I only find pleasure in working on my goals and achieving something every day. Female bodies don't seem much attractive anymore but out of habit I masterbate after every 3 days just for the sake of it. I don't even get an orgasm after ejaculation. It is bland. Boring. And I have lost a lot of attraction for all the mainstream things. This all have started happening after I did 10 days Vipassana Meditation Course. Everything feels empty. I only find excitement in my work and time spend with close friends. Any thoughts? I am worried about my anhedoniac sexual activities as I am still in my 20s

"However it is said in the Guhyasamaja Root Tantra:" "If sentient beings commit an action As grave as the five heinous crimes He [still] can attain the superior Vajra Vehicle, But who from within disregards his master Shall never attain, even if exerted." "That means having given up your guru, criticized the guru, or having heresy or broken samaya with one’s guru. It is not possible to explain how heavy the negative karma is from these things. One who criticizes, hurts, or belittles one’s guru from the heart will not achieve anything in this life; even if one practices one won’t achieve anything." https://www.lamayeshe.com/advice/killing-ones-parents Does asking a sceptical question count as criticism? Such as why the guru is charging x-amount for teachings? And giving up a bad guru is it bad? Does it matter if the guru is buddhist or not? Perhaps this only applies to certain types of buddhism?

I practice vipassana meditation since 2008. My recent experience is breathing can't be noticed. But sensation of the body is present. And thoughts are coming and passing away automatically. Most of the time sensation of the body appears such as pain , dissolves without any discomfort. Thoughts are less. Sound can hear but no thoughts on those sounds which were heard. What is this state? How to continue from here?

I wonder if the difference has something to do with the permanent destruction (through vipassana bhavana) vs. the temporary destruction (through samatha bhavana) of the kilesas?

https://info-buddhism.com/sangha_schism.html “A bhikkhunī does not split a Community even if she strives for a split. A female trainee does not split a Community. A novice … A female novice … A male lay-follower … A female lay-follower does not split a Community even if she strives for a split. A regular bhikkhu, of common affiliation, standing in the same territory splits the Community.” — Cv.VII.5.1 It seems from this scripture that only a monk can commit this heinous karma/sangha bedha?(Anantarika-karma) Is this rightly understood by me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anantarika-karma Take Care

According to this answer : > **Kilesa has a residual impression which is called vāsanā which even > arhats have. Only a Buddha eliminates that**. This is what drives > habits. Many habits are reflexive and there no much thoughts of the > intention behind it. If it is purely reflexive it does not have karmic > consequences. Are *vasana* or residual impressions found in the Pali Canon? Preferably in the Sutta Pitaka. What about the statement that arhats or arahants still have vasanas, but Buddha does not? Is this also in the Pali Canon? Would arahants still have impressions although they had eliminated latent tendencies (*anusaya*)?

I like to go to the gym and lift weights. If you do that you are recommended to take deload weeks where periodically you lift lighter weights or less frequently or both. It's meant to be very beneficial. Could the same be said for meditation practice? Has any teacher / book recommended something similar? Could periodically taking it easy (less frequently or shorter sits) benefit the practice generally? The advice I've seen seems to be the opposite i.e. the answer to poor meditation is more meditation. That kind of thing hasn't worked for me in the past and has actually caused me to go from poor meditation to no meditation. I do appreciate lifting weights and meditation are different though.

My question is how do the Mahayana sutras describe the behavioral characteristics of a realized bodhisattva? How does he behave? For example an Arahant is described as having “characteristics that please the noble ones”. Or something like that. Is there something similar in mahayana Buddhist sutras?

In the Buddhist story of Ananda, Buddha's most devoted disciple, it's said that after Buddha's death the first Buddhist council was assembled to write down all of Buddha's teachings. Only those that were enlightened could attending the council. As the person who was closest to the Buddha, Ananda knew best the teachings of the Buddha, but because he wasn't enlightened he could not attend. So Ananda started an intense meditation and became enlightened just before the council took place. How did he knew he became enlightened? How do you recognize when your practice finally brings you enlightenment?

When we become attached to our body, we do workouts, wear make-up and do lots of other things to gain good looks. When we become attached to our money, we work to get more and more money. Similarly, we would like to gain a calm and pure mind. So we meditate. Isn't it a desire? (like wearing make-up for the mind?). Here is my opinion: to understand advanced topics like "enlightenment", we have to have a workout for the mind. Is this workout a kind of attachment and if so is it a good thing? Isn't that a seeming contradiction since we are instructed to abandon attachments?

If so, in how far is it a killer, a quality that harms? How does it arises, when arising? How does it vanish? *[Note that this isn't given/asked for trade, exchange, stakes or other layziness supporting means but for liberation]*

Is it bad karma to think but not claim that one is enlightened, or just bad for your practice? With respect to the latter, the Surangama Sutra springs to mind, and its advice for dealing with unusual states during meditation. Similarly, Tientai taught that without understanding we unenlightened people are not yet Buddhas, our faith that we are does not work, and we do not experience sudden enlightenment. But is it actually bad karma, if we don't claim to others to be?

