single error.even if you assert that there must be specific conditions that create a similar appearance due to a similar samskara creating an appearance,how can this happen simultaneously for multiple sentient beings without interruption?since beginningless time?even if infinite regress were a thing,this occurring would be so improbable that it would be impossible. I just don't Understand the reasoning behind such models,it would be dependent on literal infinite regress(literally)and even if this were possible winning the lottery infinite number of times without interruption (since although similar samskaras would produce similar realities,no samskara can be exactly the same unless there were prior association which cannot go into infinite regress,and even if it could the chances of this sprouting of the same samskara/karmic trace occurring at the same time in near infinite cases without interruption since beginningless time without end would be so improbable as to be functionally impossible),endlessly forever AT THE SAME TIME. Again,lets assume shared samskaras exist and that two samskaras can be exactly the same without prior association,their sprouting simultaneously without error infinitely(i.e for near infinite sentient beings) forever would be basically functionally impossible.no error at all?no mismatch between similar but not not same samskaras producing the same realities at all?in any case?since beginningless time?and without end? By auccessive addition infinity cannot be reached at any point in time,because infinity is not finite.going backwards it cannot be posited in a chain of successive series.I'm not saying that time had a starting point just that for a successive addition causally linked chain to exist,there must be a starting point. I am not saying that samskaras producing the exact same appearances without fail endlessly for ''infinite''numbers of sentient beings is impossible.it is just HIGHLY improbable as to be functionally useless to myself.its like me being blind and fixing a rubik's cube for trillions of kalpas every 2 minutes without fail,but without end or beginning.its perfectly possible,but highly improbable. The model that would make most sense would be a realist model like that of the Theravadans wouldn't it?

I’m aware that a similar question has been asked before: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9073/2493 However, I’m looking for an answer (1) in the language of science that is (2) clear and comprehensible to readers who know nothing of buddhism. i.e. In the spirit of the great teacher, Richard Feynman, answers which depend only upon concepts which the general public are familiar with. The term “nibbana”: For example, I’m assuming that nibbana, when observed in a brain scan, looks something like the subjugation of the “task negative network” by the “task positive network.” The term “conditioned”: My understanding is that the term “conditioned” has its origins in “dependent origination”. Bhikkhu Bodhi, for example, says the “hallmark of the dharma” is the verse “All phenomenon originate with causes and conditions and with the cessation of those conditions, the dependent phenomenon also cease.” For example: From the 4 noble truths: The origin of suffering is craving and clinging. The conditions which give rise to suffering are “craving and clinging”. With the cessation of craving and clinging, the dependent phenomenon, suffering, also ceases. From this example, my best guess is that “unconditioned” simply means the cessation of the arising of the conditions (craving and clinging) which give rise to suffering. i.e. un-conditioned means the cessation of conditions. It does not mean that the mind state of nibbana can be achieved without creating the conditions of the cessation of craving and clinging. Is this correct?

Why did the Buddha take 7 years to attain Nirvana? Since he was a pure-hearted person who had never sinned, why not a shorter time?

Tibetan texts that belong to the genre of *tenets* (doctrinal classification) usually claim that the Cittamatra school refutes external existence. These texts further claim that Cittamatrin posit that *'the apprehended object and the apprehending consciousness are empty of being different substances'*. They say that, according to Cittamatrin, the apprehending consciousness and the object it apprehends both arise simultaneously from a seed that was left in the mind-basis-of-all (alaya-vijñana), and that, given so, the object is not a cause of the consciousness apprehending it (as opposed to what Vaïbashikas and Sautrantika posit). Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen writes: > An illustration of the selflessness of phenomena is, for example, the > emptiness that is a form and the valid cognizer apprehending that form > being empty of being different substances.
It is difficult for me to conceive, and to admit, that Cittamatrin refute external existence altogether. It would mean they refute that one is born from a mother and a father, and so forth. Moreover, I doubt Tibetan scholars who claim that 'Cittamatrin refute external existence' because they have an agenda. Tibetan scholars often simplify (if not even caricature) their opponent's positions (in this case, Cittamatrin). So, not sticking to Tibetan literature only, my idea was to seek whether Cittamatrin actually refute external existence by reading works written by proponents of the Cittamatra school. Let us consider Suzuki, in *Studies in the Lankavatara* (p. 114). He writes: > As indeed the idealistic Mahayana does not admit the > existence of an external world, whatever qualities we ordinarily think > as belonging to the latter are creations or constructions of our own > mind. Suzuki seems to say *"Cittamatra refute external existence"*, but **he does not do so explicitly**. He says "they do not admit the existence of an external world" but this does not necessarily amount to "refuting the existence of external world". As far as I know, he could be saying "We can not know anything but the aspects our consciousness takes. We can not see beyond our perceptions. We can not know for sure whether our perceptions are perceptions of something external. So, let us not bother with thinking of an external world - be it to refute its existence or claim its existence - and let us stick with what we know: that the eye-consciousness seeing blue takes the aspect of blue, and that we know nothing else." ---------- Thus, the question is: Do Cittamatra / Yogacara **explicitly** refute the existence of an external world? Or do they simply "not admit, not take into acount" the existence of an external world? References are welcome.

With reference to the title of the question, I would like to know if the person blessed or under a curse if for him the past, present, and future are the same? If by unlawful acts he is elevated to a higher position when these three positions are better. He wants such a condition to perpetuate and go on. If he is downgraded for his lawful acts, his downfall is usually bitter for him. How to analyze the situations?

Fairly regularly people ask me to pray for them or their family members. In my understanding, Buddhist don't generally pray for things to be different than what they are. But it never seems appropriate to mention this to a person who might be upset so I just say "of course" and leave it at that. But the truth is, outside of metta for everyone, I don't pray for such things as my neighbor's uncle's knee replacement operation or for my co-worker's daughter to advance in the state championship for soccer. So I'm lying to someone and that's uncomfortable and not a good mind state to be in. First, is my understanding that Buddhist don't generally pray for things to be other than what they are wrong view? And if not, what might be a better way to handle prayer requests?

From Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche teaching I came to understand that non-judgmental observation of situations and aversion of attachments is the way to get rid of sufferings. Then how would a teacher evaluate a student's knowledge on anything? In traditional schools and colleges there are grading systems. Students are assigned grades according to their exam results. How are students evaluated in Buddhist monasteries?

The bowl, the robes, the lodgings, the medicines - are these private property, or shared within a Sangha of monks?

Charging money for teaching time seems like it goes against the spirit of the dharma. I’m asking because I was looking for a teacher and came across one that did charge money.

I've read here , that: > As Dza Patrul Rinpoche candidly says (AKC 15): Ritual sessions four > times a day without the generation and completion stages, pounding > drums and clashing cymbals without reminding ourselves of pure > perception, droning mantras without any concentration: all that gets > us no further on the path to liberation. What is meant by "pure perception"? As I understood it, it means recognize Shunyata – but to recognize this, you need to be enlightened (?). **As a lay practitioner at the beginning of the path what is meant by "pure perception"?**