I sit for a daily meditation, it will be deep most days. I have been advised to add pranayama(alternate nostril) to my practice and when i add that to my routine. It disturbs my sleep and as well my deepness in meditation. Does anyone undergo this ? Any suggestions to overcome this.

I have been starting meditation more recently for about twenty minutes at a time. I am able to slightly focus on the breath and have noticed I focus better when the breathes are long. I have also noticed after these sessions I may have air in my stomach possibly that leads to gas buildup and stomach discomfort. Is this something others have had before? If so how can I prevent this?

The sanghata sutra says that upon death a person that abandons the Holy Dharma will have his dreams broken and go to hell for 8 aeons. > The Blessed One said: “Sarva-shúra, limitless are the migrations of sentient beings who disparage the holy Dharma. Limitless too are their future lives. Sarva-shúra, sentient beings who abandon the holy Dharma will experience feelings for an eon in the sentient beings’ great hell of Lamentation; for an eon in the Crushing Hell, an eon in the Hot Hell, an eon in the Extremely Hot Hell, an eon in the great hell of Black Lines, an eon in the great hell of Avíci, an eon in the great hell called Hair Rising, an eon in the great hell of Calling Out ‘Alas!’ and, Sarva-shúra, they will have to experience the sufferings of these eight great hells for eight eons.” So if someone converts to another religion he will go to hell?

I am doing Vipasana from one year and I feel it is beneficial for me but in spite of these a lot of fear surrounded me,fear of feature,fear of past a lot of fear surrounded me,fear of seniors.How can I handle these fears with Vipasana meditation.Please guide me.

I sometimes use my Mala Bead during meditation, I find it quite "concentrating" to turn one bead for each breath. As I read online, when I reach the center bead, I reverse the rotation and start rotating the beads in the opposite direction. Is this a considered "normal" behaviour? Or I just came up with it, mixing (and maybe misunderstanding) what I've been reading/studying? Thanks!

Recently there was fire in Australia and before that there was fire in USA. In India fire incidents keep happening. My question is given the fact fire is a natural element, what causes such fire disasters?

Suppose I have reached a state of no suffering. Then what is the proof that suffering won't arise again ? How can I be sure that state of Nirvana doesn't change or decay ?

There are philosophical arguments for e.g. 'emptiness', as evidenced by it having sections in philosophy encyclopedias. Whether or not you agree with them, probably depends on your language and pre-philosophical intuitions -- which is arguably the same for any philosophy. What about karma ? > And what he taught is not the version of karma popular in certain circles today, according to which, for instance, an act done out of hatred makes the agent somewhat more disposed to perform similar actions out of similar motives in the future, which in turn makes negative experiences more likely for the agent. What the Buddha teaches is instead the far stricter view that ***each action has its own specific consequence for the agent, the hedonic nature of which is determined in accordance with causal laws and in such a way as to require rebirth as long as action continues***. So if there is a conflict between the doctrine of non-self and the teaching of karma and rebirth, it is not to be resolved by weakening the Buddha’s commitment to the latter. Or again: > He who acts is the agent (kartr); that which is performed (kriyate) is > karma; and ***the agent of karma is the one who experiences the result of > that performed karma***. Without karma, an agent is not established. *The Inner Kālacakratantra*, unknown page. > The law of karma is a fundamental principle of the Buddhist worldview. > In brief, karma refers to the idea that intentional actions have > consequences for the agent, in this life and in future lives; in fact, > it is karma that leads to rebirth. Buddhists understand the law of > karma as another manifestation of dependent arising > (paṭicca-samuppāda), the law of cause and effect, whereby everything > that exists arises due to specific conditions. In this sense, the law > of karma is a sort of natural law, so that actions are naturally > followed by consequences, not as the result of divine judgement. But > they will follow: the Buddha emphasised that actions lead inevitably > to appropriate consequences... The inevitability of karmic > consequences is a large part of the way that traditional Buddhism has > presented its ethical teachings. Evil actions, like killing, stealing, > ***lying and so on, are bad karmas and will lead to rebirth in an > unpleasant human situation or in hell.*** Just trying to explain what the mainstream and traditional interpretation of karma is. I think the conventional argument is from authority and the authority of memories of past lives. These I don't find convincing. Can it be inferred from any other Buddhist doctrine, such as emptiness? ---------- I was looking at the wild fox koan here, and this part struck me: > Those who say "one does not fall into cause and effect" deny > causation, thereby falling into the lower realms. Those who say "one > cannot ignore cause and effect" clearly identify with cause and > effect. When people hear about identifying with cause and effect, they > are freed from the lower realms. Do not doubt this. I think it seems to be saying that -- according to (the philosophy of) emptiness -- there is no escaping cause and effect because any cause is its effect. But if we think about it, we don't --- or tend not to -- experience *cause as effect*. If we are going to, that's that, then the effect is somehow put off to another time: **karma**.

