Why work on one thing at a time according to the buddhism ? Did Lord Buddha advise us to do that ? Are there any deep desires in multi-tasking ? (Like wanting to gain more in short amount of time) **Edit:** I mean by "doing one thing at a time" is working on 2 different subjects at the same time(Without finishing the first work) . Ex: practising samatha and vipassana together, learning maths and arts at the same time. **Edit:** Example for "not doing one thing at a time" : Started to write a book yesterday. Whithout finishing it, starting to write an another book today.

There are five precepts. 1. I don't kill living species. 2. I don't do sexual miaconduct. 3. ........ Similary, Are there any for mind ? Like, 1. I don't think ...... 2. .... We can think according to the five precepts , Not thinking about killing or harming others etc. However, are there any especially for mind ? Is "indriya samvara" some thing like that ? If it is, how to practise it ?

So I've been Reading a bit of the Buddhist's boogeyman Shankara and I admit I am maybe biased in writing this(I am open to any refutation of my view,but I have not seen any adequate logical refutation of such),but I'd like to see a buddhist refutation or answer of this following viewpoint of mine based on a reading of Shankara's writings: the temporary momentary alaya vijnana in yogachara buddhism is the substratum of momentary impressions,desires and ideas wich give rise to the false perception of external objects in their system.ideas and impressions(vasana samskaras)give rise to the appearance of external objects,wich give rise to further ideas and impressions wich give rise to further objects of external perception.however how can this not be a infinite regress(the appearance of external objects give rise to impressions,impressions give rise to the appearance external objects)?if external objects' (even just initial in some starting point in the past,wich buddhism denies due to its adherance to pratityasamutpada)existance is altogether denied to possibly exist rather than the mere appearance of them,how can impressions and desires come about for such objects ''appearance''? and if there is no permanent substratum to the mind wherein impressions and desires can leave a mark or effect,how can anything be cognized externally(i.e how can vasana samskaras be configured or accumulated(with out wich it cant exist)without a permanent substratum? such latent impressions cannot exist in a fresh new substratum (i.e person )each moment,because neither desire would arise from the appearance of external objects nor the appearance of external objects from impressions' desire(and the Yogacarin must admit a certain illogical infinite regress even in the case of a assumed permanent substratum)? a new subtratum cannot have any impressions nor appearance of external objects to give impressions because the substratum,in this case the Alaya vijnana has no connection with its 'causal' substratum due to kshanabhanga. if there were no permanent substratum there would literally be no experience or consciousness it seems based on the above. only if a permanent substratum exists can such infinite regress of impression arising the appearance of external objects and vice versa even have any meaning(and even that is illogical as actual regressive infinites do not exist logically but I know that buddhism believes in infinite regression so I'm Granting you this.but such infinite regress would only 'make sence'within a permanent substratum). I don't See how the Buddhist Doctrine of alayavijnana does not fail,and how only a permanent self can explain the infinite regress of ideas leading to (the appearance of) external objects and vice versa(wich itself is illogical in my opinion,but I am granting you guys' this for the sake of argument only). if Kshanabhanga(wich is a Buddhist Tenet fundamental to buddhism) is Denied here,as some may Wish to do,and the substratums have a causal chain wich must be substantial;then how is this not a Permanent Self of the tirthikas for all intents and purposes? buddhism denies this,and all of buddhism except Jonang would all fail if this were admitted,but if this were the case we have a permanent cognizing substantial 'self'/'person' through all the 3 times. I don't see how the momentary alayavijnana is not a failure.

I have meditated off and on since childhood, before I knew what it was, and since my 30s I have been interested in the spiritual concepts of Buddhism. I had an experience in 2010 wherein I awoke from sleep but could not move, yet my eyes were open, not my physical eyes. I could see a pale ceiling but could not look around. I was aware of my cat half-lying on my stomach, and he was purring. My ears popped, and suddenly I could hear differently, acutely. I heard footsteps ascending my stairs and the swishing sound like that of a robe. I heard footsteps cross to the left side of the bed. I was frightened, and the hair stood up on end on my arms and head, but I deepened my breathing and relaxed. I immediately felt a type of massaging, but not on my physical body, more the ethereal body, and also a warmth. The light massaging moved from left leg and foot to right leg and foot to left rib area to right rib area, and then I heard movement toward my head. The light in front of my eyes suddenly brightened, and my sinus passages popped loudly. I felt gentle pressure like hands cradling under my neck, and this pressure began to lift my head and shoulders upward, and I knew that I was being assisted out of body. Then my alarm went off and awakened me. I sensed a vibrational peace which lasted several minutes. Since that time, I have had several OOB experiences, always as I go to sleep or am awakening from sleep, some frightening, which set me back for a few years. Recently, over the last 2 years, I have had several experiences after I fall asleep wherein I half awaken in that state again, and sometimes feel a presence near, but immediately I feel a very strong, pleasant, vibrational, almost humming flow of energy flowing from the base of my neck to the base of my spine and back again. I always fall back asleep easily. I don't know what is happening, and I have been trying to release any fear and simply let it be. I want to trust that this is some type of healing or spiritual progression process, but I feel that I have no guidance. Are there any Buddhist teachers who would be able to guide me through this? Any response or feedback would be extremely welcome!

How to respond appropriately to people that are significantly older than me if they demand respect because of their age yet are conceited (and typically also conceited about not being conceited)? Often old folks use their age to gain respect, and then build their authority on top of it to spread false teachings. How would a passionate person handle such situations, not wanting to offend against the Dhamma by insulting the older/elderly person, yet preventing them from getting away with conceit and/or false teaching? How would the Buddha have handled such situations? I think a lot of Christian folk use such coercive tactic to gain authority and following, so I think it’s a practical question in the western world.

