Does thinking during an action improve the quality of the action or reduce it? For example, I am writing, and I am aware that I am writing: when I repeat, "I am writing", "I am writing", in my mind, when performing the action of writing, isn't there a split between action and thought? I remember in a Bruce Lee film in which he says, "Don't Think". If there is a split between action and thought, wouldn't the processing of action slow down?

Since often very curious ideas and means of excuses appear around the arguing with the means of "that's a fetter", my person thought it would be good if someone would have the skills and goodness toward fellows and behind followers to explain the meaning and whether a perception of it is used for the training or not so that it would not misinterpret the Sublime Buddha (meaning own ideas are nice but not really 'asked' for) *[Note that this isn't given for stacks exchange and other ways of silabbata-paramasa but for release]*

I have read about 'Jhana' in Ajahn Brahm's book, '**Mindfulness, bliss and beyond**'. It looks like, from his teaching of Theravada Buddhism, 'Jhana' is a pre-requisite to attain 'Nirvana'. I want to ask, is there anything similar to 'Jhana' in Zen. From my readings it does not seem it's 'Satori'.

I can't seem to reconcile the two ideas that Vipassana meditation involves both concentrating completely on the breath while at the same time observing bodily sensations. Aren't these two mutually exclusive? How can one concentrate on the breath while being open to new sensations?

Many ancient pali literature proposed the end or nirvana as 'tathagata got released'. What does it mean? Do tathagata is bound? Or Do we bound by ignorance and free with right knowledge(Samma Ditthi)? Samma Ditthi at times coincides with Thou are that, upanishadic dictiom. Five aggregates are mere empty, like mirage of real caste on matter. But, when one gives up that which is not his, he lands onto mirage. And from that mirage he see Truth or who have samma ditthi. Please any one could guide me in this regard!

According to the Chinese History, subject refers are the 5 survivor of Shaolin legendary grand masters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bak_Mei In history, Ng Mui was escaping from temple to temple while Bak Mei joined the military and lead the troop to kill/eliminate other shaolin Temple. What if those 5 elderly grant masters put down status as Monk/Nun, join the military with righteous intention and good deed/win win term and condition with Emperor. In this case, path to Nirvana likely unable to achieve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_of_Kshitigarbha "Until the hells are empty (of suffering beings), I will not become a Buddha." (「地獄不空，誓不成佛。」) The intention is to influence the Emperor/General to minimize the damages and at the same time not losing the Empire base on Buddhism teaching? By right those grand masters should equipped with Buddhism/Taoism super natural abilities then should not be difficult.? If it doesn't work and disagreement from Emperor, then quit the military. If influence to the emperor was success and damages was minimum say 50k killed instead of 500k. So it saved 90% lives and many of them inspired and follow grand master learning Buddhism. Then Buddhism get greater influence and follower multiples. In this case, can the 50k person killed is waived from Bad Karma? Those grand master should have high Buddhism wisdom power to influence and change ? This might applicable to corporate working life now or politics world.

How do Buddhists that think of karma figuratively -- non literal -- not what is ordinarily meant -- do so about rebirth? They surely cannot believe rebirth is literal, so what exactly is it? An answer from any perspective would be most welcome. ---------- > Among these Buddhists, however, this has led to the rejection not of > non-self but of rebirth. (Historically this response was not unknown > among East Asian Buddhists, and it is not rare among Western Buddhists > today.) The evidence that the Buddha himself accepted rebirth and > karma seems quite strong, however... this sort of ‘noble lie’ justification for the Buddha teaching a doctrine he does not accept fails in the face of the evidence that he also **taught** it to quite advanced monastics Emphasis added https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/#KarReb So I'm not asking what the Buddha thought - we don't actually know - or any specific historical Buddhists. I am just seeking clarity on how ***you*** think of rebirth without literal karma^ , pretty uninterested in its psychological / self justification aspect, thanks. ^ > a causal relationship between action (karma) and ‘fruit’ (phala), the > latter being an experience of pleasure, pain or indifference for the > agent of the action

Compassion and empathy encompassing all beings seems to be the Buddhist ideal. How do Buddhists reconcile this today with Adam Smith's invisible hand? I.e., the idea that following our self-interest will lead to the best (economic) results? Was Buddha wrong or was Smith wrong? Note: It is clear that self-interest and the invisible hand are qualified and moderated in today's capitalist societies. On the other hand, it is still the core of their economic mechanisms and our daily economic behavior. And the communist experiment based on the idea of sharing everything ended up as a large tragedy (not the least for Tibetan Buddhists). UPDATE: Thanks for the interesting spectrum of answers so far. Let me expand: Buddha empathizes with the whole universe and takes decisions that benefit the whole universe most. Extreme altruism based on extreme knowledge leading to the optimal result. While Smith says that following one's egoistic self-interest leads to the optimal (economic) results. And no knowledge of the rest of the universe is needed - just follow your own self-interest. Both are recipes for the behavior of the masses, but Smith's is much simpler to implement. Example 1: If I follow my self-interest and buy a product from the cheapest supplier, I support the most efficient allocation of resources (in an ideal market), the most talented businessmen and managers, etc. Others are incentivized to improve or learn another skill. Should I instead empathize and support them too? Example 2: Communism/socialism tried to replace Smith by planning across the whole economy. An attempt at global empathy and selfless maximization of the common benefit. But it did not work and the result was much worse than Smith's approach. The road to hell was paved with good intentions. Example 3: Google avoids paying taxes in the EU via the Irish trick. Eric Schmidt once commented that they are "proud capitalists". So he/Google believes in doing good via Smith/self-interest. Many other people (in the EU in particular) think that using such loopholes is unethical and bad for the EU economy. What would be the Buddha/Buddhist views in these cases?