During concentration the main thing I can feel during the first half hour or so is the feeling of the stomach/ top part of the intestine area or feelings inside the belly. There's really nothing else for me to feel, especially when mediating topless so that the skin's interaction with fabric doesn't give a sense of rising and falling. Although I'm aware painful sensations can be expected, this uncomfortable feeling does feel like the wrong type of discomfort but is my only point of focus. It seems like something I shouldn't be focusing on, or maybe I am over extending when breathing, but I don't think so. That being said, my practice has eventually led to pleasant sensations and having a tension to wave-like movement when breathing. Anyone have any guidance or suggestions? NB my posture is quite straight. Thanks!

How should I watch sensations in Vipassana? Should I watch from head to toe and then toe to head? Please explain things step by step as I'm new to Vipassana. Thanks in advance!

Nirvana is the extinction of rebirth, and birth is its arising. Right? Is the debate throughout Buddhism on the "difference" between samsara and nirvana one of how to *explain*, rather than describe or reach etc., the two? So that when we read the Buddha say the two are the same, that means that they are **explained** in the same way, not that they appear to be the same thing. ---------- From the beginning of the wikipedia article > In the Buddhist tradition, Nirvana has commonly been interpreted as > the extinction of the "three fires", or "three poisons", passion > (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidyā). When these > fires are extinguished, release from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra) is > attained. I believe all extant Buddhist traditions, including theravada, believe that we are reborn from moment to moment: a lifetime as much as the aggregates at an instant. Also, see 'dependent origination '. > Both the Sarvāstivāda [the Mahayana's tripitaka] and the post-canonical Theravāda constructed a > radical doctrine of momentariness (Skt., kṣāṇavāda, Pali, khāṇavāda) > that atomizes phenomena temporally by dissecting them into a > succession of discrete, momentary events that pass out of existence as > soon as they have originated This is true of the Abhidhamma, see Karunadasa: > in the Pali Suttas, unlike the Abhidhamma, the notion of change is not > presented either as the doctrine of momentariness or as a formulated > theory of moments... the Pali suttas say that it is peculiar to the > Abhidhamma. And this from Charles Bartley > After the death of an enlightened one there is no rebirth Or this from Keown > At the age of 80 he passed away into final nirvana, from which he > would not be reborn Moreover, non-abiding is likewise the end of rebirth. Tharpa: > Non-abdiding in nirvana in the irreversible cessation... of all rebirth The Buddhists personalists -- which no longer exist and shared in much the same sutta basket -- believed not just that only a sentient being could create -- in series -- a new mind-body after death -- all Buddhists *claim* this -- but that something was the same during its life. > it is the pudgala that appropriates and sustains a body for a > certain amount of time.

I have been practicing intensive shamatha meditation for many months now. On workdays I manage ~4 hrs of meditation, two very early in the morning and two at night. At weekends I do meditation for 6-8 hrs in intervals. I do have certain basic experiences like intermittent appearances of what I believe to be uggaha nimitta and very rarely what seems to be some early Piti which stays for some time and then vanishes. What I am troubled by, however, are the intense flu-like symptoms that I have been having for the last few weeks or so. There are severe aches and pains all over the body with profound malaise and a severe chill that has crippled me. There is no actual physical disease as such- I know that because I am a doctor by the way- but the distress it has caused me is immense. I have continued with my intensive practice and have not given up on it.I am hopeful that in near future, my meditations will help me to conquer this disability, yet I am worried at the moment. I seek the opinion and help of my senior brethren on the path to deal with this problem. Thanks.