Can a physical theory be fundamentally probabilistic (such as the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics) without contradicting pratitya samutpada? **Clarification** Pratitya samutpada is about how all things arise in dependence on conditions. If there is such a thing as a probabilistic event, then I would say there is some part of that event which does _not_ depend on conditions, only on chance, whatever that might mean.

When we practise some thing, we will get a new skill or improve a current skill. Similar effect happens when we do karma. There is also a result. Is practise another form of karma ? Is life all about practises ? Will most of our future depends on our current practises ? Is **KARMA = PRACTISE** ? I asked a similar question here: [Is understanding a practise ?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/37392/17744) . But didn't manage to ask as I want.

Recently, I heard a list of things that the non-enlightened people don't know about reality. *Ex: Some people might think "everything is permenant"*. but I forgot the complete list. So, what are they ? It is very useful to know those things becuase I can aware about them in day to day life.

Enlightened people doesn't have any desire, because they see impermanence in everything. All the things are useless to them. To achieve enlightenment , one required to practise deattachment, uncertainty through out the samsara. So , Is understanding a practise ? 1. If it is: We loose skills when we don't do somethings for long time. But enlightenment can not be undone. 2. If it isn't: When we do vipassana meditation for a long time, we started to see impermanance in every day life. We loose attachments to lot of things . What is happening there ? I'm not sure I express and structured the question as I want . So Improves are well come.

I am writing to you today for your advice. I have been considering ordination in the Pau Auk tradition. I am planning a trip to stay for a month in May to see what the life is like. I am undecided whether to go to the main monastery in Mawlamyine or pyin oo lwin branch. I was hoping you could provide any information to help this decision. I am a Westerner from the USA if that has any influential factor. Thank you very much! With metta,

I have list of Question can any one suggest answer of these question from me from Buddhist tradition. - what is duty of student? - what are elements that useful for student from Destruction? - How Vipasana Meditation help student?

There is a Zen saying , 'Sitting quietly, doing nothing, Spring comes, and the grass grows, by itself' by Basho. But I have observed the nature of my mind that it always wants to '**do something**', it finds respite only when I apply it to solve problems. Why does doing nothing just sitting makes me feel like I am wasting my time? OR am I taking the teaching of Basho in the wrong way? How can I train my mind to **just be**? Edit: I am asking about all the time when I am not meditating.

If some one is a anti-social person , there is no reason to get angry, to be jealous, to have conciet .... All those problems arise when people socialize. So, Is it necessary to be socialize ? 1. If it is, Why buddha said, go to a forest to meditate ? Get a free and quite time ? 2. If it isn't How do I recognize those thoughts ? (If we have no reason to get those feelings, we might think we haven't those thoughts) 3. Or should I not think about that ? (Being social or not being social is out of my control ?)

For those Buddhists who claim that some sentient beings are Icchantikas , do they mean that those sentient beings cannot make *any* form of progress along the Buddhist path? All I know is that, following tao-sheng, most Buddhists think that the Icchantika has buddha-nature, and that the term can also refer to Bodhisattvas, who postpone their Buhddhahood. What I'm especially interested in is whether an Icchantika can make progress toward arhatship, anything like that?

I know about the ten fetters model. I read that a Once-returner has very reduced desire and aversion to the point that they only appear when tired or unmindful. Are there other relevant requirements? Are there stuff that hint that the person is or is not a Once-returner? For example, if the person doesn't reach jhana, does that HINT that maybe he is not a Once-returner?

Is there is anything existing in the past,present or future which is not a phenomena ? Is it correct to say that all phenomena must be impermanent? If yes then how we know this?

I know that the Pali word for mindfulness is sati as in the Satipatthana Sutta but I've also heard that there is more than one word for mindfulness that is used throughout the Pali Canon . Can anyone give a list of the different words used and perhaps point out the differences in emphasis or exact meaning? For instance, do all the words mean exactly the same or do particular ones emphasise a different quality of mindfulness?

In the Diamond Sutra (or Vajra Prajna Paramita Sutra) Buddha says to Subhuti: > *a Bodhisattva should not dwell anywhere when he gives. He should not dwell in forms when he gives, nor should he dwell in sounds, smells, > tastes, tangible objects, or dharmas when he gives. Subhuti, **a > Bodhisattva should give thus**: he should not dwell in marks.* Below the passage Venerable Master Hsuan Hua (pp.91-94 in the link ) explains that this comes down to giving without being aware of or paying attention to: - the one who gives, - the one who receives, and - that which is given I have read this explanation many times, have attempted to meditate on the matter, and have tried to practice such "giving thusly" actively by being kind, helpful, donating to charities when prompted and to beggars when asked on the street. **However**, I cannot help but feel that the manner in which I give is ultimately still contrived and pre-meditated - not free of "*conditioned deliberation*". Specifically silly thoughts such as: - "Do I have any change on me to give to this person in the street? - I'll make sure to have change on me at all times in the future." seem very contrived and not in line with the idea that one must simply "give". Mindfully, perhaps, but not based on logic, not purposefully, or, for that matter, ostentatiously. **Question** **Does anyone have any advice in how to practice giving thusly?** (practice in the sense of "get better at") References to relevant literature would be most helpful. We practice Tibetan Buddhism in our family, but as can be seen from the text above, I try not to be a stickler for school-purity.

What more is Nirvana than the perminant fall of The Five Hinderances? Could one perform bad karma with all the hinderances eradicated? What about neutral or even good karma?

Are both Pali-words synonyms or is there a slight difference between 'patinissagga' and 'vossagga'?