Does any online site refer to evidence that this monk ever existed as an actual historical figure? If the person is believed to be so important and famous as next Buddha then where is the tomb? [Refer to wikipedia](https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai) > Many Chinese Buddhists believe he was a reincarnation of Maitreya, the person who will become the next Buddha after Gautama Buddha.

When a ‘person’ walks the path and reaches the goal of Nibbāna, ‘who’ actually reaches it? ‘Who’ walked the path and where did 'he' go when Nibbāna was reached, to be more exact? We as unenlightened beings see an arahant from the ‘outside’, as it were. Maybe we find him to be a holy, compassionate and wise being, but what is it like to be an arahant from ‘inside’? What is the nature of his personal being?

In the Khemaka Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/sn22.89/en/sujato) Khemaka is an Anagami and he sees the aggregates as not-self. Based on this I guess the answer to my question is probably stream-entry or anagami, but I'm not sure. This is a quote from that sutta: > “In the same way, reverends, I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to > form, or apart from form. I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to feeling > … perception … choices … consciousness, or apart from consciousness. > For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the > conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t regard anything as ‘I am this’. > > Although a noble disciple has given up the five lower fetters, they > still have a lingering residue of the conceit ‘I am’, the desire ‘I > am’, and the underlying tendency ‘I am’ which has not been eradicated.

I understand that realizing anatta reduces the suffering. You realize there is no "I" to suffer, to have anxiety, to be insulted etc. That is indisputable. However, is this reality or is it a tool? Is there truly no self? It is said that the Buddha remained silent upon the question of **Am I?** and **Am I not?**, was that because the answer to the question is irrelevant to the reduction of suffering & therefore there is actually a self? Or for another reason? >'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.' After this is said about the 5 aggregates, and the saying there is no **permanent** soul/self, I understand that identifying with any of them only leads to suffering, due to their impermanence. But this doesn't mean the self cannot exist outside of it, right? What I mean by this is, not inside/outside/a combination/the collection of them all, but rather something else that we cannot even talk about. Furthermore, is it wise to try to understand Anatta, or is it best to realize it?

In [this comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/41278/is-there-any-skillful-use-of-using-we-in-addressing-certain-opinion#comment67170_41283) , Samana Johann wrote, > worthy to raise a question on it and it's perfect training to use only 3-person and no calling of names, adressing just proper positions The topic is, using "3rd person" modes of speech -- instead of personal pronouns like "I" and "you" and "we". I think that means, in English, that instead of saying for example: > Would you like a glass of water? ... or more politely ... > May I fetch you a glass of water? ... you might ask instead ... > Would the Venerable accept a glass of water? Similarly perhaps the venerable might refer to himself in the third person -- so perhaps, for example, "This person will...", instead of, "I will...". And perhaps you're expected to refer to yourself by your own "title" too ... > Would the venerable allow "this person" (instead of "allow me") to fetch a glass of water? ... or instead of "this person", perhaps "this novice" or "this householder" or whatever your "proper position" is, instead of "I"? --- What can you tell me about this topic? What are the social conventions -- how does that vary, from person to person, from one society to another, from one context to another (e.g. online or in person), from one language to another (e.g. English or otherwise)? The little I've gathered online is that it's polite -- and proper, i.e. good training -- to use a phrase like "Bhante" instead of a person's name, when addressing them directly (i.e. in the second person) ... > - Would you like a glass of water, Bhante? > - Bhante, would you like a glass of water? > - Would Bhante like a glass of water? The last (the third) of these sounds very (excessively) formal to my ear -- and archaic, it disappeared from the English language when "people" stopped having personal servants, who might have said, "Would Sir like a cup of tea?" -- or addressing your parents by their title, "Would Mother like a cup of tea?" Because it's so old-fashioned (I never hear it) it sounds unnatural to me -- formal but an "affectation" -- and therefore, to be avoided! Unless it is conventional, still? I guess I most specifically want to know how to address people (Venerables) online, especially on this site, and in English -- though understanding how to talk in person could be useful too -- and especially about when using English (or other European languages, or North American). I don't think I've seen a site online, where people avoid the 2nd person altogether. Is it something which varies from one monk to another? If there are three options ... - Informal -- "Would you like...?" - Deferential -- "Bhante, would you accept...?" - Ultra-formal -- "Would Bhante accept...? ... will some monks prefer one and some another? Should I vary what I say (or how I say it) depending on the feedback I get from the specific person? Is there any safe default, which can always be considered not-impolite?