Imagine a human being born in 1982 weighing a few pounds at birth and labeled 'Melinda' by her parents. This little human being grows up - as little human beings tend to do - and by 2020 we imagine her as an adult no longer called 'Melinda', but rather change her name to 'Abigail.' If we examine the bodies of Melinda and Abigail down to the atom and perform a thorough and exact accounting we find that Melinda and Abigail do not share even one atom in common. Their brains are composed of entirely different atoms. Is the rupa skandha of Melinda and Abigail the same or different? Has it been reborn? What was the manner of its rebirth? How did it occur? How many times did it occur between 1982 to 2020? Is the same true of the other skandhas... have they been reborn? Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical laws or some combination? Did 'Melinda' *die* sometime between 1982 and 2020 and get utterly annihilated? Was Abigail *born* for the first time from scratch between 1982 and 2020 and just pop into existence from nothing? How is it possible that beings are reborn from moment-to-moment? In what manner and to what extent? What did the Buddha teach?

1. How do I deal with food cravings or craving in general? According to the four efforts I should replace craving with the disadvantages. Can loving-kindness also work? I feel like concentrating on impermanence and on the disadvantages, in the midst of an emotion, works not as effective. I guess one needs to strengthen one's conviction in both? 2. I read the Buddha saying about guarding the senses -- but I doubt that the Buddha meant not looking, not hearing (etc) at things. While it can be advantageous, I think perceiving them differently is much more important. Can someone answer what "sense-guarding" means, or "not grasping at the beautiful", and how do I do it?

In two schools of Buddhism, an important part of the practice is the repetition of special mantras which sound like simple expressions of honor or gratitude to those of us outside of the sects, but which have profound meaning to the practitioners. Is it possible to explain the deeper meaning of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo ("Homage to the Lotus Sutra") as Nichiren Buddhists understand it or Namu Amida Butsu ("Homage to Amida Buddha") as Jodo Shinshu Buddhists understand it or must these thing be understood only through experiencing them?

Nothing is satisfying. Everything feels shallow, meaningless. There is no joy in eating, sleeping, working, reading, entertainment, social media, relationships, or sexual pleasures. I don't know why I am doing all this? Maybe just for the sake of it. But surely all the glamour and attraction in the above things is very superficial. The ego is never satisfied. So what is the use of doing all this? I am trying to find something which never desires, is always satisfied, is Deep and meaningful. Or should I work on making these superficial things satisfying? I feel lost in this material world. Suffering more than I enjoyed. Suddenly everything seems bull shit. Desires have become a pain in the ass, making me do the things I don't want to do, at least I don't feel satisfied after doing them. Show the question comes up again, why am I doing these things? I would very much like to eliminate all this things in my life but they are a compulsion to human life. Other people are craving these things and satisfying themselves but for me all this has become stupidity. And on the other side I feel a lot of freedom of choice. And even after realising this I can't seem to get out of this rut. What do I do?

I read the following on the internet: > Here-and-now-view is one of the wrong views, DN1 Is here-and-now-view one of the wrong views in DN1? Please kindly provide some quotes about this.

On this site there are some users who claim that birth & death are mental phenomena, while other people argue that it's something physical. Contextually, the Buddha lived in a time where other sects believed in some sort of an afterlife and/or 'soul transmigration', so perhaps Buddhism borrowed these principles as well, due to social & cultural conditioning? Today, 'Atheists' & 'secular Buddhists' read the suttas with their modern 21st century understanding, which is not open for speculative, unverifiable things.They don't put the Buddha's context into account, where these things might have been quite important. On the other hand, the Buddha invites us to see for ourselves & to experience the teachings in the here-&-now. Since DO is about the origination of dukkha, how do we both see & stop *literal birth, death & aging*? Wouldn't this be completely in conflict with the here-&-now principle mentioned above? The aging & death part in the sutta is straightforward. To quote: > "Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various **beings** in this or that group of **beings**, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various **beings** in this or that group of **beings**, that is called death. In the quote above I cannot see any 'self-views' are subject to aging & death. Instead, I extrapolate from that quote that indeed something physical is happening (aging, decreptitude, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty). So my question is: How do we really reconcile "Here-&-now" teachings with speculative, unverifiable theories, such as repeated rebirths, agings & deaths?

I'm wondering why some people have many friends (lasting friendship like friends since kindergarten to college)while some has almost none. I understand that it would depend on situations in present. But if there's effect from past, what would these be? From buddhism point of view.

I want to understand the nature of rebirth. If one says that the next rebirth would depend on the degree of identification, does that mean that if I am not identified with body I will be reborn without a body or as mind only? Or does it just go to a higher being overall that keeps that degree of overall identification and not restart from scratch? Or the rebirth just restarts all the identifications and the path has to start all over again? What also caught my attention is if there is complete dis-identification even with the inherit "I" self existing independently, and that now existence itself realized that it is not this limited "I" because it can't be that "I" realized but what is before that which is nothing and everything and no birth will occur, doesn't that mean "I" will never exist again and just dissolve into existence? Or rebirth can happen as a completely dis-identified being by default?