## Question I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the coordination of Buddhism and success in building business. ## Context Throughout my life, I have been provided guidance by Buddhist literature, sutras, and meditation. As an adult layperson, I felt I was doing myself a disservice and holding my spiritual development back by working on Buddhism alone in a vacuum. I realized I had no idea about 33% of the Three Jewels (the Sangha!), because I had never had a community or mentor. It was the best decision I could have made. Although my local community didn't have any representation of the flavor of study which speaks to me most directly (madhyamika) -- "the teaching is the raft"! I got to think and talk about Buddhism with very smart and compassionate people. It gave me clarity and a sense of belonging to attend services and clean the temple. Additionally, to my surprise, some people really enjoyed the things I had to say. ## Ok, so what? Now things are different. I'm a man on a mission to success for my partners, my investors, and my team who all depend on me. This mission involves building lots of expensive technology that provides incredible value to people who need it. I won't bore you with the details but for me it means means reams of legal liabilities, huge swings in uncertainty, building teams and providing tech leadership in extremely competitive markets. I cannot imagine such a thing being possible without spiritual discipline. I have become better, more compassionate, a better communicator, and when practical and ethical issues arise, I feel like solutions exist that are derived from non-attachment that are real -- and they provide clarity and direction. I require that we treat our team members with compassion, refraining from false speech (teamwork, marketing and sales), and avoid taking what is not given (intellectual property, competition, finance). Of course, it is irrelevant that this series of thoughtful steps conducive to everyone's happiness is called by me by some name. I certainly would hope that this isn't pushing my "religion" upon our organization, at least as it is understood in colloquial terms. **Realistically: this is the most effective, and in fact the *only* decision-making framework I am familiar with for producing a lifestyle suitable for a human being to live inside.** ## Finally Well-meaning members of my sangha remind me that this path is incommensurate with the living practice of Buddhism. Somewhere in my heart, I feel like I've never been living it more than right now. **How can I reconcile this understanding?** Thanks for your patience.

These two things seem to be closely knitted together, sometimes contradictory and can be found especially in a professional setting. For example when a group of people work in a project, They have responsibilities - targets to achieve, deadlines to finish, works to do. They have roles to play. Thus, it seems like a normal occurrence for the members to have expectations towards each other. It's a team work. The team cannot finish the project if the members don't do their jobs properly. From the point of view of Buddhism, how does one should see/deal with this? In a teamwork, if you don't expect people to do their responsibilities and be content, the team might stall and it would impact everyone negatively. But if you expect, you are becoming attached to the person, wanting something from him/her. Thanks!

I know that the 5 precepts were intended for lay people. I know that in lay life, most people choose to only keep the 5 precepts, and there is no requirement to keep any more. I know that sometimes lay people take the 8 precepts temporarily. However, is there anything specifically wrong with a lay person keeping the 8 precepts on an ongoing basis? I know it's harder to do as a lay person as opposed to a novice(edit: I meant anagarika). But is it specifically discouraged or wrong for any reason?

How would you describe the Buddhist world view. Is it realism where everything we observe is really existing out there in a public world and we are observing it or some sort of idealism whereby everything is mind which seems to be from what I have heard in one dhammapada verse but then I also read about the great elements or matter which exists according to Buddhism, so which one is primary matter or mind or what is the right relation between them?? Or maybe Buddhism is something in the middle maybe??, well I have no clue that is why I am asking you this question. I would like to hear both the Theravada and Mahayana perspectives. Thank you,

>Can one correctly practice anapanasati when one is very used to Mahasi vipassana? How? Why? >Can one correctly practice vipassana when one is very used to anapanasati or any other samatha practice? How? Why? >A person who is used to vipassana is supposed to turn off the habit of seeing things as they are? Can vipassana be useful during anapanasati or would it be more of a distraction to onepointed consentration? How? Why?

Elaboration:: There seems to be a relation between daily-life behaviour of a person and movements associated with **his** private parts. These movements can be internal, can be external. Eg. are hardening during sleep, release of harmones(knowingly or unknowingly). Even the fluctuations in hardness seems to depict deep thoughts-with-behaviour of person, like egoistic speech, greedy thinking pattern etc.... **whose stored force(in form of sankharas, probably) gives fluctuations in hardness**. I tried to find on internet, couldn't find. **Are there any chapters dealing with such knowledge in tipitaka(of any tradition)?** *(this time, it's not a challenge, rather a query.)*