In the west, when we talk about wisdom we tend to mean knowing the value of things. As far as I tell, prajna is about emptiness, at least in its perfected aspect. So does it also allow us knowledge of what is valuable, or is that something that the path is founded on - good karma nd liberation from suffering - so that really all the sages have very little to say about it?

I'm listening to a lecture series about child development and in the first lecture it advocates teaching children martial arts as an aid to enhancing their self-control. I would quite like my daughter to learn a martial art (if she wants to). However I feel a bit conflicted about it as surely the lessons themselves are learning how to assault people or at the very least engage in potentially violent behaviour. Is it justifiable for a Buddhist to learn or advocate the learning of a martial art? I appreciate that there is a cultural connection between martial arts and Buddhism in some cultures? How are the ethics of it dealt with? Generally how can I take my daughter off to a Buddhist family retreat one week then whisk her off to learn how to attack people the next? That seems inherently conflicted? Is it?

As possible also observed, when teaching, the address of ones position by 'we' is hardly found in the teaching of the Buddha and his disciples. It seems that this often used way of using 'we' in argumentation, is purely a tool to demonstrate power and backhold, used also for winning anothers favor, in cases when 'we' includes the listener or could, if he takes on it. In most cases it seems to be actually an often deliberated lie, as for how could one speak for another, possible even disregard those one might incl. in one 'we'. So what do you think, is there any case, or in which case, can position 'we' be used skilfull, in which cases does it not point on ones attachments, greed, desires: unwise after gain and identification. In which case is it not clear to be seen as an outcome of sakkāyadiṭṭhi (on-group-holding/group-identification-view) of even gross outwardly sort? Is it a word a non-worldling woul make use of, and if, in which circumstances? Maybe one like also sacrifices samples found under the leading teachers of past and present, as addition to ones gift of sharing ones reflections here. Would the use of 'we' be a good warn-signal, if tracing such in others speech? `*ironical*' What do we think? What would we answer here? *[Note that this isn't given for exchange, stacks, and what ever world-binding similar trade but for escape from this wheel]*

I am 34 and I was brought up in this mad rat race of trying to become 'someone' and be somebody successful. I come from a Hindu background and up until I have been introduced to Buddhism I have only asked god in temples for fulfilment of worldly desires. I was a high achieving and hard working person and as a consequence of my lifestyle, I got into severe clinical depression in 2015. My entire life turned upside down, I had to quit my job and since then I am at home. Luckily few Buddhist books fell into my hand and I started reading books about Buddhism. I read Ajahn Brahma, Thich nhat hanh, Jet-Sunma Palmo, Alan Watts, Bhikku Bodhi...After that, I went to a couple of Vipassana retreats and a Zen Shessin retreat. I also practise Zazen. But after my mental health partially recovered and with new find solace and wisdom in Buddhism, I contemplated my life and I am filled with Guilt, Regret and Shame to have behaved in an egoistic way with so many people and having hurt and got hurt from so many people. Intellectually I understand to practise loving-kindness and gratitude but this **pain that I feel in my heart never goes away**. **I feel guilt and regrets**. I believe this is result of my own karma and may be karma of my past lives. **I want to ask is there any way to wipe out ones Karma or work or meditate somehow that the Karmic fruits can be dissolved?** I dont want to feel bad about my life anymore.

While reading about Lord Buddha I found that he traveled to some other countries. But I couldn't find exactly how many countries. Does anyone know the answer for this?

It’s curious that if you study Buddhism you need to understand that Maya is an illusion and life is a product of cause and effect of past karma, so is deceptive. All my emotions are deceptive but not compassion.The void is the ultimate reality and is not part of anything bigger. Why compassion is not deceptive then , if it is itself part of an illusion and it is an emotion ? Shouldn’t be only an act of positive karma which as well will create only positive effects? But why then positive karma can push toward the void , or “ultimate goal” if the sunnyata is anything else rather than void itself. It shouldn’t have any attribute of “positive” or “negative” which are supposed to be moral and discriminatory observations.if the void needs to have moral attitudes to get access into, talking about sunnyata as ultimate reality , isn’t becoming a contradiction by its own logical terms?

Emotional intelligence is an ability to deal with one's emotions. I am wondering how does it affect and get affected by the practice of the Dhamma? Does deeper meditative absorption lead to heightened awareness and control of one's emotions and vice versa or are they completely unrelated? Also, does the 'feeling' skandha include feeling of one's emotions? Are there any wholesome emotions one feels as the practice deepens? Are the Brahmaviharas all there is to wholesome emotions?