*(English is not my mother tongue, sorry in advance if I make mistakes)* I recently read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's writings [](https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/Ebooks/SelvesAndNot-self_181215.pdf) [](https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/NotSelfRevisited171126.pdf) on anatta and although I found his arguments persuasive I am still conflicted. I invite you to read them at least in part before reacting as they are rich in arguments and answers to the first objections that might come to mind. Nevertheless, I quote TB's summary of his thesis and the objections he encountered: > These reflections were sparked recently by reading a critique of an article I wrote in 1993, called “The Not-self Strategy.” The thesis of that article (available in the essay collection Noble & True)—which I revised in 2013 both to tighten and to expand the presentation—was that the Buddha intended his teaching on not-self (anattā), not as an answer to the metaphysical/ontological question, “Is there a self?” but as a strategy for cutting through clinging to the five aggregates and so to put an end to suffering. The main argument I presented in support of this thesis in both versions of the article was that the one time the Buddha was asked point-blank, “Is there a self?”… “Is there no self?” he remained silent (SN 44.10). Similarly, in MN 2, he stated that such questions as “Do I exist?” “Do I not exist?” and “What am I?” are not worthy of attention because they lead to conclusions that fetter a person in a “thicket of views” and a “fetter of views,” including the views that “I have a self” and “I have no self.” In other words, any attempt to answer these questions constituted a side road away from the path of right practice. > > The critique—“Anattā as Strategy and Ontology,” written by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi—was brought to my attention just over a month ago, even though it has apparently been around for some time. It takes issue both with the thesis and with the argument of my article, but in doing so it displays the scholarly bias mentioned above: that the practice of the Buddha’s teachings is primarily a process of leading the meditator to give full assent to the accuracy of those teachings as a description of reality, and that this assent is what frees the mind from suffering. Because this bias is not only the bias of the critique, but of so much thought in the Buddhist world, I thought it might be useful to explore how both the thesis of the critique and the arguments used in support of that thesis display this bias, so that it can be recognized for what it is not only in this case but also in other Buddhist writings. I came across [this page](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/bodhi-vs-hanissaro-debate/7348) where Buddhists are debating the view of TB in opposition to Bhikkhu Bodhi's response. In particular, I found [this answer](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/bodhi-vs-hanissaro-debate/7348/89) interesting. I'd like to hear your views on the arguments on both sides. Anatta: only a strategy for realization or a real "ontological" position? Among the [trilakkhanas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence) , anatta is really the one I have the most trouble with. I can't understand it. And the more I learn about it, the more I realize that Buddhists don't seem to understand it either, given all the disagreements on the subject. Even within Theravada, many ajahn of the Thai Forest Tradition seem to reintroduce a form of self by talking about the ["mind that does not disappear, immutable and indestructible reality"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Forest_Tradition#Original_mind) (which clearly resembles the Hindu [atman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)) / [purusha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha)) . Ajahn Maha Bua, considered by his peers to be an arhat, stated that he ["observes the essential enduring truth of the sentient being as constituted of the indestructible reality of the citta (heart/mind), which is characterized by the attribute of Awareness or Knowingness. This citta, which is intrinsically bright, clear, and Aware, gets superficially tangled up in samsara but ultimately cannot be destroyed by any samsaric phenomenon."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajahn_Maha_Bua#Some_basic_teachings_on_the_ 'Citta'). In the Mahayana it's even more obvious, we could talk about [tathāgatagarbha, buddhadhātu,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature) [dharmakāya,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakāya) [dharmadhatu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmadhatu#Definition) ... Absolutely all these concepts seem to me to be reinsertions through the window of the self thrown out the door. They all affirm, in one form or another, an ultimate reality, which they call "awareness" or "mind", a state of bliss… wich literally corresponds to the [Hindu definition of the supreme self.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda) Yet the Buddha seems to speak explicitly of this state and describe it as just a step towards the summit: > Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of earth and the perception of the dimension of infinite space—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness. (…) > > https://suttacentral.net/mn121/en/sujato Even vacuity (sūnyatā) does not seem to be the destination, [the infinite nothingness being only a penultimate stage of the jhanas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhyāna_in_Buddhism#The_arupas) . What should we think about all this? At the end of the day, it seems to me that the subject can be summed up in one question: It is often said that the Buddha would have affirmed that all phenomena are without self: sabbe dhamma anatta Then the question arises as to whether Nibbana is a phenomenon (dhamma) or not. If this is not the case, [as some people maintain](https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/sabbe-dhamma-anatta-did-the-buddha-really-teach-that-there-is-no-self/) , it is logical to consider that the supreme reality, being neither impermanent nor dukkha, does not possess the third seal of the no(t)-self either, and to start talking about this supreme mind, awareness, etc., which is not a dhamma, but a permanent and blissful source of all impermanent and unsatisfactory phenomena - by the way, *how better to define the phenomenon than as what appears in consciousness*? -; in this case, the border with the Hindu atman-brahman becomes extremely thin, not to say non-existent. If, on the contrary, Nibbana is also a phenomenon (dhamma), having no self, the difference with Hindu thought remains but then, what about the other two seals of all phenomena: anicca and dukkha? How to apply them to Nibbana? Maybe, like dukkha and anicca, anatta must be abandoned once the destination is reached.

I just wan to know whether there are any measurements advised by the Buddha to identify a stream enterer (sotapanna). I know for a fact that from the stream enterer and above, all four types have given up on self doesn't tell that he/she is enlightened or in this state or not. So how are we to find these noble people? Are there any instructions and where is it cited?